Kimwipes vs "lens tissue"
Bertho Boman
out what to use.
I have seen many suggestions to use "Kimwipes".
Are they better than "lens tissue"?
How do they compare in scratch protection?
What residues are left after dipping in alcohol?
If lens tissue is better, what brand?
There probably have been some studies done on the subject. As usual,
it is hard to find them. Suggested reading material?
TIA
Bertho Boman
Phil Hobbs
that doesn't depend much on what material you wipe with. Ultrasonic
cleaning in an aqueous detergent such as Alconox or Ivory Liquid works
well, provided you don't let the optical surfaces touch _anything_
during cleaning.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
P. Danek
I have been using some nice stuff from Edmunds. They market it as
industrial grade tissue (not the Edmunds brand name stuff). I believe
that it is made by a company called Berkeley. I have been very happy
with it.
P. Danek
Louis Boyd
You need to determine:
What the substrate material is.
Does it have coatings and what kind.
What kind of undesirable material is on the optical surface.
How the optics are mounted and whether the mountings or other nearby
objects will be affected by the cleaning material.
How accessable the optics are.
As a general rule use a cleaning liquid which will disolve or wash away
the unwanted contaminent while not damaging the optical surface.
Acetone works well on glass lenses (with or without common coatings) but
it can distroy plastic lenses or the plastic housings of instruments
like cameras. Acetone is good for removing oily materials like
fingerprints and by the nature of the way it's produced commercial
acetone has very little contaminents.
Alcohol also disolves oils and is usually better around plastics but
usually contains more foreign material than commercial acetone and dries
slower. Water is a good solvent for some types of contaminants such as
insect residues. Dust particles are best washed of with copious
amounts of liquid in most cases without any wiping. An air blast can
cause the particles to scratch worse than when carried by a liquid, and
any kind of cloth or wipe is worse yet. Once all particles are washed
away cloth or tissue may be used to carry cleaning fluid to lift
stubborn residues. Wet tissue can be drawn across the surface wti Air
is good for drying the optics once they are washed. Ultrasonics
cleaners are for cleaning disassembled optics. Agian a compatible fluid
must be used.
Some astronomical observatories use a carbon dioxide spray to clean bare
aluminum coatings on mirrors. A stream of liquid CO2 is directed at the
surface and adjusted so it is just subliming near the surface. The
"snow" lifts and carries away dirt particles and leaves no
contamination.
--
Lou Boyd
Fairborn Observatory
Paul Meier-Wang
Bertho Boman <bo...@vinland.com> wrote:
We use wipes specifically for optics. From Opto-Alignment Technology inc
716 328 1890
www.optoalignment.com
Paul Meier-Wang
AccuCoat inc
Andy
No matter how fine velvet you'd use if you use Jiff or Cif or whatever
those kitchen soaps are called you will scratch the stove.
Same with your lenses.
If you can immerse them (i.e. if it is not e.g. a camera lens) in liquid
then you're best off by first rinsing it with plenty of water.
If, for example you were going to clean your glasses, then just
open the tap with luke warm water and just rinse them. Then
you can take some mild soap (first wash your hands) and just
using your fingers clean the lenses. And don't anyone tell you
that your skin will scratch. If you have washed (brushed) your
fingers well your skin is softer than any paper.
Now, if you want to rinse the lenses you can do this with alcohol
and the higher grade you use the less residue it will leave.
If you want to be really sure there is no residue at all (the highest
grade ethylic alcohol will still have 1% water) then you may want to
get some CCl4 (carbochloride) it is frequently used in chem. labs
to rinse reaction jars before the experiments. It evaporates 100%
Good luck
Andy
"Bertho Boman" <bo...@vinland.com> wrote in message
news:kmkfntk7kar38eal0...@4ax.com...
Bertho Boman
The specific task at hand is to clean the Lithium Niobate filter in
front of the CCD in a Nikon D1 camera. If scratched, Nikon will
happily replace it for a $1,400 fee!
That is why I am going slowly and finding out the right way first.
Bertho Boman
Franco Del Principe
here some additional thoughts.
Tissues from any plant sources like cotton or paper (cellulose, Kim
wipes) can scratch optical surfaces without the presence of dust
particles because of the natural presence of crystals in plant cells!
For this reason it is better to use tissues derived from animals like
silk or wool. Kodak lens cleaning paper is also recommended although I
do not know the manufacturing process of this paper.
Besides the used material, the right technique is as much important. To
clean delicate optical surfaces like e.g. coated mirrors never wipe the
surface directly with the tissue in your hand. Instead, place the dry
cleaning paper onto the surface and put a drop of 100% Methanol or
Ethanol onto it. Then pull the soaked paper over the surface until the
dry part of the paper dries away the rest of the liquid. Scratches are
avoided in this way because dust particles are dragged by the liquid and
no force is applied onto the surface.
The solvents (methanol, ethanol) should be analytical grade and be kept
in glass bottles. Plastic bottles contain softeners which can be
dissolved by the alcohols and this will leave visible smears on the
surfaces after the solvent has evaporated.
Cheers, Franco
--
LIFE IMAGING SERVICES - Visit our website at http://www.lis.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franco Del Principe, PhD
Untereggweg 17
CH-4147 Aesch BL, Switzerland
Fon ++41 61 753 2033
Fax
++41 61 753 2034
Mobile
++41 79 672 4694
E-mail
franco.de...@lis.ch
Prof Harvey Rutt
Bertho Boman wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. Here is a little additional info:
>
> The specific task at hand is to clean the Lithium Niobate filter in
> front of the CCD in a Nikon D1 camera. If scratched, Nikon will
> happily replace it for a $1,400 fee!
Why does it have a Lithium Niobate 'filter'?
I know lots of uses for LiNbO3, but not this one.
> That is why I am going slowly and finding out the right way first.
> Bertho Boman
My own views:
Ordinary tissues are risky; there is no quality control for gritty bits
on things wipe up spilt oil!!
That said, soft 'facial' type tissues are not that bad mechanically; but
some leave severe residues if wetted with solvent.
Industrial trissues can be very 'harsh' indeed; the paper probably has a
coating (china clay in it maybe?) & is possibly *deliberately* made
abrasive to assist in clean up in more normal circumstances.
Dont let them anywhere near optics.
Solvents. Excessively volatile solvents are not too good; I dislike
alchohol & acetone for that reason. Iso propyl alchohol, propan-2-ol is
a good solvent for muck & dries more slowly & is widely used.
Best grade of solvent you can buy!
My pet hate is the pour on, sets into a film, pull it off stuff. The
times I tried it it was a disaster & left a residue.
I have heard good reports of, but not used the CO2 snow method.
Optics are typically very expensive; a box of decent lens tissue &
bottle of good solvent cheap. is it worth the risk of using anything
other than the best?
Better yet, keep your optics clean.........
Harvey Rutt
P. Danek
The oil from your fingers is readily wicked off and deposited onto the
surface you are trying to clean. Make sure your fingers stay dry and
well away from the solvent.
BTW, we use CMos grade isopropanol with no problems.
P. Danek
Prof Harvey Rutt
Franco Del Principe wrote:
> Bertho,
>
> here some additional thoughts.
>
> Tissues from any plant sources like cotton or paper (cellulose, Kim
> wipes) can scratch optical surfaces without the presence of dust
> particles because of the natural presence of crystals in plant cells!
> For this reason it is better to use tissues derived from animals like
> silk or wool. Kodak lens cleaning paper is also recommended although I
> do not know the manufacturing process of this paper.
Interesting point; some plant tissues do contain silica crystals! Nasty.
But are any tissues really made from animal fibre, & doesnt that mean more
chance of organic contamination?
> Besides the used material, the right technique is as much important. To
> clean delicate optical surfaces like e.g. coated mirrors never wipe the
> surface directly with the tissue in your hand. Instead, place the dry
> cleaning paper onto the surface and put a drop of 100% Methanol or
> Ethanol onto it. Then pull the soaked paper over the surface until the
> dry part of the paper dries away the rest of the liquid. Scratches are
> avoided in this way because dust particles are dragged by the liquid and
> no force is applied onto the surface.
Agreed. But I dont like ethanol/methanol, evaporate too fast.
The solvents (methanol, ethanol) should be analytical grade
*Electronic* grade, so called, is far better
and be kept
> in glass bottles. Plastic bottles contain softeners which can be
> dissolved by the alcohols and this will leave visible smears on the
> surfaces after the solvent has evaporated.
Also agreed - and pour it onto the tissue, dont put the tissue on the bottle
mouth & invert the bottle, & dont dissolve finger grease into your solvent!
Crazy? - Ive seen it done.
Also chuck the bottle away every few months.
May sound paranoid, but optics are costly & solvents are not!
Harvey Rutt
Jeffrey S. Czapla-Myers
Bertho Boman wrote:
I have another question for this thread. I have a Nikon 995 and was
wondering about the outermost glass. When cleaning, I first give it a
shot of canned air, then wipe it gently with a lens tissue that's wet
with typical lens cleaner (Canon, Kodak, etc.). Finally, I just dry it
with more lens tissue. On the lenses for my 35-mm SLR, I have a clear
plate filter that screws on to protect the elements. I'm wondering, is
the flat plate on the 995 an expensive piece to replace, or is it there
to act merely as protection? Should I find a filter to protect it?
Thanks,
Jeff
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
The best of the best which I ever found
for cleaning optical glass&mirrors
by *wiping* (yes, sometimes you have to do that) is the following:
TX 1009 AlphaWipe
synthetic wipers
made by the TEXWIPE Company LLC
Upper Saddle River,
NJ 07458
100 % continuous filament polyester soft fiber
low (no!) particle generation
high sorptive
cleanroom packaged
The wipes, to my experience, outperform anything else.
We do nor re-use them by loundry in DI water etc,
but might be worth considering.
w.
--
to email remove 8 dots from left to right: ........
Bertho Boman
One more question:
Since the surface that I have to clean is buried inside the camera I
plan on wrapping the cleaning tissue around a "Q-tip" to be able to
get to the surface.
What brand of "soft tipped cleaning stick" should I use that will not
release any chemicals when in contact with a cleaning solution?
TIA
Bertho Boman
Bertho Boman
>Why does it have a Lithium Niobate 'filter'?
>I know lots of uses for LiNbO3, but not this one.
It is an optical lowpass filter in front of the CCD.
>Optics are typically very expensive; a box of decent lens tissue &
>bottle of good solvent cheap. is it worth the risk of using anything
>other than the best?
That is my question: What is the best?
>Better yet, keep your optics clean.........
Trying, but changing camera lenses on windy dusty days.....
Thanks for responding,
Bertho
Arfty1166
<< The best of the best which I ever found
for cleaning optical glass&mirrors
by *wiping* (yes, sometimes you have to do that) is the following:
TX 1009 AlphaWipe
synthetic wipers
made by the TEXWIPE Company LLC
Upper Saddle River,
NJ 07458
100 % continuous filament polyester soft fiber
low (no!) particle generation
high sorptive
cleanroom packaged
The wipes, to my experience, outperform anything else.
We do nor re-use them by loundry in DI water etc,
but might be worth considering.
>>
I second that comment. I've was trying to remember the name and it is TexWipes.
I've used them with some success on first surface aluminum mirrors and they
work better than anything I've ever used.
Thanks for the reminder.
Art Springsteen
Avian Technologies
www.aviantechnologies.com
Arfty1166
<< Trying, but changing camera lenses on windy dusty days.....
Thanks for responding,
Bertho
>>
Oh no- all bets are off- don't use any sort of wipe. The dust is abrasive. Try
gently blowing off with air or use the CO2 snow. Any wipe you use will pick up
the dust and scratch your optic.
Art Springsteen
Bertho Boman
>Oh no- all bets are off- don't use any sort of wipe. The dust is abrasive. Try
>gently blowing off with air or use the CO2 snow. Any wipe you use will pick up
>the dust and scratch your optic.
>
>Art Springsteen
========================
Usually, I get away with blowing it off but I am looking for solutions
when it does not work. Nikon only recommends to return the camera to
them for cleaning but they are using some unknown cleaning swabs.
I have seen references to the CO2 snow cleaning. Is that practical
for private use? I thought that large equipment is required to do
that. I have a big tank of CO2 sitting here but how about the
controlled snow generator?
Bertho
Richard Cline
wrote:
CO2 snow cleaning can provide some excellent results. It is extremely gentle nd yet it
can lift off dust particles that seem firmly attached. It does require a special high
purity of CO2 and it requires a special cleaning nozzle that will produce snow. It also
requires a little prcatice to become proficient in doing the cleaning.
Dick
None
My colleagues and I have had *very limited* experience, and it was with
planar waveguide circuits on a silicon substrate, not optics in the
traditional sense. However we made the following observations that may have
relevance, depending on your particular situation.
* There can be a buildup of static charge,
* There can be thermal shock due to the snow,
* Water tends to condense on the substrate due to the temperature.
It is my understanding that CO2 snow *is* used for cleaning optics so I'm
sure that these problems can be overcome. My point is that if you're of the
"let's give it a quick try" mindset (like me) you should practice on some
junk optics to learn how to avoid the beginner problems mentioned above.
Prof Harvey Rutt
Bertho Boman wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 Prof Harvey Rutt <h.r...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Why does it have a Lithium Niobate 'filter'?
> >I know lots of uses for LiNbO3, but not this one.
>
> It is an optical lowpass filter in front of the CCD.
*Very* strange use for LiNbO3, which is transparent out to about 5 um or
a bit more!
For an optical low pass filter ( I *assume* you mean wavelength low pass,
which is really frequency high pass) normally you want to cut off the
near IR response of the CCD in the 0.7 to 1um region. Normally done with
a glass filter, KG type stuff I assume.
But I dont see how Niobate achieves this.
Any further info? What actually says it is LiNbO3?
> >Optics are typically very expensive; a box of decent lens tissue &
> >bottle of good solvent cheap. is it worth the risk of using anything
> >other than the best?
>
> That is my question: What is the best?
Any good brand of lens tissues sold as such.
From a fresh packet, or one thats been cleanly under your control!
Electronic grade solvent, my personal preferance being propan-2-ol,
others like methanol, ethanol or acetone.
> >Better yet, keep your optics clean.........
> Trying, but changing camera lenses on windy dusty days.....
Point taken; I've had the same problem.
> Thanks for responding,
> Bertho
Harvey
P. Danek
from clean room vendors. The one I use is Arnold David Cohen,
www.tiac.net/users/adcohen. Crappy web site but it has contact info. I
have always used 100% cotton swabs. They don't react with solvents and
the hairs they shed are big enough to be easily seen and blown off with
compressed air. Just don't handle the tips with bare hands or you will
get finger oils onto the swabs.
Just a note on Methanol. It is the most hazardous to humans. It is
readily absorbed through the skin into your system. If you use it don't
get it on yourself. They are all very flammable particularly Acetone so
no smoking while cleaning your lenses.
Good Luck,
P. Danek
Kenneth Smith
(berkshire.com) super-polyx1200.
This wipe has the lowest level of extractables of virtually any on the
market.
It is not all that absorbent, but in wipes, as the absorbency increases,
so do the extractables and the harshness of the surface.
Berkshire also supplies superior swabs as well.
Ken
--
Ken Smith
Kmbh Associates
4968 Charter Road
Rocklin, CA 95765 USA
510-714-5055 Efax- 510 217 4421 or 561 658 6136
High Purity Float Zone and Specialty CZ Silicon for Power, IR and
Mirror Optics, Optoelectronics, MEMS, SOI, and other Semiconductor
applications. Service in SOI, Polishing SSP and DSP.
P. Danek
P. Danek
Girdler
Prof Harvey Rutt wrote:
> Bertho Boman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 Prof Harvey Rutt <h.r...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Why does it have a Lithium Niobate 'filter'?
> > >I know lots of uses for LiNbO3, but not this one.
> >
> > It is an optical lowpass filter in front of the CCD.
>
> *Very* strange use for LiNbO3, which is transparent out to about 5 um or
> a bit more!
> For an optical low pass filter ( I *assume* you mean wavelength low pass,
> which is really frequency high pass) normally you want to cut off the
> near IR response of the CCD in the 0.7 to 1um region. Normally done with
> a glass filter, KG type stuff I assume.
> But I dont see how Niobate achieves this.
> Any further info? What actually says it is LiNbO3?
>
Nikon do - check their U.S. website:
Actually I suspect "low pass" to be it's function - to reduce aliasing and
other artefacts.
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>I need to clean delicate optical components and I am trying to find
>out what to use.
Hi, this is an
Old Opticians tale:
(For the Archives)
Assume, there are some particles on an otherwise clean lens surface,
blowing does not remove them, wiping may be making things worse,
what to do ?
In the pre.plastic time the old masters would have a small
collection of dry Elder branches, (Sambucus, Holunder),
and would peel out the marrow, , make a fresh cut end.
The particles would come off the glass easily when touched with the
marrow and the dry Elder marrow would not leave traces on the glass.
Today, we would use Styrofoam, Styropor, that white granular stuff,
cut a piece of pencil size, and with the freshly cut end we would
collect those particles from the glass.
W.
Bertho Boman
>*Very* strange use for LiNbO3, which is transparent out to about 5 um or
>a bit more!
>For an optical low pass filter ( I *assume* you mean wavelength low pass,
>which is really frequency high pass) normally you want to cut off the
>near IR response of the CCD in the 0.7 to 1um region. Normally done with
>a glass filter, KG type stuff I assume.
>But I dont see how Niobate achieves this.
>Any further info? What actually says it is LiNbO3?
=======================
I think I should have said "spatial low pass filter". It is slightly
blurring the image to avoid aliasing problems from finer details than
can be detected by the CCD.
Bertho
Bertho Boman
>Hi, this is an Old Opticians tale:
>(For the Archives)
>
>Assume, there are some particles on an otherwise clean lens surface,
>blowing does not remove them, wiping may be making things worse,
>what to do ?
>
>In the pre.plastic time the old masters would have a small
>collection of dry Elder branches, (Sambucus, Holunder),
>and would peel out the marrow, , make a fresh cut end.
>The particles would come off the glass easily when touched with the
>marrow and the dry Elder marrow would not leave traces on the glass.
>
>Today, we would use Styrofoam, Styropor, that white granular stuff,
>cut a piece of pencil size, and with the freshly cut end we would
>collect those particles from the glass.
Intersesting with how thing were done before modern technology.
A question though: Do I have to rub it on the cat first? -:)
Bertho
Acme Optics
quartz overcoated mirrors was to cover the mirror with a warm solution
on isopropyl alcohol and distilled water in a deep, clean pie or cake
shaped pan.
Using cleanex, we would very carefully drag the wet tissue over the
mirror, not actually pressing on the mirror.
We followed this by a rinse with the same mixture (clean) and then a
final rinse with distilled water and air dry in a dust free
environment.
The real warning is that many things can be cleaned non-destructively
but some types of optical surfaces are essentially impossible to clean
without altering, so be careful and know your optical surface and
cleaning supplies intimately before the cleaning process begins.
I was working with some folks who cleaned a KZFSN4 lens in industrial
grade acetone. They ended up with a badly discolored, useless lens
which cost them a customer.
It is better to look at a dirty optic than to clean it incorrectly!
Acme Optics
Prof Harvey Rutt
Girdler wrote:
*Spatial* low pass makes more sense, but I'm still intrigued by what it is
doing.
But I cant find it on that big web site, loads of advertising stuff..........
Could you point me to the exact place please?
Harvey Rutt
John McMillan
BADRAN, H.M.; WEEKES, T.C.
"Maintenance and testing of anodized aluminum mirrors on the Whipple 10 m
Whipple Telescope"
http://www.copernicus.org/icrc/papers/ici6762_p.pdf
Girdler
I'll dig out the URLs and post them here as soon as I have found them. I recall
the Nikon site reference was well buried in marketing "hype" and Java, and
again from memory only mentioned lithium niobate with - surprise surprise - no
*real* details as to why it was used.
Girdler
http://www.photodirect.com.au/cameras/nikon/d1/pd_camera_nikon_d1.htm
http://www.jaytorborg.com/nikon_d1.htm
Most sites mention the darned filter but appear to me to be rather vague
(innacurrate?) in their "explanations" -
http://www.lonestardigital.com/D1.htm mentions
"The CCD cover glass is also a special
infrared reduction, low-pass lithium-niobate filter designed
to reduce or eliminate color
shifts, aliasing, moire, and artifacting. "
however I can't see that this can be totally accurate, my understanding being
that either, as you suggest, some form of "spatial" low-pass filtering is being
accomplished, "low pass" in that wavelengths above some value (close to the
upper limit of the CCD itself) are being blocked - or perhaps a bit of both? I
most definately can't see how lithium niobate could *cut* IR!
Must admit this is bugging me too now!
Prof Harvey Rutt
Girdler wrote:
> Here are a few URL results from a Google search on "lithium niobate Nikon D1":
>
> http://www.photodirect.com.au/cameras/nikon/d1/pd_camera_nikon_d1.htm
>
> http://www.jaytorborg.com/nikon_d1.htm
>
> Most sites mention the darned filter but appear to me to be rather vague
> (innacurrate?) in their "explanations" -
>
> http://www.lonestardigital.com/D1.htm mentions
>
> "The CCD cover glass is also a special
> infrared reduction, low-pass lithium-niobate filter designed
> to reduce or eliminate color
> shifts, aliasing, moire, and artifacting. "
>
> however I can't see that this can be totally accurate, my understanding being
> that either, as you suggest, some form of "spatial" low-pass filtering is being
> accomplished, "low pass" in that wavelengths above some value (close to the
> upper limit of the CCD itself) are being blocked - or perhaps a bit of both? I
> most definately can't see how lithium niobate could *cut* IR!
All the pages say is:
Lithium Niobate Low Pass
filter for enhanced performance; film-like smoothness and extended
dynamic range.
It has a build in Lithium Niobate
low pass filter to reduce aliasing and provide beautiful
image smoothness, but this also tends to soften the image somewhat.
The CCD cover
glass is also a special infrared reduction, low-pass
lithium-niobate filter designed to reduce or
eliminate color shifts, aliasing, moire, and artifacting.
Which tell us really very little.
It sounds as if it dithers or spatially low pass filters the image.
LiNbO3 is best known for is electro optic & nonlinear properties, but it seems very
unlikely those are involved here.
It is also birefringent of course... but so what?
Its certainly not an IR blocker - it isnt, & that does not fit the description. It
must be niobaate AND an IR blocker - which could be a coating on the niobate.
An acousto optic device - not normally niobate, costly, lots of issues.....
Also the description makes it sound very *thin*, a 'filter'............
I am stuck.
Does anyone know what this does & how it does it?
Harvey Rutt
gir...@playful.com
Prof Harvey Rutt wrote:
> Girdler wrote:
>
> <snip>
That makes two of us - anyone with the answer please post it!
Bertho Boman
I have learned a lot and hopefully other readers have benefitted also.
I am still collecting info and testing. I have some old pieces of
front surface aluminized mirrors they make excellent test pieces
together with a high power light source and a stereo microscope.
One easily obtainable supplier for cameras is; PhotoSolutions
http://www.photosol.com/
They sell prepackaged cleaning liquid, pads and swabs for cleaning
CCDs and they are approved by Kodak. Presumably, it is from some of
the industrial suppliers that was mentioned on the this list. The
photographic mail order supply houses sell it.
Bertho Boman
LogicomDW
optics. Try Texwipes.
Stephen H. Westin
> Bertho Boman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 Prof Harvey Rutt <h.r...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Why does it have a Lithium Niobate 'filter'?
> > >I know lots of uses for LiNbO3, but not this one.
> >
> > It is an optical lowpass filter in front of the CCD.
>
> *Very* strange use for LiNbO3, which is transparent out to about 5
> um or a bit more!
Not at all. It's a *spatial frequency* low pass (i.e. blur)
filter. Color digital cameras inherently undersample across the image
plane, since there's no practical technology for putting an RGB triad
of sensors all coincident on the image plane. To reduce the aliasing
problems that result, it's typical to put a fancy optical element in
front of the sensor. With most cameras, it's fixed in place; Kodak's
professional cameras let you remove it for more sharpness but more
aliasing.
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.