Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Rickvanman

Should I use an IR/UV Cut Filter with an Astro-modded DSLR?

Recommended Posts

After publishing my latest YouTube video showing me bumbling my way through trying to photograph stars from my shed, someone commented I should use a Baader semi-APO filter on my refractor telescope ( explore scientific AR152 ) along with a IR/UV Cut Filter. 

Using a semi-APO filter makes absolute sense to me,  and reading up on them, they look like a really worthy investment. However, as I'm using a basic Astro-modded DSLR camera ( Canon Eos 1300D - I just had the basic mod: single filter removal), the idea of adding a IR/UV Cut Filter is not making sense to me.

Wasn't the filter that was removed from the modded camera, a form of IR/UV Filter? If so, wouldn't I just be nullifying the modification by using one?

Appreciate any clarity on this - much thanks ??

 

PS Heres a link the video in case you were curious:  https://youtu.be/iNUevy47fAc

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recent years Canon DSLRs have been fitted with 2 filters : UV/IR and Red Balance filter. The Red Balance filter is removed to increase the red sensitivity of the camera, with the UV/IR filter remaining in the camera, unless a full spectrum mod is carried out where both filters are removed.

So your camera still has a UV/IR filter in place. 

HTH

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An IR cut filter is still required with an astro-modded DSLR camera (or indeed an astro CCD camera) as these sensors are very sensitive to IR and failing to fit a cut filter will lead to bloated stars. Do you know exactly what was done to your camera during the modification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically if you remove the ir filter from you dslr you allow all ir through. A standard camera will cut (i think) all ir out. 

In astrophotography we do not want all the ir only a selection of the ir wavelenght so a filter does this for us.

 

cheers

Spill.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

An IR cut filter is still required with an astro-modded DSLR camera (or indeed an astro CCD camera) as these sensors are very sensitive to IR and failing to fit a cut filter will lead to bloated stars. Do you know exactly what was done to your camera during the modification.

Hi Steve,  it was the basic mod,  where only one of the two filters is removed from the camera. I believe only the red balance filter was removed, and the original IR/UV filter remains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rickvanman said:

After publishing my latest YouTube video showing me bumbling my way through trying to photograph stars from my shed, someone commented I should use a Baader semi-APO filter on my refractor telescope ( explore scientific AR152 ) along with a IR/UV Cut Filter. 

Using a semi-APO filter makes absolute sense to me,  and reading up on them, they look like a really worthy investment. However, as I'm using a basic Astro-modded DSLR camera ( Canon Eos 1300D - I just had the basic mod: single filter removal), the idea of adding a IR/UV Cut Filter is not making sense to me.

Wasn't the filter that was removed from the modded camera, a form of IR/UV Filter? If so, wouldn't I just be nullifying the modification by using one?

Appreciate any clarity on this - much thanks ??

 

PS Heres a link the video in case you were curious:  https://youtu.be/iNUevy47fAc

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

This one again. 

There are two filters as standard in a DSLR.

In an astro modification the rear filter is removed to improve sensitivity to H-a. It may either be replaced with a Baader UV/IR cut filter (in which case you already have effective IR/UV cut with IR passed out to about 700nm) or, in some cases, it is removed and not replaced. 

If not replaced then the second (front) filter that is not removed as a part of the IR modification acts as a mild IR cut passing IR out to about 750nm, so 50nm or so more than the Baader replacement. However this still cuts out the majority of the unwanted IR and so can still be effective dependent on how well corrected your optics are.

Optics with better chromatic correction or a Newtonian using a decent coma corrector will notice little difference between the baader replacement and the no-replacement modifications. However, less well corrected optics (typically ED Doublets or lower performance) will suffer from increased bloat and will benefit from using an additional UV/IR cut.

In a full spectrum modification all filters are removed and hence a external UV / IR cut filter or other filter which incorporates a UV/IR cut is always required. 

Bottom line...are you getting bloated stars or stars with a purple halo in your images? If you are then a semi-apo filter will be of benefit. If not then you don't need one. I don't think there is any point in using a external UV/IR cut and the semi-apo filter at the same time as the semi-apo will do both jobs as I understand it. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have uploaded a few times the transmission curves for both the colour correction filter (filter#2) - the one usually removed to improve the red response and the other front anti-alias/ dust shake filter (filter#1) which acts as an effective UV/IR filter.

 

canon filter mod.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

I have uploaded a few times the transmission curves for both the colour correction filter (filter#2) - the one usually removed to improve the red response and the other front anti-alias/ dust shake filter (filter#1) which acts as an effective UV/IR filter.

 

canon filter mod.jpg

Interesting but what this shows is that it still has over 20% transmission out to 700nm and does not show what happens past 700nm 20% not really a cut. It's 750nm before it reaches 10% and about 780nm before it hits 2% transmission. For the baader it levels out at 6% at about 720nm. So however you look at it the front Canon filter is weaker than a conventional IR cut and that extra ~50nm of transmission can have a limited effect dependent on your optics. It's not horrible at all just not optimal. 

Edited by Adam J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really a problem?

The Bayer Matrix filter and the inherent response curve of the sensor is causing the response to tend towards zero in these extreme wavelengths.

The total "system" I think needs to be considered. I have confidence in the Canon designers that they ensured that the best balance and response was being achieved.

I don't remember seeing any blue bloat or red bloat with the Canon camera...

Has anyone got some good before after shots showng an UV/IR problem??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

Is it really a problem?

The Bayer Matrix filter and the inherent response curve of the sensor is causing the response to tend towards zero in these extreme wavelengths.

 

The brayer matrix allows plenty of IR through especially via the red filters and blue also at near IR wavelengths, hence you get the purple (red and blue). The IR block is there for a reason and as for the inherent response curve of a CMOS sensor, well that stretches out to 950nm with no filtering before it dips below 10% QE, at 750nm the QE is almost still 2/3 what it is at 530nm.  Like I said using only the front canon filter may not be an issue is the scope is decently corrected, but for semi-apo scopes you may benefit from an additional filter depending on how picky you are. So not a huge problem just not optimal...would likely show only on very bright stars or very poor quality optics.  

Edited by Adam J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that the UV/IR filtering of the modded camera is no different to that in the original camera.

The results should therefore be similar.

If an additional Uv/IR filter is advocated then it should also be used with the "basic" unmodified camera.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

My point was that the UV/IR filtering of the modded camera is no different to that in the original camera.

The results should therefore be similar.

If an additional Uv/IR filter is advocated then it should also be used with the "basic" unmodified camera.

 

 

Ah perhapse this is where the misunderstanding is then.

Both the filters in a unmodified Canon are in effect IR filters the rear filter (the one you remove in modification) also blocks IR and as you know results in 80% of the H-a signal being blocked. This block extends further into the IR than just H-a though and so it stacks with the front filter (the one you leave in place).

So at 700nm in a unmodified camera you have two filters each blocking over 80% of the incident light, this means that the amount of light that is transmitted at 700nm is 20% of 20% of the original incident light  and so the two filters combined only let 4% of the 700nm IR light through as opposed to 20% when you have removed the rear filter.

So no, with an unmodified camera you dont need an additional filter.

However, as previously stated I am only saying that you will need an additional IR block with a basic filter removal mod in some situations, for example when chromatic correction is marginal to begin with. I am not saying that you will always need it. Essentially you are letting additional IR though out to 750nm as opposed to 700nm if you dont use an additional IR block though and that has a small effect on image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

My point was that the UV/IR filtering of the modded camera is no different to that in the original camera.

The results should therefore be similar.

If an additional Uv/IR filter is advocated then it should also be used with the "basic" unmodified camera.

 

 

No, they are not similar. Baader/Astronomik has wider band pass than the original camera filter.
spectra.jpg.090ef6729cc11e4409972badc938667b.jpg

Adding UV/IR filter if -> you use a full spectrum mod dslr and you have glass in your imaging train (refractor, lens, focal reducer)

Ketut

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ketut,

Unfortunately the D350D data is based on an older single filter element design and not truly representative of the current two filter design.

The curves I presented were based on one example tested, others show that the IR drop off is quite significant.

Is there any feedback from current users?????

(I only use my modded 450D- full spectral mod, both filters removed, for spectroscopy)

astrodon-dslr-transmission.jpg

centralds-fm-chart.jpg

canonccibaaderspectrum.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. My findings and explanation from the engineer of my 700d.

A Wratten 8 will cut most of the violet and uv recording as visible on the sensor. At the other end of the spectrum, the uv-ir filter will block the long wavelength ir recording on the sensor which the hot mirror modification used to handle. They're only cheap items so, no harm done in seeing which combination works best for you. HTH.

Edited by alacant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread with interest as I'm considering buying a modified 600D from cheapastrophotography to replace my 350D.

 

Am I correct in thinking that, based on all the above, I can order the basic modified 600D and get improved response on emission nebula without any other filters? I've no need to use the camera for daylight use, so the full Baader mod isn't necessary for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is basically yes.

If the "basic" mod you are considering is just the removal of the colour balance filter then note that you will not be able to focus standard EF lenses (say for wide angle shots) without adding at least a clear filter element (I use an Astronomik clip in clear screen). No issue when used with a telescope.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great, yeah I will only be using with my ED80, so looks like I'm good to go! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mered said:

That's great, yeah I will only be using with my ED80, so looks like I'm good to go! 

As I have said above, unless its a full APO then you will end up with larger halos with a removal only. 

Look at it this way, if you already have coloured halos around bright stars before the mod, after the mod they will be worse as you will be letting more IR light through by the nature of the mod.  As such if you either get a replacement filter or use an external IR filter you will reduce the impact of the mod. I would assess this after the mod and consider if you think an external cut filter will help. 

Focusing is only effected for shots taken at or near infinity as without the additional glass path length some lenses don't have sufficient adjustment to reach infinite focus. As you say with your scope it will be fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Adam J said:

As I have said above, unless its a full APO then you will end up with larger halos with a removal only. 

Look at it this way, if you already have coloured halos around bright stars before the mod, after the mod they will be worse as you will be letting more IR light through by the nature of the mod.  As such if you either get a replacement filter or use an external IR filter you will reduce the impact of the mod. I would assess this after the mod and consider if you think an external cut filter will help. 

Focusing is only effected for shots taken at or near infinity as without the additional glass path length some lenses don't have sufficient adjustment to reach infinite focus. As you say with your scope it will be fine.

Does the Baader mod that cheapastrophotography offer also block the unwanted IR, or is it only necessary if you want to retain the use of regular lenses with the camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mered said:

Does the Baader mod that cheapastrophotography offer also block the unwanted IR, or is it only necessary if you want to retain the use of regular lenses with the camera?

Its also an IR block. I use an external filter with mine though not the internal baader mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Peggson
      I shot this yesterday from a Bortle 6 backyard. Edited in Pixinsight and Photoshop
       
      If someone here knows how to remove purple stars, please  help me . I tried defringing but it didn't really work.
      Also the date is wrong should be 9.10.2020. lol
    • By Anthony RS
      Hello,
      I'm selling these 2 filters since I'm getting a mono astro cam. The filters are barely used and in perfect condition, no scratches, no fingerprints, not even dust. They are both amazing filters, probably the best investment I've made. I've attached some images
      taken with these filters, using a 100$ celestron newtonian, a 250$ Canon 500D and the infamous AVX. Also attached are images of the filters showing their perfect condition.
      Astronomik CLS-CCD Canon Clip in Filter: https://www.astronomik.com/en/filter-gegen-lichtverschmtzung-filters-against-lightpollution-lpr/cls-ccd-filter/clip-filter-eos-mit-astronomik-cls-ccd.html
      Original price including VAT is 155 Euros (around USD 182). I got it for around USD230 including VAT, shipping and custom taxes.
      Selling for USD 120.
      Astronomik Ha 12nm Canon Clip in Filter: https://www.astronomik.com/en/clip-filter/clip-filter-canon-aps-c/clip-filter-eos-mit-astronomik-h-alpha-ccd-12nm.html
      Original price including VAT 194 Euros (around USD 228). Got it for around USD 270 including VAT, shipping and custom taxes.
      Selling for USD 180
      I am willing to ship them on my own expense using LibanPost (from Lebanon). Shipping might take time; if you would like to use some other shipment method please contact me to discuss the price. 
      Feel free to buy one or both together.
      Let me know if you have any questions. 
      You can also contact me on <private email address removed>
      Cheers,
      Anthony









    • By endlessky
      I have already posted my first astrophotographic session report in the telescope review thread: Tecnosky 80/480 APO FPL53 Triplet OWL Series - Review. But since that is more of a general review/diary of my experience with the new telescope, I feel some of the issues I am having are being buried and they will probably get more visibility if I post them - in a more synthetic version - in a dedicated thread.
      So, a few nights ago (October, the 5th) I took out my new telescope for its first light. All the photos have been taken with the 0.8x flattener/reducer and the Optolong L-Pro 2" filter attached to the reducer. The camera is an astromodified Nikon D5300. The only processing the following pictures have consists in this:
      - AutomaticBackgroundExtractor
      - ColorCalibration
      - Stretch
      Here we have a 90s shot of M31.

      And here's a mosaic generated with the AberrationInspector script.

      What I do like:
      - tightest, smallest, roundest stars I have gotten since I started doing astrophotography at the end of January. Obviously comparing it to what I have been achieving with a kit 70-300mm zoom lens, these can't be anything else but better by orders of magnitude
      What I don't like:
      - star shape not consistent in all areas of the image
      - residual chromatic aberration, especially on stars that are not round: there's clearly some red and blue edges visible
      I didn't expect this from an apochromatic refractor, but maybe it's just because the stars are kinda "smeared", so not all light is focused at the same spot? I don't see this around the center of the image (or, at least, the problem is less pronounced). Maybe I have some tilting in my imaging train/sensor?
      I have been doing some reasoning about it and it seems like a combination of tilting and/or backfocus spacing. According to the following image about backfocus spacing:

      if the stars are elongated radially, the sensor is too close, if they are elongated tangentially, the sensor is too far. But to me it seems I have a little bit of both: in the top right corner, for example, the stars look radially elongated, in the bottom right, they look tangentially elongated. Top left they look tangentially elongated, bottom left also, but a little less. Seems like there has to be some tilting as well, otherwise they would all have a symmetric shape on all corners, correct?
      How do I determine - is there even a way - if the issue is due to tilting only, backfocus only, or the combination of the two? Is there a sure proof way of checking for tilting? Like, rotating the camera and taking pictures with, say, the camera at 0°, 90°, 270° and 360°? If there's tilting, the pattern of the star shapes should follow the camera, correct?
      I also tried splitting the channels in R, G, and B components, doing a star alignment of the blue and red channels with the green as a reference, and recombining the channels. The blue and red edges become a lot less evident, which is good, but obviously the star shapes remain the same.
      In my Telescopius gallery you can also find two other images, Capella and Capella Mosaic showing pretty much the same issues.
      Also, one issue with the guide camera: ZWO ASI 224MC. When attached to the guide scope (Artesky UltraGuide 60mm f/4), I can't seem to get a "sharp" focus, I even tried on the Moon, and the best I got was a soft lunar disc, with some major features visible, mainly by change of color/brightness (the maria, for example), but no details. The image still seemed blurred/bloated. Is it because of lack of IR blocking filter? I tried the same camera attached to the main refractor, with the L-Pro filter (which blocks UV and IR, as well) and I could focus perfectly. Do I need an IR block filter for guiding or even if the stars appear a little soft, the camera guides just fine?
      Matteo
    • By WiltsStarGazer
      Having previously got some reasonable images by mounting a smart phone to the eyepiece. I thought I would try for a more sophisticated set up.
      So last night I tried to get some pictures of the moon using a Canon Eos D450 connected to a Skywatcher 130p Newtonian via a T2 connection on the eyepiece holder.
      As the camera has automatic focusing built into the lens I thought I would have to adjust the focuser on the eyepiece holder to manually get a sharp image.
      Basically the telescope acting as a manually focused lens for the camera.
      But no joy, I just got a bright light which seemed to fill the camera view finder. I tried various settings on the camera, adjusting ISO and aperture etc,  I also had some extention rings for the camera lens so tired fitting those to extend the focal length but no better.
      I sure there are many palms being slapped against foreheads reading this but as you can tell I have no idea, although I do have some of the gear.
      Any pointers and/or advise would be gratefully received.
    • By Emilio
      Hello all,
      I'm new to this forum and astrophotography, and observing for that matter!
      I've been observing for a few weeks now, well, when the clouds allow, obviously! I thought I'd dip my toe in the water as far as imaging goes, but didn't want to go nuts in terms of budget. As luck would have it I managed to get hold of a Canon 1100D on eBay complete with full spectrum mod for £129, which seemed pretty reasonable to me given the cost of the modification on its own. The camera is in great condition and seems to work fine, however I have a couple of queries that I hope you more experienced peeps can help with.
      Firstly I would like to get an OWB filter and wondered if anyone had an opinion on Optolong vs Astronomik? Astronomic are a lot more expensive so if the Optolong does a good job why spend extra?
      Second, and more importantly, I have questions about auto focus. It seems that generally people say that if the IR/UV cut filter is completely removed then the camera will definitely lose the ability to auto focus (although some people say this isn't the case?). I checked with the eBay vendor and he confirmed that the in-built filter has been completely removed and no glass / filter replacement has been put back in place, which if my understanding is correct is what is required to retain auto focus. However, the camera seems to be auto focusing fine as far as I can tell.
      How can this be?
      Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.