The LOW CON+SLIGHT HALATION OLPF thread

[Medavoym]

I'm not against it, if you search back I was one of the first along with Mr. Kilgroe to bring it up even.

I have concerns that are more geared towards optical chaos, individual preference, and general shooting. I'm all for having options and I'm sure Red is experimenting with all sorts of OLPF possibilities.

More or less I'm pointing out what's possible today and the large variety of halation and low con filtration available. As for what would be "right" to put into an OLPF, that's tricky. [...] there's a variety of stocks and some have anti-halation features to combat against the look. It's a tricky space.

I do see your point, Phil. Of course it's "tricky" - but so what? Almost everything is tricky.

Just because there are many varieties of diffusion filters out there (or film stocks, for that matter), does it mean there should be NO Low Contrast/Slight Halation OLPF at all? Not sure I get your argument.

All those many choices didn't stop Arri to create the camera with (undeniably) the most successful digital look out there, matching 35mm film the closest of all major digital camera manufacturers. That's what people clearly want (not an Alexa per se, but a filmic image).

There is clearly the need for such an OLPF - for all the reasons outlined in this thread. Let's help RED create the one that works best for the Dragon, and be positive about it, instead of being (slightly) resistant to the idea.

You can emulate film

Great! We are on the same page, then. That's exactly what everyone seems to want, too.
But how? What is your suggestion? This is the important bit so let's concentrate on that.

I personally vote for a light grade of Low Contrast (1/16, 1/8 or there about) since it doesn't soften the image and the halation is subtle. And the Low Contrast effect itself is very film like. Plus, the concept is already brilliantly proven in the Alexa.

Promists, Pearleascents, Classic Softs - all these filters are too specific and noticeable, IMHO. The Low Con 1/8 is very hard to notice and it's very filmic and pleasant at the same time.

Other thoughts?

 

[Robert Hart]

Formatt Hitech had the generous good grace to send me some cut 1mm thick samples of 1/8 contrast filter to experiment with on the SI2K as a behind the lens thing. There was no apparent reduction of resolution at 2K.

There is focal shift. The mount and even some lenses would need recollimating. There is a very slight, almost un-noticeable effect from the 1/8 filter. The histogram, once re-centred, with the 1/8 flter showed a very slight increase in the width of the flat line at each end if that makes any sense. If the Alexa is 1/4, then that may well be the way to go, after all, they do know what they are about.

FWIW here are some short unscientific clips with the filter in place. PLease forgive the green tint in one. I can't colour-grade even to save my life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idm4dtmpNek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRALz6x3yug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-dMr1nTno

 

[George A.]

Very nice Robert!

From what I've seen so far, the Low Con filter seems to be the best overall option for a 35mm film emulation OLPF.

Even though this is not a RED camera above - I love how those highlights look and what the LC 1/8 is doing to them. Very filmic and also subtle, which is what I see with Low Contrast filters in general. And still sharp. I bet this shot will look even nicer on the Dragon (plus LC 1/8). Thanks for sharing!

P.S. Focal shift won't be a problem as all RED OLPFs will have the same thickness.

P.S. 2 -- I would personally not have a problem with a LC 1/4 to mimic the "other" camera, but I suppose going somewhat lighter (1/8) makes more sense.

--

 

[Robert Hart]

Furthur to my post above, we had two SI2Ks on a pro-bono gig earlier this evening. The light was about a stop too low for the cine zooms we were using.

The selected look in this clip was REC709 AKA "default look" which crushes black a bit. I would have expected to see a bit more noise in the blacks. Maybe the 1/8th contrast filter helps. If it does, it may help with the noise issue that some operators are upset abut with some Dragon OPLFs. I have yet to see the footage from the other camera which was gained up 3db but otherwise identical except for the 1/8th contrast filter.

It was somewhat of a test of the cameras with new Samsung 1TB SSDs in them. The longer available continuous recording time, if it goes without a hitch means new utility for the SI2K as an events camera. The short throw cine zooms were a bit limiting. HDCAM lenses would be better and have another stop of speed.

Anyway, enough prattling on. Here's the link. The sound is ambience. The mix desk feed went to the other camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCv5H8quaWY

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

STH OLPF is pretty damn filmic as it is (esp with DEB on above 500 ASA). Put an older lens on top of it and test in various conditions, few of cheapest ones from the 70s actually had too much of highlight softening effect on Alexa, but on Sony F55 and MX/Dragon that effect and lifted shadows play really nice with a curve, RCX look applied or custom LUT. It can look really really sweet even without the grain, just creamy soft rolloff from top to bottom. Using LowCon type OLPF makes sense on newer razor-sharp lenses though. I know a few individuals in stills world that are after that look in digital photography. Scrolling through old film scans, I can say I know the feeling.

 

[Medavoym]

STH OLPF is pretty damn filmic as it is (esp with DEB on above 500 ASA).

The STH OLPF is fantastic. But, if you've worked with 35mm film, it's not as filmic as celluloid. It still says "digital" to me. Great digital, fantastic digital, but why not have the option to truly emulate film as close as possible if we want to?

Using LowCon type OLPF makes sense on newer razor-sharp lenses though. I know a few individuals in stills world that are after that look in digital photography. Scrolling through old film scans, I can say I know the feeling.

Bingo.

BTW - the advantage of Low Con is that it doesn't soften the image noticeably. Check this Canon 5D clip which has a Low Con 1 (very strong) on top of the lens. Barely any unpleasant softness, typical of so many diffusion filters. And yet you can feel the Low Con effect and you can see the subtle but very filmic effect on the highlights.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

Ultra Con's do not soften much either. I really love the feel of Ultracons from tiffen... I typically use a 1

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

BTW - the advantage of Low Con is that it doesn't soften the image noticeably. Check this Canon 5D clip which has a Low Con 1 (very strong) on top of the lens. Barely any unpleasant softness, typical of so many diffusion filters. And yet you can feel the Low Con effect and you can see the subtle but very filmic effect on the highlights.

That is excellent video example.

 

[Rolf Kestermann]

Just scanning through this post, if I have anything to add, would be to look at the Bolex and Canon Scoopic Camera designs as well as older Mitchells that allow a sliding filter holder to place anything between the lens and today I guess the chip. Even easier without spinning mirrors etc. Just a design issue, than You could swap OLPFs, Diffusion, even Masks in a jiffgy.

 

[Enrique Blein]

Wouldnd't Epic-X also benefit from this OLPFs?

 

[Mike P.]

Wouldnd't Epic-X also benefit from this OLPFs?

Yes, potentially more, since it clips much quicker than Dragon and the halation can mask that quite a bit... That said, Epic-X doesn't have removable OLPF (though I didn't think anything is physically preventing it).

I was under the impression most red shoots use diffusion-style filters (low-con, mists, etc.) in front of the lens to mimic film a little better (and achieve an Alexa-look). To take the edge off of high-res/sharp digital sensors. Alexa was the first to incorporate it so predominately into its OLPF though... (I think).

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Arri have stated they do not have a locon filter within the OLPF stack... Why would we not believe them?

 

[Martin Stevens]

Arri have stated they do not have a locon filter within the OLPF stack... Why would we not believe them?

While it may not be called a Low-Con filter, the effect sure looks like one.

 

[Medavoym]

While it may not be called a Low-Con filter, the effect sure looks like one.

Agreed.

A Low Con 1/4 on an Epic matches it quite well with the Alexa as far as that low contrast+halation effect is concerned.
So, Arri might not use a Low Contrast filter per se in their OLPF, but it looks very, very similar.

I hope RED/Jarred can chime in and confirm that they are indeed developing such an OLPF. With the upcoming "Standard OLPF" as its "base".
Wouldn't that be fabulous for narrative work?

 

[sam karr]

So would you suggest a Low Con 1/4 or a 1/8 on the red dragon to match the Alexa? I hear both.

 

[Medavoym]

So would you suggest a Low Con 1/4 or a 1/8 on the red dragon to match the Alexa? I hear both.

This is for RED to decide, of course, they know their own sensor best, and what grade would work best for the Dragon chip.

Definitely not stronger then 1/4. I would be happy with either one, as long as they do develop the OLPF
The safest would be 1/8 I guess (barely noticeable), with 1/4 for a more pronounced (yet still quite subtle) effect.

 

[Donald MJ Anderson]

This is for RED to decide, of course, they know their own sensor best, and what grade would work best for the Dragon chip.

We should keep expectations in check. Realistically we are many, many, many months away from even the goldilocks OLPF shipping nevermind a 4th useable OLPF. Red will move at a glacial pace just to get to the point to announce that OLPF. Then there will be the usual wait time associated with all Red accessory releases. So - add another 3 to 5 months on top of the number you first thought of.

Being able to order and have shipped a real choice of production useable OLPFS like a LOW CON wont be a reality till some point in 2016 EASY.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I've been to the movies and watched "Turner".
How horrible is the hallation and lack of resolution for this Cinemascope picture!
What a pitty. I was hoping for a visual experience but apart from a couple of sunsets, the picture was a desapointment.

Don't bake a look in the camera. I want to have the choice of doing it on set shot by shot.

Patrick

PS: It doesn't mean it won't win any awards ;-)

 

[Matt Ryan]

We should keep expectations in check. Realistically we are many, many, many months away from even the goldilocks OLPF shipping nevermind a 4th useable OLPF. Red will move at a glacial pace just to get to the point to announce that OLPF. Then there will be the usual wait time associated with all Red accessory releases. So - add another 3 to 5 months on top of the number you first thought of.

Being able to order and have shipped a real choice of production useable OLPFS like a LOW CON wont be a reality till some point in 2016 EASY.

unless they come from 3rd parties....

 

[Donald MJ Anderson]

unless they come from 3rd parties....

Yes, but 3rd party are likely to be for want of a better word "artistic" rather than production useable in the way a LLO is or a RED produced LOW CON would be.

These 3rd party OLPFs don't need rigorous optics or tied into the color science in the way a proper RED OLPF would. For a play around or a music video a 3rd party OLPF could well be interesting, but for picture fidelity reasons on a typical shoot I don't see them as real alternative to a RED produced unit