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 :)

Pancro IR Mirror + ND Filters

Greg M

Greg M

Digital FX
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
Louisiana
Website
www.digitalfx.tv
I received my Pancro filters today, they look very nice. I also have a full set of Schneider ND Filters so I did a quick comparison. Unfortunately it wasn't a perfect day for this test as it is mostly overcast today, but even in these conditions the difference is noticeable. I will post better images next week.

The filters look great, come in a soft pouch and are nicely engraved.

Overall I am very impressed with the quality and the quick delivery from Pancro. I ordered 5.65 X 5.65 filters as these should always go in the front tray.

Below are some images of the filters and two very quick shots 1) with Pancro IR Mirror + ND 1.2 and 2) w/ Schneider ND 1.2. Not perfect conditions for this test, but you can see a slight color difference in the two images, especially in the trees and skin tones. The Pancro filter has much more natural colors.

The set of .9, 1.2, and 1.5 was $1000 and can be ordered from tom at pancro.com
 
Can one buy just ONE IR filter and use stacks of ND BEHIND it in a multi stage matte box?

BTW I have seen and touched the RedROck matte box..looks pretty slick for the money to me!
 
Thanks Greg, I look forward to more info and images.

To second what Greg said -- don't stack unless you have to.

The RedRock Mattebox looks pretty good and downright awesome if you consider the price. I've ordered one, but will need to swap out the filter holders or figure out when RedRock is going to deliver larger holders for 5.65x5.65.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
The RedRock Mattebox looks pretty good and downright awesome if you consider the price. I've ordered one, but will need to swap out the filter holders or figure out when RedRock is going to deliver larger holders for 5.65x5.65.
Click to expand...

*cough* I think Arri filter holders fit *cough*...

Thanks for the test too, Greg!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Thanks Greg,

Regarding your next test, here are some suggestions:

1. Try to shoot an electric heater, or red-hot heating element of an oven lit with tungsten light. Place black nylon behind it. Black and white stripy nylon would be the best. Tree leaves in a scorching heat of mid-day sun are also good.

2. Use high contrast scene, harsh light is good for the test

3. On the first shot use Pancro 1.5 IR-ND plus 0.6 ND behind it

4. On the second shot use 1.5 ND plus 0.6 ND behind it

The theory is that 0.6ND (2 stops) should introduce insignificant (not visible) IR contamination, whereas 2.1 ND should visibly degrade the contrast due to IR being passed through unfiltered at 7 times (stops) higher intensity than visible spectrum.

Yes, Tom has been very responsive and my order is underway.

EDIT: On second thoughts, in addition to nylon and leaves, why not shoot the filter itself? It is a perfect reflector of IR, for god's sake, so it should show significant difference on the images.

The IR un-filtered shot should be muddy with fuzzy edges and low contrast.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
1. Try to shoot an electric heater, or red-hot heating element of an oven lit with tungsten light. Place black nylon behind it. Black and white stripy nylon would be the best. Tree leaves in a scorching heat of mid-day sun are also good.
Click to expand...



I was going to stick to more real world tests, besides I am saving my white stripy nylon for saturday night.

FYI- He can make these filters in any size and density you want. I have also requested a 1.8, but he says those are difficult to make.
 
digitalfx said:
I was going to stick to more real world tests, besides I am saving my white stripy nylon for saturday night.
Click to expand...

ahmmmm, wouldn't it be in a few hours where you live :biggrin: I just got my nylons off for the night (we are +10 hours GMT).

digitalfx said:
He can make these filters in any size and density you want. I have also requested a 1.8, but he says those are difficult to make.
Click to expand...

I ordered 0.9 and 1.5. But, I am very interested in higher densities. Maybe if we make a group request Tom can pull some 1.8, or even 2.1 and 2.4 densities out of the hat (or was that an oven?). How otherwise I can dial f/1.2 on a Master Prime on a nice bright sunny day :matrix:

Tom, what do you say? It may be hard, but stacking two 1.5s is not such a good idea.
 
Pancro IR+ND filters

Pancro IR+ND filters

Hey guys,
Where the IR+ND1.5 is brain surgery, the 1.8 and more is rocket science.
The level of difficulty goes way up and its very hard to make any money on these heavy ND's, The yield is very low. At present we have been bombed with requests for the typical .9-1.5 sets. Let us knock these out in the next couple of months and maybe I will dabble with the heavy ones. (We are shipping .9-1.5 sets every day ). The price would be North of $ 400. and I would desire to stay in the 4 x 5.650 size.
What do ya think?
 
Pancro said:
Hey guys,
Where the IR+ND1.5 is brain surgery, the 1.8 and more is rocket science.
The level of difficulty goes way up and its very hard to make any money on these heavy ND's, The yield is very low. At present we have been bombed with requests for the typical .9-1.5 sets. Let us knock these out in the next couple of months and maybe I will dabble with the heavy ones. (We are shipping .9-1.5 sets every day ). The price would be North of $ 400. and I would desire to stay in the 4 x 5.650 size.
What do ya think?
Click to expand...

I would prefer 5.65 X 5.65
Sounds like a reasonable price if they are the same quality as the set I just received.
 
Interesting info on the Pancro ND's for those considering other ND filters:


Neutral Density camera filter Technical Information (ND+IR combo filter N9-N1.5)


The PANCRO ND is the result of a vacuum deposition of a special metallic alloy thin film coating on one side of the glass. This is the same technology that is used to coat high end movie camera lens's with multilayer antireflection coatings.

*We emphasize single-piece and optical-select glass, as opposed to laminated glass. We do not sandwich a gel between glass. Laminated glass can crack and separate. Resin and plastic can easily scratch. Our single-piece, optical-select glass is durable with superior parallelism and flatness.

The PANCRO ND has certain properties that make it superior to others on the market. The thin, metallic film results in superior Neutrality with a spectral curve that is very flat within 380 nm to 2000 nm. This allows the Pancro ND to filter out bothersome Infra-Red wavelenghts in the 800 nm-2000 nm range that can be captured on some DV camera's.

The Pancro ND will not make the IR POP like some other ND filters do.

In operation, the PANCRO ND depends upon an absorption in and a reflection from this thin metallic film, exhibiting the following outstanding characteristics:

*(1) Panchromatic. The PANCRO ND is sensitive to all colors of the visible spectrum; when calibrated by a spectrophotometer at 2840K (indoor tungsten lighting), it experiences a color shift of only 16K towards red.

(2) Neutral. Like a partial mirror, PANCRO ND is partially absorbing and partially reflecting. Because of this neutrality, the overall appearance is a colorless, gray tone.

(3) Accurately Controlled. PANCRO ND is consistently graded every .3, .6, .9, 1.2, and 1.5 densities. All ND filters are manufactured for matched filter sets.

*(4) Durable. PANCRO ND seems to last forever. Adhesion of the alloy film to its optical surface is tenacious and unaffected by moisture throughout a reasonable temperature range.

SOURCE: www.pancro.com
 
Pancro said:
Hey guys,
Where the IR+ND1.5 is brain surgery, the 1.8 and more is rocket science.
The level of difficulty goes way up and its very hard to make any money on these heavy ND's, The yield is very low. At present we have been bombed with requests for the typical .9-1.5 sets. Let us knock these out in the next couple of months and maybe I will dabble with the heavy ones. (We are shipping .9-1.5 sets every day ). The price would be North of $ 400. and I would desire to stay in the 4 x 5.650 size.
What do ya think?
Click to expand...

Hey Tom, sounds like a plan.

For me 4 x 5.650 size is exactly what doctor ordered and I am happy to fund a manned mission into a Black Hole to get 2.1 and higher.

What is the main difficulty? For my purpose, the desity does not need to be accurate, just uniform. BTW, I have scientific background :watsup: , so let me know if I can help. Also happy to assist in testing.
 
A manned mission into a Black Hole to get 2.1 and higher.
I love it. I got a kick outa that. I am at work on a break from making these IR+ND filters. Thats about what it will take to make one of those rascals.

Pawel, I will keep what you said in mind if I stumble onto a runaway density thats nice and heavy.
 
digitalfx said:
I ordered 5.65 X 5.65 filters as these should always go in the front tray.
Click to expand...

Hi Greg, I'm curious as to why you say this, if the image being captured is in a 16:9 format or wider and you're not rotating or moving the filter up or down? I'm not sure I understand why you would need it to be 5.65 square instead of 4x5.65?

Also why do ND's need to go in the front tray? I was under the impression that the glass worked better closer to the lens element.
 
Iron Possum said:
Also why do ND's need to go in the front tray? I was under the impression that the glass worked better closer to the lens element.
Click to expand...

Pancro IR+ND reflect IR, and not absorb, and therefore must be placed outmost. Otherwise you may get internal reflections.
 
Got you, thanks Pawel that makes sense.

Now, still don't understand why you'd need to go 5.65 square. If you're using a wide lens then you'd loose a filter stage at the back end to bring the bellows closer to the lens anyway. I cant think of a reason to go to that size unless you were using really big glass, but then you'd go 6x on all stages anyway surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top