Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8

[Medavoym]

Hi!

I think it is absolutely great that RED are implementing the interchangeable OLPF solution. I am all for it!

First, I must admit that having separate "low light" and "highlight" OLPFs is less than ideal. I even lost track of how people are naming them now, etc.
I hope RED will release soon the already-announced "Standard" OLPF which will please both crowds, and make things more simple for everyone (the users and even RED as a company).

I also hope that all the different variants of OLPFs will have the "Standard" one as a base. I can't imagine "low light + IR" OLPF, "highlight + IR" OLPF, "standard + IR", "low light monochrome", "highlight monochrome", "standard monochrome" etc.
I hope "Standard" will be the gold standard and all the other variants will start from here. V1 and V2 will become specialty OLPFs.

Secondly - I fully agree with the majority of people here. We need a Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8, with slight blooming of the highlights. It will provide the most 35mm-like image and it would be the best choice, in my opinion, for narrative filmmaking.

This screen capture (which I posted before simply as a random example) is from Errol Morris' documentary "The Unknown Known". I have no idea how they achieved it, but it doesn't matter. This is the general direction (it's exaggerated here but you get the point).

This, combined with the already great roll-off on the Dragon, should produce some great 35mm-like results. For narrative projects, I think it will be the best choice. I hope the development of such an OLPF is not far, since I would actually venture to say it's the most needed at the moment.

Kudos to RED for pushing things forward!

 

[Phil Holland]

Hi!

I think it is absolutely great that RED are implementing the interchangeable OLPF solution. I am all for it!

First, I must admit that having separate "low light" and "highlight" OLPFs is less than ideal. I even lost track of how people are naming them now, etc.
I hope RED will release soon the already-announced "Standard" OLPF which will please both crowds, and make things more simple for everyone (the users and even RED as a company).

I also hope that all the different variants of OLPFs will have the "Standard" one as a base. I can't imagine "low light + IR" OLPF, "highlight + IR" OLPF, "standard + IR", "low light monochrome", "highlight monochrome", "standard monochrome" etc.
I hope "Standard" will be the gold standard and all the other variants will start from here. V1 and V2 will become specialty OLPFs.

Secondly - I fully agree with the majority of people here. We need a Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8, with slight blooming of the highlights. It will provide the most 35mm-like image and it would be the best choice, in my opinion, for narrative filmmaking.

This screen capture (which I posted before simply as a random example) is from Errol Morris' documentary "The Unknown Known". I have no idea how they achieved it, but it doesn't matter. This is the general direction (it's exaggerated here but you get the point).

This, combined with the already great roll-off on the Dragon, should produce some great 35mm-like results. For narrative projects, I think it will be the best choice. I hope the development of such an OLPF is not far, since I would actually venture to say it's the most needed at the moment.

Kudos to RED for pushing things forward!

The Low Light Optimized, Skin Tone - Highlight, and Dragon Standard OLPFs will not need additional IR filtration when using NDs.

I honestly don't think that the Dragon Standard should have a Low Con effect. I think actually if you were looking to mimic film the most you would be using the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (maybe even the Dragon Standard) with a small, very small low contrast filter. Like 1/16th. But it shouldn't just be the Dragon Standard.

I do agree that a Low Con/Haliation OLPF is a good idea potentially, but there is no "right answer" for this particular aesthetic choice. Especially when you combine the fact that much of the look of older films comes from vintage lenses, filtration, and properties of film combined. Dragon Standard OLPF should allow for high contrast and color accurate images so people can use what they want in front of the lens to carve out a specific look.

If it is some thing Red makes it should be called something like Low Con - Haliation OLPF or whatever.

Considering the type of image quality you get from the LLO and STH OLPF I wouldn't really call them specialty, especially since the highest quality images are coming out of the STH.

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I think a 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, etc. low-con filter integrated on a OLPF is going a bit too far- too much a specialized item to find an audience, even it may look great. But it can also introduce artifacts (for instance, too obvious halos against bright sources) than can make it undesirable for certain aspects of every day's shooting.

A standard OLPF, with good shadows and a nice handling of highlights, should be enough for general purposes. And then, if you want certain effects halo or glow, you can use some light diffusion filters or older lenses with less improved coatings. A couple of months ago I used for the first time in my life a set of nicely rehoused Cooke Speed Panchros with an Epic Mysterium-X. I did several interior shots against bright windows, and the effect was very close to this picture, without the need of going into more complicated stuff such as swapping OLPFs. Just a piece of old glass et voilá!

 

[Medavoym]

The Low Light Optimized, Skin Tone - Highlight, and Dragon Standard OLPFs will not need additional IR filtration when using NDs.

I honestly don't think that the Dragon Standard should have a Low Con effect. I think actually if you were looking to mimic film the most you would be using the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (maybe even the Dragon Standard) with a small, very small low contrast filter. Like 1/16th. But it shouldn't just be the Dragon Standard.

I do agree that a Low Con/Haliation OLPF is a good idea potentially, but there is no "right answer" for this particular aesthetic choice. Especially when you combine the fact that much of the look of older films comes from vintage lenses, filtration, and properties of film combined. Dragon Standard OLPF should allow for high contrast and color accurate images so people can use what they want in front of the lens to carve out a specific look.

If it is some thing Red makes it should be called something like Low Con - Haliation OLPF or whatever.

Considering the type of image quality you get from the LLO and STH OLPF I wouldn't really call them specialty, especially since the highest quality images are coming out of the STH.

I actually agree with you, Phil.

I wasn't calling for the upcoming "Standard" OLPF to have a Low Con permanently embedded in it. Far from it. I want the Standard to be just that, the standard OLPF inside the camera.
I was saying that if RED or third parties start offering multiple OLPF options, they should start with the "Standard" as the base, or starting point.

So, I would want the "Low Con/Halation" OLPF to add that extra effect to the "Standard" OLPF. Same for whatever other variants RED will eventually make.

Don't you think it will be too complicated to have a low con version only for the Skintone OLPF? What if people prefer to shoot with the "Low Light" OLPF, or the "Standard OLPF" but they also want the halation/low con effect? With so many OLPFs, you could go crazy with the different combinations.

Presumably, the "Standard" OLPF will be the best of both worlds. Naturally, I would want to keep that as the gold standard, fixed benchmark, constant variable, if you'd like. I don't want to have different versions of the Low Light OLPF, different versions of the Highlight/Skintone OLPF, different versions of the Standard OLPF. My head hurts just thinking about that.

In my humble opinion, I think RED should stop developing the LowLight OLPF and Highlight OLPF, and concentrate on the Standard OLPF. From there, they could move over to as many varieties as they'd like - but with the Standard as the gold "standard". In that sense, the Low Light and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs will remain "specialty" OLPFs.

Life would be much simpler.

P.S. I'm sure that RED can develop a "Standard" OLPF which has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, given the power of the Dragon sensor itself.

 

[George A.]

I think a 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, etc. low-con filter integrated on a OLPF is going a bit too far- too much a specialized item to find an audience, even it may look great. But it can also introduce artifacts (for instance, too obvious halos against bright sources) than can make it undesirable for certain aspects of every day's shooting.

A standard OLPF, with good shadows and a nice handling of highlights, should be enough for general purposes. And then, if you want certain effects halo or glow, you can use some light diffusion filters or older lenses with less improved coatings. A couple of months ago I used for the first time in my life a set of nicely rehoused Cooke Speed Panchros with an Epic Mysterium-X. I did several interior shots against bright windows, and the effect was very close to this picture, without the need of going into more complicated stuff such as swapping OLPFs. Just a piece of old glass et voilá!

Hi Ignacio,

Tell that to the people who love the Alexa image

I personally think that an equivalent OLPF (I think Alexa has a 1/8 or 1/4 Low Con in there) would be great as an extra option for RED shooters.

Cheers my friend!
George

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Hi Ignacio,

Tell that to the people who love the Alexa image

I personally think that an equivalent OLPF (I think Alexa has a 1/8 or 1/4 Low Con in there) would be great as an extra option for RED shooters.

Cheers my friend!
George

Hi George!

I don't know if the Alexa has some kind of integrated Low Con filter in its OLPF -I've used it several times, and love the images it delivers-, but certainly it doesn't give you the halo effect shown in the first post of this thread. Maybe, if it has that kind of filter, it just does what a modern Tiffen Ultra Con / Soft Contrast, and that's why its dynamic range is so pleasing and wide. Just call me a purist, but when we talk about Low-Cons I can only think about Harrison & Harrison's from the 1970's, and those certainly look more prone to get flares, glowing highlights, halos, etc. than the Alexa with sharp & coated modern glass (Zeiss CPs, Ultras, Cooke S4, etc). At least, in my experience!

 

[David Battistella]

I've been doing some stuff with the STH and a 1/8 locon and the results are pretty good. It really took the edge of the MX and the dragon STH really does not need it as much as the highlights have a pretty nice rolloff built in.

I agree that the naming might seem weird but I understand it.

If you are on set and need to know which OLPF is in there then you look in the gate and you read it right on the OLPF. No messing around with v1, v2, what does this one do? What does that one do?

right now it is:

LLO - Low Light Optimized
STH - Skin Tone highlight

orginally it was

v1- low light in alpha dragon cams
v2- skin tone highlight
some might also say that the current LLO is a modified version of the original v1

when the cameras go in for upgrade to the swappable OLPF system, the OLPF going forward those will have a name.
If there is no name, then it is either the v1 or v2

i know it is confusing but hopefully this clears things up a bit.

battistella

 

[Gunleik Groven]

nope... true.. no halo on the a...

 

[Jim Hoffman]

We going to send in our second camera. Our first Dragon has V2 - not sure if I should match or have a different option. How are the Clips from different versions cutting together - I assume there would be no real trouble - just the artifacts from each versions signature.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

they'll edit well... Dunno if Phil disagrees, but as long as you expose for what they are, they will intercut much better than RED ONE and Epic MX

 

[Phil Holland]

they'll edit well... Dunno if Phil disagrees, but as long as you expose for what they are, they will intercut much better than RED ONE and Epic MX

You can see in the side by sides I posted that there is a very slight color difference, but it's rather negligible.

For those working on feature productions who are concerned with texture, they should be aware of the 1 to 1.3 stops of textural difference between the two. Shooting at ISO 400 on the STH OLPF looks a lot like ISO 800-1000 on the LLO OLPF and so on/so forth.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sure... But that's rather the point, isn't it?

 

[Phil Holland]

Sure... But that's rather the point, isn't it?

Pretty much I imagine. I only state that for some productions, and this is really mainly feature territory where I find it's a large focus, where texture is rather an important factor to have consistency on screen shot to shot.

This is useful for a variety of situations when mixing and matching shots from multiple OLPFs on the same production and trying to maintain a consistent "energy" on screen.

I may shoot STH at ISO 500 at the studio and roll LLO at ISO 1000/1280 elsewhere for instance.

 

[Medavoym]

Hi Phil,

Also - I've been thinking more lately about the need for slight Low Con/halation.

Why would you prefer to have it with the Highlight/Skintone OLPF? In my opinion, it is more needed on the Lowlight OLPF - theoretically speaking.

Outside, in daylight, there aren't many things to bloom anyway. OK, the occasional specular highlights etc.
The need for slight halation is indoors with practical lights, or outside at night, with street lamps, car headlights, practical fixtures again etc

IMO, people prefer halation on small, intense, bright light sources which can clip and thus feel more "digital". That's 90% of the time practical lights in the frame at night or in low light - when you'd use the Lowlight OLPF. Of course, low con/halation is extremely useful outdoors during daytime as well, but it produces the most filmic images with practical lights, which are almost always a giveaway for digital.

That being said, I'd still prefer for RED not to go forward with developing the Lowlight and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs anymore. Keep them as is, for whoever needs them.
Develop a fantastic "Standard" OLPF which can do both lowlight and highlight, and then go forward from there. Including having a "Standard+ Low Con 1/8/halation" OLPF which the users can use both at night and in daylight.

I think we are on the same page actually!
Cheers Phil.

 

[Phil Holland]

Hi Phil,

Also - I've been thinking more lately about the need for slight Low Con/halation.

Why would you prefer to have it with the Highlight/Skintone OLPF? In my opinion, it is more needed on the Lowlight OLPF - theoretically speaking.

Outside, in daylight, there aren't many things to bloom anyway. OK, the occasional specular highlights etc.
The need for slight halation is indoors with practical lights, or outside at night, with street lamps, car headlights, practical fixtures again etc

IMO, people prefer halation on small, intense, bright light sources which can clip and thus feel more "digital". That's 90% of the time practical lights in the frame at night or in low light - when you'd use the Lowlight OLPF. Of course, low con/halation is extremely useful outdoors during daytime as well, but it produces the most filmic images with practical lights, which are almost always a giveaway for digital.

That being said, I'd still prefer for RED not to go forward with developing the Lowlight and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs anymore. Keep them as is, for whoever needs them.
Develop a fantastic "Standard" OLPF which can do both lowlight and highlight, and then go forward from there. Including having a "Standard+ Low Con 1/8/halation" OLPF which the users can use both at night and in daylight.

I think we are on the same page actually!
Cheers Phil.

From what I understand and what's been stated is the Dragon Standard OLPF is going to be somewhere between the STH and LLO OLPF. Right now the most "film-like" image comes from the STH OLPF. Until the Dragon Standard OLPF exists and can be tested I don't really know. I'm sure it could fit on all three of these OLPFs, but the key is to not have it "always" and just make an optional Low Con/Halation one as well. Here's why.

The concept of adding Low Con and Halation to any of these filters isn't going to be a "need" it's going to be more of a "creative choice". Dragon Standard is or is going to be designed as the "standard" and shouldn't have a baked in effect of low contrast or halation, though a separate version of it is welcomed. The thing is Low Con and Halation can be controlled in front of the lens in various degrees of strengths. Red is not going to manufacture 20 different OLPFs with various varieties of Low Con and Halation. There's likely going to be maybe 1 to 3 options at the most. Low, Medium, and Strong and that will likely be logistically the best they can do. Though I think what most who are interested in this would generally be looking for is a "low" option as to not contaminate the general contrast and perceived details too much.

Time will tell.

At the moment I'm more excited about the Dragon Standard, IR Color, and IR Monochrome OLPFs. I've spoken to a few of the Bubble Blowers about the Underwater OLPF and there's a lot of excitement surrounding it.

What's been exciting lately has been seeing what the Low Light Optimized OLPF has become in comparison to the "V1". It's just slightly improved in a few ways and is providing that cleaner higher ISO shooting that many, many people have been looking for.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have to agree with Phil. It's so easy to add halation with BPM or other filters. We do it on our shoots all the time. I'd rather have the flexibility of a cleaner Standard OLPF.

Earlier I was excited about this more "filmic" halation, but now that I think about it...if I had the choice, I agree the Standard should be "clean".

That said, if a 3Rd party wants to make a "low con" or other "creative" OLPF, I'd certainly be interested!!

 

[Joseph Coleman]

Phill, Just curious...What Low con filtration do you use or suggest to help simulate the Alexa's low con look? I have a client that loves the Alexa but is curious about the dragon. I'm looking to show them that the dragon can match that look and hopefully surpass it in some ways.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Phill, Just curious...What Low con filtration do you use or suggest to help simulate the Alexa's low con look? I have a client that loves the Alexa but is curious about the dragon. I'm looking to show them that the dragon can match that look and hopefully surpass it in some ways.

We use BPM 1/8 all the time.

 

[Medavoym]

Guys!

I'm not proposing that the STANDARD OLPF have a baked-in Low Con/Halation effect! Far from it!

I want the Standard OLPF to be just that, Standard.

However, when RED creates a Low Con/Halation OLPF (or any other variety), it should add that extra layer to the Standard OLPF. That's all I'm saying.
I think all "creative" OLPF should have the Standard as a starting base. I want things simple. I don't want several varieties of Low Con/Halation OLPFs (for the Lowlight OLPF, for the Highlight OLPF, for the Standard OLPF). Imagine if other varieties/strengths come into play. It will all become crazy.

I agree. A LowCon/Halation replicating the Alexa look (so probably a Low Con 1/8) would be enough. It will give the shooter that starting point to be happy - a low con look for slightly more dynamic range and 35mm-like blooming. What you get on the Alexa. You want more? Start playing with filters in front of the lens. They do it with Alexa, too.

I don't think we need different Low Con strengths and a variety of OLPFs to get further confused. Let's admit it, many people are already confused.
We need a single Low Con/Halation OLPF, ideally on top of the Standard OLPF. That will cover 90% of the needs, if you want that creative/specific look. KEEP THINGS SIMPLE for directors, producers, DPs. You have tons of other optical options if you want to explore more.

P.S. In my humble opinion, having two different OLPFs - one for lowlight with certain drawbacks, one for highlights with other drawbacks - is not ideal. However, they exist, they are here, they are being used on great projects - so let's keep them around.
I think the number one priority for RED would be to develop an all-around Standard OLPF which performs great in both shooting conditions. Then, once you nail that, use it to develop other "creative" OLPFs. Keep the V1 and V2 OLPFs if people need them - but keep them as is. Don't mangle the whole OLPF business with all sorts of options and combinations which will further confuse everyone.

My two cents! I know RED will find the proper solution.

 

[Donald MJ Anderson]

I think the number one priority for RED would be to develop an all-around Standard OLPF which performs great in both shooting conditions. Then, once ....

I`m sure that is the case.

My concern is the V1 and V2 are already pretty close to each other in terms of performance. How big a performance benefit will there be if I swap from standard to a V1 or V2?

I`m hoping RED develop an EXTRA LOW LIGHT and EXTRA HIGHLIGHT STH version. This would give a clear reason for the STANDARD OLPF to exist.

So, I hope there are variations to come on the V1 and V2 that push their specifications far enough away from the STANDARD olpf to give me a dramatic performance reason to do a swap.