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 :)

The LOW CON+SLIGHT HALATION OLPF thread

David Mullen ASC said:
The main reason it might appeal to me is that I don't like stacking filters, and you know that you'd be using ND filters. Though of course that could be flipped and the ND's could go behind the lens...

I don't want to fall into that reductive thinking that a diffusion filter is the only thing standing in the way from making a digital image look like film.
Click to expand...

I dont like stacking filters either,(Been there, done that, in the nineties;-). With the digital sensors I think the lenses we use, are an even more significant part of the image we produce on set, and that is also why I like the motion mount (It even has a Pola :-). It lets the light go through the lens first, and so I get the full benefit of the lens I choose. I would welcome a slight lowcon behind the lens as an option.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I don't juge films by names. I didn't like the look for the mentionned reasons. Please give me the "right" of that subjective statement. Respect has nothing to do with watching a movie.
Click to expand...

Respect presumably runs both ways. I think Dave is suggesting respect the filmmakers choices...and see them as decisions, not mistakes. You may not like the fimmakers' style, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Like so many things (religion, politics, art, etc), when it comes to taste, there's room for endless POV's.
 
ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE

ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE

I just saw ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE by Jim Jarmusch. Shot on an Arri Alexa - and with great highlights. I thought some screen grabs featuring the low con/slight halation effect might be of interest to this thread.

Is there anyone who doesn't want such an OLPF as an additional option for the already amazing Dragon camera? I would be surprised.

































--
 
George A. said:
I just saw ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE by Jim Jarmusch. Shot on an Arri Alexa - and with great highlights. I thought some screen grabs featuring the low con/slight halation effect might be of interest to this thread.

Is there anyone who doesn't want such an OLPF as an additional option for the already amazing Dragon camera? I would be surprised.

Click to expand...

This is my point on why this particular subject is difficult as much of the look found in this film is from the lenses and filtration used in front of them.

In this example this is not an "out of the camera" look and the glass and filtration was selected from a variety of options.

While there could be a Low Con/Halation OLPF that produces something similar, and again I'm all for it, it's going to be very tricky to find something that "everybody" is happy with.

Which does make me wonder that if Red develops such a thing:

- Would it be based on the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (my hopes would be that it does)
- It might be wiser to produce 3 different strength filters.
- It might be even wiser for a 3rd party filter manufacturer who makes common diffusion filters to make several options.

For instance, I'd enjoy a one of the newer Tiffen filters in an OLPF. However, at that point I would wonder why I'm not doing it in front of the lens in the first place.

Tricky stuff really. This is a niche produce and I'd love it, but it's hard to truly see if it would make sense. Time will tell.
 
Phil, if LOW CON is too niche to exist (if that is the case I guess speciality Olpfs like John Marchants IR are niche) what other olpfs are not niche?

The Goldilocks OLPF isn't niche...I guess? perhaps there is a Super LLO coming?

I agree with you...but to me, the whole concept of swappable olpfs is niche. Since your opinion is set against the low con I'd be interested to hear what you think would be not classed as a niche Olpf and why.

And is it reasonable to expect third parties like Teffen to produce olpfs with the same color science as Red does? And if they could why would the produce anything for Red cameras exclusively.. I cant think how low sales would be on speciality Olpfs.
 
Last edited:
Again, in my post above I mention I'm all for it. I'm not against this concept whatsoever. I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a "one banger" and boom it exists.

I'm guessing that if Red goes down this path there might be 2 or 3 "strengths".
 
Phil Holland said:
Again, in my post above I mention I'm all for it. I'm not against this concept whatsoever. I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a "one banger" and boom it exists.

I'm guessing that if Red goes down this path there might be 2 or 3 "strengths".
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Yes, sorry, I think I meant to say your earlier bias towards the LOW CON concept rather than it not existing at all 8-)

I do hope the Standard or Goldilocks olpf really can be considered a standard. I`d rather not have to buy 3 of any OLPF to cover lighting situations.

Ive been waiting since August or September for the swappable kit. Bomb Squad rep requested credit card details in October. I`ll be happy just to have one single spare OLPF to swap to in Jan or Feb. Just now, swappable OLPFS is something our cameras cant do.
 
Last edited:
Phil Holland said:
Which does make me wonder that if Red develops such a thing:

- Would it be based on the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (my hopes would be that it does)
- It might be wiser to produce 3 different strength filters.
- It might be even wiser for a 3rd party filter manufacturer who makes common diffusion filters to make several options.
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Allow me to disagree with you on the few points above (if I may, my friend).

- Ideally - and, of course, if RED develops it, as we all hope - I would rather base such a Low Con/Halation OLPF on the upcoming "Standard" OLPF. I think once it is released, most people will be using the "Standard" OLPF in their cameras. Both the LLO OLPF and the STH OLPFs have drawbacks, and presumably the new OLPF will strike the perfect balance. And by the time RED begins to develop the Low Con OLPF, the "Standard" one will probably (and hopefully) be already released.

- I also disagree with the idea of producing different strengths or different options. I think RED should choose the lowest effective strength (Low Con 1/8, for example) and just go with it. Again, nobody is looking for a "Diffusion" OLPF, we are looking for a "35mm film-like" OLPF. Mild low con effect, mild halation, very slight blooming. Just a fixed, baked-in "look" (call it the "35mm film without diffusion" look, if you want) for narrative projects, etc. If you are looking for diffusion per se, different strengths etc - you are indeed much, MUCH better off doing it in front of the lens. I think most people are looking for something else - not diffusion, but a fixed, base "film look" on which you are free to build further.

Also - we can't reasonably expect shooters to swap in and out between different strengths diffusion OLPFs in the middle of the shoot. In my humble opinion, this doesn't make sense at all - let's look at what makes sense for the community and the users on a practical level. Arri did the same, btw - they chose one strength to mimic 35mm film the best and stuck with it. 95% of Alexa shooters are perfectly happy with it - some say the 1/4 is too strong - that is why I advocate a 1/8 strength for Dragon.

Phil Holland said:
For instance, I'd enjoy a one of the newer Tiffen filters in an OLPF.
Click to expand...

I have looked at some of the new Tiffen filters and allow me to disagree again. Satin filters, pearlescent filters etc - while great - they are specialty filters with a very narrow usability range. They do certain (very specific) things and they do them well. But why put them in a RED OLPF? And - if you call Low Contrast filters "specialty" filters, then how would you call these new diffusion filters from Tiffen? "Super-specialty" filters? Because they do very, very specific things which you may want, or you may not want. Their place is in the front of the lens, as far as I'm concerned.

It's very important to mention that Low Con is actually not a diffusion filter, technically. It does several things which help an image be more filmic - it gives you the low con effect and halation that 35mm has (everyone agrees on that), and - at its lowest grade (1/8) - also helps by blooming the highlight very, very subtly. Some people don't even notice the blooming at this weak strength. Another advantage is that, at 1/8 and even 1/4, it doesn't "diffuse" the image noticeably. This is why most people champion the use of a Low Con filter in the OLPF for a "film" look. It creates a "base" film look on which you can start building further, if you want (and again, Arri chose a Low Con or equivalent filter, for this very reason). Diffusion filters, on the other hand, have different disadvantages: they "diffuse" the image, and each option is too specific for general use. That is why there are dozens and dozens of diffusion options out there. One targets just the highlights, another one targets just the skin tones, and so forth. None makes the overall image subtly filmic by affecting its overall character as well as the Low Con.

It's a nice, healthy discussion which I hope will help RED develop an OLPF that makes the most sense for the community. Let's keep it going.

Cheers Phil!

George



--
 
Patrick Tresch said:
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 ;-)
Click to expand...

I just saw "Mr. Turner" today and now I don't even know if we saw the same movie, I was surprised at how SHARP it was considering the use of Cooke Panchros! Very little flare too -- there is one interior shot with the actual sun in the frame and there is very little flare or contrast loss. A few interiors were smoked lightly and the grade was on the lower-contrast side, muted, and the lighting was generally soft, but the image was no softer than a large majority of films out there. I saw fine detail in fabric, fine lines in faces, sharp edges to trees on distant hilltops, I saw scenes with the camera pointed right into the sun glaring off of the ocean with minimal flare. Honestly, I would feel lucky if I could get something to look as rich as that movie did. And the sharpness was higher than even the lightest diffusion filter would create on a modern lens! I believe I saw it with a 4K projector (probably with a 2K DCP) at the Landmark in West L.A. about exact halfway back in the theater.

If that movie is soft, the 90% of the movies released are soft too, and in this case, it is more justifiable. It's certainly a lot sharper than a movie like "Barry Lyndon". Sharper than most anamorphic movies I've seen. I think the Cooke Pancros just took the edge off of the digital cinematography enough for a pleasant period feeling without any visible diffusion artifacts. Honestly, I don't get how anyone could think that this movie lacked resolution, plus THERE WAS HARDLY ANY HALATION AT ALL! The only halation I saw was in scenes where there was a light atmospheric haze added to the room causing the window light to bleed more, and that was only in a few scenes in Turner's studio. If you look at things like candles, you hardly see any halation at all.

Sounds like your theater needs to refund your ticket. Maybe they have a dirty projection booth window, I don't know.
 
Dirty projection booths lowering contrast and causing halation artifacts is a bigger problem than you think... I had a screening of a movie at Sundance back in 1999 where it looked like I had a double-reflection filter problem around bright edges, but it was just due to the cheap plexi they used for the projection booth window...
 
Patrick Tresch said:
Sorry I was joking.

Pat
Click to expand...

Sigh. My question was serious. I find it hard to believe that a simple filter is all that separates the Dragon's default look from Alexa's "filmic" look. If it was that easy, it'd never have become a topic of conversation.

But if it is that easy, I'd love to know which specific filter/strength/manufacturer people are using in front of the lens, which color science (RG3 or 4) that comes closest to an "Alexa look" for the same scene/exposure.
 
Nikhil Kamkolkar said:
Sigh. My question was serious. I find it hard to believe that a simple filter is all that separates the Dragon's default look from Alexa's "filmic" look. If it was that easy, it'd never have become a topic of conversation.

But if it is that easy, I'd love to know which specific filter/strength/manufacturer people are using in front of the lens, which color science (RG3 or 4) that comes closest to an "Alexa look" for the same scene/exposure.
Click to expand...


But why would you want to mimic this particular camera? It's a tool. Probably you would be better off to dig for a look. "Alexa look" is not a thing you can aim for as a DP. Think of a picture, there are enough inspirations out there to dig for.
Don't you think so?

Pat
 
Patrick Tresch said:
But why would you want to mimic this particular camera? It's a tool. Probably you would be better off to dig for a look. "Alexa look" is not a thing you can aim for as a DP. Think of a picture, there are enough inspirations out there to dig for.
Don't you think so?

Pat
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree with you on digging for a look. But one of the ways I will be able to arrive at a new look is to understand the variables that go into creating a look. This is why I'm asking my question.

Its totally valid to wildly experiment and evaluate what you arrive it and pick it or not. But its also valid to chase a target, and that way, you can always measure (even if its only subjective) how far away from the target you are as you experiment with all the variables.

btw, interesting workshop i'm watching right now - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S8Q7t8c01Y
 
I don't think people want an "Alexa" OLPF.

I think people want a "35mm celluloid" low con OLPF.
 
George A. said:
Alexa did it in their OLPF - I hope RED will do the same. Apparently Alexa has the equivalent of a Low Con 1/4 in there - most people love the effect (I know I do), a handful of people think it's too strong - so perhaps the best course of auction would be a Low Con 1/8 in there. Again, we don't need anything too big, just a starting point, a baseline to give us the equivalent of that fantastic celluloid image.
Click to expand...

Well, the very first post in this thread made the comparison to Alexa - and that's where I'm coming from. "35mm Celluloid look" is too generic as there are (were) too many stocks each with their own unique look. Anyways, I plan to get some filters and play around, but open to any education/tips that anyone wants to send my way. Thanks!
 
I really don't get this "make it like Alexa" mentally.

Yes, I personally prefer the look of Alexa's images to anything else out there digitally at the moment. But there are times when the more contrasty and resolute image Epic provides is what I need, and there are times when the clarity and naturalism of Sony Cinealtas are what I want. These sensors are our filmstocks these days, and I for one, would prefer we keep a little variety.
 
Mark K. said:
I really don't get this "make it like Alexa" mentally.

Yes, I personally prefer the look of Alexa's images to anything else out there digitally at the moment. But there are times when the more contrasty and resolute image Epic provides is what I need, and there are times when the clarity and naturalism of Sony Cinealtas are what I want. These sensors are our filmstocks these days, and I for one, would prefer we keep a little variety.
Click to expand...

You do know these are swappable OLPFs, right? Meaning, you can have your Alexa OLPF for your Alexa days, your Sony OLPF for your Sony days, your Kodak 2383 OLPF for your Kodak days, your underwater OLPF for your underwater days, etc. etc. etc. all in ONE camera for ~$200 a pop (less than the cost of a daily rental of those other cameras)... I would love for the naming to be that straight-forward too... It'd be great if, when a clients says, "We should get an Alexa", you can reply, "I have the Alexa OLPF" and show them an image that looks almost identical directly out of camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top