Red One and ND filters

[Adrian T.]

Very important! You can set the Red to ASA 100 which is dangerous because the built in zebras, false color, histograms, etc will CHANGE based on your camera rating... you'll be effectively clipping but zebras, false color, etc may look fine.

:blink: :waaa:

So these indicators don't really show what's recorded. They don't show the information based on RAW.

This is not good. :sad:

Any possibility RED could change that? Or maybe make user selectable?

 

[Caesar]

Therefore is unavoidable to use ND filters. - there is no hype in it. It's just the way how it works.

I think you're misunderstanding the hype quote. It's not about the use of ND filters.

 

[Mr. Paul White]

You need ND filters. I'm amazed that so many people expend so much energy trying to find ways of avoiding getting ND filters. It's almost as as basic an equipment need as a tripod.

That's not the point. If you'll have a better reading you'll check that's because there's a new Nikon lens which a few of us would like to use with the Birger mount.

Are the ND filters even necessary? Or can we use the Red One without any matte box?

I'm thinking to buy the new Nikon 14-24 2.8 AF-S for the use with the Birger mount and I'm wondering...

 

[Caesar]

Yes. That wood is crazy for our setup. Moreover, a run 'n gun style is a pain in the ass with the matte box.

 

[Emanuel A.]

I think you're misunderstanding the hype quote. It's not about the use of ND filters.

100% correct.

 

[Alexander Christ]

:blink: :waaa:

So these indicators don't really show what's recorded. They don't show the information based on RAW.

This is not good. :sad:

Any possibility RED could change that? Or maybe make user selectable?

I think it's helpful that these indicators (zebras, false color,...) correlate with your chosen ASA setting on the RED. If you set ASA 100, then you will light the scene for ASA 100 and check i.e. with false color. If you want to see the information based on RAW, you can set the RED to ASA 320.

 

[Steve Murray]

I think if your using still lenses this may be a great option:
http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html

NICE Vincent! Thanks.

 

[Adrian T.]

I think it's helpful that these indicators (zebras, false color,...) correlate with your chosen ASA setting on the RED. If you set ASA 100, then you will light the scene for ASA 100 and check i.e. with false color. If you want to see the information based on RAW, you can set the RED to ASA 320.

I'm not sure that the indicators really correspond to the RAW data when you set the camera to ASA 320. It may be as close as you can get but still the indicators seem to be based on the preview RGB picture.

When I light a scene for ASA 100 I surely want to preview it as ASA 100. Otherwise it seems overexposed. But I really expect the indicators to show me if I clip anything in RAW and how the exposure looks in RAW. This has nothing to do with the RGB preview.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That's not the point. If you'll have a better reading you'll check that's because there's a new Nikon lens which a few of us would like to use with the Birger mount.

I did read the posts, including the first one. If you weren't asking if ND's were necessary, then it's a poorly-worded question.

The original post asked:

Are the ND filters even necessary? Or can we use the Red One without any matte box?

And the follow-up answers were about using a lower ASA rating to avoid ND's.

So maybe you'd like to rephrase the question? Because now I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking how you are going to put an ND filter onto the Nikon lens if you use the Birger mount? Because that's a very different question than asking if ND's are necessary, which is what I thought the original post asked.

 

[Dalibor Fencl]

I think you're misunderstanding the hype quote. It's not about the use of ND filters.

No, I did. As well as did David. The quote was about NDs, F/stop (DOF and the hype in it), and ASA settings. Those are three ways to control exposition (if I don't mind the shutter here).

That is generally. Particulary in case of RED (and other any digital sensor) you can't change the ASA. So the only thing you can do to properly expose, is
1) to change the F/stop, with heavy impact to the picture (DOF, sharpness, refraction)
2) or you can add some ND, that doesn't affect the other quality of the picture than exposition.

No lens helps you here - all are same considering those principles.

 

[Dalibor Fencl]

:blink: :waaa:

So these indicators don't really show what's recorded. They don't show the information based on RAW.
This is not good. :sad:
Any possibility RED could change that? Or maybe make user selectable?

I wouldn't say it's bad. It's useful information how the picture is gonna look like when you decide intentionaly clip some part off (shadows or highlight).

 

[Mr. Paul White]

I did read the posts, including the first one. If you weren't asking if ND's were necessary, then it's a poorly-worded question.

The original post asked:

"Are the ND filters even necessary? Or can we use the Red One without any matte box?"

Again: please read the original post carefully. The ORIGINAL text is available in the beginning of the thread. There's no late edits as anyone can check. It's clear:

Are the ND filters even necessary? Or can we use the Red One without any matte box?

I'm thinking to buy the new Nikon 14-24 2.8 AF-S for the use with the Birger mount and I'm wondering...

Thank you.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Then I still don't understand the original question. Are you thinking for some reason a Nikon still camera lens doesn't need ND filters? Rather than repeating the original post, why you don't you explain the question more clearly? You say "it's clear" when it's not clear at all! Why would buying a Nikon 14-24 zoom for use on the Birger mount suddenly negate the reasons why you need to use an ND filter outdoors? Am I missing something, like that the Birger mount has some system of internal ND filtration?

The only description of the Birger mount I can find says:

Allows for remote and automated control of iris and focus of Canon EOS Camera Lenses through a simple character based serial protocol. This product is available from Birger Engineering.

So what's the connection between that and needing ND filters?

 

[Steve Murray]

Are the ND filters even necessary? Or can we use the Red One without any matte box?

I'm thinking to buy the new Nikon 14-24 2.8 AF-S for the use with the Birger mount and I'm wondering...

I would buy the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX instead (like BillG said) as you can put filters on that lens and shoot without a Matte box if you want to.... I wouldn't shoot without a matte box... but you could.

You can buy a set of Series 9 ND filters and a 77mm ring for that lens and shoot. Why Series 9? Some 77mm filters will vignette at 12mm on that lens so if you use the Series 9 filters you will not have that problem as they are larger and you can then use that one ND set on any other lens you buy that takes 82mm or smaller filters.

Does that answer your question?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If the question was "do I need to use a mattebox to use ND filters?" then the answer is "no" -- you can use round clamp-on or screw-on filters. Rectangular filters in mattebox trays/slots just tend to be faster to switch out.

If the question was more about why don't still photographers need to use ND when shooting outdoors, it's because they have the option of using short shutter speeds to compensate.

If the question was "do I need to have ND filters when using the RED camera with a still camera lens?" the answer is "yes" generally, if you are shooting in full sunlight and don't want to be stopped all the way down on the lens plus using a low ASA rating that will cause highlights to clip faster. You can't just shorten the shutter speed way down to compensate because of how that affects motion.

 

[Mr. Paul White]

Thank you for your concern. The question is about that particular lens. It does seem that wood doesn't allow the use of a matte box. Being the ND filters necessary, can we have any workaround for the use of that particular lens with ND filters?

 

[Mr. Paul White]

Here is a pic of the lens:
http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30954

 

[Dan Blanchett]

Can't the front of the lens be stepped up (if necessary) to accommodate standard matte boxes? Then again, that front element is already huge for a still lens. Does that flower-hood design prevent use of a matte box?

I would buy the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX instead (like BillG said) as you can put filters on that lens

I think the excitement over the 14-24 is that it's faster and very sharp. Too bad it's a G lens.

 

[ColinSmith]

Well, in the case of the 14-24 lens, stills photographers are still going to want to use filters too, so if the wide angle filter holder from Lee is not already wide enough to squeeze at least one filter on there, I guess there will be something coming..

http://www.leefilters.com/camera/

 

[Jim Hoffman]

You need ND filters. I'm amazed that so many people expend so much energy trying to find ways of avoiding getting ND filters. It's almost as as basic an equipment need as a tripod.

Even at 50 ASA, in direct sunlight on a clear day, the exposure is a little over f/16 (at 24 fps with a 1/48th shutter), which is nearly stopped-down on many lenses. Then you get excessively deep focus, you get softness from diffraction, and you get depth of field mismatching because you'll have shots made in the shade or in backlight or in overcast that will be more wide-open on the lens aperture. You don't want one shot at f/16 and then the next shot in the scene at f/2.8 - you generally want to work in a more limited range for visual consistency.

Plus rating the RED at 50 ASA will mean placing a lot of your brighter objects at or beyond the clipping point.

David -

Is there a rule of thumb for what range you like to use? I realize there are many characteristics of different f-stops but this is a preference question. What do you like in different situations? How narrow do you like to stay when shooting an interior dialogue scene for example...

Thanks