Thank you for the video, yesterday was the first time I herd about full spectrum camera and I already know a bit of the concept thanks to this video and the time you guys invested into making it! Much appreciated
Because UV photography techniques are trillion $ business secrets for commercial chip manufacturing, this knowledge doesn't allow general public to learn. Just kidding too, i would like to know too
It just doesn't give very interesting pictures. It can be nice for some subjects but overall it's just not aesthetically pleasing. Besides that you need very specific lenses that don't block the UV wavelentghs. They're usually either very old (no coatings), or very expensive. Do an image search for UV photography and see for yourself.
If modified to full spectrum, but you want a 720nm filter on it, will you still be able to shoot without a tripod? I’ve got the Hoya R72 filter which acts like an ND filter as well for normal cameras. I’m hoping a camera converted to full spectrum IR could be used handheld with a 720nm filter. Is that right?
Yes. I have a full spectrum mod so that I can use a range of IR filters such as 680, 720 & 850nm. The last loses about a stop when compared to a visible light camera. The other two, no difference.
I wish full spectrum was the standard/default, and all lenses just came with a UV/IR filter to make it look "normal". Instead, if I want one...I have to pay to get an already expensive device modded and warranty-voided.
Nice video, it's always fun to see infrared photography being represented. A couple of thoughts.. I'm pretty sure that the filter on the camera that gets removed for a full spectrum conversion is a "hot mirror" and not a "UV/IR Cut (or blocker)". They are different. The former absorbs light rather than reflecting it, usually making for a better white balance. Secondly, are you sure that the hot mirror blocks visible red light? I always assumed that it was only ever blocking the invisible parts of the spectrum and thus "infrared", rather than red.
UV/IR cut and hot mirror are the same thing, It's a dichroic filter that works using reflection, as you mention. Most are made to gradually start cutting down beyond 600-ish nm(varies by camera brand), reaching near 0% past 700nm. Kolari Vision has a good chart on their site that aggregates a bunch of common cameras hot-mirror transmission curves.
Two terms; same object. The internal filter can be either dichroic or purely absorptive. The former has an angular dependency, while the latter does not.
UV photography is really useful for certain objects in nature which are invisible in the visible range, but respond in the UV. This is how bees and hummingbirds pick out certain flowers. So you get a "bee's eye" view of the world in UV. Also, talk to dermatologists about UV photography. UV reveals skin damage not normally visible. It's a little disconcerting, actually. So... Loren hasn't read David Prutschi's book on UV photography, nor tried to take photographs of various light spectra and suddenly seen previously invisible lines. It's almost magical.
That's like a factory conversion. If it's anything like Fuji they are only allowed to sell them to law enforcement or something which sucks. The excuses that it allows you to see through clothing are mostly untrue.
I want one for astrophotography, but it'd also be funny to do a UV filter, go down to the beach, and take pictures to make it look like all the people with sunscreen on are in black face
"Replaced with clear glass", technically speaking you can't change to just glass, you need quarz glass. UV photography most people do not how to do or do it wrong, that why 99% of UV photos are not nice. If you give to a monkey a modern DSLR in most cases result would be not a nice photos but will be used for crack nuts, the same analogy. On top of that, the main blocker in UV photography is that modern lenses are coated or uses glass that significantly block UV, so you need a proper lens, for infrared most lenses will be good.
They usually replace the filter with something like Schott 280, which is virtually transparent down to 280 nm. "Clear" really takes on a different meaning when talking about UV!
It doesn't suck, he just knows nothing about it probably. I've been doing NIR and UV for over a year. I learned a bit from your channel too. My best UV lens still is the EL Nikkor 80 metal version.
@@UV-NIR-Thermal UV is highly technical and many people simply fail to understand it, also very few lenses are usable for it. Anyway, I'm happy to hear about a fellow UV photographer, I'm yet to make a video about UV and why it doesn't suck ☺️
It's more difficult that IR for sure. Filters are expensive, lenses are even more picky than IR and you get much less light for decent exposures (related to lenses however), but to say it sucks is too flippant for an "informative" video fostering creativity. Bad form!
@@edwardnoble9897 I watched the whole video expecting some good info on UV photography, which is scarce, just to get to the very "insightful" conclusion. I know technically is more complex but personally I find the results more rewarding as the results tend to be rather unique (I have never manage to get twice the same result, nor that I want to). Cheers.
You said it. The camera modification is not cheap, and UV-capable lenses are difficult to find, at least for most focal lengths. Oh yeah... the filters aren't cheap, either! So in that sense, it sucks, but people have been doing it with film for ages, so UV on film can actually be pretty cheap--less than $100 if you're clever and patient. Google "Wood's filter" for some ideas.
Thank you for the video, yesterday was the first time I herd about full spectrum camera and I already know a bit of the concept thanks to this video and the time you guys invested into making it! Much appreciated
Happy to see Ed Sheeran appear on your channel!
Bruh
underratted channel! Good stuff my friend.
What's wrong with UV photography?
Because UV photography techniques are trillion $ business secrets for commercial chip manufacturing, this knowledge doesn't allow general public to learn.
Just kidding too, i would like to know too
Short answer: It makes people look terrible. Google it, heh. Good skin turns to acne-riddled looking.
Because manufacturers sell "UV cameras " for agricultural/drone use, food, solar panel inspection, for ridiculous markups.
It just doesn't give very interesting pictures. It can be nice for some subjects but overall it's just not aesthetically pleasing. Besides that you need very specific lenses that don't block the UV wavelentghs. They're usually either very old (no coatings), or very expensive. Do an image search for UV photography and see for yourself.
There's not much UV light around, not photography worthy, too blurry etc. Chek veritasium's video on uv camera and you'll see some footage.
This is so well explained thank you.
Great explanation. Thanks from Manchester.
Okay, Loren, show us on the doll where UV hurt you.
If modified to full spectrum, but you want a 720nm filter on it, will you still be able to shoot without a tripod? I’ve got the Hoya R72 filter which acts like an ND filter as well for normal cameras. I’m hoping a camera converted to full spectrum IR could be used handheld with a 720nm filter. Is that right?
Yes, depending on the amount of sunlight outside, usually no problem to shoot handheld with just an IR / uv pass filter. Excellent on hazy days.
Yes. I have a full spectrum mod so that I can use a range of IR filters such as 680, 720 & 850nm. The last loses about a stop when compared to a visible light camera. The other two, no difference.
I wish full spectrum was the standard/default, and all lenses just came with a UV/IR filter to make it look "normal".
Instead, if I want one...I have to pay to get an already expensive device modded and warranty-voided.
What thickness filter replacement window Sony A7 II requires to correct focus shift, ability to focus to infinity?
Nice video, it's always fun to see infrared photography being represented. A couple of thoughts.. I'm pretty sure that the filter on the camera that gets removed for a full spectrum conversion is a "hot mirror" and not a "UV/IR Cut (or blocker)". They are different. The former absorbs light rather than reflecting it, usually making for a better white balance. Secondly, are you sure that the hot mirror blocks visible red light? I always assumed that it was only ever blocking the invisible parts of the spectrum and thus "infrared", rather than red.
UV/IR cut and hot mirror are the same thing, It's a dichroic filter that works using reflection, as you mention. Most are made to gradually start cutting down beyond 600-ish nm(varies by camera brand), reaching near 0% past 700nm. Kolari Vision has a good chart on their site that aggregates a bunch of common cameras hot-mirror transmission curves.
Two terms; same object. The internal filter can be either dichroic or purely absorptive. The former has an angular dependency, while the latter does not.
Why does UV photography sucks? I'm interested in using it to record river streams, do you think it could it be useful?
you didnt lie on the friend being a nerd for sure
huh? the quality of your videos is soooO good! 💖 Im confused by how you dont have some thousands of followers and 100k views
Who knew ?!? Reg has smart friends who do stuff too !?!
UV photography is really useful for certain objects in nature which are invisible in the visible range, but respond in the UV. This is how bees and hummingbirds pick out certain flowers. So you get a "bee's eye" view of the world in UV. Also, talk to dermatologists about UV photography. UV reveals skin damage not normally visible. It's a little disconcerting, actually. So... Loren hasn't read David Prutschi's book on UV photography, nor tried to take photographs of various light spectra and suddenly seen previously invisible lines. It's almost magical.
Maybe someday, A7s line with 400k+ ISO, full spectrum converted, f0.95 lens.
Light in atmosphere should be like 40% visible, 50% IR, 10% UV, not to mention its hard to cut off that 90% of visible+IR, of course it sucks...
Reg do shorts
Canon R system has a camera dedicated for that .. the eos R A
That's like a factory conversion. If it's anything like Fuji they are only allowed to sell them to law enforcement or something which sucks. The excuses that it allows you to see through clothing are mostly untrue.
I want one for astrophotography, but it'd also be funny to do a UV filter, go down to the beach, and take pictures to make it look like all the people with sunscreen on are in black face
"Replaced with clear glass", technically speaking you can't change to just glass, you need quarz glass. UV photography most people do not how to do or do it wrong, that why 99% of UV photos are not nice. If you give to a monkey a modern DSLR in most cases result would be not a nice photos but will be used for crack nuts, the same analogy. On top of that, the main blocker in UV photography is that modern lenses are coated or uses glass that significantly block UV, so you need a proper lens, for infrared most lenses will be good.
They usually replace the filter with something like Schott 280, which is virtually transparent down to 280 nm. "Clear" really takes on a different meaning when talking about UV!
Nicely done. I want to hunt UFO's :)
Don't go crazy chasing lens flares; you'll get even more with IR
Full spectrum video would be interesting, in 4k, with a 3D lens, at 480 fps
Absolutely enjoyed every second of the video! Yes, UV SUCKS!!! :D :D
Why UV photography sucks?
It doesn't suck, he just knows nothing about it probably. I've been doing NIR and UV for over a year. I learned a bit from your channel too. My best UV lens still is the EL Nikkor 80 metal version.
@@UV-NIR-Thermal UV is highly technical and many people simply fail to understand it, also very few lenses are usable for it. Anyway, I'm happy to hear about a fellow UV photographer, I'm yet to make a video about UV and why it doesn't suck ☺️
It's more difficult that IR for sure. Filters are expensive, lenses are even more picky than IR and you get much less light for decent exposures (related to lenses however), but to say it sucks is too flippant for an "informative" video fostering creativity. Bad form!
@@edwardnoble9897 I watched the whole video expecting some good info on UV photography, which is scarce, just to get to the very "insightful" conclusion. I know technically is more complex but personally I find the results more rewarding as the results tend to be rather unique (I have never manage to get twice the same result, nor that I want to). Cheers.
UV photography sucks… up a lot of money
You said it. The camera modification is not cheap, and UV-capable lenses are difficult to find, at least for most focal lengths. Oh yeah... the filters aren't cheap, either! So in that sense, it sucks, but people have been doing it with film for ages, so UV on film can actually be pretty cheap--less than $100 if you're clever and patient. Google "Wood's filter" for some ideas.