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 :)

First Look: Breakthrough Filters Direct Drop-In Filters (behind the lens)

1. compatible with DSMC1
2. captive T20 or 3mm Allen, two options at checkout
3. shimmable +/-, same system as cooke with a .004" as a nominal / baseline

first units have shipped out, soon production units will start flying off the machines

full specifications available soon

Graham
 
GrahamClark said:
1. compatible with DSMC1
2. captive T20 or 3mm Allen, two options at checkout
3. shimmable +/-, same system as cooke with a .004" as a nominal / baseline

first units have shipped out, soon production units will start flying off the machines

full specifications available soon

Graham
Click to expand...

from the man himself! welcome to REDUSER Graham!
 
Robert Hart said:
SNAP .... Well sort of. The BM Ursa Mini camera family has a screw-in anti-reflection cone which fits inside of the camera throat. I had a spare from a two-into-one wrecked camera rebuild so have tried a Formatt Hitech Prostop IRND3 cut disk mounted on the rear of one cone which screws in conveniently through the EF-Mount ring itself. This is not as conveneient as a drop-in but can be changed in about a minute. The EF-Mount had to be shimmed forward to compensate for the thickness of the filter. Drop-ins that the RED family enables would be so much more convenient. I imagine some cool experimental effects would be enabled with special slides, maybe even faux-cinemascope flares with a fine clear monofilament thread.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea Robert, I can see that idea working great for an IR cut behind the lens on a BMD.

As you said, the flange depth has to be modified for flat glass in the optical path, but it sounds like you pretty much got there with shimming.
 
Tim Morten said:
Want. :)

PS - A Nikon version for my Otus glass would be stellar.
Click to expand...

Nikon FX - good idea, however is your Otus a stills or cinema lens?

If a stills lens, you'd lose iris control

FX to RF for Komodo is easy, but AF/IS/EXIF electronics looks like a mess on the Nikon side.
 
Robert Hart said:
Snip

I imagine some cool experimental effects would be enabled with special slides, maybe even faux-cinemascope flares with a fine clear monofilament thread.
Click to expand...

I come more from the video world, so maybe just ignorant on this subject. I understand why faux-cinemascope flare might be nice for shooters that want to seem cool "see it looks like an old anamorphic/cinemascope lens" and I understand that anamorphics have actual look differences beyond just flares.

But why does the audience want to see those kind of flares? Is there a practical reason?
 
Michael Hastings said:
But why does the audience want to see those kind of flares? Is there a practical reason?
Click to expand...

I can't think of a time when there's been a discussion (between, say, director and DP) of the look of a film where someone says, "but how would the audience want it to look?" Generally, I think the look of a film is seen as an artistic choice that is determined by what the filmmakers feel is appropriate for the story (mood, reinforcing period feel, etc.) and suits their artistic ambitions/desire for personal expression. The audience, of course, can dislike those choices-- if they notice at all. And certainly the intention is usually to please the audience.

As for flares in particular, it's certainly a trend among filmmakers, and I find it can be distracting. But I think that at their best, they can be used to evoke certain periods of filmmaking or to create a heightened look that can have a real emotional effect on audiences, bringing them into the world. Like anything else--choice of aspect ratio, color palette, etc.-- they carry with them their own history ans audience associations.
 
I guess then to put a finer point on it - when/why does a director/cinematographer want to deliberately, via additional filter/monofilament, put a horizontal flare in except to impress himself or some other cinema geek.

Except maybe in some kind of flashback (like some 8mm home movie footage). Anamorphics were created to solve a problem -i.e. widescreen on narrow film, but they also have true optical effects in the OOF areas that can be pleasing and/or evoke a dreamier look - and they were used to create widescreen over many years so even modern audiences have likely seen them often - and it's a look that is hard to create outside of VFX or AI manipulation.

Horizontal flares just seem gimmicky like artificial "film scratches". I spent a lot of time watching movies with my 91 year old mother in her last days and she actually (with no prompting from me) would mention it several times that it was annoying - so obviously takes even veteran movie watchers out of the "suspension of disbelief".

Jacek Zakowicz said:
Vance if you are looking for a rational explanation you are in the wrong business ;-)
Click to expand...


I think it's what Jacek said. :wink5:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #32
Mark finally got a chance to test the VND too.

Note the lack of polarization issues on the phone!


 
Last edited:
This is very, very good, indeed! I've signed up for the announcement for the orders and am looking forward to it! The fact that they are providing both for EF and PL is excellent!
 
Phil,

Many years ago when VNDs first hit the market I was not only unimpressed by their colour shifts but that the VNDs softened the image. Looking at your tests it looks like colour shift is under control but is there any cost in resolution?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #35
Tom Gleeson said:
Phil,

Many years ago when VNDs first hit the market I was not only unimpressed by their colour shifts but that the VNDs softened the image. Looking at your tests it looks like colour shift is under control but is there any cost in resolution?
Click to expand...

Same Tom, same.

Locally and somewhat publicly I'd say I've been one of the larger advocates against using VNDs on any shoot. Like literally the last resort solution. So many issues. Polarization, color shift, focus shift, variable contrast issues, enhanced vignette, X pattern, etc. I have virtually every VND released here.

That's why this thing has taken me very much by surprise. I haven't seen any issues whatsoever outside of what I mentioned in the first post thus far. And this is a huge change for me. Like moving a mountain.

They tossed a bit of science and engineering at this issue. But it's working on Monstro, currently the largest sensor I work with regularly. Working with one on Komodo as well now.

It kills me because we all could have used this years ago and I can't for the life of me see a reason this hasn't been executed at this level.

Only practical downside for me is swapping to a clear filter when looking for no transmission loss, but no more of a bother than a lens change and faster than that of course. Beyond that it's been good. Good enough to move my angry mountain of VND hatred.

For those who have worked with super telephoto or ultrawide lenses in the photography world, behind the lens filtration is somewhat common, but it's been a pain in the cinema space even with some of the built in ND solutions. Glad somebody is throwing the effort at finally getting this to a place that professionals won't freak out about.
 
Are these filters only compatible with Breakthrough's RF/EF Adapter or do these filters fit in the Canon adapter that RED sells with the junkier variable ND?
 
Phil Holland said:
Same Tom, same.

Locally and somewhat publicly I'd say I've been one of the larger advocates against using VNDs on any shoot. Like literally the last resort solution. So many issues. Polarization, color shift, focus shift, variable contrast issues, enhanced vignette, X pattern, etc. I have virtually every VND released here.

That's why this thing has taken me very much by surprise. I haven't seen any issues whatsoever outside of what I mentioned in the first post thus far. And this is a huge change for me. Like moving a mountain.

They tossed a bit of science and engineering at this issue. But it's working on Monstro, currently the largest sensor I work with regularly. Working with one on Komodo as well now.

It kills me because we all could have used this years ago and I can't for the life of me see a reason this hasn't been executed at this level.

Only practical downside for me is swapping to a clear filter when looking for no transmission loss, but no more of a bother than a lens change and faster than that of course. Beyond that it's been good. Good enough to move my angry mountain of VND hatred.

For those who have worked with super telephoto or ultrawide lenses in the photography world, behind the lens filtration is somewhat common, but it's been a pain in the cinema space even with some of the built in ND solutions. Glad somebody is throwing the effort at finally getting this to a place that professionals won't freak out about.
Click to expand...

This is all amazing news.
 
Wes Overvold said:
Are these filters only compatible with Breakthrough's RF/EF Adapter or do these filters fit in the Canon adapter that RED sells with the junkier variable ND?
Click to expand...

According to Breakthrough Photography's homepage, their drop-in filters are compatible with Breakthrough and Canon drop-in adapters.
 
When will those Drop In VND be available for purchase? There's a lot of chat and energy around Break Through filters here but I have the feeling the Drop In VND is on backorder for more than 6 months...
Not a rant, just a question.
 
yeah, have had these on order for at least 4 months. Still hearing crickets from Breakthru.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top