Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

85 filter?

M

Michael Brennan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
724
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Graham has mentioned the camera is factory balanced to 5000k.

So will using a 85 filter on lens increase scope to grade images shot under tungsten light?

Or put another can you get away with not using 85 for run and gun jobs?


I'm still diapointed you didn't include an internal filter wheel with NDs and rotating polariser :(

Best of both worlds.



Mike Brennan
 
I have had the same question for some time.

My current understanding is that, yes, you can get by without a CC filter in front of the camera and pull back a very good image.

Personally, I would shoot with CC whenever possible. I just think it will help keep away unwanted color tint on those blown out areas and improve general image soundness.

However, a new question based on yours, Mike... in REDCINE can you animate your grade parameters? Say you move from daylight to tungsten in the course of a take and choose to go without CC. Will REDCINE let you ramp from one set of correction to another?
 
Everyone on the project describes the red as a big DSLR that can shoot 60 fps. In RAW recording, "their is no white balance", meaning you assign a white point in post. I've never had a problem doing that with RAW in any DSLR, I wouldn't image a difference in RED.

If the camera is "factory balanced at 5000k", Id imagine that means it is its "native" white balance. maybe an 85 filter would increase the quality of color slightly, but i dont know if it would be significant.
 
To me, the considerations are:

Shooting RC RAW
Image parameters are not baked in, and with the tweaking capabilities of REDCINE in pre-post, then filtering at acquisition is generally unnecessary.

Shooting RGB
Image parameters are baked in, and it's harder and time consuming to change them in post, thus filters during acquisition are a real consideration.

I've historically shot most of my footage "clean" because it simply gives me more potential uses in post, plus stock footage is a big part of my business plan - and clean footage has more flexibility and variety of licensing uses as stock. I'll shoot almost all my footage with RED One as RC RAW for that reason, and a few other reasons.
 
Actually, to shoot "clean" footage with this sensor under tungsten WOULD be if using an 85 series filter... 85C would be the closest fit, methinks...

It would make a difference in critical areas, such as green screen work, etc... and those extreme manipulation moments...
 
Evin, it would be great to see a test on this... of course if your Nikon is not the same native C temp as the Mysterium, perhaps it is best to wait and test later.

Put me down in the "will make a difference" column if there are bets being laid...

It will show when colors start to saturate at different rates and in areas transitioning to pure blow out. I will have an 85C in the kit at all times for tungsten when using the RED.

Besides, if it is so easy to fix at lens with an 85C, why not do everything you can if you have the time?
 
The only time I can see that making a difference is if there is some blow out/highlight cliping. But even then the highlight recovery tool in the RAW converter should do just as well. Although it's best not to clip anything if possible, and it does seem possible given the most recent tests. What should I be loking for as a difference Jim? When I convert the file I can choose any WB point I like so ideally I'll make both pictures neutral and then what, push the hell out of the saturation and see if one holds more info? It should at least give me a sense of what to look for right?
 
Gibby said:
To me, the considerations are:

Shooting RC RAW
Image parameters are not baked in, and with the tweaking capabilities of REDCINE in pre-post, then filtering at acquisition is generally unnecessary.

Shooting RGB
Image parameters are baked in, and it's harder and time consuming to change them in post, thus filters during acquisition are a real consideration.
Click to expand...

Speaking of RC RAW vs. RGB...

Jim, any chance the RGB feature will now be enabled for the first round release? We would certainly love to include that (as well as the RED B4 adaptor) in the tests at LART.
 
In my extensive experience shooting raw digital images, I find that you only muck up the image if you use cc in front of the lens.
Aloha
-A
 
Well, there you go. No CC and no penalties.

I still can't see how that's possible, but differ to everyone's greater RAW experience.
 
Poi Boy said:
In my extensive experience shooting raw digital images, I find that you only muck up the image if you use cc in front of the lens.
Aloha
-A
Click to expand...

I'll second that. I've used cmos sensor DSLRs extensively, shooting RAW, and I've never used a CC filter when shooting them - and the images and processing of them have been great - no problems. In technology, RED One most closely resembles cmos sensor DSLRs (with higher frame rates), so I'd anticipate the same approach to shooting with my RED One cameras. We'll see...
 
Wait a minute, aren't we all bass ackwards here?

... the sensor is 5000K.

At the sensors native color balance, tungsten light would look overly orange/red to it, needing blue CCB in front of the lens to fix, not something in the warm85 series... we need 1800K of correction, but in the other direction...

?????
 
You are essentially puting the filter on the image when you process the file.
-A
 
Yes, currently balanced around 5000k. I'd not shoot with a filter though - I'd use the highlight tool in Redcine if you were to have a colour of light that caused a shift in the highlights (and as the colour gets corrected from un-clipped channels, you get some extra guestimated highlight detail too).

If you shoot with a filter, the kelvin white balance numbers won't make sense any more....

Graeme
 
I thought I read about this here before, but in theory, could you take a still or short "camera test" clip (RAW) while on set, off-load it into REDCINE make your adjustments, and then take that profile and load it back onto the Camera for use only on your Monitor output?

This would allow the DP and Director to have an idea what a specific adjustment would look like without needing any filters and also without needing to make any counter adjustments on the Assist Monitor at Video Village. (and yet still Record the RAW unfiltered clip). I suppose this depends on the limitations of what can be processed in real-time on the monitor output signal.

Is this possible? (or only possible for the actual Recorded Output)?
 
was 85 now 80

was 85 now 80

Jim Arthurs said:
Wait a minute, aren't we all bass ackwards here?

... the sensor is 5000K.

At the sensors native color balance, tungsten light would look overly orange/red to it, needing blue CCB in front of the lens to fix, not something in the warm85 series... we need 1800K of correction, but in the other direction...

?????
Click to expand...

Opps my mistake! should/could be 80A 80B or 80c depending on if you want 3200k or 3600k... not an everyday filter, which is why I asked the question, promted by Jims warning to Rookies to have ND filters.

Sorry for confusion..
And of course it is blue in colour.

As Gibby says recording RGB allows for less scope in grading and use of CC filter may be a good idea.
Some shooters have noticed that their is a little more scope in grading Viper filmstream material if on lens CC correction is used to remove the green bias.
Green channel reaches saturation point ahead of the other channels without the cc filter.

But then RED is more of an anaconda than a viper so it may deal with 2500cc shift in its stride.


Mike Brennan
 
We think you will NOT want to add filters when you shoot the RED ONE in tungsten. 1st off, if you did add a filter, it should be an 80B (or thereabouts)... not an 85. But the light loss is worse than the correction. We are going to do complete testing on this in the next few weeks.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top