Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Astrophotography and Sketching >> DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
WhitenerJ
professor emeritus


Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: Waxahachie, Texas
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5570648 - 12/14/12 10:58 AM

I have the clear glass standard mod by Brent with the LPF-1 left in place and can confirm no additional IR filter is required.

Jason


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CA Stargazer
member


Reged: 01/27/12

Loc: Milpitas, California
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: WhitenerJ]
      #5570800 - 12/14/12 12:43 PM

Aboy,
If you wanted Full Spectrum (Removed both LPF1 and LPF2)
Then the clear glass is your dust protection and will protect your CMOS from debris. I don't think it is a waste of money for that piece of mind.

Removing LPF1 also gets rid of the anti-aliasing function effect, some may prefer that.

Elsewhere in these forums are very good plots of LPF1 LPF2 spectral range.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: CA Stargazer]
      #5570991 - 12/14/12 03:06 PM

Thanks... I did that already no LPF1 and LPF2. I'll use the CLS-CCD and sometimes the H alpha to shoot some pictures.

Edited by Aboy (12/14/12 04:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: CA Stargazer]
      #5571107 - 12/14/12 04:28 PM

Quote:

Quote:

There are TWO stock filters.
1) LPF-1. Also known as the Self Cleaning Element, or Low Pass Filter, this is a filter WITH IR/UV Block!
2) LPF-2. this filter is ONLY a WB filter. It ONLY restricts wavelengths to mimic the human eye...
LPF-2 is the "Bad for AP" filter. This is the ONLY filter we remove for a "Standard/Baader" type of mod, which leaves the system with an IR/UV Block filter INSIDE the camera!!!




Brent, if I could get 'true'/'false' answers to these two questions, would appreciate:

1. Stock LPF-1 (IR/UV Block) does NOT block H-alpha?
2. Stock LPF-2 (WB filter) blocks/restricts H-alpha?




I can try

1: TRUE!! LPF-1 is ONLY a "clear filter" with IR UV blocking. "Clear" meaning it has NO tint to it at all and means it passes 100% of the visible spectrum, Ha included!...which leads me to the second question/answer:
2: TRUE! LPF-2 is ONLY a "WB" filter. Meaning it IS the ONLY filter that is "restricting"/blocking wavelengths to match the typical or wanted output of digital cameras..it has a greenish-blue tint to it. That is the tell-tale sign of a "WB filter".

Now, trying not to add anymore confusion, let me clarify a couple things.
LPF-2 DOES block IR/UV as well..it has to...but this is not because it is an "IR/UV Block(only)" filter, it is because the WB it is creating just happens to block MOST of the unwanted IR and UV...its purpose is NOT to block IR/UV, it is ONLY to manipulate the wavelengths closer to how WE see things..so the fact that it blocks IR/UV is just a side effect of the WB characteristics.
If these filters were designed to BOTH be IR/UV block, why would they install TWO filters? why not just use the ONE LPF-2 filter and be done with it?
Because they CANT, LPF-1 HAS TO REMAIN INtact IF you want an IR/UV Block filter INside the camera, regardless of whether LPF-2 is installed or not.
With LPF-2 removed, we now have removed the filter that restricts Ha transmissions to ~7-10%(stock camera transmissions) and it will now pass 100%(98-99.9999%) Ha.

SO. at this point, we have:
LPF-1 INstalled and LPF-2 *removed*, right? so we get a camera that has 100% transmission BETWEEN 400nm(UV) and 700nm(IR), the entire VISIBLE spectrum. Which is what is NEEDED for "proper" astro images.

You are DONE at this point. You have the wanted spectrum passing, and the unwanted being blocked.
Whether or not you install a replacement for LPF-2 is COMPLETELY up to YOU!

If you need AF calibration to remain intact, you need to replace LPF-2 with SOMETHING..ANYthing.
But, the higher quality the filter, the better, right? YES!
SO. Baader(IR Block OR Clear(Baader's FBCF-5D MarkII filter is NOT an IR block!!)), AstroDon(IR block), or Astronomik(clear glass only), or even the clear glass I use, Edmunds Optics High Transmission Clear Glass with AR(Anti-Reflection) coatings.
It doesnt matter which you use. THe only REAL purpose of using these filters is to keep AF calibration.
But, since there are many options, and all that I mentioned are VERY high quality filters, they are perfect for this application.
But, the fact that you are using an IR Blocking filter for the LPF-2 replacement just means that the majority of the expense for the AstroDon and Baader (IR blocking) filters is wasted $ and is redundant when LPF-1 is still in the camera since both filters serve the EXACT same purpose..

The reverse of this is true as well..think about it..
If you were to remove BOTH stock filters, and then install an AstroDon or Baader IR Block filter, you would have the EXACT same performance as a system with only LPF-1 in it.
Actually, since LPF-1 is a Low Pass Filter(blurs the images ever so slightly), you could actually have sharper images by doing this method.
But WHY!? When the FREE stock filter is already in there doing what these filters do, why bother? Just keep LPF-1, remove LPF-2 and go shoot some Ha rich images! and it didnt cost you ANYthing(except maybe time/$ for the actual mod!)


Why do "some people" (professionals, not your average Joe on CN that is voicing his opinion) tell you that you NEED to use a Baader or AstroDon filter? I have no clue. If you went and did the research, and looked at the tons of data on the net showing that an LPF-1 system works EXACTLY like an "AstroDon, or Baader" camera, or just ask the MANY people right here on CN that have this system, you would see there is no reason.

Let me just add this.
I know for a fact that anyone doing these mods professionally, myself included, gets these filters as VERY nice discounts! We MAKE MORE $ when people want the Baader/AstroDon/expensive filters...so why tell anyone the truth when it will cut into your profits?
I am not saying in any way that is what other's do..at all..
But what other reason could they have for not telling people the truth.

I for one think everyone should know as much about ANY subject as possible so that they can make a more informed decision..which is why I sit here on CN year after year and tell people this exact same info..
Sometimes I get jobs from it, other times I help people do the mod themselves..
I never intended to make tons of money off of my fellow imagers when I started this. I have the tech background and experience..so I just do whatever comes across my desk..
Either way, if I do the mod or not, people are HAPPY with my services. I answer emails daily on people just looking for help or opinions on what they should do, what mod to do, what equipment works best with that mod, how to do the mod themselves, and obviously, how much I charge to do the mods..
Some are paying jobs, some aren't, but I consider ALL of them to be customers. And customers deserve the best possible service and they have the right to know EVERYTHING that is relevant to the job/tech/service/etc. period.

SORRY!
Back on topic..I ramble sometimes..


Quote:

I mean, never remove the LPF1 filter...

When I talk full spectrum, it mean no filter on sensor, but the LPF1 is on, because it's a cleaning filter, supposed to don't have any filter activity, NOT cut any uv or ir...

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p




This is COMPLETELY WRONG!!! Sorry, but you are WAY off base here..

If LPF-1 is still inside the camera, YOU DO NOT HAVE a Full Spectrum Mod.
You CANT!!!
It IS 100% without a doubt the IR/UV Block filter of the system.
It also has the Piezo Electric Element(that thingy that vibrates the dust off of the filter) attached to it...but that doesnt mean it is "only a cleaning filter"
Dont believe me? easy to prove.
A REAL Full Spectrum Modified camera SHOULD be able to take VERY, VERY short exposures with an IR PASS filter, think "Daytime IR" shots..the black and white, with trees and grass all white, the sky black, etc..etc..
Take YOUR camera out with an IR PASS filter, any one..Hoya R72, it doesnt matter.
Try and take an image. you will see that IR is being FULLY blocked by LPF-1, and you will HAVE to use LOOOOONG exposures and a tripod for ANYthing in the IR.
Full Spectrum=FULL SPECTRAL TRANSMISSIONS! i.e. ALL light passes to the sensor, INCLUDING IR and UV!!
With my REAL Full Spectrum Modified cameras, I take daytime IR(pass) images at 1/4000th exposures at ISO100 and F/8!!
You would need 10seconds, ISO1600, and F2.8!
You are wrong.

I am not trying to be rude, but this is just so wrong, I have to say something..

ALSO.
Quote:

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p




Umm..no. you dont.
The sensor is NEVER exposed. the sensor itself is a DIP(dual in line package), ceramic encased, with a CLEAR window on the front. The sensor is ALWAYS inside this package and behind this window. If you removed the glass from the sensor, then you are asking for trouble.
This window IS NOT a "filter", or even removable! It is permanently attached to the ceramic package.
So even if you have a Full Spectrum mod camera with no filters inside, the sensor, the **ACTUAL silicon sensor** is NEVER exposed, or even remotely in danger from anything..let alone "charged dust particles"?? seriously??

Also, think about this in terms of "cleanliness or possible debris issues"..
A stock camera, or a Baader/AstroDon camera has FIVE optical surfaces for dust/debris to cling to.
1) LPF-1. both sides=surfaces 1 & 2
2) Baader/AstroDon/ or Clear Glass. both sides=surfaces 3 & 4
3) optical window on sensor(only one side accessible)= surface 5

A full spectrum camera has ONE surface to keep clean!
ONE! the sensor's window..that's it!
Not FIVE! ONE!

I wish we could have systems that have ONE surface that needed cleaning and still have IR/UV Blocking, or even stock cameras..but that is not the way it works.

LPF-1 only cleans ITSELF. NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM!!!!


I really think there is a lot about electronics and optics that you need to learn before making statements like these..

Again, I dont mean to be rude or harsh, but I do not know how else to explain this stuff..and do not want people getting very confused over your 'advice'..


Quote:

Aboy,
If you wanted Full Spectrum (Removed both LPF1 and LPF2)
Then the clear glass is your dust protection and will protect your CMOS from debris. I don't think it is a waste of money for that piece of mind.

Removing LPF1 also gets rid of the anti-aliasing function effect, some may prefer that.

Elsewhere in these forums are very good plots of LPF1 LPF2 spectral range.




EXACTLY!!!
Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.



Wow...think this is my longest post ever..
If ANYone suffered through that, I would be surprised LOL!!

Cheers!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571172 - 12/14/12 05:09 PM

Quote:


Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.





Thanks for the post and help me to clear some question.. I'm really glad that you people takes time and answer my question.

Also:

1: jajajajaja yes, I did mod my camera with no much knowledge about it how to mod it.. But everyone do the same the first time. We learn with the practice XD


2. Believe me... I'll.

3. I don't care about the AF. I want my camera for astrophography. If I want to shoot some day time pictures, I'll use manual focus..

Also I'll practice hard in order to learn how to takes good pictures.

Thanks again.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5571183 - 12/14/12 05:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.





Thanks for the post and help me to clear some question.. I'm really glad that you people takes time and answer my question.

Also:

1: jajajajaja yes, I did mod my camera with no much knowledge about it how to mod it.. But everyone do the same the first time. We learn with the practice XD


2. Believe me... I'll.

3. I don't care about the AF. I want my camera for astrophography. If I want to shoot some day time pictures, I'll use manual focus..

Also I'll practice hard in order to learn how to takes good pictures.

Thanks again.




Anytime!

Yea, everyone has to start somewhere..I did..my first camera took me like 5 hours to do and I was a nervous wreck the entire time..now I can do them in my sleep..LOL

But, that is what is so great about CN, you have a ton of people on here that have most likely been through the same situation(s) as you/I/anyone, and we can all help each other figure this out as we go! lol


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571237 - 12/14/12 05:59 PM

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx

Edited by mmalik (12/14/12 06:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5571441 - 12/14/12 07:52 PM

Quote:

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx




Yep!! this is one of the reasons for a lot of the confusion!

However, Hap's pricing models there show the options for ALL models, including the older models that DO require an IR Filter replacement, mainly the 20D/30D/300D/350D/etc...so, as to not confuse his customers, I would think that this is why he words things this way...****AFAIK! I cannot speak for him/anyone else!****

There is always confusion in terminology when something is first 'discovered'/brought to attention/debated,etc..
But, with only a VERY small group of guys doing this, and having it split right down the middle(AFAIK, there are several international modification companies that share my exact opinions/ideas..Hap and Gary are the only two, AFAIK, that still hold to the OLD truths that WERE relevant to older models!)
Maybe it is an age thing...? I am "only" 30, so perhaps I am not as set in my ways and unwilling to change as "others" lol (I AM NOT laughing at anyone, or poking fun, or saying ANYthing negative about anyone! atleast not intentionally!)


If you were to ask "them" if you needed an AstroDon or Baader filter to replace LPF-2, they would undoubtedly say YES!
Again..my points are still valid. whether people, or even 'them', believe me or not.
I will not even go into the "proven test" performed by one of those guys that shows LPF-1 does not block enough IR for "proper" astro images. THat test is so flawed it really isnt even funny, and a LOT of people use that as definitive "proof" that one needs an IR replacement for LPF-2.

Things like this prove otherwise!
This is a ***REAL*** test!
REALLY look at the sets of images, particularly the top row of images. Look at the Stock 1000D image, this shows a stock camera not allowing ANY IR data through..the images next to it, the ones of a Baader filter and an LPF-1 only system, guess what? THEY ARE IDENTICAL(to each other, not compared to the stock 1000D image)!!!!

So...since BOTH the Baader AND LPF-1 only images show the exact same amount of IR data in the image, what does this mean?
It means that NO MATTER WHAT MOD you do, assuming an IR Block is LEFT INTACT and LPF-2 is removed, you will have the EXACT same performance.
My guess is that the small amount of IR data(compared to the Full Spectrum 350D image and the stock 1000D image) that still transmits through is of no consequence to our pursuits..

Also, if you look at the images below those that show the remote's IR LED, you will see that by just adding a WB filter(in this exact case the X-Nite CC1 filter from MaxMax), there is ZERO IR data passed....which means, YES, LPF-2 or any WB filter DOES block some IR, which is a result of their spectral curve modification/restrictions..the return a camera back to stock..they remove all deep red(Ha) data....But the point/my main point is, and always has been, that the "bad" filter, LPF-2 has to be removed (this is universal no matter who you ask), whether you use ONLY LPF-1 or an expensive alternative, you get the EXACT same performance!!
That is my whole point. Why waste the $ on an expensive filter if LPF-1 does the EXACT same job/amount of "work" as the expensive filters..?

All of my tests are DIRECTLY in line with this test above, and NOT Gary's!!
Though I have only tested on TRUE IR light sources, not flashlights(like Gary), or a stove burner(like the one above)..
Only with REAL IR sources can you judge a modified system's performance..
And there is very little to debate..
I need to make a write-up very soon to help squash some of this confusion..
I cannot wait til I have some time to finish my website, I would hope that it would help a lot of people see what is going on inside these cameras, and how we can manipulate things to get the desired output..
If I only had SOME spare time!


And yes, a lot of confusion would be gone if we could all agree on the same terminology..
I will be the first to admit if/when I am wrong..so all anyone has to do is prove to me that I am, I will change my opinions/advice..
But from everything I have ever seen online, and from ALL of my experience, everything I have said reads 100% true in my head..AND MANY, MANY customer's as well!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571977 - 12/15/12 03:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx




Yep!! this is one of the reasons for a lot of the confusion!

However, Hap's pricing models there show the options for ALL models, including the older models that DO require an IR Filter replacement, mainly the 20D/30D/300D/350D/etc...so, as to not confuse his customers, I would think that this is why he words things this way...****AFAIK! I cannot speak for him/anyone else!****

There is always confusion in terminology when something is first 'discovered'/brought to attention/debated,etc..
But, with only a VERY small group of guys doing this, and having it split right down the middle(AFAIK, there are several international modification companies that share my exact opinions/ideas..Hap and Gary are the only two, AFAIK, that still hold to the OLD truths that WERE relevant to older models!)
Maybe it is an age thing...? I am "only" 30, so perhaps I am not as set in my ways and unwilling to change as "others" lol (I AM NOT laughing at anyone, or poking fun, or saying ANYthing negative about anyone! atleast not intentionally!)


If you were to ask "them" if you needed an AstroDon or Baader filter to replace LPF-2, they would undoubtedly say YES!
Again..my points are still valid. whether people, or even 'them', believe me or not.
I will not even go into the "proven test" performed by one of those guys that shows LPF-1 does not block enough IR for "proper" astro images. THat test is so flawed it really isnt even funny, and a LOT of people use that as definitive "proof" that one needs an IR replacement for LPF-2.

Things like this prove otherwise!
This is a ***REAL*** test!
REALLY look at the sets of images, particularly the top row of images. Look at the Stock 1000D image, this shows a stock camera not allowing ANY IR data through..the images next to it, the ones of a Baader filter and an LPF-1 only system, guess what? THEY ARE IDENTICAL(to each other, not compared to the stock 1000D image)!!!!

So...since BOTH the Baader AND LPF-1 only images show the exact same amount of IR data in the image, what does this mean?
It means that NO MATTER WHAT MOD you do, assuming an IR Block is LEFT INTACT and LPF-2 is removed, you will have the EXACT same performance.
My guess is that the small amount of IR data(compared to the Full Spectrum 350D image and the stock 1000D image) that still transmits through is of no consequence to our pursuits..

Also, if you look at the images below those that show the remote's IR LED, you will see that by just adding a WB filter(in this exact case the X-Nite CC1 filter from MaxMax), there is ZERO IR data passed....which means, YES, LPF-2 or any WB filter DOES block some IR, which is a result of their spectral curve modification/restrictions..the return a camera back to stock..they remove all deep red(Ha) data....But the point/my main point is, and always has been, that the "bad" filter, LPF-2 has to be removed (this is universal no matter who you ask), whether you use ONLY LPF-1 or an expensive alternative, you get the EXACT same performance!!
That is my whole point. Why waste the $ on an expensive filter if LPF-1 does the EXACT same job/amount of "work" as the expensive filters..?

All of my tests are DIRECTLY in line with this test above, and NOT Gary's!!
Though I have only tested on TRUE IR light sources, not flashlights(like Gary), or a stove burner(like the one above)..
Only with REAL IR sources can you judge a modified system's performance..
And there is very little to debate..
I need to make a write-up very soon to help squash some of this confusion..
I cannot wait til I have some time to finish my website, I would hope that it would help a lot of people see what is going on inside these cameras, and how we can manipulate things to get the desired output..
If I only had SOME spare time!


And yes, a lot of confusion would be gone if we could all agree on the same terminology..
I will be the first to admit if/when I am wrong..so all anyone has to do is prove to me that I am, I will change my opinions/advice..
But from everything I have ever seen online, and from ALL of my experience, everything I have said reads 100% true in my head..AND MANY, MANY customer's as well!




Thanks Brent for your understanding and elaborating. Would be great if Hap and Gary could chime in and once for all get following sorted out:

1. Type of mods being offered; if replacing LPF-2 with expensive alternatives is just waste of $, then let's just NOT promote it anymore.

2. Using standard terminology (i.e., LPF-1 & LPF-2, etc., and NOT using confusing terms like ‘IR Filter Replacement’, etc.) so all could speak and comprehend the same language.

3. Last but not least, resolve OLD (single [IR] filter systems) vs. NEW (two [LPF-1, LPF-2] filter systems) confusion; if old truths don't hold true any longer, why not make contemporary (two filter systems) the norm and old (single filter systems) an exception, be it terminology or solutions offered?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5572026 - 12/15/12 05:13 AM

All VERY good points, and I agree completely!

But...I really dont see your first point actually happening...
I just dont think anyone is going to stop promoting filters that add more $ to their pockets..
I tell people everything about filters and some people still prefer to have the "name brand" filters installed..to each their own..
So, unless everyone(impossible) became more knowledgeable about the issues, there will always be demand for these filters...
atleast, imho..

And I dont think anyone actively "promotes" the expensive filters, I just think most will let people think what they want and just give them what they want..whether or not they "need" that option or not..
Is that my business motto? not even close..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
microstar
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/05/08

Loc: Canada
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5572265 - 12/15/12 09:57 AM

Interesting thread, but with my Baader BCF in the mail for my mod I have no regrets and would make the same choice. I want to also be able to use my 450D with my 100mm Macro lens for nature photography with the custom WB and AF. Best of both worlds hopefully for not much additional cost (compared to what I spend on this hobby).
...Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: microstar]
      #5572612 - 12/15/12 01:25 PM

Brent,

after reading this thread, I found out, that I would have made the same mistake and would have been replaced my 1000D LFP-2 filter with Baader IR/UV cut filter (basically 2x UV/IR filters in the camera). Now I know that clear glass is perfectly fine (to get the autofocus). But I still have 2 questions:

1. Is daylight photography still possible with custom wb, if I use a clear glass?
2. I just got an interesting idea into my head: if I could make a plastic plate, that would fit beyond the bayonet mount (same shape as astronomic clip), also if I could remove the without damaging the LPF-2 filter and get it shaped to fit into the plastic plate, would it be possible to use it as a WB filter? Basically everything the same as in basic camera, only different position of LPF-2 filter and one more clear glass in it's place. This way the only expenses would be the clear glass and we could have a very versatile camera for daylight photography (the LPF-2 filter clipped in) and for astrophotography with h-alpha passing (LPF-2 filter removed). Anyway the astronomik or other WB filter are quite expensive (150-190$).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5573171 - 12/15/12 08:37 PM

Up to I know u can use a costom white balance in order to shoot at day time. Also u can use a filter infrin of the lense.
About your idea I was thinking the same thing... But in my case I'll use the camera just for astrophotography.. I'll get a Nikon Canon lense adapter to shoot some infrared or some night sky shoot.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5573285 - 12/15/12 09:43 PM

I will chime in here. Brent's assertion that the LPF#1 blocks IR is correct. But the question is, is it enough by itself? Gary's test with IR LED's (and it is indeed a proper practical test) does conclusively show that it lets through a considerable amount of IR light when used by itself, which is greatly reduced when used in concert with a Baader or Astrodon replacement for LPF#2. All astronomical instruments that are refractive in nature (virtually all but a true Newtonian telescope with ONLY mirror elements) will benefit from having IR blocked as completely as possible because of chromatic abberation inherent in all refractive optical systems. Any IR light getting through a lens will come to focus at a different point than visible light because of its longer wavelength...resulting in bloated star images. Star images can be bloated a lot, or just a little. If you are looking for the tightest possible star images, then complete and thorough IR rejection should be a priority. Replacing LPF#2 with nothing results in a camera unable to focus to infinity with normal lenses, inaccurate autofocus, and less IR rejection than the stock camera had. Replacing it with clear glass can fix the focus problem IF it is of the correct thickness (which is very critical) or the sensor platform position adjusted to compensate (which, again, is very critical), but the glass has to be coated with a good quality anti-reflection coating or halos around bright stars will result. Clear glass does nothing for the loss of IR rejection. Replacing LFP#2 with an astronomical UV/IR blocker such as the Baader or Astrodon takes care of both issues. Astrodon filters are widely used in high-end CCD cameras and highly respected for their exceptional anti-reflective coatings. The DSLR replacement filter has that same coating.

If one is content to do with less than optimal IR rejection and is willing to give up imaging with lenses due to the focus issues, then the simple removal of LPF#2 may be all that you need. Personally, I am a bit more critical than that and I think that my astrophotography shows it. LPF#2 is more than just a color balance filter...it has very significant IR rejection that is required in a stock camera to allow the autofocus system to not be fooled by IR light getting through and coming to focus at a different position from chromatic abberation. Canon didn't raise the cost of their cameras in a competitive market by putting in an expensive filter for nothing. By replacing LPF#2 with a true astronomical filter, IR rejection is maximized ensuring the tightest possible star images, the proper back focus is retained, and high quality anti-reflective coatings are in place...at a price not significantly above an inexpensive clear glass substitute when the entire modification cost is taken into consideration.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/15/12 10:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5573349 - 12/15/12 10:36 PM

Brent's test page shows on his tests of the 1000D how much IR blocking the combination of LPF#1 and LPF#2 provides in that the hot stove eye is completely invisible. However, with LPF#2 removed and only LPF#1 in place, the IR from the stove eye is coming through clearly. LPF#2 is obviously providing a huge amount of IR blocking.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/15/12 10:38 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5573526 - 12/16/12 01:40 AM Attachment (22 downloads)

Quote:

Brent's test page shows on his tests of the 1000D how much IR blocking the combination of LPF#1 and LPF#2 provides in that the hot stove eye is completely invisible. However, with LPF#2 removed and only LPF#1 in place, the IR from the stove eye is coming through clearly. LPF#2 is obviously providing a huge amount of IR blocking.




First, sorry for the confusion, that is NOT my test/images.etc..just a link I supplied..not my work..

Now. back OT..

No it doesnt..the images clearly show:
1) system with both LPF-1 and LPF-2(stock camera) clearly block 100% IR
2) both *LPF-1 only* -AND- *Baader only* setups block about the same amount of IR, ~90% IR, when compared to the UNfiltered image.

The ****POINT**** (my point) in (linking to) that test was to show that with JUST the Baader filter, there is still an IDENTICAL amount of IR data that passes vs an LPF-1 only system...
Look at the image of the Baader only system, and then the one with only LPF-1...looks like the same image. same amount of IR is being passed.
SO..why use the Baader if LPF-1 does the EXACT same amount of blocking? that's it..

Also, why does things like the attached image show up every once and a while showing that LPF-1 performs NEARLY/identical to a Baader+LPF-1 setup or an AstroDon+LPF-1 setup???


I just do not understand...



cheers..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5573741 - 12/16/12 08:41 AM

According to this graph Baader IR/UV filter does not change anything at all. Astrodon filter cuts a very slight amount of green and also a small amount of IR, actually in the same wavelenght as stock filter. I don't think it can be noticed in the picture (but who knows).
Now the issue is only with the clear glass, which is also very expensive and not too much cheaper than IR/UV filter.

Now my conclusion would be following: best option if you want to get top results for a budget price is to buy a canon 350d (it will be quite cheaper than 450d or you can buy even a faulty one without autofocus or with broken lcd screen)and modify it with Baader BCF IR/UV filter. It would be even worthy to make a cooling case as Gary Honis has done as in this camera there is no live view, so basically you can do everything via laptop. With 450d it would be a pitty to lose live view, as it is really useful.
Of course this is only my opinion. Maybe some people will prefer the larger megapixel amount in 450d.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike C
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/05/08

Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5574089 - 12/16/12 12:26 PM Attachment (42 downloads)

I've found this a very interesting thread, as I've just had a Canon 600D modified here in the UK. Although I cannot contribute to the technical discussion, I can relate my experience.

The camera has the LPF-2 filter removed, not replaced with anything. I did not expect any problems with infra-red, but my experience has been different - at least when there are bright stars in the field.

Below is a test frame of the Pleiades, with minimum processing. I did not continue taking subs due to the red disks around the stars, which I took to be out-of-focus infrared. I was using an apo. refractor.

I've since bought a 2-inch Baader UV/IR block filter, which I'm hoping will make a difference and improve my results when there are bright stars. Having read this thread, I am not so sure! The Baader packaging says it blocks infrared above 680 nm, which sounds more effective than the internal Baader the posted graph refers to. The next clear night, whenever that may be, will tell!

Regards,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Mike C]
      #5574128 - 12/16/12 12:55 PM

Mike,

your image causes even more confusion now, but it is a really great proof. But again, it gives only few more questions:

1) Is the filter system in canon 600D the same as in 450d, 1000d, etc.
2) If so, is there a possibility, that LPF-1 filter was removed as well? Maybe it is a full spectrum mod?

If the answers would be yes and no, then I suppose Hap Griffin was right and LPF-1 filter still passes some amount of unwanted infra-red. Well, according to the graph, the stock camera cuts IR light exactly at 700 nm and LPF-1 cuts IR light at approx 720 nm, so at least 0.05% of it comes thorugh. I don't know if it is possible, that it would cause red disks around the start. But in this case, only astrodon filter would work, Baaded filter cuts the light at same wavelenght as LPF-1 filter.
This is really interesting topic and more tests are needed for sure.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5574196 - 12/16/12 01:50 PM

Remember that in the stock system, or one with LPF#1 still in place and LPF#2 replaced with a Baader or Astrodon filter that the IR attenuation of both filters is in play...if as the graph shows, LPF#1 is down to about 1% transmission at 700 nm, then with LPF#2 replaced with a Baader or Astrodon which are down to 1% with the Baader and less than 1% with the Astrodon, that the equivalent IR rejection is the product of the two...0.01 x 0.01 = 0.0001. In other words, without replacing LPF#2 with another IR reject filter, you have around 100 times more IR getting through...which as shown in Mike's image above is sufficient to cause bloated stars from the chromatic abberation inherent in refractive systems...even in very high quality APO scopes that are not corrected for IR light. If one wants to take the inexpensive route and not replace LPF#2 with anything, or with clear glass, then that is their perogative...but as shown in Mike's image above, image quality will suffer. As for me, imaging time under a dark sky is valuable and I want the best chance of having a positive outcome from the time I get to spend imaging.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/16/12 01:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)


Extra information
17 registered and 28 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, fishonkevin, WOBentley, tecmage 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 7385

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics