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_inspirational_skies_winners.thumb.jpg.94f78e21c195e385c5621d89ea0b51b9.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 7170
      I've been trying to do some photometry with my DSLR with a view to using it on variable stars as a quick "grab and go" solution when there is a gap in clouds etc.

      Rather than looking at variables I decided to start off with comparing some fixed stars to identify how well I can estimate magnitudes with my DSLR, and the table above shows the results.
      Using only two stacked frames (5s, ISO 800, F3.5 on my 5DMk2) with no darks, light polluted london sky, and just one comparison star I seem to be able to get to around 1% variance for the majority of the readings, with the worse being 2.54% out. Trying Chi Cas, against Upsilon1, Upsilon2 and omegaAnd comes up with M4.67 which is mag0.03 different (0.55%).
      I'll be honest I am surprised at the results as it is not all that far off the 0.01-0.02 mag range often quoted for looking at exoplanet transits for example. Has anyone else tried this exercise as i'm interested to know how these results stack up - good or bad. The only thing I know for sure is I couldn't get it that close visually using my eyes!  
    • By Paolo Silvestri
      Hi everyone, I recently decided to get a 70-200 f2.8 lens or similar (liek 80-200 nikkor) to mount on my Nikon D3300 and Star Adventurer, because as a landscape photographer I feel I will use way more a tele lens than a telescope. It will be a graduation present, so I hope no budget limit. My question is: which lens to choose? In order to capture some extra details I'll most likely add a teleconverter 2x if the choice will be a 70-200, otherwise I'm considering a 100-400 Sigma or Tamron but I can't find anything about how they perform. Thanks for your advices.
    • By Xiga
      Hi guys
      So we had a completely clear night last Thursday and, as luck would have it, i was actually off work all week, so i was able to take full advantage. Well, mostly, as you'll soon find out. 
      As it turned out this was a night that almost went completely awry. The first thing that i messed up was i forgot the external battery that keeps the D5300 powered all night. I only noticed this after driving the 45 min trip back to the family home where i do my imaging. Doh! Luckily though, i dipped into my big bag of astro stuff and found the 2 old camera batteries and charger that i used to use. By my reckoning it was last December when i last used them, so i was amazed to find they still had quite a bit of charge in them! So i was able to charge one while i used the other. Unfortunately though it meant i had to keep going out to the scope every 2-3 hrs to change battery, but tbh i was just relieved that i didn't have to drive home and lose another 90 mins of dark sky time. 
      The next thing to grumble was the guider. For some bizarre reason, i could not see Polaris in the Fov in Sharpcap. I could barely see anything at all tbh so even though Sharpcap told me it was able to platesolve i was very dubious. And then when i came to do the Sharpcap PA routine, the adjustments were jumping around all over the place. It took me about 25 mins to PA instead of the usual 5, and i really thought the guiding was going to be a nightmare, but what do you know, it turned out to be actually really good. It even dipped below 0.5" at times. Go figure!
      Due to the floodlights of the sports facility (which is rather conveniently only about 100 yards away from the house) i was forced to start with Ha subs, then once they were turned off at 10pm, i switched to Oiii, as i knew the moon was coming up around 00:30 so i needed to take advantage of the darkest part of the night. I figured i'd go for about 3 hrs of Oiii, knowing that with the final filter change back to Ha again, i should end up with about 4-5 hrs of Ha in total. Well, after doing the last filter change and going back in to grab a nap for a couple of hrs, when i woke up and checked Team Viewer i noticed that the sequence had unexpectedly ended. Went out and saw that the 7 Ahr LifePo4 battery i use for the mount had died. I also noticed that the lens of the Finder-Guider had completely dewed up. As it turned out, the dew strip for it had failed so i've had to order a new one. I've also ordered a PSU to power the HEQ5-Pro from the mains, so fingers crossed i shouldn't have to worry about mount power over the winter now. All in all this was a bit of a pain of a night, as i normally only shoot 1 filter per night. Sometimes in the longer winter nights i might do 2, but i've never done 3 before. It's a real hassle too, as i need to shoot flats, change filter, re-frame and re-focus. All of which can take upwards of 30 mins. Hmmphh. 
      So long story short i didn't end up with as much Ha as i wanted for this, which has meant it's been trickier to process than i would have liked. I should probably have just waited and done another night of Ha, but with all the hassle i have to go through to get any imaging done these days (drive, setup, tear down and pack away, drive home, sleep deprivation) i will always just try and use what i've got and move on to the next target. The Mean ADU level was quite low on this one, probably because the target is quite small and only occupies the centre of the frame. I've probably been lucky up to now, by mostly shooting larger targets, so i was disappointed with the low ADU levels, which are scraping the bottom of the barrel for me in terms of getting away from the noise floor. So i upped my exposures a bit, pushing as high as 25 mins, which is the nighest i've ever gone with the HEQ5-Pro. It seemed to still handle it quite well, although it didn't improve the Mean ADU level anywhere near enough. 
      Full capture details:
      3 x 1200s, 2 x 1380s, and 4 x 1500s of Ha
      9 x 1200s of Oiii. 
      11 x 480s of RGB (with an IDAS-D1). Used for the stars and sky background only. 
      7 Hrs 54 Mins in Total. 
      All shot with a Nikon D5300, SW 80ED, and an HEQ5-Pro. 
      The RGB data was shot over a year ago from inner city Belfast (Red Zone) while i was testing out the new Rowan belt mod. It was just a test shot to check the guiding, so the 8 min subs were far, far too long in reality, hence a lot of the medium and bright stars are clipped. But i have to say, the IDAS-D1 together with APP did a nice job of cleaning it right up and making it at least useable (well, by my standards at least!). 
      So on to processing. I've been playing with this for several nights now, and i just can't look at it anymore! i think this is the best i can manage with the limited data i have. It's been enjoyable and yet frustrating at the same time, lol. As usual, this has been stacked in APP and processed in PS. I used the tone-mapping method of processing, and created a synthesised Sii from a 50/50 blend of the Ha and Oiii. I then combined them in the classic Hubble Palette SHO. Obviously, not having any real Sii means i can never get the full range of tonal variations throughout. I'm also not completely happy with the colours if i'm being honest (especially the blue). That was the part i struggled with the most on this one. 
      I've also attached below a quick and dirty HaRGB version, which took me all of about 30 mins to process (in total contrast to the SHO version, which i won't say how long it took!). 
      As always, constructive criticism welcomed with open arms! 
      Ok time for me to stop rambling on now 😋 
      Edit - Forgot to say, I resized the sSHO version down to 75% of the original (it's not worthy of 100% viewing).


    • By Lachlan
      Hi everyone, 
      im about to purchase my first astrophotography rig and was wanting some opinions on the best method to capture subs. I’m looking at using backyard EOS on my laptop to control the DSLR, but would using a shutter release cable be better/easier? 
      Thanks. 
    • By Koma52
      Hello,
      I want to get into astrophotography. I have a Newtonian (200/1000) and I'd like to buy a DSLR. My preferred maker is Canon, but you can change my mind if you recommend something else and I like it  . My budget is around $700 or less and most importantly used cameras not an option because in my country there isn't any good places to buy used DSLRs. I'd like to do prime focus photos and some Milky Way photos. I found out that the 1000d would be a good option but it's not in the stores any more. Then I thought about the 750d but it has vertical lines in the photos. Now I'm thinking about the 2000d but I didn't found any astrophoto experiences with it on the internet. So what's your recommendations?
×

Important Information

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