Mixing
Red wavelengths for everyday photography
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've done a lot of research regarding filters as I'm about to do a modification on my DSLR for astrophotography. I've settled on removing the existing IR filter and replacing it with one the will still allow H-alpha (656 nm) and S-II (672 nm) plus the visible spectrum below that.
My question is..if the eye can see red to approximately 700nm (before it reaches near-IR), why do most stock IR filters cut off below 650 nm ?
infrared-conversion
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've done a lot of research regarding filters as I'm about to do a modification on my DSLR for astrophotography. I've settled on removing the existing IR filter and replacing it with one the will still allow H-alpha (656 nm) and S-II (672 nm) plus the visible spectrum below that.
My question is..if the eye can see red to approximately 700nm (before it reaches near-IR), why do most stock IR filters cut off below 650 nm ?
infrared-conversion
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've done a lot of research regarding filters as I'm about to do a modification on my DSLR for astrophotography. I've settled on removing the existing IR filter and replacing it with one the will still allow H-alpha (656 nm) and S-II (672 nm) plus the visible spectrum below that.
My question is..if the eye can see red to approximately 700nm (before it reaches near-IR), why do most stock IR filters cut off below 650 nm ?
infrared-conversion
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I've done a lot of research regarding filters as I'm about to do a modification on my DSLR for astrophotography. I've settled on removing the existing IR filter and replacing it with one the will still allow H-alpha (656 nm) and S-II (672 nm) plus the visible spectrum below that.
My question is..if the eye can see red to approximately 700nm (before it reaches near-IR), why do most stock IR filters cut off below 650 nm ?
infrared-conversion
infrared-conversion
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
asked 6 hours ago
77pro
62
62
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
77pro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
With few exceptions, data for infrared filters are not published for the region from 700 to 900nm. This is because most infrared filters are offshoots of the Wratten gelatin filters recipe. These were made by dissolving dye in gelatin and then floating the liquid gelatin on the surface of water. The gelatin was then allowed to gel and then lifted from underneath via a wire frame. The dried gelatin filter was then over-coated with lacquer. Often these gelatin filters were sandwiched between two sheets of optically flat glass.
Anyway, infrared radiation is strongly absorbed by matter. Most gelatin filters begin to absorb infrared beginning at about 2000nm and fully absorb at about 3000nm. Most glass infrared filters fare worse. The typical absorption curve is generally published for the region 750nm to 3000nm
To pass the frequencies you need, the filter would likely need to be made of quartz. I think none are available at affordable prices. Perhaps you can find such a filter under “specialized filters for scienceâ€Â. I don’t think you will find them in the general photographic community.
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Camera imaging sensors are much more sensitive to longer wavelengths than human vision. The normalized response of the "red" sensitive cone cells drops off rapidly above 640nm. A camera without ir filters will be much more sensitive to red light that contains material percentages of photons with longer wavelengths. Cameras often have such filters built-in just to prevent overly strong response to flames and red hot embers. Add-on IR filters are most useful for cameras that have weak or no IR filtering.
However, these filters are a problem when trying to capture longer wavelengths in astro-photography and replacing these with filters that pass specifically desired, longer wavelengths allows better capture of this light.
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
With few exceptions, data for infrared filters are not published for the region from 700 to 900nm. This is because most infrared filters are offshoots of the Wratten gelatin filters recipe. These were made by dissolving dye in gelatin and then floating the liquid gelatin on the surface of water. The gelatin was then allowed to gel and then lifted from underneath via a wire frame. The dried gelatin filter was then over-coated with lacquer. Often these gelatin filters were sandwiched between two sheets of optically flat glass.
Anyway, infrared radiation is strongly absorbed by matter. Most gelatin filters begin to absorb infrared beginning at about 2000nm and fully absorb at about 3000nm. Most glass infrared filters fare worse. The typical absorption curve is generally published for the region 750nm to 3000nm
To pass the frequencies you need, the filter would likely need to be made of quartz. I think none are available at affordable prices. Perhaps you can find such a filter under “specialized filters for scienceâ€Â. I don’t think you will find them in the general photographic community.
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
With few exceptions, data for infrared filters are not published for the region from 700 to 900nm. This is because most infrared filters are offshoots of the Wratten gelatin filters recipe. These were made by dissolving dye in gelatin and then floating the liquid gelatin on the surface of water. The gelatin was then allowed to gel and then lifted from underneath via a wire frame. The dried gelatin filter was then over-coated with lacquer. Often these gelatin filters were sandwiched between two sheets of optically flat glass.
Anyway, infrared radiation is strongly absorbed by matter. Most gelatin filters begin to absorb infrared beginning at about 2000nm and fully absorb at about 3000nm. Most glass infrared filters fare worse. The typical absorption curve is generally published for the region 750nm to 3000nm
To pass the frequencies you need, the filter would likely need to be made of quartz. I think none are available at affordable prices. Perhaps you can find such a filter under “specialized filters for scienceâ€Â. I don’t think you will find them in the general photographic community.
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
With few exceptions, data for infrared filters are not published for the region from 700 to 900nm. This is because most infrared filters are offshoots of the Wratten gelatin filters recipe. These were made by dissolving dye in gelatin and then floating the liquid gelatin on the surface of water. The gelatin was then allowed to gel and then lifted from underneath via a wire frame. The dried gelatin filter was then over-coated with lacquer. Often these gelatin filters were sandwiched between two sheets of optically flat glass.
Anyway, infrared radiation is strongly absorbed by matter. Most gelatin filters begin to absorb infrared beginning at about 2000nm and fully absorb at about 3000nm. Most glass infrared filters fare worse. The typical absorption curve is generally published for the region 750nm to 3000nm
To pass the frequencies you need, the filter would likely need to be made of quartz. I think none are available at affordable prices. Perhaps you can find such a filter under “specialized filters for scienceâ€Â. I don’t think you will find them in the general photographic community.
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
With few exceptions, data for infrared filters are not published for the region from 700 to 900nm. This is because most infrared filters are offshoots of the Wratten gelatin filters recipe. These were made by dissolving dye in gelatin and then floating the liquid gelatin on the surface of water. The gelatin was then allowed to gel and then lifted from underneath via a wire frame. The dried gelatin filter was then over-coated with lacquer. Often these gelatin filters were sandwiched between two sheets of optically flat glass.
Anyway, infrared radiation is strongly absorbed by matter. Most gelatin filters begin to absorb infrared beginning at about 2000nm and fully absorb at about 3000nm. Most glass infrared filters fare worse. The typical absorption curve is generally published for the region 750nm to 3000nm
To pass the frequencies you need, the filter would likely need to be made of quartz. I think none are available at affordable prices. Perhaps you can find such a filter under “specialized filters for scienceâ€Â. I don’t think you will find them in the general photographic community.
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
answered 4 hours ago
Alan Marcus
24k12758
24k12758
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Camera imaging sensors are much more sensitive to longer wavelengths than human vision. The normalized response of the "red" sensitive cone cells drops off rapidly above 640nm. A camera without ir filters will be much more sensitive to red light that contains material percentages of photons with longer wavelengths. Cameras often have such filters built-in just to prevent overly strong response to flames and red hot embers. Add-on IR filters are most useful for cameras that have weak or no IR filtering.
However, these filters are a problem when trying to capture longer wavelengths in astro-photography and replacing these with filters that pass specifically desired, longer wavelengths allows better capture of this light.
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Camera imaging sensors are much more sensitive to longer wavelengths than human vision. The normalized response of the "red" sensitive cone cells drops off rapidly above 640nm. A camera without ir filters will be much more sensitive to red light that contains material percentages of photons with longer wavelengths. Cameras often have such filters built-in just to prevent overly strong response to flames and red hot embers. Add-on IR filters are most useful for cameras that have weak or no IR filtering.
However, these filters are a problem when trying to capture longer wavelengths in astro-photography and replacing these with filters that pass specifically desired, longer wavelengths allows better capture of this light.
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Camera imaging sensors are much more sensitive to longer wavelengths than human vision. The normalized response of the "red" sensitive cone cells drops off rapidly above 640nm. A camera without ir filters will be much more sensitive to red light that contains material percentages of photons with longer wavelengths. Cameras often have such filters built-in just to prevent overly strong response to flames and red hot embers. Add-on IR filters are most useful for cameras that have weak or no IR filtering.
However, these filters are a problem when trying to capture longer wavelengths in astro-photography and replacing these with filters that pass specifically desired, longer wavelengths allows better capture of this light.
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
Camera imaging sensors are much more sensitive to longer wavelengths than human vision. The normalized response of the "red" sensitive cone cells drops off rapidly above 640nm. A camera without ir filters will be much more sensitive to red light that contains material percentages of photons with longer wavelengths. Cameras often have such filters built-in just to prevent overly strong response to flames and red hot embers. Add-on IR filters are most useful for cameras that have weak or no IR filtering.
However, these filters are a problem when trying to capture longer wavelengths in astro-photography and replacing these with filters that pass specifically desired, longer wavelengths allows better capture of this light.
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
answered 4 hours ago
doug
57727
57727
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
77pro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
77pro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
77pro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
77pro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102621%2fred-wavelengths-for-everyday-photography%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
