/diy/ - Do It Yourself

No. Give up.

>>664434
did you come from /g/
also OP,you should really send your comera to a specialist,i dont think there is anything else to do here...

You need a piece of material with the same refractive index for visible light but allows IR through. Do you know what material is normally used for this?

Could you move the sensor forwards to compensate?

>>664463
nope,my only hope is a replacement for that IR cutoff filter

not OP,but would a piece of glass do the job?

Can you manually focus it or is it only the autofocus that's fucked?

>>665044
the thing is that even if I focus manually,the pictures will still be unfocused,because it's out of the lens'es focus limits.which means that i either have to mess with the lens (and each lens I acquire)
or do something to cancel the effect of a missing material infront of the sensor

>>664416
Those things get dirty very very easy. It's clean?

>>665069
the filter?well yes ive held it in a case ever since.my guess : youll be telling me to sandpaper the two sides of the filter???

>>664416
what camera do you have?

here is the general trend of a typical camera sensor Quantum efficiency

Try to get just random lenses (even flat peices of glass) around the house or whatever and try to see if you can focus an image behind it. try far and close up.

>>665066
>it's out of the lens'es focus limits.
Shouldn't be like this - the focus should have a slight offset, not completely out of range.

Some high end lenses and most older lenses had correction mark printed on them (pic. related). You focused as normally, then turned obtained distance number to match IR mark.

You could determine this offset yourself and add a sticker or something for manual correction. Might be tricky for zoom lenses tho.

Also what camera do you have? For some DSLR's you can purchase ready made filter replacement and some have focus correction menu.

>>665399
well i think you are talking about a situitation when nothing in front of the CCD/CMOS is removed.the red marker is because infrared focuses somehow different than other wavelengths,but all this having the SAME focal length.Now by removing the the glass filter i think i added some of the focal length as well

>>665547
Thing is, Infraredlight is refracted less by almost all glasstypes, so your lenses are "less effective" in bending the light and making an image. I think the problem here is less the removed piece of glass, it will only cause a focal offset of maybe a millimetre, the problem is that your lenses react differently to the infrared light you want to focus. When you manually focus, you will probably end up with too short a focal length, since you probably do that with visible light.
Also, since you, as I understood it, photograph both Infrared AND visible light, chromatic aberration play a major role here. The optics in cameras are built to compensate for that inside the visible spectrum, but I'm pretty sure Infraredlight would mess that up. Also, diffraction effects are larger at lower wavelengths, since the sine of the diffracted angle is proportional to wavelength, so every edge the light passes over causes a loss of resolution.

Solution: Maybe try to get your hands on some infrared plastic. This stuff let's infrared light pass and is opaque to visible light. Hold it in front of the camera and use the autofocus. This reduces chromatic aberration and "confuses" the autofocus less. Another way would be, as stated in the Wikipedia article, to use specialized equipment.

Anyways, I don't know a lot about cameras, But I am a physics major, 6th semester, specializing in optics and photonics, so yeah...

PS: article I mean is the one on Infrared Photography. Look it up.