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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_through_the-_eyepiece_winners.thumb.jpg.236833c5815bb321211a43f4d5214ba8.jpg

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 Lachlan
      Hello everyone! 
      Im having issues regarding dew during colder nights while imaging. I’m aware of how to solve the issue of dew forming on front elements of scopes/lenses using dew heaters, however I’m also concerned with the dew that forms on my non-weatherproof DSLR body and imaging laptop. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to combat this? 
      Thanks!
    • By angryowl
      This will be a thread detailing some of the changes and additions I will be doing to my ASC/Weather Station project. This is version 2.0 as I'll be making some very big changes from the initial project and I think continuing on in the existing thread would not have made much sense.
      So, I still want to use an APS size sensor as after seeing the quality and light capturing capabilities of the now defunct Opticstar DS-616C XL camera and Meike lens I simply cannot go back to using a smaller lens/sensor combination. One thing is certain, I won't be paying £400 or potentially more for another APS astro sized camera so with that in mind I plan on heavily modifying a Nikon D50 DLSR and use the same lens. I chose the D50 primarily due to it having a CCD sensor (ICX453AQ) very close in specs to the one in the Opticstar (ICX413AQ) and the fact that I got a hold of a fully working body for £25.
      Now there's a few issues with going down the DSLR route which I plan on addressing as follows:
      The oversized camera body can be stripped down to bare essentials and fitted in the existing case with some moving of parts around Uncooled, the sensor is quite noisy so to cool it I plan on using the existing Opticstar enclosure with the TEC and hopefully get it purged with Argon to avoid dew formation. Also, since the box will need to be completely sealed to achieve this, there's simply not enough room inside for the main board to which the sensor connects to. The only way around this is using an 39pin 150mm long FPC extension which I managed to find and will be arriving shortly. This means I can have the sensor completely sealed with enough slack in the connection to place the mainboard anywhere I want. The D50 uses the NEF file extension as a "RAW" file format but it's not truly RAW and a heavy median filter is applied to all long exposure images to smooth out the noise. It works great for day to day shots, but in an application such as mine it'll most probably eliminate or severely affect my stars as most of them at the FL I'll be using the camera at will be a few pixels across and the Nikon median filter is very aggressive with such small features. The way around this is what's commonly known as Mode 3 on Nikons. Nikons have a additional Noise Reduction mode which takes the long exposure light first then straight after an equal length dark with the shutter closed, then applies the dark on the light and you get a further noise reduced image which again works very well, but not so much for AP. With mode 3 you essentially have the NR feature on and take an exposure but then immediately shut down the camera after the light has finished exposing. What this does is it causes the camera to dump a REAL RAW image onto the SD card without applying the median filter OR the Noise Reduction process. This obviously results in a much noisier image as expected, but all the stars will still be there and the image in this way can then be dark-subtracted and processed to my liking. I'll post some test shots I've taken to illustrate this. The D50 uses a hybrid shutter, both the CCD electronic shutter and mechanical shutter are used depending I think on the exposure length. If a high enough exposure is used, from what I understand, one can use exclusively the electronic shutter, but for longer exposures the shutters work in conjunction. Now I know the ICX413AQ in the Opticstar is more than capable of taking long exposures solely with its electronic shutter despite the fact that in its datasheet they recommend a mechanical shutter for proper use. So, my thinking is since the D50's sensor is similar to the ICX413AQ the only thing preventing the camera from being able to take any exposure using exclusively the electronic shutter is that its mechanical shutter is in the way and I don't think that the camera would prevent the CCD electronic global shutter itself to still open and close when required. However, this is all a theory at the moment and the only way to confirm it is to test the camera with the sensor outside when the FPC cable arrives. More on this later... In terms of capture software available, the D50 is actually very poor and I could only get digiCamControl to see and control the camera via USB. But I won't be using this as when the camera is hooked up to the PC its SD card is identified as a storage drive and the camera can be used as it would normally with the images appearing on the drive after being written to the SD! Since I'm using my VB app to process the images I would just point the app to that folder and should work. That's all I can think of for now but if and when new ones come up I'll add them here.
      Next I'll be describing some of the other changes planned.
    • By Pullock
      Hi everyone, just looking to get into astrophotography but looking at a DSLR as I'd like to use it for daytime use too, I know usually it's better for them to be modified but I've seen this can be done to allow use for both with only white balance adjustment. 
      I've seen 1300d's going around £200 on eBay with the 18-55mm lens but the 4000d is a couple of years newer and there is currently one with 18-55mm + 75-300mm going for £350 at Currys. From what I can work out there isn't much difference between them besides a smaller screen on the 4000d and the release date. I'm just wondering if there is some reason people go for the 1300d instead or is it just because of it being older it turns up cheaper?
      Sorry for the long winded post but I'm doing lots of research to make sure I get the best one that'll last me the longest, thanks for any help.
    • By Lachlan
      Hey everyone! I’m after some pretty wide-field DSOs that can be captured with an unmodified DSLR without too much struggle (apart from the Orion Nebula.) I can push my exposures up to around 3 minutes with no major star trailing but that’s about as far as I can go. Also I’m in the Southern Hemisphere so don’t have the luxury of choosing between many relatively bright Messier objects. Your suggestions are much appreciated! 
    • By Xiga
      Hi guys
      After processing the Eastern & Wastern Veils separately a couple of months back, I've finally got round to doing the mosaic that was always the end goal (hence the framing of each panel). I'm not sure why I waited so long to do it, I think deep-down I was secretly dreading it really, as this is my first mosaic so I wasn't really sure how it would go.
      So this is just 2 panels, and each one has 5 hrs of Ha (15 x 1200s), with 3 hrs 20 mins of Oiii in one (10 x 1200s) and 3 hrs 40 mins of Oiii (11 x 1200s) in the other. So 17 hrs in total.
      APP was used for stacking, gradient reduction, and the mosaic creation. PS used for everything else.
      Ha assigned to Red, Oiii to Blue, and Green was synthesized from one of Carboni's actions.
      I've tried to push it as far as I dare to, did I over-do it do you think? I've resized it down to 66% to help hide some of the noise, and being a mosaic it's still plenty big. I might even end up bringing it down to 50%, we'll see.
      C&C welcome as always. I tend to finish my images very late at night, so I can sometimes fall into the trap of not seeing the image as clearly as I should! So feel free to be as harsh as you like 😉
       

×

Important Information

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