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 :)

Scarlet-X #777 LCW ND Fader Test

Riccardo Bertoni

Riccardo Bertoni

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Piran (Slovenia), Pola (Croatia), Rome (Italy)
Website
www.riccardobertoni.com
Since many asked if it's a good solution to use screw-in ND faders on the Scarlet/Epic, I've made this quick & dirty test to see how the cheap LCW (MK II) performs. As I expected, there's a bit of IR pollution (if you don't set it to the mid-max levels, then it gets bad), but surprisingly very little loss in sharpness (in this case on the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8). All in all not a terrible solution for quick run&gun shooters or if you're on a very tight budget, just remember that these filters are basically polarizers, so you shouldn't really use them on wide and telephoto lenses.

I've uploaded 2 versions: 1 edited and graded in REDCine-X Pro 11 and the other one "flat" from Premiere CS5.5. I've also uploaded 3 full resolution stills:


A001_C005_0309ER.0000269 by riccardo.bertoni, on Flickr


A001_C009_0309HR.0000054 by riccardo.bertoni, on Flickr


A001_C007_0309N5.0000035 by riccardo.bertoni, on Flickr

REDCine-X Pro 11 version:
http://vimeo.com/38236827
Shot @ 4k, 24fps, 1/48, iso 320, f/2.8-5.6 (ish) RC 7:1 except for the last shot (3k HDRx 6 stops)
Edited and graded in REDCine X Beta 11, RC3,RG3 + FLUT, Alchemy & NO unsharp mask. 1/2 debayer, full debayer for the 3k shot, exported as PROres 422HQ @2k, encoded in MPEGstreamclip (x264 CRF 22 - 8.65 Mbps).
Please note: 1/2 debayer caused a bit of moire in the first shot, full debayer or even 1/2 debayer "premium" gets rid of it at the cost of encoding time - Premiere CS5.5 does a better job (speed-wise) at encoding (about 20fps @2k on a 2009 MacPro) but it doesn't (yet) support RC3. I just wanted to make clear that moire is not present in the R3D's.

Premiere CS5.5 version:
http://vimeo.com/38249641
Trimmed in REDCine X Beta 11, RC2,RG2. Rendered in Premiere CS5.5, full debayer,exported as PROres 422HQ @1080p, encoded in MPEGstreamclip (x264 CRF 22 - 2.79 Mbps).

UPDATE:

I'll update this post with other examples (both stills & motion) in the next few days.

Here's a still (Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 (Nikon F) @ 20mm, f/5.6 LCW ND Fader almost at the MAX setting) pulled from a 4k R3D edited in REDCine-X Pro 11 (RC3,RG3,Flut,Alchemy)


A001_C001_0225SA.0000880 by riccardo.bertoni, on Flickr

Another one, same lens only this time set @10mm, f/5.6(ish), same settings on the ND Fader and treatment as the previous one. Notice how in this case, due to the nature of the polarizer, ruins (even more) the top right and bottom left corners.


A001_C004_0225I6.0000939 by riccardo.bertoni, on Flickr

And a short video:
http://vimeo.com/38276133





ps: since this is my first thread here on Reduser, I'd like to thank Ketch Rossi for all the great tips and inspiration he gave me to start again after a really tough time. Grazie Ketch!
 
I will again admit I frequently feel I'm not evaluating images posted in the forum in an informed way - I hope I can at some point. However, I will say that these images have a quality, clarity and sharpness I've not seen in any others. A rockin' Adriatic sunset probably doesn't hurt.
 
Arnold F. said:
I will again admit I frequently feel I'm not evaluating images posted in the forum in an informed way - I hope I can at some point. However, I will say that these images have a quality, clarity and sharpness I've not seen in any others. A rockin' Adriatic sunset probably doesn't hurt.
Click to expand...

You're right, I too believe the Adriatic sunsets/sunrises help me a lot of times :)
 
What's the best way to deal with ND filtration in the situations when a matte box and 4x4 ND filters isn't practical? I just did some tests with medium (Canon 24-70 2.8) and telephoto (Canon 70-200 2.8) lenses and a Genus variable ND screw-on filter and definitely had mixed results. I could probably get away with the variable ND on the 24-70, but getting sharp focus with the 70-200 was impossible. Took the filter off and the focus was tack-sharp.

Is the Genus just too low quality of a variable filter? Would non-variable screw-on NDs produce acceptable results?
 
In my experience, the Genus and LCW faders will work with wide and mid-range lenses, but get softer on longer lenses. I've used the Heliopan and Singh-Ray Vari-NDs with great results on longer lenses.
 
I think a mattebox is more practical 99% of the time then dealing with all the problems you run into with screw-in filters, but it also seems like an expensive solution (for many budget scarlet shooters) since you have to take into account not just the price of the unit but also a good set of quality filters (NDs + hot mirror or IRNDs, , some colored filters etc). But as I said, I think a mattebox should always be used for cinema applications, especially on the Scarlet, since you want your footage looking as good as possible without losing time in post to fix problems (flare for example). I can't comment on the genus, never tried it. As for screw-in NDs, you'll still need a screw-in hot mirror (they're quite expensive) and probably you'd also need a few of them (NDs) for each lens you own... that seems a bit unpractical (and expensive) and you can't get away with cheap plastic Chinese filters either...

ps: can you post a sample (before-after) shot with the 70-200?

ps n.2: tomorrow I'll try the LCW on the Nikkor 70-200 mk1 and post the results.
 
Great post - thanks for taking the time here Riccardo! (Slovenia looks to be very vacation-worthy ;)
Reading with interest!!!!!

Stu Aull
S-X #0199
Alaska
 
Thanks Stu! I'll do my best to update this thread as much as possible in the very little spare time I have right now (due to the post-production of a documentary I've shot last year). If anyone has any suggestions or want me to test some Nikkor glass, do comparisons (Canon vs Nikon), flash sync experiments etc. please let me know.

Yes, southern Slovenia, and Istria in general is a great place to visit and enjoy, just remind to take cover from winter bora wind :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora_(wind))
 
Beautiful shots. Very helpful, as I'm trying to get a grasp on how much IR pollution noise the vari-NDs would add.

I'm looking to invest in screw-on vari-ND's, and have heard goos things about Singh-Ray.

I'm also contemplating stacking an IR reduction filter with the vari-ND, but am wondering if that would degrade the image too much.
Also, I know when using IR filters, you need to stack them in a certain order in a mattebox, so that would need to be taken into consideration as well.

Don't mean to hijack your thread Riccardo. Again, love the images, thanks for sharing.
 
Andy Maser said:
What's the best way to deal with ND filtration in the situations when a matte box and 4x4 ND filters isn't practical? I just did some tests with medium (Canon 24-70 2.8) and telephoto (Canon 70-200 2.8) lenses and a Genus variable ND screw-on filter and definitely had mixed results. I could probably get away with the variable ND on the 24-70, but getting sharp focus with the 70-200 was impossible. Took the filter off and the focus was tack-sharp.

Is the Genus just too low quality of a variable filter? Would non-variable screw-on NDs produce acceptable results?
Click to expand...

I've used the Genus variable NDs and I don't trust them. Horrible abberations, at least on the one I used. I've had better results with the Lightcraft Workshop variable NDs. It would be great if they came out with a variable NDIR.
 
Another option:
Tiffen Indie Pro's: IR ND's 77mm screw ins. .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
7 stops for under $500 (They have smaller sets too)
Quality so far has been excellent. Haven't needed to go beyond 1.5 as yet, but no apparent tint/colour shift. High quality water white glass.

No one speaks very well of Vari ND's meets RED on REDuser.

I'm very happy with the tiffens, but yep, screw in's are a total pain in the ass.

Best

Lliam
 
The Tiffen Indie Pro set is very tempting:
Tiffen set on B&H

It almost seems to good to be true though, as I was planning to buy a set of Schneider Platinum IRNDs. But I'm considering this set.
I need a smaller budget kit I can carry around for doc/independent shooting, so this works perfect (yes screw-ins are a pain) But at this price, I think it's worth it.
On sets that I have the time/flexibility to use my mattebox, I'll rent the higher-end Hot Mirror IRNDs

I've read some reviews that there is a slight color shift in the higher ND range, but that's probably why it's less than $500 for a set of 7.

Thanks for the suggestion, Lliam.
 
Hi Jeff,

Very welcome. Yeah my my biggest concern was the tint. I can easily correct it out of course, but I still want a nice monitor path and the cleanest palette possible out of the box. So I was tossing up too about the Schneiders IR ND's. I believe they also have a 77 screw in set on the way too. However as REDuser Phill Holland had tested the Schneiders and found his format hot mirror to be giving better results, they also still weren't out and more expensive, I went the Tiffens. I'd also read/been told the shift was towards the bluish green is the blacks, which in monitor at least, I personally prefer over reddy/brown blacks as I had seen with some of the other ND IR tests in the higher ND range.

However I do need to test the 1.8 and 2.1, and as you say, if I'm gong to see it, the 1.8 and 2.1 should be where it is most visible. But so far I've seen no obvious shift in 1.5 or under, but again, that's solely going off my footage as I haven't conducted proper tests, and to be honest I won't bother unless it's apparent to my eyes. I mean we all grade our footage anyway.

I've read that the performance of sets are often inconsistent with ND's. So maybe I just got lucky, But i doubt it. All in all, as Phil has still found colour shift to be occuring in the Schneiders, I'm unconcerned if I find it in the higher range with the Tiffens, and bang for buck I'm very happy with the set.

Best

Lliam
 
Thanks again Lliam, I'm going to go with the Tiffen Indie Pro set for personal use.
I'll hopefully be travelling with my Scarlet-X this summer, and need as light a kit as possible.

I agree, we all grade our footage, and blue/green is better than rusty red blacks.

Thanks again for sharing your experience with these filters.
And thanks Riccardo for starting a great thread.
 
Jonas Klittmark said:
Riccardo, thank you so much for posting these beautiful pictures! Did you get a chance to test the vari-ND with a telephoto yet? I'm very curious to see how well it works and at what focal length it breaks down, if at all.
Click to expand...

Hi Jonas, I've had some minor health issues lately, so I've decided to take a little break. Today I'm going back to Slovenia, hopefully tomorrow (if it doesn't rain too much) I'll try it with Nikkor 70-200 MK1. From experience I can tell you that on the D3X I've never noticed a drastic loss in resolution (@ 200), nothing you can't fix with some post sharpening.

edit: I'm back, tomorrow I'll update the first post with the results.
 
Riccardo Bertoni said:
Hi Jonas, I've had some minor health issues lately, so I've decided to take a little break. Today I'm going back to Slovenia, hopefully tomorrow (if it doesn't rain too much) I'll try it with Nikkor 70-200 MK1. From experience I can tell you that on the D3X I've never noticed a drastic loss in resolution (@ 200), nothing you can't fix with some post sharpening.

edit: I'm back, tomorrow I'll update the first post with the results.
Click to expand...

Hi Riccardo, I hope you're feeling better! Feel free to post some beautiful test photos from Slovenia when you get a chance! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top