Infra Red Enabled Sony P200 & High Resolution Infra Red Filter

[tomcat]

Just received my new Sony DSC-P200 digicam which has its optics modified so that it can see from 330nm to 1200nm versus a normal camera that can see only from about 380nm to 750nm. When it is used with a suitable IR filter, it is supposed to proposed an IR image viewable and composable in the LCD screen and in exposure times similar to normal photography.

I am also testing out a new wideband IR filter, X-Nite XDP, which the manufacturer claimed to produce an IR image of higher resolution than the usual single band IR filters.

Test shots are posted here:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=138084

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...30#post1364130

This modified Sony P200 is supposed to be able to shoot in near UV if a UV Pass/Visible light block filter and a special IR bandpass filter are used. My initial UV test shot showed that it does seems to produce a UV image...



I had however forgotten that digital cameras are not as sensitive to UV as they are to IR and shot the UV image handheld and therefore obtained a very much underexposed image. Will have to use a tripod and much longer exposure times in future trials.

Addendum: I think it it is not so much that the CCDs are less sensitive to UV but that less UV actually reaches the CCD because the glass lenses and coatings tend to absorb or reflect away UV. So longer exposure times are usually needed for UV photography than in IR photography.

[tomcat]

Just discovered and tested another IR opportunity possible with this camera -- IR video !

Looks quite good in Sepia or B&W.

[deadpixel]

Originally Posted by tomcat This modified Sony P200 is supposed to be able to shoot in near UV if a UV Pass/Visible light block filter and a special IR bandpass filter are used. My initial UV test shot showed that it does seems to produce a UV image... I had however forgotten that digital cameras are not as sensitive to UV as they are to IR and shot the UV image handheld and therefore obtained a very much underexposed image. Will have to use a tripod and much longer exposure times in future trials. Addendum: I think it it is not so much that the CCDs are less sensitive to UV but that less UV actually reaches the CCD because the glass lenses and coatings tend to absorb or reflect away UV. So longer exposure times are usually needed for UV photography than in IR photography.

This is very good news. I've been toying with the idea of getting the 105mm UV Nikkor for UV photography but its price is far too high for me to justify for my hobby.

This looks like a very viable alternative.

And yes, you're right about the coatings on the lenses cutting down UV. Some UV enthusiast will grind away at a lens to remove the coatings just to get the best effect.

Thanks for sharing this info

Cheers
Matt

[Pablo]

Hi tomcat,

Interesting shots. Thay look sharp.

The X-Nite XDP filter certainly seems worth looking into !!

How much did it cost you there ?

Cheers.

[tomcat]

Originally Posted by Pablo Hi tomcat, Interesting shots. Thay look sharp. The X-Nite XDP filter certainly seems worth looking into !! How much did it cost you there ? Cheers.

The cost of the filter depends on the filter size.
You can check out the prices of this and other IR filters here:
http://www.maxmax.com/aXRayIRFilterOrderMain.htm

But I have tried X-Nite XDP out on my Olympus E300 and sadly, it doesn't work well. Seems to work well only on modified cameras. So you may not want to consider this for your 20D or D70.