Minus-Violet filters

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by g n p, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. g n p

    g n p Guest

    Do these lens filters sharpen up digital pix??
    Seems they would eliminate the chromatic distortion (violet fringing) so
    common to many
    digi-cameras.
    They work wonders for non-apo astro refractors (lens, not mirror,
    telescopes).
    (Check out www.lumicon.com where the 58mm costs $79.95)
    Any experience??

    TIA
    g n p, Jun 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. g n p

    Marvin Guest

    g n p wrote:
    > Do these lens filters sharpen up digital pix??
    > Seems they would eliminate the chromatic distortion (violet fringing) so
    > common to many
    > digi-cameras.
    > They work wonders for non-apo astro refractors (lens, not mirror,
    > telescopes).
    > (Check out www.lumicon.com where the 58mm costs $79.95)
    > Any experience??
    >
    > TIA
    >


    The cause of violet fringing seems to be either a lens defect (somehting like chromatic
    aberraion perhaps) or it comes from the way the camera constructs the image fromthe sensor
    data. Either way, a violet filter (which is a haze filter) isn't likely to correct the
    fringing.

    I'd have to see it to believe it.
    Marvin, Jun 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. g n p

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Marvin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >g n p wrote:
    >> Do these lens filters sharpen up digital pix??
    >> Seems they would eliminate the chromatic distortion (violet fringing) so
    >> common to many
    >> digi-cameras.
    >> They work wonders for non-apo astro refractors (lens, not mirror,
    >> telescopes).
    >> (Check out www.lumicon.com where the 58mm costs $79.95)
    >> Any experience??
    >>
    >> TIA

    >
    > The cause of violet fringing seems to be either a lens defect (somehting
    > like chromatic aberraion perhaps) or it comes from the way the camera
    > constructs the image fromthe sensor data.


    My guess is it's the latter. Many people including reviewers refer to purple
    fringing as chromatic aberration, but that doesn't seem to me to be a likely
    explanation for it. Chromatic aberration is either primary (a lens brings
    different wavelengths to different focal lengths) or secondary (different
    wavelengths produce different image sizes at the focal plane). While
    secondary chromatic aberration implies that there will be some color
    fringing, why always purple? That is certainly not the case with lenses used
    on *film* cameras, so why on digital?

    I think it must be something that happens at the sensor itself, perhaps
    something to do with the angle at which the image-forming rays strike the
    primary-color filters.


    > Either way, a violet filter (which is a haze filter) isn't likely to
    > correct the fringing.


    Well, that's an ultraviolet filter you're talking about. He's asking about
    *minus*-violet filters, which I presume are supposed to remove the purple.
    I've never heard of any such thing before.


    >
    > I'd have to see it to believe it.


    Me too. I would be surprised if any filter could magically remove the purple
    fringing without making the rest of the image greenish.

    N.
    Nostrobino, Jun 23, 2005
    #3
  4. g n p

    g n p Guest

    "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > "Marvin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>g n p wrote:
    >>> Do these lens filters sharpen up digital pix??
    >>> Seems they would eliminate the chromatic distortion (violet fringing) so
    >>> common to many
    >>> digi-cameras.
    >>> They work wonders for non-apo astro refractors (lens, not mirror,
    >>> telescopes).
    >>> (Check out www.lumicon.com where the 58mm costs $79.95)
    >>> Any experience??
    >>>
    >>> TIA

    >>
    >> The cause of violet fringing seems to be either a lens defect (somehting
    >> like chromatic aberraion perhaps) or it comes from the way the camera
    >> constructs the image fromthe sensor data.

    >
    > My guess is it's the latter. Many people including reviewers refer to
    > purple fringing as chromatic aberration, but that doesn't seem to me to be
    > a likely explanation for it. Chromatic aberration is either primary (a
    > lens brings different wavelengths to different focal lengths) or secondary
    > (different wavelengths produce different image sizes at the focal plane).
    > While secondary chromatic aberration implies that there will be some color
    > fringing, why always purple? That is certainly not the case with lenses
    > used on *film* cameras, so why on digital?
    >
    > I think it must be something that happens at the sensor itself, perhaps
    > something to do with the angle at which the image-forming rays strike the
    > primary-color filters.
    >
    >
    >> Either way, a violet filter (which is a haze filter) isn't likely to
    >> correct the fringing.

    >
    > Well, that's an ultraviolet filter you're talking about. He's asking about
    > *minus*-violet filters, which I presume are supposed to remove the purple.
    > I've never heard of any such thing before.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> I'd have to see it to believe it.

    >
    > Me too. I would be surprised if any filter could magically remove the
    > purple fringing without making the rest of the image greenish.
    >
    > N.




    Like I said in the OP, check out www.lumicon.com
    The minus violet is essentially a high pass filter allowing RGBY to pass but
    nothing below blue.
    It DOES work miracles in refractors (telephotos) but I wanted to check its
    performance in everyday digital photography.

    Thanks again.
    g n p, Jun 23, 2005
    #4
  5. g n p

    Nostrobino Guest

    "g n p" <> wrote in message
    news:1119554492.555924@athnrd02...
    > "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Marvin" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>g n p wrote:
    >>>> Do these lens filters sharpen up digital pix??
    >>>> Seems they would eliminate the chromatic distortion (violet fringing)
    >>>> so common to many
    >>>> digi-cameras.
    >>>> They work wonders for non-apo astro refractors (lens, not mirror,
    >>>> telescopes).
    >>>> (Check out www.lumicon.com where the 58mm costs $79.95)
    >>>> Any experience??
    >>>>
    >>>> TIA
    >>>
    >>> The cause of violet fringing seems to be either a lens defect (somehting
    >>> like chromatic aberraion perhaps) or it comes from the way the camera
    >>> constructs the image fromthe sensor data.

    >>
    >> My guess is it's the latter. Many people including reviewers refer to
    >> purple fringing as chromatic aberration, but that doesn't seem to me to
    >> be a likely explanation for it. Chromatic aberration is either primary (a
    >> lens brings different wavelengths to different focal lengths) or
    >> secondary (different wavelengths produce different image sizes at the
    >> focal plane). While secondary chromatic aberration implies that there
    >> will be some color fringing, why always purple? That is certainly not the
    >> case with lenses used on *film* cameras, so why on digital?
    >>
    >> I think it must be something that happens at the sensor itself, perhaps
    >> something to do with the angle at which the image-forming rays strike the
    >> primary-color filters.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Either way, a violet filter (which is a haze filter) isn't likely to
    >>> correct the fringing.

    >>
    >> Well, that's an ultraviolet filter you're talking about. He's asking
    >> about *minus*-violet filters, which I presume are supposed to remove the
    >> purple. I've never heard of any such thing before.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I'd have to see it to believe it.

    >>
    >> Me too. I would be surprised if any filter could magically remove the
    >> purple fringing without making the rest of the image greenish.
    >>
    >> N.

    >
    >
    >
    > Like I said in the OP, check out www.lumicon.com
    > The minus violet is essentially a high pass filter allowing RGBY to pass
    > but nothing below blue.
    > It DOES work miracles in refractors (telephotos) but I wanted to check its
    > performance in everyday digital photography.
    >
    > Thanks again.


    I've looked at the product on that site, but I don't think it will do what
    you want it to do. It appears from the description to be designed primarily
    for astrophotography, where I can see that eliminating far-violet and
    ultraviolet wavelengths will indeed reduce chromatic aberration and
    resulting image degradation as far as points of light are concerned. My
    guess is that color accuracy is not of much importance in such photography,
    as it is, of course, in terrestrial photography.

    Again, I just don't believe that purple fringing in digital photos is the
    result of the lens passing too much purple, which it seems to me is the only
    thing a minus-violet filter could correct.

    It's an interesting idea, though.

    N.
    Nostrobino, Jun 24, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Trond Ruud

    Firefox plus and minus

    Trond Ruud, Dec 4, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    556
    Trond Ruud
    Dec 7, 2004
  2. Briscobar
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    2,874
  3. g n p

    Minus Violet Filters

    g n p, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
    g n p
    Jun 20, 2005
  4. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,555
    Doug Jacobs
    Mar 3, 2008
  5. Paul Ciszek

    How are digital cameras able to render violet?

    Paul Ciszek, Feb 11, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    437
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page