Red problem ! - Page 12 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 2nd, 2008, 10:46 AM   #166
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Avery View Post
Based on the discussions here and my knowledge of both filters, I would think that the 486 would be the better choice. I do not have direct experience with the set up you are talking about but from a science aspect the 486 is the proper filter.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics
I obviously thought about this one a little more and the above post relates that the 486 is the best filter to use but not for the sequencing of filters used in this particular application.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics
Ryan Avery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2008, 04:27 PM   #167
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 107
Ryan,

A 486 filter available as a 4x4 for MB use?

Thanks.
Christopher Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2008, 03:44 AM   #168
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Avery View Post
In mounting the filter, the sequence is very important. A 486 filter reflects the light and there for should be used in the front of all elements. If you are mounting the 486 internally then the issues you state could be happening. The 489 is a better application for internal use such as the situation you state. It is better to have no UV filtration in the 489 and avoid the internal reflection problems.

In short, for this application only, use the 489 internally OR put the 486 in front of the 35mm lens.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics
Dear Ryan,

What a pity you confirmed my concerns only after I have bought another 486 filter (this time, the one with double thread to replace my current 486 SLIM version) - should you have answered two days earlier, I'd go with the 489 as I currently am not using a matte box :(

But never mind; I'll replace it again should need be. However, the following afterthought crossed my mind when reading your answer:

If indeed the reflecting 486 filter type should always work as the outermost (i.e. the first in the stack) optical element, why does its double-threaded version exists in the first place? Having the thread at the front side, it suggests screwing some other optical element into it is conceivable, after all...

Or maybe this is just for some non-optical element, like a sunshade of some sort?
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 12:24 AM   #169
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki View Post
Dear Ryan,

What a pity you confirmed my concerns only after I have bought another 486 filter (this time, the one with double thread to replace my current 486 SLIM version) - should you have answered two days earlier, I'd go with the 489 as I currently am not using a matte box :(
Nevermind that I said like a dozen times the 489 was the right one to use behind a 35mm adapter and that I got that info from somebody at Schneider and have bought the 489 and it is working great with 35mm adapters.
You can just figure that on your own just by reading how both filters handle incoming IR actually. But I tried.
Michael Maier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 03:07 AM   #170
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Yes Michael - I know you said it, but a couple of persons using the 486 said it was also working OK, and Ryan of Schneider even mentioned the 486 is "a better choice for this application"... :)

But of course I'm far for blaming anybody but myself for this decision. Since my new 486 provider has the 489 as well, I'll be trying to swap them - he might go for it, if I pay the shipping costs. Before I do however, please answer my other question I also was asking earlier in this thread:

- does the double-threaded 489 filter fit under the stock lens hood, when Letus is not used?

Thanks in advance!
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 10:54 AM   #171
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Piotr:
ONLY slim-lines fit under the stock sunshade. That is why I needed to put together the adapter ring arrangements that Schneider complemented me on. See details above somewhere. Slim-lines do not have front threads so the answer to your question is NO
Mike Stevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 01:30 PM   #172
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Wrong again, Mike:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=122
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=132

- I have no reason not to believe Peter; anyway I will check it with mine which should arrive soon.
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 08:10 PM   #173
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki View Post
Wrong again, Mike:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=122
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=132

- I have no reason not to believe Peter; anyway I will check it with mine which should arrive soon.
Piotr: Maybe you are addressing MM, but if you are addressing me I assure you the B+W 486 IR/UV slimline does not have a front thread. (Don't be misled by the B&H site that says it does. They are wrong). Now some other fatter IR filters will have a front thread but I do not know of one that can fit under the Sony head. The link you referred to is addressing the slimline with no front thread.
Mike Stevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 08:59 PM   #174
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 188
I'm using a B+W 486 filter with front threads. It fits under the hood. I also have put a pola in front of that with no problems. I'll be doing thorough tests with a letus and this filter next weekend.


-Sean
Sean Donnelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2008, 10:53 PM   #175
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Donnelly View Post
I'm using a B+W 486 filter with front threads. It fits under the hood. I also have put a pola in front of that with no problems. I'll be doing thorough tests with a letus and this filter next weekend.


-Sean
What is the model number? I could not find one and B+W told me not one in their catalog. Be interested to know. It's good though its all a bit academic as I would think with a camera of this sophistication you would have a matte box. Had to do what I did because I have the Cavision clamp on as I did no want the weight of rails.
Mike Stevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 03:31 AM   #176
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stevens View Post
Piotr: Maybe you are addressing MM, but if you are addressing me I assure you the B+W 486 IR/UV slimline does not have a front thread. (Don't be misled by the B&H site that says it does. They are wrong). Now some other fatter IR filters will have a front thread but I do not know of one that can fit under the Sony head. The link you referred to is addressing the slimline with no front thread.
It's likely that not all 486 filters are created equal. Some say the standard 486 will fit under the hood and no doubt they're correct. But the ones the local agent has in stock sure don't. I know, I tried, hard.
Bob Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 06:24 AM   #177
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 188
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tal_UV_IR.html

I actually got mine form a different supplier because I needed it quickly and B+H didn't have it in stock.
Sean Donnelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 06:45 AM   #178
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 188
Hope this is okay to post, but this is Schneider's description of how the 486 works:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...D=677&IID=4397

"This B+W Interference Filter has a completely colorless glass carrier coated with a number of extremely thin, partially reflecting layers with precisely computed thicknesses, similar to MC coating. The B+W Filter 486 does not block by means of absorption, but by interference of the unwanted UV and IR radiation that is repeatedly reflected between these layers, affecting the wavelengths on both sides of the visible spectrum with a steep cut-off..."

Just wanted to put that out there. It sounds to me like it's not reflecting IR back outward, but creating interference which stops it. The Phantom HD which I use quite often has a similar filter ("reflective" type) bonded to the sensor assembly, which now has a low pass filter in front of that and behind the lens. I have never seen any problems with that system, and have exposed it to some extreme amounts of IR (75,000 watts of tungsten light in a 4' area). The absorption filters I believe are more effective, however I don't like the light loss or color shift that needs to be balanced out.

-Sean
Sean Donnelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 10:26 AM   #179
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
A lot said about the 486 but screenshot comparisons so here is desert landscape taken on a moderatly hot day with and without the 486. Camera setting of course were exactly the same for both shots. The "greener" snapshot is with the 496.
Attached Thumbnails
Red problem !-no-486.jpg   Red problem !-486.jpg  

Mike Stevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 12:13 PM   #180
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,684
Sean (or anyone else for that matter) , does your B+W filter produce the green vignetting at wideangle under tungstun that Piotr showed?

I'm still trying to get a clear answer from people's experience as to how bad this is, and whether it is endemic to all of these filters.

Sure would like to see a few shots of a relatively flat grey scene, under tungstun, iris wide open (usually shows more problems) that shows how bad this is at full wide and when the problem disappears.

Mike,
Do you see a radical difference between the desert shots? Aside from the minor color balance issue, to me the 486 has more contrast but nothing I couldn't fix with a minor tweak in post. Am I missing something?

Lenny Levy
Leonard Levy is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:42 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network