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 :)

Mysterium X and Hot Mirror

Steven-Marc C.

Steven-Marc C.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
792
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
55
Website
www.smcproductions.com
I have read that the IR cut has been improved on the OLPF that comes with the M-X sensor. Has anyone been able to test if a hot mirror might still be needed in some situations?
 
At the RED Day Q&A on Sat, they said that IR cut is markedly improved. EG that ND 1.2 should look fine. Apparently when you start to hit ND 1.8 you might want to think about using a hot mirror.

Since there's so much less noise, you might actually be using ND 1.8 more than you think - now that you can pull lots more out of the shadows, it allows you to darken the scene down a little more via NDs to give you more highlight protection than with the non-X sensor.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
My memories of Red Team comments jibe with Bruce's. Basic rule: unless you are 1.2ND or higher you can shoot sans filter and, unless the subject matter is particularly revealing of the minor color shift, you should be fine. With the M sensor I was using the IR filter in the first stage as a habit.

FWIW I will continue to use the IR filter on exteriors since I already own it and there's no real downside I can think of other than weight or the desire to put a different filter in that stage. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
 
As a rule of thumb: if choosing between my advice and Blair's, choose Blair's. So I'm glad we're on the same page this time!

Anyway, 'twas good meeting you, Blair!. I must say, you are a very nice and knowledgeable guy, with a very awesome truck.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
FWIW I will continue to use the IR filter on exteriors since I already own it and there's no real downside I can think of other than weight or the desire to put a different filter in that stage. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

There's of course the increased chance of internal reflections, especially with mirrors... The new OLPF should effectively allow us to narrow the IR to visible light ratio by a stop or two (compared to M) before any filtration is needed
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
My memories of Red Team comments jibe with Bruce's. Basic rule: unless you are 1.2ND or higher you can shoot sans filter and, unless the subject matter is particularly revealing of the minor color shift, you should be fine. With the M sensor I was using the IR filter in the first stage as a habit.

FWIW I will continue to use the IR filter on exteriors since I already own it and there's no real downside I can think of other than weight or the desire to put a different filter in that stage. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I would advise the opposite, if the IR is not doing any good, avoid it like the plague. The IR mirror causes to many problems with reflections to keep it in place just because. I am doing extensive tests next week and hopefully we can eliminate the IR filters.
 
If the IR cut ND is in the first stage of the matte box, and it's facing correctly, what possible issues with reflections would you have beyond those you'd get using a regular ND?

Now I'll agree that if you are not using an ND there is essentially no reason to use a simple IR cut filter, but if you are using an ND then you already have a piece of glass in front of the lens, so there should be no difference and IR Cut ND and a standard ND.

That of course assumes you are using IR Cut ND's and not a separate IR Cut on top of an ND (i.e. two filters instead of one). That would indeed increase the risk of reflections.

In cases where this is unavoidable you should be matting the matte box anyway.
 
Its a mirror, light source bounces off it and hit your scene or actors. and depending on the lighting Ive seen plenty other anomalies caused by the mirror.
 
Tested the MX sensor against the M today.

We also did a quick IR test and it appears to be vastly improved with the MX. We shot with a 1.2. There was obvious contamination with the M, but not the MX.
 
Dylan Macleod said:
Tested the MX sensor against the M today.

We also did a quick IR test and it appears to be vastly improved with the MX. We shot with a 1.2. There was obvious contamination with the M, but not the MX.
Click to expand...

Dylan,

What were the test conditions? Did you shoot black cloth under some heavy tungsten? Those seemed the worst cases for me with the M sensor.

I'm also using the Formatt IR ND's and I have yet to see any issues with IR reflected back into my scene, but you can get reflections off any filter if you're not careful so I guess my gaffer and I are just used to watching out for it.

Cheers,

J
 
JonathanF said:
Dylan,

What were the test conditions? Did you shoot black cloth under some heavy tungsten? Those seemed the worst cases for me with the M sensor.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we did. A variety of synthetic black fabrics with a tungsten light full spot in to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top