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

underratted channel! Good stuff my friend.

Great explanation. Thanks from Manchester.

Happy to see Ed Sheeran appear on your channel!

@LAG360

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh

huh? the quality of your videos is soooO good! 💖 Im confused by how you dont have some thousands of followers and 100k views

What's wrong with UV photography?

@aeebeecee3737

Ай бұрын

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

@matthuck378

Ай бұрын

Short answer: It makes people look terrible. Google it, heh. Good skin turns to acne-riddled looking.

Okay, Loren, show us on the doll where UV hurt you.

Who knew ?!? Reg has smart friends who do stuff too !?!

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.

@bueb8674

6 ай бұрын

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.

@jorymil

4 ай бұрын

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?

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

Reg do shorts

you didnt lie on the friend being a nerd for sure

Canon R system has a camera dedicated for that .. the eos R A

@edwardnoble9897

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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.

Nicely done. I want to hunt UFO's :)

@bueb8674

Ай бұрын

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

"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.

@jorymil

4 ай бұрын

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!

Why UV photography sucks?

@UV-NIR-Thermal

Жыл бұрын

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.

@diyextravaganza

Жыл бұрын

@@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 ☺️

@edwardnoble9897

Жыл бұрын

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!

@diyextravaganza

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@jorymil

4 ай бұрын

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.