Well, since PF chromatic aberration is worst for the shortest wavelengths that a sensor is sensitive to (violet and/or ultra-violet light) I would expect a UV cut filter to help somewhat, yes. Additionally since a polarizer decreases the amount of \"stray\" light rays which contributes to bloom and haloing, I would expect it to help as well. The reason it\'s considered mostly to be a digital phenomenon is because most films are not nearly as sensitive to the V and UV portion of the spectrum (which is where PF is from) as digital sensors are. I also hear it\'s much worse on CCD sensors than N-MOS or C-MOS ones.
But true PF can all be removed in Adobe\'s Camera Raw or many other processors. Here\'s some links about PF and the removal thereof - either with filters or with software:
I guess how much a UV filter will help will depend on the camera\'s own internal filter blocks and the sensor\'s sensitivity to UV. And how much a polarizer will help will depend on how susceptible the lens in question is to flare and ghosting.
Well, since PF chromatic aberration is worst for the shortest wavelengths that a sensor is sensitive to (violet and/or ultra-violet light) I would expect a UV cut filter to help somewhat, yes. Additionally since a polarizer decreases the amount of \"stray\" light rays which contributes to bloom and haloing, I would expect it to help as well. The reason it\'s considered mostly to be a digital phenomenon is because most films are not nearly as sensitive to the V and UV portion of the spectrum (which is where PF is from) as digital sensors are. I also hear it\'s much worse on CCD sensors than N-MOS or C-MOS ones.
But true PF can all be removed in Adobe\'s Camera Raw or many other processors. Here\'s some links about PF and the removal thereof - either with filters or with software:
