Do cameras actively filter out UV light, or only infrared?












2















I know that a camera has a filter in front of the sensor to limit incoming light to the visible spectrum, to replicate what a human eye can see. But wherever I look on the internet, I always read about the filter in front of the sensor being an infrared filter. Wouldn't the filter also have to block out UV light? I couldn't find any useful information on this on the internet :/ Also, wouldn't an active filtering of UV light in front of the sensor render UV lens-filters useless?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago
















2















I know that a camera has a filter in front of the sensor to limit incoming light to the visible spectrum, to replicate what a human eye can see. But wherever I look on the internet, I always read about the filter in front of the sensor being an infrared filter. Wouldn't the filter also have to block out UV light? I couldn't find any useful information on this on the internet :/ Also, wouldn't an active filtering of UV light in front of the sensor render UV lens-filters useless?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago














2












2








2








I know that a camera has a filter in front of the sensor to limit incoming light to the visible spectrum, to replicate what a human eye can see. But wherever I look on the internet, I always read about the filter in front of the sensor being an infrared filter. Wouldn't the filter also have to block out UV light? I couldn't find any useful information on this on the internet :/ Also, wouldn't an active filtering of UV light in front of the sensor render UV lens-filters useless?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I know that a camera has a filter in front of the sensor to limit incoming light to the visible spectrum, to replicate what a human eye can see. But wherever I look on the internet, I always read about the filter in front of the sensor being an infrared filter. Wouldn't the filter also have to block out UV light? I couldn't find any useful information on this on the internet :/ Also, wouldn't an active filtering of UV light in front of the sensor render UV lens-filters useless?







filters sensor light infrared uv






share|improve this question







New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 13 hours ago









TanonicTanonic

111




111




New contributor




Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Tanonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago



















  • Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago

















Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

– Michael C
10 hours ago





Possible duplicate of is uv filter a must?

– Michael C
10 hours ago













Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

– Michael C
10 hours ago





Related: Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? and Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter? and What effect does a UV filter provide? and Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

– Michael C
10 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














UV is annoyingly present when doing landscapes and aerial photography. It records as a haze that blocks the clear view of distant mountains and it veils the land when imaged from high altitudes. A UV blocking filter can be very helpful under these circumstances. The UV filter and a cousin called a “Skylight” filter gained popularity. The “skylight” is tinted pink, so this UV filter also warmed up cool feeling blue-sky type vistas. Special note: The UV filter only benefits when the subject is distant and shrouded by water vapor. Camera store salesmen, eager to pad a sale, generally advised, a UV filter will protect your precious, costly lens. The popularity of the UV thus soared.



With the onset of the digital camera, the need to mount a UV filter diminished because electronic photography raises different issues. The imaging sensor requires trimming with filters or it will fail to deliver a faithful image. The surface of the digital sensor is covered with an array of tiny photosites. These capture the image, but the chances that artifacts with spoil it are high. Most noteworthy is image noise. This is akin to grain in film photography. There are a plethora of these annoying artifacts.



Enter the digital camera’s protective cover glass. The surface of the digital image sensor is fragile, it is covered by a flat glass overlay. This cover glass lends itself to have a dual purpose. Some subject types will image with bizarre results. These are called “demosaicing artifacts, often seen as a moiré. To avoid, the cover glass is also a optical low-pass filter better known as a anti-aliasing filter. This filter slightly blurs fine detail that is finer than the native resolution of the senor. Additionally the cover glass will act as an infrared filter that blocks these frequencies otherwise they will record as false colors



The UV continues to be sold and mounted to protect our precious lenses.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago



















0














UV lens filters in the digital era have a different purpose than actively filtering UV light. They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc. If the glass in front of the lens gets dirty, you are much safer cleaning a $50 UV filter than a $500 lens front element.



Digital sensors are typically insensitive to UV, so you don't need the UV filter to filter it out. Source: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens which says:




However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    "They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • "Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Tanonic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106228%2fdo-cameras-actively-filter-out-uv-light-or-only-infrared%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














UV is annoyingly present when doing landscapes and aerial photography. It records as a haze that blocks the clear view of distant mountains and it veils the land when imaged from high altitudes. A UV blocking filter can be very helpful under these circumstances. The UV filter and a cousin called a “Skylight” filter gained popularity. The “skylight” is tinted pink, so this UV filter also warmed up cool feeling blue-sky type vistas. Special note: The UV filter only benefits when the subject is distant and shrouded by water vapor. Camera store salesmen, eager to pad a sale, generally advised, a UV filter will protect your precious, costly lens. The popularity of the UV thus soared.



With the onset of the digital camera, the need to mount a UV filter diminished because electronic photography raises different issues. The imaging sensor requires trimming with filters or it will fail to deliver a faithful image. The surface of the digital sensor is covered with an array of tiny photosites. These capture the image, but the chances that artifacts with spoil it are high. Most noteworthy is image noise. This is akin to grain in film photography. There are a plethora of these annoying artifacts.



Enter the digital camera’s protective cover glass. The surface of the digital image sensor is fragile, it is covered by a flat glass overlay. This cover glass lends itself to have a dual purpose. Some subject types will image with bizarre results. These are called “demosaicing artifacts, often seen as a moiré. To avoid, the cover glass is also a optical low-pass filter better known as a anti-aliasing filter. This filter slightly blurs fine detail that is finer than the native resolution of the senor. Additionally the cover glass will act as an infrared filter that blocks these frequencies otherwise they will record as false colors



The UV continues to be sold and mounted to protect our precious lenses.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago
















1














UV is annoyingly present when doing landscapes and aerial photography. It records as a haze that blocks the clear view of distant mountains and it veils the land when imaged from high altitudes. A UV blocking filter can be very helpful under these circumstances. The UV filter and a cousin called a “Skylight” filter gained popularity. The “skylight” is tinted pink, so this UV filter also warmed up cool feeling blue-sky type vistas. Special note: The UV filter only benefits when the subject is distant and shrouded by water vapor. Camera store salesmen, eager to pad a sale, generally advised, a UV filter will protect your precious, costly lens. The popularity of the UV thus soared.



With the onset of the digital camera, the need to mount a UV filter diminished because electronic photography raises different issues. The imaging sensor requires trimming with filters or it will fail to deliver a faithful image. The surface of the digital sensor is covered with an array of tiny photosites. These capture the image, but the chances that artifacts with spoil it are high. Most noteworthy is image noise. This is akin to grain in film photography. There are a plethora of these annoying artifacts.



Enter the digital camera’s protective cover glass. The surface of the digital image sensor is fragile, it is covered by a flat glass overlay. This cover glass lends itself to have a dual purpose. Some subject types will image with bizarre results. These are called “demosaicing artifacts, often seen as a moiré. To avoid, the cover glass is also a optical low-pass filter better known as a anti-aliasing filter. This filter slightly blurs fine detail that is finer than the native resolution of the senor. Additionally the cover glass will act as an infrared filter that blocks these frequencies otherwise they will record as false colors



The UV continues to be sold and mounted to protect our precious lenses.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago














1












1








1







UV is annoyingly present when doing landscapes and aerial photography. It records as a haze that blocks the clear view of distant mountains and it veils the land when imaged from high altitudes. A UV blocking filter can be very helpful under these circumstances. The UV filter and a cousin called a “Skylight” filter gained popularity. The “skylight” is tinted pink, so this UV filter also warmed up cool feeling blue-sky type vistas. Special note: The UV filter only benefits when the subject is distant and shrouded by water vapor. Camera store salesmen, eager to pad a sale, generally advised, a UV filter will protect your precious, costly lens. The popularity of the UV thus soared.



With the onset of the digital camera, the need to mount a UV filter diminished because electronic photography raises different issues. The imaging sensor requires trimming with filters or it will fail to deliver a faithful image. The surface of the digital sensor is covered with an array of tiny photosites. These capture the image, but the chances that artifacts with spoil it are high. Most noteworthy is image noise. This is akin to grain in film photography. There are a plethora of these annoying artifacts.



Enter the digital camera’s protective cover glass. The surface of the digital image sensor is fragile, it is covered by a flat glass overlay. This cover glass lends itself to have a dual purpose. Some subject types will image with bizarre results. These are called “demosaicing artifacts, often seen as a moiré. To avoid, the cover glass is also a optical low-pass filter better known as a anti-aliasing filter. This filter slightly blurs fine detail that is finer than the native resolution of the senor. Additionally the cover glass will act as an infrared filter that blocks these frequencies otherwise they will record as false colors



The UV continues to be sold and mounted to protect our precious lenses.






share|improve this answer















UV is annoyingly present when doing landscapes and aerial photography. It records as a haze that blocks the clear view of distant mountains and it veils the land when imaged from high altitudes. A UV blocking filter can be very helpful under these circumstances. The UV filter and a cousin called a “Skylight” filter gained popularity. The “skylight” is tinted pink, so this UV filter also warmed up cool feeling blue-sky type vistas. Special note: The UV filter only benefits when the subject is distant and shrouded by water vapor. Camera store salesmen, eager to pad a sale, generally advised, a UV filter will protect your precious, costly lens. The popularity of the UV thus soared.



With the onset of the digital camera, the need to mount a UV filter diminished because electronic photography raises different issues. The imaging sensor requires trimming with filters or it will fail to deliver a faithful image. The surface of the digital sensor is covered with an array of tiny photosites. These capture the image, but the chances that artifacts with spoil it are high. Most noteworthy is image noise. This is akin to grain in film photography. There are a plethora of these annoying artifacts.



Enter the digital camera’s protective cover glass. The surface of the digital image sensor is fragile, it is covered by a flat glass overlay. This cover glass lends itself to have a dual purpose. Some subject types will image with bizarre results. These are called “demosaicing artifacts, often seen as a moiré. To avoid, the cover glass is also a optical low-pass filter better known as a anti-aliasing filter. This filter slightly blurs fine detail that is finer than the native resolution of the senor. Additionally the cover glass will act as an infrared filter that blocks these frequencies otherwise they will record as false colors



The UV continues to be sold and mounted to protect our precious lenses.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 10 hours ago









Alan MarcusAlan Marcus

25.9k23060




25.9k23060








  • 3





    Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago














  • 3





    Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago








3




3





Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

– Hueco
9 hours ago





Correction: The UV continues to be hyped to protect lenses.

– Hueco
9 hours ago













0














UV lens filters in the digital era have a different purpose than actively filtering UV light. They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc. If the glass in front of the lens gets dirty, you are much safer cleaning a $50 UV filter than a $500 lens front element.



Digital sensors are typically insensitive to UV, so you don't need the UV filter to filter it out. Source: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens which says:




However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    "They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • "Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago
















0














UV lens filters in the digital era have a different purpose than actively filtering UV light. They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc. If the glass in front of the lens gets dirty, you are much safer cleaning a $50 UV filter than a $500 lens front element.



Digital sensors are typically insensitive to UV, so you don't need the UV filter to filter it out. Source: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens which says:




However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.





share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    "They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • "Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago














0












0








0







UV lens filters in the digital era have a different purpose than actively filtering UV light. They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc. If the glass in front of the lens gets dirty, you are much safer cleaning a $50 UV filter than a $500 lens front element.



Digital sensors are typically insensitive to UV, so you don't need the UV filter to filter it out. Source: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens which says:




However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.





share|improve this answer













UV lens filters in the digital era have a different purpose than actively filtering UV light. They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc. If the glass in front of the lens gets dirty, you are much safer cleaning a $50 UV filter than a $500 lens front element.



Digital sensors are typically insensitive to UV, so you don't need the UV filter to filter it out. Source: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens which says:




However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 13 hours ago









juhistjuhist

665112




665112








  • 1





    "They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • "Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago














  • 1





    "They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago











  • "Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

    – Michael C
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

    – Hueco
    9 hours ago








1




1





"They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

– Michael C
10 hours ago





"They are to protect the front element from dust, fingerprints, etc." Either that, or they are there to give users a false sense of security when in some cases they can actually make things worse. To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

– Michael C
10 hours ago













"Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

– Michael C
10 hours ago





"Digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV..." mainly because there "generally" is a UV filter in the stack in front of the sensor. A bare sensor without the filter stack is more sensitive to both UV and IR at either end of the visible spectrum than a typical consumer camera that "generally" has a filter stack in front of the sensor.

– Michael C
10 hours ago




2




2





Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

– Hueco
9 hours ago





Disagree on the cleaning. Your front element can take some abuse. Does your filter have as durable a lens coating? Probably not...

– Hueco
9 hours ago










Tanonic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Tanonic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Tanonic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Tanonic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106228%2fdo-cameras-actively-filter-out-uv-light-or-only-infrared%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to reconfigure Docker Trusted Registry 2.x.x to use CEPH FS mount instead of NFS and other traditional...

is 'sed' thread safe

How to make a Squid Proxy server?