40D mod. Its done!. It works!

[Bassnut]

A quick report. Ive just modded the 40D, and it still works :eyepop:.

A couple of big supprises.

It easier to mod than the 300D:D, less fiddly. It took 1.5hrs all up, no drama at all. The instructions wernt quiet a comprehensive as for the 300D, but the ommisions were fairly obvious.

The second supprise was, it still auto focuses, even without a replacement glass :D:D:D. It appears focus still works on the shaker glass, which was 1st in the sandwich.

If any one has modded a 300/350D, dont heasitate to give the 40D a try, its easier.

1st light comming soon :whistle:.

[Matty P]

Congrats Fred! Seems like everyone has a modded 40D these days.

I had a look at the instructions on how the mod a DSLR camera. The steps seemed pretty involved so for a newbie who is about to get a DSLR. I think I will stay away from modding it for awhile.

Looking forward for your first light with the mod.

:thumbsup:

[acropolite]

Fred, is it still possible to use the camera for terrestrial without any additional filter or do you need a lens mounted filter for WB correction.

[seeker372011]

well, congratulations--and looking forward to some results

[Bassnut]

Phil, Yes you need a front mounted UV/IR filter.

You can see on the attached graphs for the 350D, the filter glass cuts off Ha (6500) and SII (6720) severly, but the filter removal, despite improved Ha, SII response, has nasty response bumps after 7000. The front filter (I dont have a graph) smooths these out to give natural response with an extended red curve. I dont know if the standard in cam white balance is still valid, but it would be close.

[iceman]

Congrats Fred, I can't wait to see the results.

Are you going to be running cooling on this one too?

[Bassnut]

LOL Mike, not this time me thinks, the 40D is much easier to use as it is, with just one USB cable hanging out of it. And BTW, the live preview for focus, preview image with tweakable histogram on exposure complete and USB bulb is a killer, this cam is a snack for astro, a huge step up from the previous models, very impressive. Attempting a 1st light as we speak, Murphy has gone holiday this week, the sky is dark :D.

[EzyStyles]

nice one Fred, did you take any pics of you doing the mod? i might actually be interested in another 40D mod tutorial. I'm quite surprised that you can still use the autofocus without any filters at all?


Also, do you think if you can post a AWB and a CWB shot of trees/sky? just want to see some comparison with mine as im having a few issues with balancing my colours.

refer to post:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=30221

[Bassnut]

Phil, Eric. Im just imaging now, Im dead wrong on cam-set white balance, its as red as hell of course, on reflection it makes sense with the extended red response. This is all mute, as you just rebalance in PS. I hope you are imaging with RAW now Eric, or Ill rip your arms off :D, its not hard, you just convert with the Canon app to TIFF before IP/PS. Standard white balance is applied to JPEGS so that will be crap, but not to RAW. White balance is irallevent anyway now, its a no brainer in PS.

Its been a long time since I used a DSLR, so its relearning on the fly :thumbsup:.

[Bassnut]

OK Eric, Ill do some terestial shots tomorrow for you. BTW, I noticed a slight colour tinge on the dust-shake glass, I hope there is not any filtering done on it :mad2:

[EzyStyles]

LOL will sure do in raw Fred. "I'll tryyyy :D " ok will be for the daylight pics.

?? colour tinge on my camera or yours? my 40d's got the BCF filter done.

[Bassnut]

I suspect the dust-shake glass is sitting on top of the distorted neoprene seal/adheasive left after the filter removal (thats the one negative thing that happened, the filter broke, but I dont care), hard up against the glass stack retaining clip by pure luck. I understand focus has something to do with the top glass layer (which seems to explain why it still works, despite the filter removal, I guess if I had done it properly, the shake glass would have been sitting lower), although I dont know why, I thought auto focus relied on optical artifact edge transition difference, cant see the importance of the glass its self.

No, I didnt take pics of the mod Eric, why would you need it, yours is done ;-).

[EzyStyles]

I want to "experiment" :)

[Bassnut]

Eric. Ive read the thread you posted, and it seems youve gone into it much more than I have. I dont need to as I will only use it for Astro pics.

From what Ive seen elsewhere, the UV/IR blocking filter fitted as a mod allows extended red (into IR) response and just cuts off the nasty curve spikes after that, which all affects AWB for daytime use. Thats why another front daylight filter is required to bring balance back to normal for terestial use. It seems you have discovered that already. The thread also discusses other issues Im not aware of, it seems really you are the IIS DSLR expert Eric :thumbsup:.

[Bassnut]

Eric. This is with no filters at all and AWB. What do you mean CWB?

[EzyStyles]

Hi Fred, thanks for the image. Try leaving the dial in AV mode and use AWB . Thats very odd your camera. Since the original filter has been fully taken out, the IR and UV spectrum will become unblocked. If the IR spectrum becomes unblocked, your camera should be more redder than that and the green colours on the leaves will also become red due to the IR light unless you are taking the pic with a UV/IR blocking filter infront of the lense?

[Astrod00d]

Hi Fred, Hi Eric,

According to a report by Christian Buil, the front glass on the 40d has basic UV/IR filter properties. Check the before/after response curves in fig.6 on his website http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/eos40d2/filter.htm
It seems you can almost get away without a UV/IR filter although adding one would give you tighter stars.
Yes... I'm looking at doing the same as Fred, simply remove the filter glass, keep the front glass and transform the 40d into a dedicated astro camera. Keep my 400d for daylight.

Cheers,

Rob

[Bassnut]

Damb, damb, damb :mad2: I just looked at the Christian Buil site again, I didnt study it properly last time I saw it, and just went by the instructions. There are 3 filter layers altogether, I only removed one :rolleyes:.

Well, ill pull it apart again and have another go, and read christians site again, thanks Eric and Rob for your inputs.

[Bassnut]

Eric, Ive done some checking. Attached is a modded 350D pic with no filters at all (for sure), a modded 350D pic with a Astronomik Profi L type 2c screw-on-the-lens filter (UV/IR block) and a modded 40D pic with filter 2 removed but the shaker glass filter 1 still in place (as per Christians page). The 350D with lens filter and 40D pics look very similar, which as Rob says means the shaker glass filter is acting as the UV/IR cutoff filter as per Christians response graph. ie, I dont really need the Astronomic lens filter for my 40D, as christian also points out (I translated the page).

The 350D no filter pic matches the very reddish pic you posted in another thread, which tells me your 40D has had both filters 1 and 2 removed (which means your shaker glass is out or has also been replaced with clear glass) and you would need UV/IR blocker for Astro and a daylight filter for terestial.

From what I understand, no filter at all in your cam is no good for astro due to nasty response spikes in IR swamping images with IR. Although this means you can do IR photography :). Perhaps by mistake clear glass was inserted, have you done any astro picks with it?

Christians page seems to have an error, on fig 1 I think the "phaser layer" should be "filter 2", fig 4 and 5 would then make sense, and because "phaser layer" is not mentioned anywhere else on the page or on the graphs. The "low pass" filter would be for UV I guess and not need removal.

I maybe wrong about all of this, but I am sure I removed filter 2 which means it should be OK the way it is. I also hope the Astronomik Profi L type 2c filter I got is the right one. And I do think that you have clear glass (no filters).

What do you think of all this Eric?

[Astrod00d]

Hi Fred, yes I think you've done the right thing. As far as I can tell you've removed the visual light filter, the one in the middle. )You won't need to disassemble your camera again!) The filter on the front, attached to the dust shaker, seems to be a gentle UV/IR filter, according to Christian's report a more aggressive external UV/IR filter may still be required to get pinpoint stars. I can't wait to see your results under a dark sky!

Cheers,

Rob

[EzyStyles]

Hi Fred, i think you are partially correct.. only partially :P

If you look at Christians page, and Bobby's tutorial, he removed the Phaser Layer Infrared-absortion glass and replaced it with the Baader BCF Filter. The Phaser Layer Infrared-absortion glass suppose to block the IR range. By replacing this piece of glass with the BCF filter, it blocks out the UV range and a slight amount of IR range. (see attached BCF Filter graph). As you can see in the graph, the IR range with the BCF filter spikes at 1100nm to 80% then drops at 1160nm to 43%. This is the spike which needs to get filtered out. That is how the Baader BCF filter is designed that it doesn't block this IR range hence my image (see attach pic 2) i think it is in the middle of your 350D image and the 40D image. I can tell that your 350D image hasn't got any filters inplace that is why it is soo red compared to mine (not as red) but still red.

The Original Phaser Layer Infrared-absortion glass also blocks the much needed H-Alpha signal.

The lowpass filter is the filter which does the Anti-dust shake so that is why Bobby left it as this filter should not block out the required H-Alpha range. At this stage, my camera hasn't seen first light on astro objects so far.

to fix this for daylight use, I have gone with the Hutech Daylight front filter. For astro use, I still have the Hutech LPS2 filter which also blocks the UV/IR range. :thumbsup: That is why in my other post, holding the LPS2 filter infront of the lense, the image looks more normal than without because the LPS2 filter does indeed blocks the UV/IR range.

Let me know what you think Fred.

[EzyStyles]

try this fred, put the UV/IR filter infront of the lense, leave the camera in AWB mode and take a shot of a white piece of paper. Use this image and set it as CWB then set the camera to dial manual mode. Now take a picture. The picture should now come out normal.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred and Eric
You must be in spot metering and cover the spot circle with white.
You must also follow the instructions on page 68 of the manual otherwise the image will not register as a CWB:thumbsup:

[EzyStyles]

i think you removed the low pass filter and left the phaser layer IR absortion glass instead that is why your leaves, are still green.

[EzyStyles]

The phaser layer IR absortion glass blocks out the H-Alpha range. This has to be removed for great HA sensitivity. Thanks Steve yes, the CWB picks up the central spot metering and not the entire image. Best is to ensure the white paper is under sunlight and that it covers the entire image.


Heres my white balance image under sunlight. Others will be different as my IR range is not completely blocked..only slightly as mentioned in my previous posts.

[Bassnut]

OK Eric, Ill try that tomorrow, but, if you make a CWB with any filter combination and then image using it, it should always look normal. Isnt that the point of the CWB, to compensate for different colour balances, how will that prove which filters are in line ?.

Your pic still doesnt make sense to me, you say the Baader BCF filter has a spike at 1100 (as per the graph) and that is why the pic is redder than my 350D pic with a blocker, but you also said the shaker low pass filter 1 is still there, which has a steep roll off at 700. The spike at 1100 then would be completely eliminated by the low pass filter 1.

I think I have taken out the phaser layer because the red histogram changed enormously after its removal. Also, the leaves are still somewhat green on the 350D pic with just the UV/IR blocker, that to me is fairly conclusive, its a known quantity and very similar to the 40D pic. The shaker layer on its own (no phaser layer) is the only combination that matches the UV/IR blocker filter response so closely.

Youve got me thinking about this now Eric, the different results we get is very interesting, a real puzzle, something is still not right :).

[Bassnut]

Whats really, really anoying is this that this diagram describes the Phasor layer and low pass filter 2 the opposite from the description on the page it is in, we keep switching these terms around, very confusing. I think to "2" should apply to the phaser layer.

[EzyStyles]

It depends on what filters are being used on the modded DSLR. If the filter doesn't consist of an IR block and just UV, it will not CWB anything. your images will turn out red only a full IR blocking filter can fix this back to normal (or close to normal) whereas with my BCF filter, it doesn't fully block the IR range. only certain nm's.

[EzyStyles]

yes thats correct. the low pass filter 1 rolls off at 700 then after that, we are guessing it stops there? the graph doesn't show anything after that. I might shoot back up at 1000nm? more research is required on the first filter (low pass) as that graph doesnt show IR range.

[EzyStyles]

Ok, lets ignore the UV/IR filter. take a AWB shot with the 40D and a AWB shot with the 350d and see if the leaves are the same colour. I'm betting the 40D leaves will turn out green whereas the 350d leaves will turn on pink :)

yesss this is VERY VERY interesting, keep at it :thumbsup:

Phaser 2 = filter 2 and filter 1 = low pass filter. check figure 7 from christians site. filter 2 (phaser) blocks out the HA thats definitely the filter you want to remove.

[Bassnut]

Here they are, and both with no external filters. As you predict, the 350D pic is pink. But thats exactly what I expect you see, it makes sense to me, the shaker filter on the 40D cuts off at 700nm, so the leaves are still somewhat green (the IR extended response to 700 would not make that huge a difference to green leaves, but a spike at 1100 sure would). The mod must be right, because the 40D pic here is very close to the 350D with the external UV/IR blocker. ie the UV/IR blocker has the same curve as the shaker filter, hence the same pic, it couldnt be any other way.

And....... your 40D MUST produce the same result, because the shaker filter in your cam cuts off at 700nm, the response of your internal filter past 700nm is irrelevent, the shaker filter has already blocked the IR past 700nm.

Again, I just cant see how your shaker filter is still present due to the above. Not that it matters mind you, the external filter will make the shaker filter irelavent anyway, and you can do IR photography.

I maybe wrong BTW, that wouldnt be unusual , fun trying anyway ;)

[EzyStyles]

Heres a graph i did roughly (i can't draw :P )

The graph represents Christians graph with the BCF filter.

Grey is filter 1, maron is filter 2.

Filter 2 is designed to eliminate all the IR's. Lets predict that the maron line goes down at 750 then goes flat all the way pass 1200nm but looking from 300 - 400nm range, it doesn't block any UV's just mainly IRs.

Filter 1 blocks the UV range (300 - 400nm) then goes up to cater for visual light including H-Alpha, then it goes back down again at 700nm. why would canon put 2 filters which does the same thing? To me, filter 1 doesn't block IR just the UV whereas filter 2 doesn't block UV but blocks the IR.

Filter 2 also blocks the H-Alpha range therefore changing filter 2 is more ideal than changing filter 1.

Therefore with my cam, taking filter 2 out will unleash the IR power but adding the BCF filter will slightly cuts some IR signal.

[Bassnut]

OH, OK, you have a point there, the shaker glass graph doesnt show response past 700nm, so maybe it has a spike, BUT it doesnt matter I think, I get similar pics from the 350D and 40D with the external filter (flat after 700nm), which makes any response after 700nm on the shaker filter irelavent.

[Bassnut]

Drawing?

[Bassnut]

Anyway, based on your analysis, I must have removed filter 2, because I got a large red boost on its removal (and the histogram was really obvious), this would not have happened if filter 1 was removed (assuming as you say, it doesnt block IR). Christians picture and position/description of filter 2 is the same as the filter I took out, I really now dont doubt thats the one I took out. But still leaves us with two 40Ds with different IR responses :shrug:

[EzyStyles]

I don't believe the shaker filter (filter 1, low pass) has the same curve as a UV/IR block filter maybe just UV, my guess is it spikes back up at 1100nm or even maybe before that. christians graph stops at 700nm. I don't think both filters (1 and 2) cuts all the IR range only one of them and that is filter 2.

brain is starting to hurt now LOL :lol:

[EzyStyles]

our 40D has different responses is because mine's got the BCF filter which doesnt block 1100nm leaving my images with a red tint and my leaves are not green whereas your one is.


hmm something is not adding up though ?

need to think... need to think..

ps. we need a 3rd person opinion :P i see if i can draw a graph after 700nm . easier with graph.

[Bassnut]

Yeah, I dont know iether, my brain hurts :confuse3:

Off to bed, ill think on it too Eric.

[EzyStyles]

Night Fred, we talk about it tomorrow (although i get flat out busy at work) ill try to reply between then.

attached is another graph with my 40d camera prediction after 700nm.

Taking filter 2 out will inleash h-alpha at around 652nm with filter 1 inplace. then, the BCF filter gets put in which cuts down IR range from 1000nm to 1100nm (blue line) but it doesnt cut from 1100 - 1200nm causing my image to have red tint.

Regarding your camera, looking at visual spectrum, green doesnt' occur anywhere above 700nm so how did you get your leaves green by taking filter 2 out? *SHRUGS....MEGA SHRUGS* it is green because filter 1 has been taken out with filter 2 still in place? i dont know...

g'night my friend, talk to you tomorrow :thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Eric. as here for the 350D (the 40D would be similar) the green and blue channels are unaffected by filters, they both pass through (the removal of filters is just to extend red response) red and green colours are presnt in both moded and unmoded versions (so images are still RGB). What makes the colour balance so strange with no filter is the over all extra red sensitivity and big green and smaller blue response spikes at 7000 (and another blue spike at 8200), which causes red, green and blue all to accept IR light as extra data at 7000 and beyond, causeing a washed out effect way out side normal balance. The huge red curve gives the overall red hue with something like 3 times ( more than GB) the light collection over a large frequency range.

The UV/IR blocker cuts out the 7000 and above spikes and returns colour balance with just a slightly extended red response to just before 7000. Green and blue response is then back to normal as in an unmodded cam. This is what you want for astro RGB, normal GB and a bit higher red respose to capture Ha.

[Astrod00d]

Fred, Eric,
I really want to see both your results under a clear sky, get out there and start imaging, guys!

Cheers,

Rob

[Bassnut]

Rob

I already did, I tried M83, and it was crap, thats why I was filled with doubt :rolleyes:. Ill have a go tommorrow at the SPSP. You going Rob?, and Eric?.

[Astrod00d]

Hi Fred,

I'm not going to the SPSP, I should have been better organized eh?:P Next year I hope! Have a great weekend, capture those photons and post the results :D I'm veeeery close to getting a 40d of my own.

Cheers,

Rob

[Bassnut]

Get it Rob, the 40D is a killer. Ive played with several DSLRs and CCDs. The features and software that come with it cant be beat, SO much more connvienient to use than previous DSLRs, a real pleasure to use. And the spec is impressive.

Maybe next year for the SPSP then (you could have seen a 40D in operation, doh).

[EzyStyles]

Totally agree with you. I wouldn't want the red to be overly exposed but slightly more than GB which is why the UV/IR filter works best.

The 350D filter is different from the 40D filter because the 40D has 2 filters which makes things more complicated.

I have ordered a Hutech Daylight front filter should be coming shortly. Will test with this on. I don't have a UV/IR filter so i can't test with this filter but my IDAS LPS2 filter blocks the UV/IR range that is why with it infront of my lense, it looks more normal.

will keep you updated when the daylight filter arrives. im hoping soon ;)

[Bassnut]

Yes, good, I think, in the end, iether Ive stuffed up my mod, or you dont have the shaker filter (causing the over-red hue due to the spike at 1100). Iether way, you definitly have the optimal situation really, so theres no need for concern (for you, for me, well I might have), you can use the IDAS LPS2 filter for astro, and the daylight filter for terestial and no filters for IR. I will test my 40D mod at the SPSP (the rig is packed away now).

I note tho, that OPT recommend a UV/IR filter for use with the IDAS LPS2 filter, you may still be bothered with the 1100 spike. It will be interesting to see our respective imaging results.

[Bassnut]

Hey Eric, you going to the SPSP?

[EzyStyles]

im the biggest hermit :ashamed:

[EzyStyles]

The shaker on my 40d still works. Bobby only removed the phaser filter and replaced it with the BCF filter (see his tutorial). Ive tested the shaker manual, auto etc even get that buzzing sound coming out of it. i don't know but definitely both our 40d's are different. what firmware is yours? im using the latest v1.0.5

[Bassnut]

Gaud damb, I give up, I maybe in for another diassembly :mad2:. Take some astro pics Eric, and I will, then we will proceed :thumbsup:.

What about some other mungrels in this hallowed space posting a tree/leaves/sky modded 40D pic and put me and Eric out of our missery :P

[EzyStyles]

LOL totally agree. I think both our 40d's are correct though but it just that my has a BCF filter that is why it turns out different. goto bobby's website, he posted some astro pics taken from the cam.

The only other person i know who has a modded 40D is Steve (Skwinty) on IIS.

[skwinty]

Herewith images I emailed Eric over the weekend.
Hutech modded 40d:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Sheesh Steve, thats a bit of a tease :P. No comprehensive pic description.

But, going by the pic file names, the 2nd pic is a CWB, well that looks normal, fits my understanding that CWB compensates any colour (filter) imbalance to create a normal pic, AND the 3rd pic is an AWB, see the green grass Eric, similar to my pic, what do make of that !.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Sorry for the tease but i thought the file names were a big clue as you found.
My filter is hutech 1b.Attached is a pic of keyhole total of 75 sec exposure.15 by 5 sec summed at 400 iso.
I couldnt imagine what the pic would look like if the filter didnt cut off at about 700nm.
:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

OK Steve, nice pic, but its all red (although the stars are white), so cant tell in detail much of the filter drama from that (I dont doubt your mod BTW). Anyway Eric, the only other explanation, as you say, is that the shaker filter reponse has humps/goes up after 700nm and the alows the BCF 1100 bump through. Let the image test begin ;-).

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Isnt that the reason for the modded filter? To allow the Ha wavelength of 656nm through and show the red.
Thats my interpretation, but then I am a noob!
Good luck in resolving your filter issue and have a great weekend. Hope to see some stunning images from you next week.:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Yes Steve, but its the response of filters after the initial wanted cutoff that maybe of issue here. I wasnt critising your pic, it looks fine, its just I cant judge filter response from your red pic (other than white stars, which is a good indicator).

[EzyStyles]

fred,

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40722&d=1207213426

and

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40692&d=1207116359

is different ;)

i can't get green leaves because of the BCF filter. Once the hutech daylight filter arrives, it should look normal after that. .. (hopefully :P)

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Any criticism is welcome as I have loads to learn. Perhaps I didnt understand what you were saying. If it will help I will make a copy of the Hutech supplied graph and post that for you.
A question however, If the filter blocks from a specific wavelength upwards, then how can any filter down stream of the optical chain have an effect other than attenuation of the initial passband?
Or am suffering from the ready fire aim syndrome?:lol:

[Bassnut]

Eric, the 1st pic is a 40D with a hutec fiter, the 2nd a 350D with no filter at all, no comparison, bit random :D. AND, are you going to the SPSP?.

Steve, yes a low pass filter with a flat nil response after the wanted frequency is ideal in this case and would negate futher other filter responses, but some filters have bumps after that, this is the area of doubt in this thread.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Heres a thought for you.
If you want to check if your ir tv remote is working, take your cell phone camera which doesnt have i/r blocking (or so i an led to believe) and focus on the led of the remote. when you activate the remote, if it is working you will see the cell phone camera responding to the ir.
Now use the cell phone camera with the tv remote and insert the filter in between. this should give you some idea of whether the filter passes ir or not.
Am not to sure of the wavelength of the tv remote but should be well into near ir:whistle:
Worth a try???

[Bassnut]

And, Eric, I suspect you will need an astro UV/IR filter (allowing Ha, and flat thereafter) other than the daylight filter for terestial. The lack of "green leaves" the way it is tells me it will be problimatic for astro.

[Bassnut]

Steve, sheesh, now your getting silly :lol: , I use a cell phone for voice calls, it doesnt have a cam bloody hell, why would it need a cam, but I get yr point. Just wait for the crap I produce from the SPSP.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
A look at wikipaedia shows tv remote ir is about 940nm typically:thumbsup:

[avandonk]

It is very simple folks. The sensor is sensitive to far IR. Your standard Bayer matrix colour filters will pass IR. If you remove the filter designed to give the sensor the same colour sensitivity as human eyes (this attenuates the HA by a factor of about four or five) it will be sensitive to HA and far IR and so bloat your stars as your optic will not be in focus for that wavelength.

You must put a decent UV/IR antireflection coated filter that allows HA through but not far IR. As for colour balance after this there are filters available from Hutech or use AWB or PS.

Feel welcome to ask any questions and if I know the answer will try to help.

Bert

[EzyStyles]

Thanks for your reply Bert appreciated. Yes i have invited Bert to share his wealth of knowledge in this area. Bert, as you may know, the canon 40D have 2 internal filters. A low pass UV/IR filter (which acts as the anti-dust shake) and the Phaser IR filter (the main filter which blocks HA). It is the phaser IR filter which requires replacement for astro use.

You can see the spectrum graph attached in this post of each of the filters. If the phaser IR filter gets removed, without daylight balancing just AWB, leaves should not be green? only adding a UV/IR filter will make this green?

[avandonk]

Here is a picture taken without any filter with my modded 5DH a jpg straight out of the camera. Taken with normal (Canon) white colour balance

Bert

[EzyStyles]

nice image bert very sharp! was that image colour balanced using CWB, or AWB?

If the phaser filter gets replaced with a baader BCF Filter (see attached graph) no uv/ir filter used, will the leaves turn green? with my, the leaves are still red. I suspect it is because there is an IR leakage at 1100nm (spike) that is the reason?

[avandonk]

Ezy I did say Canon WB. I Have a filter that fits on the front of my 24 to 105 mm F4L from Hutech that converts the camera back to 'normal' and that picture was taken without it with the 300mm F2.8L from about four meters away. below is a cropped image autocolour balanced in PS.

If any foliage looks red in your images you are definitely getting IR and/or far IR onto your sensor.

I did not make it clear but my 5DH has the 1A UV/IR filter fitted by Hutech.

Bert

[EzyStyles]

I've done a test with a remote control.

Yes my 40D IR is definitely not fully blocked.

Fred, if you can take an image of your remote without the UV/IR filter and see if your IR is blocked or not. im guessing its blocked :)

[skwinty]

Hi Eric and Fred
Did the remote test with my cell phone camera and the canon40dh.
Cell phone camera shows the IR and the canon doesnt.
The response of the 1b filter cuts off sharply at 700nm and there are no leakage spots above 700nm. See hutech site for the filter response curves.

[Bassnut]

Ive done the remote test, guess what Eric, your right :whistle:, the IR is blocked still on my 40D, its so obvious im not going to bother posting the pic.

Gents, im going away now, and crawl into a small dark hole for a few months.

[Bassnut]

Im baack :D.

The result wasnt obvious on a quick test to start with at all. But I took a closer shot, and heres the result. Seems I have taken the internal filter out.

Well, it seems we are still at square 1 Eric, you and I both have the phasor filter 2 out, and the shaker filter in, yet you have much higher response to IR. The BCF filter replacement cant produce a higher response than my no glass at all !!!.

The plot thickens :P

[Bassnut]

There is a 3rd filter "low pass CCD sensor" (misslabeled filter 2) ,noones mentioned that yet.

[EzyStyles]

hmmm, this is really strange. im trying not to think too much of it until the daylight filter comes in. Is there a 3rd filter? the 3rd filter in the image (filter2) is the actual CMOS sensor.

Page 10:

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/White%20Paper/40D/EOS_40D_WhitePaper_070817.pdf

[Astrod00d]

The 3rd filter (CMOS sensor) is probably the Bayer matrix.

[Bassnut]

That would seem logical :).

But more investigation is being done as we speak (no, type).

Apparently Hutec removes 2 filters, Eric is working on what that means.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Did you take any pics with your 40d this weekend.
If so please post so i can see what the effect of the filter removal is.
Thanks:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Well Steve, heres the Tarantula I took, its 5 off 5min exposures at 800ISO with no darks. Due to the cold,grog,endless stuffing around and grog, it was mistakenly taken at small jpeg. It has no colour rebalance applied. Colour wise it seems OK by me, but I may well be typically woefully wrong. To recap, this is only with the phasor filter removed (not 2 as hutec apparenty do) and an AStronomik UV/IR lens filter on the front.

[skwinty]

Hi Fred
Even after all the grog and stuffing around still a pretty neat image.
So you had 2nd sensor filter removed and you used uv/ir external filter.
So I assume you were limited to a max wavelength of about 700nm.
Did you take any without the external filter?:thumbsup:

[EzyStyles]

geee's fred, that spider looks very promising. Does that mean i have to give it a go with my camera too? ;)

ps. I'll try to remember to shoot in jpeg + RAW NOT just RAW :P

yes, investigating on claims that hutech takes two filters out of their 40D. will let you guys know.

@Steve: did hutech told you what they did?

[Bassnut]

Easy Eric (pun,again) its nowhere near the "Eric standard", it doesnt even qualify as a 1st post (is that allowed?). BTW, I get asked for a software upgrade on tring to view your gallery?. Im am more than interested in you imaging in RAW, the 14 vs 8 bit dynamic range should make a big difference. And yes, you now HAVE to do Tarantula.

Steve, these subs were taken with the external Astronomix filter only, I didnt try without it, so yes, the 700nm clip is in place.

[Astrod00d]

Fred, this looks very promising. Lots of red in the spider. My spider with an umodded 400d has almost no red at all.
I'm pretty sure, Hutech replace both the front and middle glass. The front glass is an antialiasing filter, replacing it should improve sharpness. A possible downside is coloured stars if a very sharp star image hits only one pixel in the Bayer matrix.
Post more images! Help me justify buying a new camera! :rofl:

Cheers,

Rob

[Bassnut]

Sheesh Rob, "Hutech replace both the front and middle glass" tells me nothin :P. Details !. The advantage with the 40D is live view and 14 bit dynamic range, I think you could mod your cam 1st and see how it goes (depending on budget. No prob?, go the 40D ;))

[skwinty]

Hi Eric
They didnt specify what exactly they removed but herewith a description of the mod from hutech.
They do say that the 400d has both filters removed so i assume same for 40d as the sensor is the same.
See attached pdf:thumbsup:

[Astrod00d]

I could be totally off the mark, but I'm pretty sure the Canon front (dust shaker) filter is for antialiasing, almost like a matte glass, designed to blur the image just enough so that a beam of light falls on more than one pixel in the bayer matrix. This antialiasing filter should prevent rainbow and moire effects in everyday use. Probably not required for astrophotography, where sharpness is very important. Looking at Christian's report, this glass also has a gentle UV/IR curve, probably insufficient for astro, so fitting an external UV/IR filter, as Fred has done, is a good thing to do.
The whole set-up of the 40d filter stack makes me wonder if Canon are planning a 40da?

Cheers,

Rob

[EzyStyles]

Hi Steve hi Rob,

Thats very useful info there. Steve, if hutech removes both filters in your camera, are you sure your anti-dust still works?

Starting to make sense now. The low pass filter (Dust Shaker filter), is also known as the Anti-Aliasing filter with small amount of UV/IR block.

What I don't get is if Hutech removes this filter, wouldn't anti-dust shake will not work?

to Fred, thats why if you just removed the Phaser filter, your leaves are still green because the AA filter is still there blocking the IR so therefore, mine one had the anti-shaker filter and phaser filter removed completely but the anti-dust shaker still works?

[Bassnut]

Yes, yes and yes. The shaker is a piezo electric device attached to the filter and would make a noise (but not without it though). They may have removed it and put the piezo on clear glass, but I think that would be difficult and unlikely. It seems this is the last puzzle Eric, but the main thing is, your 40D is set to go with the right lens filters :).

[skwinty]

hi Eric
All indications are (on the camera) that the dust shaker works.
Also Hutech specifically state that the mod will not disable the dust shaker.
I dont suppose Ted Ishikawa wants to release too much info on the subject.
I did find that Ted and Mia were very friendly and helpful but then I did spend almost US$3000.
Send him a pm and ask for clarification and get it straight from the horses mouth;)

[EzyStyles]

Hi Steve, yes, people doing the 40D conversions are very very secretive. I guess it is called business. I definitely can hear the dust shaker noise in sensor cleaning ---> clean now function.

Thats really bizzare if hutech removes both the filters, how does the anti-shake feature work? . thats the mystery right now......unless they replaced it as what Fred said with a clear glass but will require alot of work to do so.

[Ian Robinson]

I'm getting my first DSLR shortly and I will be very reluctant to modify it. Wouldn't that void the warantee ?

And I will use the camera for daytime happy snaps a lot more than astrophotography .... anyway I still have my trusty old and super low vibration Minolta XD5 for astrophotography.

I would much rather , even if cost a bit more , have a 1.25" or better a 2" bandpass filter that cuts off the UV and IR and can be used like a Light Pollution filter or a UHC filter and simply screwed to the coma corrector or the to the T or tube of the crayford.

Attention Baader and Lumicon .:D:help:

[mill]

Ok did the mod to my brand new 40D.
There are no 3 filters to see because the UV/IR filter is a 2 filter assembly.
First photo modded with AWB, second pic with CWB, third pic HH10*10min unmodded, fourth pic HH 1*1.6Min modded.
Last pic i had to cut short because of guiding problems :(

[Bassnut]

Nice one Mill, yes, only recently it suddenly dawned on me one filter was actually 2 stuck together. I have no idea why I didnt see that before :P