Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

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

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

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
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.

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
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. 

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
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
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
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??

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
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.

 

 

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.

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

 

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

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
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.

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
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
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?

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.

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 endless-sky
      After a 20 year long hiatus - my last astrophoto was captured with a film camera in 1997 - at the beginning of 2020 I decided it was time to start again.
      So, January 25th 2020 I brought home my used Sky-Watcher NEQ6 Pro and I immediately started taking photos. Obviously, my first target was M42 in Orion.
      This was my first digital astrophotography. 31 subframes, 30s each, taken at ISO800 with my unmodified Nikon D90, Nikkor 70-300mm at 300mm f/6.3 - January 28th, 2020, home front yard, Bortle 5/6 sky, no guiding, no filters. A grand total of 15.5 minutes...

      A couple of weeks later, me and my wife went to spend Valentine's weekend in the mountains. Of course I couldn't avoid taking advantage of the Bortle 4 sky and I took all my gear with me. Same target, 52 subframes, 45s each, taken at ISO800 with my unmodified Nikon D90, Nikkor 70-300mm at 300m f/5.6 - February 14th, 2020, Tonadico, Bortle 4 sky, no guiding, no filters. 39 minutes total integration.

      After I finished post-processing the second photograph, I was so happy with the result. It felt amazing that I was able to capture so many details and more nebulosity compared to the photo taken from home.
      Months passed, gear was changed. First one being the camera: at the end of February I bought a Nikon D5300 and a couple of months later I astromodified it on my own, adding a UV/IR cut filter in front of the sensor, after cutting it to size.
      In October the rest of the setup finally arrived: Tecnosky 80/480 APO FPL53 Triplet OWL Series imaging telescope, Artesky UltraGuide 60mm f/4 guide scope and ZWO ASI 224MC guide camera. Also, an Optolong L-Pro 2" light pollution filter.
      After months of imaging and getting more experienced with PixInsight, it was just a matter of waiting before I could have another go at one of my favorite targets. And maybe give it a little more justice.
      This project took me more than a month, due to the rare clear nights opportunities I have had here lately.
      I started acquiring in January and finished a couple of weeks ago.
      M42 taken over 8 nights, under my Bortle 5/6 sky.
      Total integration time: 18h 04m 00s for the nebula. 714s (14s subs) + 2065s (35s subs) for the Trapezium and the core.
      Here are the acquisition details:
      Mount: Sky-Watcher NEQ6 Pro
      Telescope: Tecnosky 80/480 APO FPL53 Triplet OWL Series
      Camera: D5300 astromodified
      Reducer/flattener: Tecnosky 4 elements, 0.8x
      Guide-scope: Artesky UltraGuide 60mm f/4
      Guide-camera: ZWO ASI 224MC
      2021/01/12: Number of subs/Exposure time: 33@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, no Moon
      2021/01/13: Number of subs/Exposure time: 33@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, no Moon
      2021/01/15: Number of subs/Exposure time: 38@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 8% illuminated
      2021/01/18: Number of subs/Exposure time: 36@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 30% illuminated
      2021/02/13: Number of subs/Exposure time: 30@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 4% illuminated
      2021/02/14: Number of subs/Exposure time: 23@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 9% illuminated
      2021/02/15: Number of subs/Exposure time: 51@14s + 48@35s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 15% illuminated
      2021/02/17: Number of subs/Exposure time: 11@35s + 38@180s + 1@300s. Notes: L-Pro filter, Moon 30% illuminated
      Total exposure time (main integration): 65040s = 18h 04m 00s.
      Total exposure time (35s integration): 2065s.
      Total exposure time (14s integration): 714s.
      Pre and post-processing: PixInsight 1.8.8-7.
      Full HDR Version:

      Masked Stretch Version:

      Blended Version (50% HDR + 50% Masked Stretch):

      To my personal taste, I like the blended version the most. I think it brings out the best of both worlds (HDR and soft, less contrasty but more colorful look).
      I must say, I am very pleased and happy with the result. Not to boast, but I think I have come a long way since I started.
      Obviously the better gear and the much, much longer integration time helped.
      I think I actually spent more time post-processing it than acquiring it. Especially since I had to do the work almost twice: I post-processed the HDR and the Masked Stretch images separately, making sure I used the same processes and with the same strenght in both, so that I could combine them effectively, if I decided I didn’t like the look of the HDR alone. I also think I managed to tame the stars a lot more, compared to my previous post-processing attempts.
      As usual, here’s a link to the full resolution image(s): Orion Nebula (M42), De Mairan’s Nebula (M43) and Running Man (NGC 1977)
      Thanks for looking!
      C&C welcome!
       
    • By sulaco
      Hi, 
      Thinking of getting the Asiair pro whenever they come back into stock but wondered about the voltage output for dslr, it states that it’s12v but would that not need to be stepped down to 7.5v for dslr. 
      im wondering if the Pegasus power box micro with Stellarmate might be a better option as the dedicated power box is controllable. 
      I tried Ekos a couple of years back and had nothing but problems but tried again last night and was amazed at how slick it was, best guiding and first time plate-solvingwas effortless. 
      I have the original zwo  120mm  so reluctant to get a new one unless I have too. Has anybody been using the new advanced or micro  power boxes either stellarmate?
      Thanks
       Campbell
    • By SpaceDave
      Hello all. I’ve tried a few times in the last month to image Mars but have had very little success. Although a decent size, Mars is very blurry and wobbly. I am fairly new to the hobby, but I would say it appears to be poor seeing conditions. 
      I am using a Celestron 6SE and Canon 600D. I have tried 2x and 3x Barlow. I focus using a bahtinov mask (on stars). I used movie crop mode on various ISOs and exposures, stacking at least 3000 frames (keeping the best 1%, 2%, 5%, etc).
      Is Mars too far away now? Or am I underestimating how rarely you get a night of good seeing? How do you find out when the best seeing will be?
    • By DeepSkyBrad
      I've just had a Canon EOS 250d modified by Juan, IR filter off and shim to restore focal plane.  He previously did the same for a 100d which got me going in the hobby.  Juan is willing and able to take on successive generations of camera.  I prefer to rely on Juan's experience for this task, despite me being an optics specialist professionally.   The cost of the camera and Juan's conversion service together are a bargain and I trust him with a new camera.   
      I like to use this type of imager over the specialist cameras because they are the result of Canon's massive R&D capability and bundle together all these functions:  battery, an up to date sensor chip, the on-board software, on-board storage, built-in display, easy-fit Astronomik filter. In the case of the 250d, that very important tiltable display so you don't have to crawl around on the wet lawn to see it.  The only thing they don't have is an easily-implemented thermo-electric cooling.  But I've got a long way to go in astro-imaging before I care about noise that much (though I'd like to cool, and understand what can be achieved, I use stacking averaging in the meantime to go part way in that respect).
      The dslr is my one imager for three rigs, the most notable being that it's lightweight enough to go on my Omegon clockwork mount. 
      On my heftier rig, I do have an Altair camera with a Sony back-lit chip but only use it for tracking with a wireless-controlled Stellarmate setup, having got fed up with all the cables and tablet pc with memory dangling off it.  
    • By DrummerSP
      Hi!
      Firstly apologies if this is in the wrong section (this is my first post on any kind of forum!) and I'm aware its a question thats probably been asked thousands of times. Please let me know if I should post elsewhere or anything...
      So I've made some progress with astrophotography but as much as I try I get so confused with lenses and the specifics so thought I'd ask people who understand them more. My setup so far is a Canon EOS 550d, with a 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens all on a Star Adventurer pro tracker (recently upgraded from an Omegon LX3 mini track). The camera and lens were both second hand and passed down to me so I dont really know how old they are now but I've been getting good results so far (uploaded one of my recent images, still using the minitrack for reference)
      Basically I dont know if I'm better off upgrading the camera and sticking with the telephoto lens (from what I can find its a good lens), or would changing to a small telescope be better. If I was to, from what I've found the Sharpstar 61EDPH II would be a good choice?
      I've researched a lot and just dont understand the technical side enough to know where I'm better off putting my money. My budget would be around £1000, maybe slightly more for a camera as I do use it for other photography too. Any advice would be very appreciated, sorry for the long post!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.