Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
- Subject: Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
- From: Iliah Borg <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 13:09:24 -0400
On May 26, 2013, at 1:07 PM, John Castronovo wrote:
> True enough about the age of the article, but I didn't think that sensor filtration changed that much
It did, dear John. Test with an IR remote and see for yourself.
> . It would be nice and I stand corrected if that's the case, but I think that sensors are still very sensitive to IR unless filtered and good IR filters aren't transparent. I think that losing of an extra stop or more of sensitivity to cure IR problems that only show up with certain problematic copy work is something camera manufacturers aren't likely to do.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Iliah Borg
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: John Castronovo
> Subject: Re: B+W 77mm UV/IR Cut (486M) MRC Filter
>
> Dear John,
>
>> Robin Meyers did some experiments for Betterlight and wrote a great paper describing this issue of IR in digitally reproducing problematic fine art:
>> http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
>>
>
> This article is from 2000. We now at the rate of about 1 new camera with raw capabilities per week. The filtration on the sensors and the sensor itself changed dramatically.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Iliah Borg
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6359 - Release Date: 05/26/13
>
--
Best regards,
Iliah Borg
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden