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 :)

RED Motion Mount versus Tessive Filter

Michael Panfeld

Michael Panfeld

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
857
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Washington DC
Huge props to the RedTeam

Huge props to the RedTeam

I have been a Tessive user for almost 2 years now. It makes a big difference on some material and a more subtle but still welcome improvement in situations you might not expect.

The bugaboo was always set up time and managing the rigging of the system in highly mobile environments. Loved the results but ended up leaving it in the case far too often due to time pressures - kind of ironic for a product that "filters time".

The great news for RedUsers is that the RED Motion mount takes the concept to another level and doesn't require all the gack. Huge props to the RedTeam for recognizing the importance of this aspect of motion image capture and developing the motion mount.

Why should I care?

For starters, there are a lot of reasons many folks find electronic capture less "organic" or "cinematic" than celluloid, the sine wave shutter characteristic will reduce that perception.

What I think will prove to be even more valuable going forward, is how the eye perceives various frame rates when using a sine wave shutter characteristic vs the usual square wave characteristic.

In normal electronic shuttering, the motion blur characteristic during the time the shutter is open does not vary unless the object or camera movement rate changes. With a sine wave shutter, the "position" of the moving object (or pan speed) is stronger at the peak and more transparent at the beginning and end of the exposure. Because of this, the eye is able to track in a more natural way as the cadence from peak to peak is emphasized rather than the jump from the end of one frame to the beginning of the next.

It is my theory that the motion mount will make 48/60fps material look much more natural and be easier for humans used to 24/25/30 fps to get comfortable with. Time will tell ;-)

Cheers - #19
 
Michael biseds the good words form Blair, I can tell you that a filter behind the actual lens is almost always better then one in front of it, as the actual design from the manufacturer keeps in mind all factors including those that the vast majority of users will place Filters of various type and strength in front of their lenses, yet this lenses are designed to perform best without any filtering at all in front of them, at ONLY exception of a Polarizer!!
 
I think that now when red has the tech and also a helping hand from element technica they should make also a "in front of lens filter."

I would like a "Tessive mattebox module" .


Basically an extension of the red mattebox, an extra tessive filter with cordless or small cable going to a module on the camera that controls / gives power to the mattebox / filter. This way we have an option to keep this filter infront of camera ,but we do not have the hassle of changing the "filter setting" everytime we change frame rate etc. It could just slave from the camera touch screen shutter and fps.

Also another request would be a real filter mount. Kind of what they made for the alexa with small "pull out filters" that goes behind the lens. Since even if it's quick to change mount I see the tessive filter as something that needs to come of for low light, highspeed etc.

So nicer to have a ND 3,6,9 or clear glas behind the lens and then hook on the active stuff infront...


Having both motion mount and mattebox shutter, and in mount nd's would be all the options basically... :)
 
There's a lot of pros to the Motion Mount. Compact, lightweight, doesn't add size to the camera, can be swapped out for a normal "clear" mount quickly if you need low light coverage, saves time between setups or adjustments on set, extremely precise "in between" exposure adjustments, etc....... That's just the ND aspect of this thing too.

I kinda think by the time it's released it's going to be a must have and nobody else is doing it on camera like this. I think plenty of folks will still use classic ND via screw on and matte boxes, but the time saving alone and fact you don't have to carry or purchase a full set of NDs.

Seriously. I'm going to map ND onto the rocker on my DSMC Side Handle and boom done.

Adding the ability to have smooth motion blur and create essentially a global shutter (weird term when you think how this tech works). No more strobe bars. Whip pans become solid pans and not leaning towers of Pisa.

All good stuff.

I really want to get one in my hands and test out how the new IROLPF on Dragon holds up at deeper filtration levels like ND 1.8-3.0. It might be more of a purchase a single hot mirror fix instead of purchasing $3K+ full a full range of IR/ND filtration.
 
Obviously the big thing this offers is a form of global shutter exposure to keep Red in line with the F65, Alexa Studio and F55 with their mechanical and global shutters. Fortunately, with Dragon's 2000 ISO sensitivity, the 1 stop light loss, brings us down to 1000 ISO, which is still extremely sensitive and useable level to operate at.

The added functionality of variable ND, which can be adjusted rapidly, is also a BIG plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top