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 :)

Fix IR in post?

thanks alot brook. Really appreciate it.
And lastly which tiffen hot mirror is that?
Isn't there .3-1.5 tiffen hot mirrors
Or is this just a hot mirror tiffen makes
Really can't thank you enough and respect your advice about
Personal preference per filter and it looks like I'll have alot to choose from LOL
Being that I had to buy different options while waiting on my pancro ghosts
Hope this is solved with epic and scarlet as well
Or I hope these filters will work for them
This buying game and trial and error game are wallet busting
Still wondering if my tiffen irnd filters are crap or not
They look good and I know that's all that matters, but we all want to look our best : )
Thanks brook and scuba man
Your posts are both always useful
 
Tiffen makes a series of IR/NDs from .3 to 1.5 as well as a straight hot mirror with no ND. I'm not a fan of the combo IR/ND filters but I am a fan of their non-ND hot mirror.
 
There are different ways to deal with IR light pollution. Two types of filtration -- the reflective "hot mirror" And the absorbtive "capture" filters. For Phantom, Vision Research married an IR absorber to the OLPF, all behind the lens. This by far renders the best optical results, with the most accurate color spectrum and no IR pollution. An absorber also eats a lot more light than a Hot Mirror.

RED is not the only camera wwith this issue. But adding a 3rd party Hot Mirror should not necessarily have to be the solution. There is also a fairly new camcorder out there that I recommend people screw a filter onto the front of their lens and leave it there forever.
 
@Brook
I get your point, and I agree that if in camera IR reduction could be stronger without color vignetting, I would appreciate it to be stronger for sure. Just concerned that it's fixed and you can't take it off in case of trouble.
BTW, did you ever have the chance to test the issue on another 35mm camera like the Genesis/F35? The only time I was able to compare a F35 side by side to a Red was just on a night shot without any IR risk…

@Pawel
I don't really see where bouncing IR around in your optics would become a problem as long as it's not reaching the sensor. After all, it wouldn't leave it's part of the spectrum, or would it?
 
Mitch Gross said:
But adding a 3rd party Hot Mirror should not necessarily have to be the solution.
Click to expand...

Thats too bad Mitch i was planning on getting that tiffen hot mirror from you..:bleh: lol jk
really though, what did you mean by this, what do you suggest or are you just stating that red should fix it, just curious.
thanks mitch and appreciate all of your other contributions to this forum.
let me know if you have the hot mirror from tiffen
i just got the tiffen irnd filters from abel cine in burbank because pancro takes too long and im hoping these with schneiders and that hot mirror will set me ir free, or as free as i can be.
thanks
 
All I was saying is that Phantom had the identical issue facing it and found a solution that did not include mounting filters in front of the lens. Of course it did lower camera sensitivity by nearly a full stop, so I can see where someone may not want to go that route.
 
nomad said:
@Pawel
I don't really see where bouncing IR around in your optics would become a problem as long as it's not reaching the sensor. After all, it wouldn't leave it's part of the spectrum, or would it?
Click to expand...

If it is reflective type, it would be bad because you can never have a perfect IR-only reflection and visible spectrum could bounce back off it.

If it is absorption type, then there may be problems with uniformity at wide angles - essentially, different frequency is absorbed in the middle and different at an angle in the corners as the cutoff frequency changes with the angle of incidence.

In general it is very difficult to filter just IR, therefore it is technically better solution to not let it in in the first place. But, I entirely take Brook's point about practicality of external IR filtration. You just wish you didn't have to deal with it.

Another point is that, why would you compromise your optical path and decrease transparency with internal IR filter for shots that do not require IR filtration, like night or dark interiors or...underwater?
 
Mitch Gross said:
All I was saying is that Phantom had the identical issue facing it and found a solution that did not include mounting filters in front of the lens. Of course it did lower camera sensitivity by nearly a full stop, so I can see where someone may not want to go that route.
Click to expand...

Really one stop?! wow.
I guess that would be ok for high speed since you start out with tons of light and tons of IR. For normal shooting where we do alot of low light, one stop would be painful. As it is, I haven't had the need to get an IR filter yet.
 
No one seems to be mentioning that not all light sources are equal in terms of IR pollution. Not just tungsten vs HMI but not all fixtures are created equal.
The Digimole HMIs put out alot more IR than say a Dedo HMI. As I understand it, most tungsten sources have alot of IR...so it's not necessairily a bright sunny day and stacking ND (.9 or more) issue.

As a related side note...on a recent commercial we were shooting at F1.8 a vehicle with an ND3 under HMI lighting and any chrome trim with specular highlights had a slight purple hotspot. Pull the ND and the hotspots were back to white. I'm not sure if an hot mirror IR filter such as the Rosco or Tiffen would help but I suspect it would. But I don't assume anything til I test it :-)
 
In my experience the internal IR filter can cope quite well with ordinary tungsten lighting, since you won't need much of ND, if any. The problem arises if you decrease visible light, but leave IR as it is.
 
Hey Yo!! Our IR+ND's are worth the wait!! They are an excellent choice for IR pollution problems if they are used correctly. (I think Pawel would attest to this). We have new footage of our 1.2 ir+nd filter in action on our webpage/homepage-www.pancro.com
The afformentioned shots were done by Christopher Karcher-Principal / Creative Director KARCHER designs who did the initial feild testing last spring. He was one of our first customers to purchase the IR+ND that we innovated last year. Hope this helps!
 
Brian Dougherty(PANCRO) said:
Hey Yo!! Our IR+ND's are worth the wait!! They are an excellent choice for IR pollution problems if they are used correctly. (I think Pawel would attest to this). We have new footage of our 1.2 ir+nd filter in action on our webpage/homepage-www.pancro.com
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Brian. :biggrin:

I had no problems, there is no colour shift or cast, no vignetting, I didn't experience any unwanted reflections, and of course, no IR in sight. Highly recommended.
 
Good Question!
I don't know what densities you purchased. Here is the deal. All of our Nd filter's cut IR to a certain extent (.3-.6) However we don't market them as IR+ND because they don't filter enough to be considered an IR filter. We want to make sure the IR+ND's are achieving maximum IR cut. Hopefully this is helpful!
 
Brian Dougherty(PANCRO) said:
Good Question!
I don't know what densities you purchased. Here is the deal. All of our Nd filter's cut IR to a certain extent (.3-.6) However we don't market them as IR+ND because they don't filter enough to be considered an IR filter. We want to make sure the IR+ND's are achieving maximum IR cut. Hopefully this is helpful!
Click to expand...

I purchased .3,.6,.9,1.2

As I am sure you know there is no real danger of IR contamination a below around .9.

I still don't have a clear answer from you though.

Is my 1.2 pancro ND different than a Pancro 1.2 IR+ND's?
 
I am aware of that-
If you purchased a 1.2 that is one of our IR+ND filter there is no new filter. What I was saying before is the IR blocking properties are best from .9 on up.
You have a 1.2 which is in sequence(density wise) .9, 1.2, 1.5-Our heaviest density Does that make sense? Hope that helps-Thanks for the question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top