IR/UV/full monochrome modifications...

Discussion in 'Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography' started by Joseph S. Wisniewski, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. Joseph S. Wisniewski

    Joseph S. Wisniewski

    100
    Aug 11, 2005
    What do you think of this cornball idea?

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?p=620828#post620828

    I'm going to take a D100, remove the Bayer filters (and yes, I know what that entails) and while I'm at it, give it a quartz window on its sensor. The end result should be a camera with native ISO 400 sensitivity in IR or UV. And with a little software "cooking" simply insane resolution.

    I'll let you all know how it works out.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  2. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Sounds interesting Joe - the only thing I'd worry about is the destruction of the microlenses. Since these direct the light into the light sensing part of each 'pixel', then there might be some problem once they are gone. But there is probably no way to remove the Bayer filter without also removing the lenses, eh? (not to mention that the material of the lens probably is a big absorber outside the visible spectrum.)
     
  3. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    I'm entirely in favour of such "crazy" projects, Joe. Count me in if the end result is useful. You have a true Nordic attitude her!

    I probably would start with a D70 instead, because you risk less with it. The entire CCD and its substructure come in a handy replacement unit which costs only $200 or so. Can be removed easily and "washed clean" of all that microlens/bayer stuff. I'm not certain anything is gained by adding a quartz plate in front of the imager, unless this is to correct for focus shifts or reduce potential damage on the sensor by future cleaning?

    I currently have two D70 bodies one of which already has had the filter pack ripped out, so all that remains is getting the chip properly cleansed according to Joe.

    Keep us posted about your achievements and progress of this project.
     
  4. Joseph S. Wisniewski

    Joseph S. Wisniewski

    100
    Aug 11, 2005
    The loss of the microlenses is going to result in a stop or two of sensitivity loss (but make the sensor much friendlier to shift lenses) but the loss of the Bayer filters will result in a stop or two of sensitivity gain. I'm hoping it's a wash.

    I don't see any way to keep the microlenses, they're screened over the Bayer filters. Got to disolve this in layers. I wish I could keep them, they don't absorb much UV or IR...
     
  5. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Since the Bayer filters are dyes, couldn't they be bleached away with an intense UV source?
     
  6. Joseph S. Wisniewski

    Joseph S. Wisniewski

    100
    Aug 11, 2005
    I think it's the Polish/Armenian mix :rolleyes:
    Well, I've got the spare D100...

    I'm not that worried about the risk to the camera. Nikon USA isn't as friendly about selling you a CCD assembly. Even if they did, I don't have the "repair" software to initiate hot pixel and dead pixel mapping for it (although I think I have ths software to do this for a D100 around here somewhere).
    I was thinking it would help the camera reach a little farther into the UV...
    I will. Take it easy.
     
  7. Joseph S. Wisniewski

    Joseph S. Wisniewski

    100
    Aug 11, 2005
    I tried that with a UV source built for "spot welding" UV cureable adhesives. Took an insane amount of exposure just to get a barely measurable color shift.
     
  8. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    OK, so we need to pull out the bigger guns for this. Boiling fluids, is it?
     
  9. PJohnP

    PJohnP

    Feb 5, 2005
    Bjørn :

    Nope. While some natural or even aniline dyes do have UV characteristic fading, these artificial dyes used for the filter almost certainly will not in this application. Typically, this sort of dying would use extremely light resistant robust chemical dyes, resistant to most cleaning solvents (as would make sense). As well, the bleaching with the other dyes is often not to a clear status, which could introduce other undesirable "colour shifts" (i.e., imperfect light transmission for the intended B&W image).

    If someone can get me more detailed information about the constituents of the filter, I can offer some reasonably expert opinion on approaches (a couple of the various degrees that I've picked up over the years include applied chemistry and chemical engineering).

    As I mentioned elsewhere to Joe, I'm loathe to suggest "boiling solvents" unless absolutely necessary. I researched this briefly a bit back with another person knowledgeable on this, and they suggested several sequential washes with toluene (tolouol), methanol, and possibly chloroform, respectively (relatively) non-polar, very polar, and chlorinated solvents. Might work, but I'd really like to know more about the filter materials before suggesting/echoing that approach.

    As well, the solvents need to be reagent quality, not technical, as some of the possible contaminants in these solvents could pose other issues.

    I'll be very interested in Joe's progress on this...


    John P.
     
  10. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Just asking out of curiosity, as I see that my UV-dedicated cameras do change their characteristics over time. My impression is that they are slowly becoming less UV sensitive. Don't know if this has any rationale behind it or is just a figment of my imagination. Hard to say since my shooting methods (hopefully) change to the better year by year.

    I have no scruples regarding taking a camera apart just for getting it to respond to my wishes as far as photography is concerned. To wit, my expectations for D200 with respect to its capabilites for UV or IR are not high, but since this is a CCD camera. I can see myself purchasing one in the near future just to rip out the filter pack inside. Did that with the last of my D70 bodies, the camera was lifted straight out of its factory box and brought to the slaughter-house.
     
  11. PJohnP

    PJohnP

    Feb 5, 2005
    Bjørn :

    Material response to UV is a complex issue. Living at 2,160m altitude, it's an everyday thing for me with my house, my car, my balding head... :cool: Suffice to say, some coatings will likely chemically change with light exposure (or some part of the spectrum), oxidation, self-catalytic chemical changes, etc. and become more opaque to a part of the spectrum, while "opening up" with others. Outgassing from plastic components (phthalates and such like stuff used for plasticisers) can also collect inside the lens body on the glass, having other effects. The glass itself ages in a slow but non-simple manner. It's especially not simple, as there's little literature on the subject of camera lens glass aging, so I can't just crib someone's research to consider all of this. Take all of this, and then start to consider organic chemical mechanisms, which are many times driven by UV energy to overcome the chemical energy of initiation curve, and it's a doctoral thesis (or theses) for a bright person !:Smart: :Dizzy: :Angry:

    Summarising about materials and UV, it's a very complicated issue from a chemical perspective, and there are no easy answers; unfortunately, as I could probably make a lot of money addressing the problem ! :rolleyes:

    I'm with you here, Bjørn. I didn't pick up a couple of engineering degrees and work for years in the field just to let everybody else have all the fun with technology ! I think the D100 is more my speed for this application, probably because I've been shooting for three years with one, and have a fair comfort level with the camera. Not to mention that I expect to see a lot of these hitting the second-hand sale table everywhere in the coming months. :wink:



    John P.
     
  12. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Pondering the issue I realise that my many varieties of UV filters also are potential source(s) for a change. In some far away nook or cranny of my memory there is a whisper about UV and filter ageing, read, assimilated, and stored for future reference. Now if I could just remember where that darn stuff orginated :mad: Oh well, I'll purchase new filters any day. There is still room left over in my metal case dedicated to UV stuff.
     
  13. PJohnP

    PJohnP

    Feb 5, 2005
    Bjørn :

    If you ever find that, let me know. It's exactly the kind of thing that I pigeonhole in a file for future reference, as I work with so many oddball companies and industries.

    Now, let's hope that Joe gets moving on his adaptations sooner rather than later. :tongue:


    John P.
     
  14. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  15. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  16. Wow Joe, you have more guts and moxie than I do. Good luck with your project, can't wait to see the results.
     
  17. fotoman91

    fotoman91 Guest

    Wow...gonna have to subscribe to this thread. This looks like it could be very interesting.
     
  18. bump.....

    well did you pull it apart?

    I plan on doing
    www.lifepixel.com
    $250 for a IR camera
     
  19. Joseph S. Wisniewski

    Joseph S. Wisniewski

    100
    Aug 11, 2005
    It's on hold until I'm convinced Nikon has a fix for D200 banding so I can send my D200 in. Will start up again when the D200 is definitely fixed.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Full Moon over Weinheim Castle - multispectral VIS-UV-IR Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography Apr 2, 2014
UV and IR two shot composite Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography Feb 15, 2013
UV vs 610nm IR using Kyoei 80mm lens Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography Sep 17, 2012
[UV] New 2" UV filter available 300...400nm w. enhanced IR suppression Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography Feb 26, 2007