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 :)

Hot Mirror/IRND/Mirror ND Filter Matrix [Parts 1-4]

Excellent Test, Evin. Much appreciated.

I was expecting Pancros to perform well based on theoretical assumptions. Their concept is well-conceived. Great to see the confirmation from real-life tests.

Can't wait. UPS is telling me that my set of Pancros is on its way across the Pacific :)
 
Rosco would sell a boatload if they sandwiched the coating and built the filter properly. IMO a fragile filter is not worth buying. Filters should be purchased to last a career and from what I have heard and seen of the rosco's I would be suprised if it lasted 1 year.
 
Evin, can you please tell us anything about sharpness/resolution loss when using the filters?

Thanks again for this test!
 
I'm just curious as to what people are doing for sizes. Is it a bigger is better thing (except for price of course) is there any disadvantage from buying bigger filter sets to maximize flexibility. Do you feel the 4x5.65 s cover what you need? 5x5s? 6.6x6.6s?
 
it all relates to your lenses and matte boxes.
4.5 X 5.65 will cover most anything except zooms...I ordered 5.65 X 5.65 as bigger is always better if it fits in your mattebox....this will also cover some of the smaller zooms in an MB20.

6X6 wont fit in most matte boxes, so unfortunatley you will need two sets of filters if you have a large zoom.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #52
big lebowski said:
Evin, can you please tell us anything about sharpness/resolution loss when using the filters?

Thanks again for this test!
Click to expand...

I could not detect any effect on sharpness from the filters themselves. In IR heavy situations you should see better sharpness with the filters as the IR wavelengths actually focus to a different position and can create a ghost image.
 
digitalfx said:
it all relates to your lenses and matte boxes.
4.5 X 5.65 will cover most anything except zooms...I ordered 5.65 X 5.65 as bigger is always better if it fits in your mattebox....this will also cover some of the smaller zooms in an MB20.

6X6 wont fit in most matte boxes, so unfortunatley you will need two sets of filters if you have a large zoom.
Click to expand...

Do you think I would have troubles on my Red 18-50 zoom with 4.5 X 5.65 if I wanted to use them in a 3 filter (+round pola) MB20?

Emmanuel
 
Finner said:
Rosco would sell a boatload if they sandwiched the coating and built the filter properly. IMO a fragile filter is not worth buying. Filters should be purchased to last a career and from what I have heard and seen of the rosco's I would be suprised if it lasted 1 year.
Click to expand...

I just bought one as it was the fastest to deliver - I needed one fast.
It is way too thin and the edges are dangerously sharp. Yep it didn't cost much but it's so thin I'll be terrified to ever remove it from the tray. I was warned by Rosco that the edges were a little rough, but, yikes they couldn't put it in a pouch, either...
It'll be a miracle if it lasts a year. I would have to discourage others unless they upgrade the manufacturing to offer something more rugged and sensible.
 
I ordered and paid for a full set of Pancro's more than a week ago, even got the .3 & .6 to go with the rest making a kit of 5 in total. I'm damn happy now the test came out well. Expensive, kinda, but not really. $1590 for a set of 5 IRND's...not too bad i think. I have been 'burnt' way too many times trying to save a bit of coin here and there. Bloody happy now...i'll be stoked when i actually get em!:red_bandana:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #56
markp said:
I just bought one as it was the fastest to deliver - I needed one fast.
It is way too thin and the edges are dangerously sharp. Yep it didn't cost much but it's so thin I'll be terrified to ever remove it from the tray. I was warned by Rosco that the edges were a little rough, but, yikes they couldn't put it in a pouch, either...
It'll be a miracle if it lasts a year. I would have to discourage others unless they upgrade the manufacturing to offer something more rugged and sensible.
Click to expand...

Interesting, they said they would be shipping thicker filter to customers.
 
bris-vegas said:
I ordered and paid for a full set of Pancro's more than a week ago, even got the .3 & .6 to go with the rest making a kit of 5 in total. I'm damn happy now the test came out well. Expensive, kinda, but not really. $1590 for a set of 5 IRND's...not too bad i think. I have been 'burnt' way too many times trying to save a bit of coin here and there. Bloody happy now...i'll be stoked when i actually get em!:red_bandana:
Click to expand...

why do you pay 300 dollars for a 0.3 and 0.6 nd filter?

the only reason i can see is to combine filters to get 1.8 or 2.1
but i dont know how it effects the picture when putting 2 ir filters into the MB.
or if a combo of a regular .3 + ir1.5 affects the picture drastically

evin?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #58
The reflective nature of the filters means stacking them is not a good idea.
I bought the .6, .9 1.2 & 1.5 and I'll just get a .3 Schneider or Tiffen which at that density makes little to no difference in IR response. BTW you can stack behind the mirror all you want.
 
Hoffman said:
I'm just curious as to what people are doing for sizes. Is it a bigger is better thing (except for price of course) is there any disadvantage from buying bigger filter sets to maximize flexibility. Do you feel the 4x5.65 s cover what you need? 5x5s? 6.6x6.6s?
Click to expand...

I have a 4 x 5.65 and a 6.6 x 6.6. These are the most common sizes I run in any filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top