IS the removing of AR UV protection layer from th with alcohol a good idea?

[Truthler]

Hello Guys!
I removed the Anti-reflection and UV-layer from both of my FDR-AX700 with alcohol, following that methode: https://youtu.be/mkLn3x0UfaY

When the alcohol dissolved the layer... somethiong purple liquid was created what I removed too.


Since than, The video is more logherter in darker situations than it was before!!! However in brigt sunligt is tend to glare and less contrasty

Since I use additional AR+UV filter, the original UV layer is not needed.
You gain a lighter system for indoor.... and for outdoor there is the additional filter.

However If I let the factory layer to remain, it means fewer lights for indoor or night environment...

[Cornucopia]

Way to go voiding your warranty!
(the answer is "NO", but I see it's too late for that warning)

Scott

[Truthler]

Way to go voiding your warranty!
(the answer is "NO", but I see it's too late for that warning)

Scott

Why? Maybe you can explain it. I bought 62MM Sony VARIO-T additional AR UV filter for the camera. IT must be good for that lens system if I need outdoor recording.

Additional UV filter always needed to physically protect the camera lens in outdoor. So factory UV layer + additional UV filter would be crazy, and makes the camera worse.

However in indoor environment it seems lighter than before..... (I feel the effect like the CMOS would be a little bigger, thus brighter)

The older one is 4years old the younger is almost 3 years old, so I don't care about the warranty.

[Truthler]

Way to go voiding your warranty!
(the answer is "NO", but I see it's too late for that warning)

Scott

Do you agree that factory made AR+UV filter is stupidity, because that makes the camera picture a bit darker in indoor or night recordings.... For a sunny outdoor environments the additional filters can solve that problem.

[Cornucopia]

No, I agree that modifying a highly technical and specialized piece of equipment without knowing the engineers' determination of why something is essential or not (and indeed they thought it was essential, otherwise they would not have spent the extra money to coat it), is foolhardy and shortsighted.

Scott

[Truthler]

No, I agree that modifying a highly technical and specialized piece of equipment without knowing the engineers' determination of why something is essential or not (and indeed they thought it was essential, otherwise they would not have spent the extra money to coat it), is foolhardy and shortsighted.

Scott

But Scott! https://www.ebay.com/itm/373921848717?hash=item570f7a9d8d:g:P-4AAOSwxN5iAokN

I have Karl Zeiss Vario-T anti reflection and UVfilters! Just imagine! That company myde the James Webb space telescope, the most brutal technology in artificial imaging of our time. With its help, mabye we can see not only the DEEP Space, but the deep past.... time travelling to the era of the cradle of the Universe!

We will see how the universe was created in the summer, or early autumn! What level of technology is that.....

[Cornucopia]

I'm afraid you got it wrong yet again.

Not Zeiss - Ball & Northrop Grumman.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ball-aerospace-built-optics-and-mirror-system...301450794.html

Scott

[Truthler]

I'm afraid you got it wrong yet again.

Not Zeiss - Ball & Northrop Grumman.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ball-aerospace-built-optics-and-mirror-system...301450794.html

Scott

You got it wrong. German Technology did it:

https://www.mpg.de/515241/pressRelease20051206

[DB83]

I know you do not want my opinion but you get it all the same.

The way you word your topic suggests to me that having done what you did you are having second thoughts and seeking some justification for your action.


No self-respecting photographer still or cine would not place a filter over their lens even just for protection purposes - I am a mere amateur in that regard but a filter was the first item for my original SLR and then DSLR. As Scott points out, there must be good reason for the coating.


At least you found out that the lens was made of glass

[Cornucopia]

I'm afraid you got it wrong yet again.

Not Zeiss - Ball & Northrop Grumman.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ball-aerospace-built-optics-and-mirror-system...301450794.html

Scott

You got it wrong. German Technology did it:

https://www.mpg.de/515241/pressRelease20051206

Notice your link is from 2005 with an expectation in the future. My link is from this last Christmas. Seems NASA changed their minds in the interim and didn't go with Zeiss on this one.

Or, possibly, there are multiple "instruments" on board, and Zeiss/Planck worked on the MIRI and NIRSpec ones, while Ball & Northrop Grumman built the overall.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

Scott

[Truthler]

I'm afraid you got it wrong yet again.

Not Zeiss - Ball & Northrop Grumman.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ball-aerospace-built-optics-and-mirror-system...301450794.html

Scott

You got it wrong. German Technology did it:

https://www.mpg.de/515241/pressRelease20051206

Notice your link is from 2005 with an expectation in the future. My link is from this last Christmas. Seems NASA changed their minds in the interim and didn't go with Zeiss on this one.

Or, possibly, there are multiple "instruments" on board, and Zeiss/Planck worked on the MIRI and NIRSpec ones, while Ball & Northrop Grumman built the overall.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

Scott

https://www.mpg.de/18094339/james-webb-interview-krause-englisch

It is mostly a German machine.

Do you know that nobody can manufacture a CPU or GPU chip without German or Japan printer machines ? When you will hear that AMD or Nvidia or Intel announce a smaller nanometer chip technology, it means, that German firms produced a new industrial printer machines which can do that.

[Truthler]

Great news! Not only the brightness increased a little, but the noise is SIGNIFFICANTLY smaller in indoor environment! I can only suggest the remove of AR-UV filter for everybody, after the cameras won't have warranty.

Guys! It is something you must do!

[DB83]

Gotta love it when you hijack your own topic yet again !!!!

Anyway. A few days ago I started a topic about media when I could not understand how items were appearing on my youtube home page without any obvious (no search) input on my part. And this very morning it happens again. But I think I now have it figured out - data harvesting by Google via the Chrome browser and my reading of these forums - could still be wrong but that, for me, is the only logical reason. So here's the topical link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WESKRnkGXGY


The essence of this video is that the presenter is ranting about why some people over-value lens coatings. He does mention Zeiss amongst other lens manufacturers and ends the video stating that coatings are important but not over so.

[Truthler]

Gotta love it when you hijack your own topic yet again !!!!

Anyway. A few days ago I started a topic about media when I could not understand how items were appearing on my youtube home page without any obvious (no search) input on my part. And this very morning it happens again. But I think I now have it figured out - data harvesting by Google via the Chrome browser and my reading of these forums - could still be wrong but that, for me, is the only logical reason. So here's the topical link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WESKRnkGXGY


The essence of this video is that the presenter is ranting about why some people over-value lens coatings. He does mention Zeiss amongst other lens manufacturers and ends the video stating that coatings are important but not over so.

Is the guy on the video identical to you?

[Truthler]

People who want to clean their lenses, have to use alcohol, or the more percefctionists use high percentage apple vinegar. (Do not confuse with the low density and cheap apple vinegar what you use for cooking)
Both materials slowly but surely destroy AR-UV coating material (because they dissolve them) after some cleaning process.

[DB83]

Well in my limited experience it it is still a BAD idea to remove in the 'excuse' that removal is a consequence of cleaning.

With a filter in place, there is little to no argument to 'clean' the lens - you clean the friggin' filter with a dry cloth. And a filter should, in my limited understandibility, remain attached even in situations where it may not be required.


To advocate the removal of coatings on a 'whim' is reckless and gives this forum no better credibility that the yt-jerks who advocate such measures.


I will not respond, this time, to any perceived abuse but I reserve my rights accordingly.

[Cornucopia]

Most factory coatings on lenses are for Anti-Reflection. And they affect the brightness levels by about 0.01 EV (so, nothing to speak of). Now that you've removed that, good luck with your reflections.

Not a smart thing to do, and not something to ever recommend to others.


Scott

[Truthler]

Most factory coatings on lenses are for Anti-Reflection. And they affect the brightness levels by about 0.01 EV (so, nothing to speak of). Now that you've removed that, good luck with your reflections.

Not a smart thing to do, and not something to ever recommend to others.


Scott

Correction: Not anti-reflection only, but like the additional filters, they are also UV filters too. So they have combined task. I think the cameras became visibly lighter.

I have ZEiss T AR-UV filters.

ZEiss invented the anti-reflection coating in 1935. Learn: https://youtu.be/mtmQgoOZ3cw

All of the ZEiss T lenses have own AR-UV filter. Each of the lenses in the lens system individually have that coating too.




Cornucopia, Is your CPU and GPU works well? Maybe because they were printed on German printers , let it be AMD Intel Nvidia etc....

[Cornucopia]

Nice try deflecting again. Too bad it's still a bad idea to remove. "Visibly lighter" = nothing unless you have objective measurements.

What are you going to do next, remove the UV coating on the sensor (there usually is one)?

Scott

[Truthler]

Nice try deflecting again. Too bad it's still a bad idea to remove. "Visibly lighter" = nothing unless you have objective measurements.

What are you going to do next, remove the UV coating on the sensor (there usually is one)?

Scott

Have you ever clean your lenses with 97% alcohol ? Do you know that alcohol dissolving the AR UV layers?

[dellsam34]

I can only suggest the remove of AR-UV filter for everybody, after the cameras won't have warranty. Guys! It is something you must do!

Guys I screwed up so everybody must screw up.

Have you ever clean your lenses with 97% alcohol ? Do you know that alcohol dissolving the AR UV layers?

Then don't.

Here is the sciense behind the anti-reflection lens coating if you care.

[Cornucopia]

NO, @Truthler, I haven't. Don't, and won't.
Professional photos have always recommended using non-scratch microfiber cloth, kodak lens paper, a blower brush, etc. to clean lenses. And there is specific lens cleaning fluid. It may cost a few cents, but there IS a reason it is recommended. Look it up.

Stop doing harm to your lenses, trying to 1. save a few cents, 2. eek out some unknown self-perceived quantity of extra capability.


Scott

[Truthler]

NO, @Truthler, I haven't. Don't, and won't.
Professional photos have always recommended using non-scratch microfiber cloth, kodak lens paper, a blower brush, etc. to clean lenses. And there is specific lens cleaning fluid. It may cost a few cents, but there IS a reason it is recommended. Look it up.

Stop doing harm to your lenses, trying to 1. save a few cents, 2. eek out some unknown self-perceived quantity of extra capability.


Scott

I'm still capable shot videos indoor without problems. I'm still shot more detailed videos than any other cameras under 3000$. Please let's don't forget, that these cameras could reach the max visible 4K resolution in ISO IMAGE test charts. Prosumer competitors from Canon Panasonic and JVC are not able to reach the maximal lw/ph values on the resolution test charts.

If I want to shot outside, I use the additional Zeiss T AR-UV filters (anti reflection layer is a Zeiss invention).

[Cornucopia]

: snort :

[lordsmurf]

What are you going to do next, remove the UV coating on the sensor (there usually is one)?
Scott

LOL!

I triple dog dare you!

[Truthler]

I think all true professionals (who work in mega-giga-hyper super productions) remove the AR-UV protecting layers from the front glass of the camera, and they use additional AR-UV filter if it is imortant for the scene.

Without the removal of that filter, you can not shot such movies, where the sunlight and sunbeam effects are important.

Watch this short clip, especially 1:47 and 1:54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5qTuQLng1g

[Cornucopia]

Wrong again, @Truthler.
Sunflare or any general flare (the correct term that you were fishing for) is possible with ANY lens, if the strong light is aimed directly at the camera lens, though a slightly oblique angle with partial obscuring of the source is usually considered the most pleasant effect. At those angles, even multiple AR-coatings cannot fully diminish the effect, and the large dynamic range is still beyond the capability of nearly all sensors to handle, so there is "sensory overload" going on, as well as inter-element lens internal reflection.


You are digging your own hole deeper trying to deflect again.


Scott

[DB83]

Even our friend's take on history is suspect. The guy then working at Zeiss in the 1930's did not invent the process. He invented a facet of it. The theory had been around 50 years prior with documentation at least 25 years prior.

But explain this one. If your filter is recc. for Zeiss lenses which, I guess, have this coating, why bother in getting the filter in the first place ?


You will NEVER admit you screwed up. But you do little service to the community to advocate that all should follow your example and jump off the cliff since there will always be a soft landing.

[Truthler]

Cornucopia said, that I destroyed my lens, and he started the ordering of the funeral process of my camcorders.

To tell the truth , I did not notice any difference

See my newest recording about some Dodge Srt cars.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://sendgb.com/VAhofUcNHuF <<<<<<<<<<<<<

[Truthler]

Even our friend's take on history is suspect. The guy then working at Zeiss in the 1930's did not invent the process. He invented a facet of it. The theory had been around 50 years prior with documentation at least 25 years prior.

But explain this one. If your filter is recc. for Zeiss lenses which, I guess, have this coating, why bother in getting the filter in the first place ?


You will NEVER admit you screwed up. But you do little service to the community to advocate that all should follow your example and jump off the cliff since there will always be a soft landing.

Wrong. AR coating in BRitain or US before Germans? Are you serious? Chemistry industry of US and UK were not really innovative, they just adopted (in the most cases) what Germans and French invented. About Glass industry,the US and UK were happy enough if they could make good beer and whiskey bottles before WW2 )))) But lens systems? They were very far to produce lenses in satisfying quality