Ryan

If I understand you the 489 77mm filter would be used when using a DOF adaptor such as the Letus and the 486 true cut when just using the camera without any other adaptors.

What is the model of the 77mm 489 that has threads on both sides?
What is the model of the 77mm 486 trucut?

Thanks

Chuck

You have it right.

The 77mm 489 filter part number is: 65-019107

The 77mm 486 filter (IR and UV filtration): 65-031976

The True-Cut IR filter (IR filtration only): part number TBA, Call me

We have two formulations of the IR filters. The first is the B+W 486 which was originally designed for postal sorting and then transitioned to the still photography market. This filter blocks UV and IR light. It exhibits a shalower angle of incidence so wide angle lenses are more likely to have color fringing. The second filter is the Schneider True-Cut filter which is only IR light blocking and can be used at wider angles.

Why use the 486 you will ask? Because the 486 filters out UV light and if you find yourself at higher altitudes where UV light abounds, then you will avoid the blue light contamination.

If this doesn't concern you, then jump right in and order the Schneider True-Cut IR.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

You have it right.

The 77mm 489 filter part number is: 65-019107

The 77mm 486 filter (IR and UV filtration): 65-031976

The True-Cut IR filter (IR filtration only): part number TBA, Call me

We have two formulations of the IR filters. The first is the B+W 486 which was originally designed for postal sorting and then transitioned to the still photography market. This filter blocks UV and IR light. It exhibits a shallower angle of incidence so wide angle lenses are more likely to have color fringing. The second filter is the Schneider True-Cut filter which is only IR light blocking and can be used at wider angles.

Why use the 486 you will ask? Because the 486 filters out UV light and if you find yourself at higher altitudes where UV light abounds, then you will avoid the blue light contamination.

If this doesn't concern you, then jump right in and order the Schneider True-Cut IR.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Dear Ryan,

With all this new information (particularly the new TRU-CUT specs), I feel I was misled by your (and Schneider in general) advertising your current (i.e. 486 and 489) filters - especially in the context of my 35mm adapter setup.

I have already paid /sold half-price/ bought again 3 Schneider IR cut filters; please tell me exactly which filter I should be getting, and where to order it (the local suppliers you contacted me with know nothing about the Tru-cut filters).

Thanks,

Piotr

I must say I've been confused by all I've read on this thread as well.

Tell me I've got this right.

The 489 will allow wider lenses and only blocks IR not UV (fine with me)
It is safer to use between lenses because it absorbs light
but it looks green on the B&H web site
- does this mean it needs more color correction than the 486?
- does it lose much light?

The 486 is colorless and has more trouble with wide lenses.
It also could potentially create a problem if used between lenses or filters because it reflects IR & UV

- Lenny

I must say I've been confused by all I've read on this thread as well.

Tell me I've got this right.

The 489 will allow wider lenses and only blocks IR not UV (fine with me)
It is safer to use between lenses because it absorbs light
but it looks green on the B&H web site
- does this mean it needs more color correction than the 486?
- does it lose much light?

The 486 is colorless and has more trouble with wide lenses.
It also could potentially create a problem if used between lenses or filters because it reflects IR & UV

- Lenny


Before Ryan addresses your questions, Lenny, I can tell you that in the specs, the 486 transparency is said to be 100% (the coefficient of 1.0, with that of the 489 being 1.2). So yes - the 489 looses some (just a tiny bit) more light than the 486. But even though I've kept asking for several weeks, it's only now that I'm learning the 489 does NOT cause the same green cast due to the light incidence angle at extremities, as the 486 does.

So far the 489 sounds better for my uses, as the wide angle issue is a major drag. Also I expect I may only use it when needed - if there is a problem with a shot, so the green cast would be a better trade off.

Dear Ryan,

With all this new information (particularly the new TRU-CUT specs), I feel I was misled by your (and Schneider in general) advertising your current (i.e. 486 and 489) filters - especially in the context of my 35mm adapter setup.

I have already paid /sold half-price/ bought again 3 Schneider IR cut filters; please tell me exactly which filter I should be getting, and where to order it (the local suppliers you contacted me with know nothing about the Tru-cut filters).

Thanks,

Piotr

Piotr,

I am sorry if we had a misunderstanding. I also apologize that I have been unable to help you in your country with this problem. I work for Schneider Optics which is the USA distributor for Schneider-Krueznach products. I hope the people in our Germany office who I have helped put you in contact with will resolve your issues.

The 489 is most useful in situations where you are only putting it inbetween optical elements. It is not designed to be used on the exterior of the lens where it's efficiency decreases.

If you are placing it outside the lens then the 486 or even better yet the new True-Cut filter is best.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

I must say I've been confused by all I've read on this thread as well.

Tell me I've got this right.

The 489 will allow wider lenses and only blocks IR not UV (fine with me)
It is safer to use between lenses because it absorbs light
but it looks green on the B&H web site
- does this mean it needs more color correction than the 486?
- does it lose much light?

The 486 is colorless and has more trouble with wide lenses.
It also could potentially create a problem if used between lenses or filters because it reflects IR & UV

- Lenny


Lenny,

Piotr's last post about the color correction and transmission of the 486 and 489 is correct.

If you are shooting with the IR filter in the front of your lens then you should use the 486 or the new Schneider True-Cut filter which is a Schneider Motion Picture and Television product. These are made here in the US specifically for video and film applications. The B+W 489 is an exceptional product but was designed specifically for photographic use. This use requires more IR cutting capabilities and less angle of view therefore is more efficient. Video and film require less IR cutting capabilties to maintain a usable angle of view. This filter did not exist when we started this thread so I apologize for any inconvenience or confusing this has caused. The Schneider True-Cut will be available for purchase in the coming weeks.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan ,
I don't know why I continue to be confused, maybe there is a language problem or perhaps I'm dense.
I am very concerned about the inability of the 486 to deal with wide lenses. I would not want to purchase anything so limited.

Yet in the post above you say that the 489 is good for lenses with less angle of view. Those ideas sound contradictory. Which filter is better for wide lenses?

I don't understand why you are saying the 489 is not good if placed in front of lenses. Is the only problem a slight green cast or is there also a wide lens issue? Does its greater IR reduction have a bad side affect.

Lenny Levy

I called Sony today to inquire about this "Black is brown/red" issue and the support guy had not heard if it and had to search to see if anybody ever called in about it.

He said one person called in and mentioned their blacks looked brown and it was fixed with a master pedestal adjustment.

So either Sony has their head in the sand or everybody with this problem needs to start calling Sony Professional and telling them about their experiences!

There are some folks over in a Panasonic camp that are really jumping on this bandwagon in this issue.

I would like to know for sure if it is global or only certain cameras before jumping in.

I would like to know for sure if it is global or only certain cameras before jumping in.

I think I can safely say this is a global problem. If you've followed the discussion of this problem you'll also be aware that it's not unique to the EX1 either.
Aside from the IR problem we're also finding the EX1 can need additional ND filtering in full sunlight if you don't want to use faster shutter speeds and irrational f stops. For the moment all our EX1s have 486 filters. We're looking around for ND hot glass filters in 4"x4 5/6" for our matte boxes. Pancro seem to be about the only supplier of such filters.

Our current thinking is to avoid the use of the internal ND filters entirely and control light and IR through filters in a matte box. This will hopefully avoid the IR problem and the back focus problem. There's some cost involved but the money will be spent on kit that'll still be in service long after the EX1 is obsolete.

All I can say is Wow.

Bob,
How happy are you with the 486 filters on your EX-1's. Do you have problems with green vignetting when wide and di you keep them on all the time?

Lenny Levy

I've been using a 486 behind a Letus for several weeks now, and have not noticed any problems. Without the Letus and below 12mm or so I see a faint green/cyan cast on the edges. This is not always visible, but high key flat surfaces will definitely show it (white walls for example). It can be pulled out with a secondary adjustment in Color, however I'd rather not have to go through that step, and it changes size and shape so it will not always be the same each time otherwise a shading adjustment could resolve it.

Tim, if you call back ask for Lou. I've spoken to him twice about this subject and referred him to this thread. He has heard of a few cases of it, and seems to be concerned with getting it resolved.

-Sean

Yes, I can confirm that using the 486 between the Letus achromat and the EX1 lens doesn't pose any additional problems than using it as the outermost optical element (at least, I personally don't see anything apart from the same green tint; in fact it tends to happen less often with Letus as you don''t use the widest angle).

Ryan ,
I don't know why I continue to be confused, maybe there is a language problem or perhaps I'm dense.
I am very concerned about the inability of the 486 to deal with wide lenses. I would not want to purchase anything so limited.

Yet in the post above you say that the 489 is good for lenses with less angle of view. Those ideas sound contradictory. Which filter is better for wide lenses?

I don't understand why you are saying the 489 is not good if placed in front of lenses. Is the only problem a slight green cast or is there also a wide lens issue? Does its greater IR reduction have a bad side affect.

Lenny Levy

Ok, let me set everyone straight here.

There are two factors at play here in adding to everyone's confusion. One, the original post I made regarding the 486 vs 489 filters information is all true but based on information that I had at the time. The 486 is better for telephoto applications and normal angles (ie, 50mm in 35mm sensor size). The 489 is better for applications closer to the sensor but will still add a green cast if wide angle lenses are used. This is due to the reflective properties of the 486.

Two, I have failed to explain how this technology works. 486 and 489 filters are designed to cut off IR light at 680 nanometers. This is in the near-visible IR spectrum and therefore sometimes visible to the camera's sensor. When you cut off IR light this low in the spectrum, the angle of view that will not cause color issues is significantly reduced. Our new True-Cut IR 750 cuts off the light at 750 nanometers. This is still on the edge of near-visible IR light; the outer edge. We have discovered that this will work at the widest angles possible while still maintaining the IR cutting properties required. This is information that has come to me recently.

Therefore, the 486 and 489 filters were the only solution we had to work with by adapting older photographic technology to video. We have since recognized these short comings for video applications and produced the True-Cut IR 750 filter. Most video application should use the True-Cut IR 750 filter on the outside optical element. Use of this filter internally can create internal lens reflections resulting in flair and CA. The 489 is the only workable solution for this scenario but limits you to narrower angle of view.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan, Can you post a part number for the ir750 filter...

I couldn't find it on your site...

Ryan , what I'm confused about still is whether the 489 adds an overall green tinge (which I could probably filter out) , or whether it is like the 486 in only adding the green around the edges which is a big big problem.

How much is the True-Cut IR 750, and where can we get it?

Lenny Levy

Ryan, Can you post a part number for the ir750 filter...

I couldn't find it on your site...

Here are the stock codes and pricing for the True-Cut IR 750;

68-121044 4" x 4" True-Cut IR Filter $295.00
68-121056 4" x 5.65" True-Cut IR Filter $395.00
68-121057 5.65" x 5.65" True-Cut IR Filter $550.00
68-121059 5" x 5" True-Cut IR Filter $550.00
68-121066 6" x 6" True-Cut IR Filter $595.00
68-121077 77mm True-Cut IR Filter $250.00

All prices are list prices in USD. Check with a dvinfo sponsor for discounts.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan , what I'm confused about still is whether the 489 adds an overall green tinge (which I could probably filter out) , or whether it is like the 486 in only adding the green around the edges which is a big big problem.

How much is the True-Cut IR 750, and where can we get it?

Lenny Levy

The green cast (overall vs corners) has to do with the nanometer cut-off of the filter and the angle of view your lens produces. The wider the angle of view, the more green will show up. The 489 was designed for industrial applications where color is generally not an issue. The only filter that we sell which was designed specifically for your video camera is the True-Cut IR 750.

You can use the 489 and 486 filters but as we have seen through extensive back and forth conversation, these filters are best for industrial and photographic applications and should be used only as a last resort for video applications. I suggest you use the True-Cut IR 750 and find a way to attach it to the front of your camera.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Therefore, the 486 and 489 filters were the only solution we had to work with by adapting older photographic technology to video. We have since recognized these short comings for video applications and produced the True-Cut IR 750 filter. Most video application should use the True-Cut IR 750 filter on the outside optical element. Use of this filter internally can create internal lens reflections resulting in flair and CA. The 489 is the only workable solution for this scenario but limits you to narrower angle of view.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Dear Ryan, could we take for granted then, that using the True-Cut IR 750 filter is absolutely free of the green tint problem?

Cuase you see, I don't feel like spending any more cash on a 4th B+W filter in a row...

With all respect to Ryan who has been trying to help us a great deal on this forum, I am finally beginning to suspect perhaps Schneider doesn't want its representative to say anything that could be construed as negative about its filters. I don't quite get it, but perhaps this is a typical business policy - certainly we haven't seen Sony making any announcements about back focus problems or even vignetting except very indirectly. They'll fix it but they haven't announced any recalls.

I think we've been hoping to get a clear statement from Ryan somewhat like :
If you use the 486 on an Ex-1 you will get green vignetting under "x" circumstances, other possible issues are x y and z.
If you use the 489 etc.
and now of course - "if you use the True-Cut IR 750 you will or will not get green on this or that circumstance.

That's all i want to know - exactly what it will do on an EX-1 and if there are any other issues we should know about ( i.e. stacking with other filters, compatability with say a pola, or daylight vs. tungstun, any color casts etc.

I am far less interested in knowing why it was developed.

So let me try this again.

--Is it true that there may be some green vignetting on an Ex-1 with both 486 and a 489 at wide angles and that there will not be any green vignetting or other color problems with the True Cut 750?

--Also Is it OK to stack the Tru Cut 750 within other filters?

-- Any other issues we should know about with the True Cut. ? Will a 77mm fit inside the EX hood? (that's a tough one).
---Is the coating any more subject to abrasion?
---Can you use this as a general protection filter all the time in your shooting?

Thanks,

Lenny Levy

So let me try this again.

--Is it true that there may be some green vignetting on an Ex-1 with both 486 and a 489 at wide angles and that there will not be any green vignetting or other color problems with the True Cut 750?

--Also Is it OK to stack the Tru Cut 750 within other filters?

-- Any other issues we should know about with the True Cut. ? Will a 77mm fit inside the EX hood? (that's a tough one).
---Is the coating any more subject to abrasion?
---Can you use this as a general protection filter all the time in your shooting?

Ditto. let me only add one question:

---What is the Tru Cut 750 real light transparency coefficient (as compared to the 486's 1.0 and the 489's 1.2)

Ditto. let me only add one question:

---What is the Tru Cut 750 real light transparency coefficient (as compared to the 486's 1.0 and the 489's 1.2)

1.1

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

--Is it true that there may be some green vignetting on an Ex-1 with both 486 and a 489 at wide angles and that there will not be any green vignetting or other color problems with the True Cut 750?

--Also Is it OK to stack the Tru Cut 750 within other filters?

-- Any other issues we should know about with the True Cut. ? Will a 77mm fit inside the EX hood? (that's a tough one).
---Is the coating any more subject to abrasion?
---Can you use this as a general protection filter all the time in your shooting?

Thanks,

Lenny Levy

1) The 486 and 489 filters have the possibility of creating a green cast at the edges or all around the image at wide angles and certain angles of light source, or both. I am not certain how much more clear I can get that it was developed for industrial and photography applications, not video. The True-Cut IR 750 was developed for your video camera. The True-Cut IR 750 should not create a green cast on your images on lenses above 10mm in 35mm motion picture lens terms and above to 3mm on 1/2" cameras.

2) Yes you can stack the True-Cut IR 750 with other filters but it must be the first filter the light hits. Ie, front of the mattebox.

3) Yes our 77mm True-Cut IR 750 filter will fit inside the hood. I tested it on 4 different EX1 cameras. No other issues that I am aware of or have not been beaten to death in this forum. :)

4) Yes the coating is more subject to abrasion

5) Yes you can use it as a general protection filter but be aware that you are more likely to scratch it than one of our MRC coated filters. However, I have a sample I have carried around in my bag to various sets and I have yet to scratch it after many cleanings and knocking around. Not a guarantee but my personal experience.

Ask a direct question; get a direct response.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Thanks Ryan,
That settles it all clearly for me , Sorry I was dense before.
I appreciate your hanging in there.

Sounds like something we should all have for the Ex-1

Lenny

Thanks Ryan,
That settles it all clearly for me , Sorry I was dense before.
I appreciate your hanging in there.

Sounds like something we should all have for the Ex-1

Lenny


Just finish reading the 15 pages of thread......

So I understand that I as a owner of a EX1 should buy a filter to correct a SONY problem ????

Is any one ever got a response from sony ???

Here in Canada it seems that no representant from Sony (3 stores i visited ) is aware of that IR contamination problem......

Is there something we can do TOGETHER ???

Just finish reading the 15 pages of thread......

So I understand that I as a owner of a EX1 should buy a filter to correct a SONY problem ????

Is any one ever got a response from sony ???

Here in Canada it seems that no representant from Sony (3 stores i visited ) is aware of that IR contamination problem......

Is there something we can do TOGETHER ???


Pierre, I filed an official complaint to Sony Canada on May 23rd about this problem and few other problems as well. Got an e-mail the next day saying that they are looking into it. They didn't seem to be aware of the problem, my dealer called me and asked me to do some tests...I decided to bring my camera to their office and test it side by side with their demo using a black SONY bag I had. Both cameras had the same problem. Sony wanted me to do more testing but hey, enough is enough. One of their sale's manager called me and said that Sony Japan are looking into it and that it could take a while and I should wait till July. So here we are, the only thing that I am waiting for is the EX3, I told my dealer that once it will be out, I will want to see if the infrared problem has been fixed. Meanwhile, I did get a 486 filter for my Letus adapter because some of my work invloves people in black uniforms.....and I couldn't wait for Sony. So I should keep you posted on that matter and yes we should do something about it because it is unacceptable, especially when shooting in an everyday situation.

Just finish reading the 15 pages of thread......

So I understand that I as a owner of a EX1 should buy a filter to correct a SONY problem ????

Is any one ever got a response from sony ???

Here in Canada it seems that no representant from Sony (3 stores i visited ) is aware of that IR contamination problem......

Is there something we can do TOGETHER ???

I am not a Sony spokesperson, nor do I profess any of the following to be official statements about Sony products, BUT in Sony's defense here is why most camera manufacturers have the IR blocking filter the way that they do.

The IR blocking filters in front of most sensors are designed to block IR light at a given nanometer rating (usually around 780nm). The problem is that there is a direct relationship between the cutting ability of the IR filter and the angle of view you can acheive with the lens without getting the green cast. Sony has obviously made a decision and found as "happy" of a medium as possible between IR cutting ability for most shooters and the very wide angle nature existing in the very high quality Fujinon lens fixed to the EX1. If the IR cutting ability were increased at the filter on the sensor, then the green cast would show up at wide angle on the stock lens. This is unacceptable for Sony and its high quality repuatation. Most shooters don't run into this problem under normal shooting conditions. All manufacturers must find a balance of what the average shooter will use the camera for and not all unusual circumstances. Sometimes they guess wrong or it isn't possible to do both. In this situation I think that Sony has made the tough choice to pick what most users will do and can't possibly do both. The problem becomes very apparent when shooting black reflective materials or certain lighting (especially stage lighting in concerts) that has higher IR light transmission levels. Again this is my optical knowledge and only a qualified Sony rep could comment on the exact nature of the Sony sensor.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ask a direct question; get a direct response.


Thanks Ryan. Regarding the IR 750, does it diminish light gathering or have an adverse effect if it was left on all the time in lieu of a clear/haze lens protective filter? Can you point me to a link where it can be purchased?

Thanks Ryan,
for this interesting point of view,

I find particularly funny that people who bought this filter are leaving it on "all the time" without getting the green cast you mentionned.............

So Maybe the choice of Sony's filter for the IR cutting wasn't the perfect one....

So when you mention that " Most shooters don't run into this problem under normal shooting conditions." I could reply that most shooters will encounter this problem eventually..sooner or later (a Wedding, a graduation, or a reunion)......And they will think that THEY did something wrong or didn't adjust the white ballance.
The fact is that SONY do not tell us what you just mentionned......they tell us that there is no problem with the EX1 !

Thanks Ryan , that makes a great deal of sense.

Pierre, the optical issues involved in putting a filter like schneider makes in front of the lens are different from putting one in front of the optical block. It may analogous but its a different situation and probably easier to do.

My guess is that in making the EX-1 - a 1/2" chip camera as physically small as a 1/3" inch chip camera, caused the Sony engineers nightmares making a small lens that would cover a larger chip. That's probably why we have seen so many compromises and problems with the lens and probably why the issues that Ryan mentions is a bigger problem on this camera than on others. Compare the size of an XDCAM lens for a 1/2" chip with an EX-1 lens. Actually its probably a bit of a technical miracle that they pulled it off- just my guess though.

lenny Levy

Thanks Ryan , that makes a great deal of sense.

Pierre, the optical issues involved in putting a filter like schneider makes in front of the lens are different from putting one in front of the optical block. It may analogous but its a different situation and probably easier to do.
Actually its probably a bit of a technical miracle that they pulled it off- just my guess though.

lenny Levy

From a technical point of view maybe...... but from a user who wants to use his cam indoor as well as outdoor... I wouldn't say it's a miracle especially if you consider the price they are selling it

Thanks Ryan. Regarding the IR 750, does it diminish light gathering or have an adverse effect if it was left on all the time in lieu of a clear/haze lens protective filter? Can you point me to a link where it can be purchased?

The filter factor is about the same. You will get about 98% visible light transmission with the True-Cut IR 750 and 99.8% with a B+W Clear UV MRC.

Depending on the size, this link may work for you. Otherwise, call B&H or Abel Cine Tech for other sizes and prices.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/567980-REG/Schneider_68_121044_4x4_Tru_Cut_Ultraviolet_UV_.html

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Thanks Ryan,
for this interesting point of view,

I find particularly funny that people who bought this filter are leaving it on "all the time" without getting the green cast you mentionned.............

So Maybe the choice of Sony's filter for the IR cutting wasn't the perfect one....

So when you mention that " Most shooters don't run into this problem under normal shooting conditions." I could reply that most shooters will encounter this problem eventually..sooner or later (a Wedding, a graduation, or a reunion)......And they will think that THEY did something wrong or didn't adjust the white ballance.
The fact is that SONY do not tell us what you just mentionned......they tell us that there is no problem with the EX1 !

What I have said in my previous post regarding this is only from an optical viewpoint, not a Sony specific veiwpoint. A spokesperson for Sony will have to make an official comment. We can only correct the issues we experience and wish well to all other shooters. Its kind of like telling Sony to hack off the handle on the EX1 simply because it doesn't fit in 100 people's underwater housings. I suspect this is broader scope issue but we can only deal with it as it comes. Also, I have noticed that Sony likely can't make it both ways so they go with how the masses will use it. With proper feedback to any manufacturer, products change for the better in the future.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

I think we have been getting a lot of support from Ryan of Schneider; thanks Ryan!

Unfortunately, all this doesn't mean the problem is gone. I tried both versions of the screw-in B+W filters (the 486 and the 489); even though I spent a fortune on them, none is perfect, always producing some kind of side effect, depending on the configuration used (with or without Letus 35mm adapter) - usually the ugly green tint at the extremities.

Having spent so much on those filters, I'm a bit reluctant to invest even more in the True Cut, 4x5.65" version (either from B+W, or from RedrockMicro who also announced introducing their own at 750 nm). Not until somebody does, and reports the results are perfect - we're talking $500 for the filter, plus $$$ for a matte box, rail system, etc. - all required to use it at all (and the cheaper, 4x4" filter versions are reported to cause vignetting with the EX1)!

Since Mr. Juan Martinez of Sony has recently been active in this forum, explaining the nature of some other EX problem (thanks Juan), may I kindly ask about the official Sony's standpoint regarding the IR contamination issue?

Now, I'm aware all cameras do suffer from it to some extent - but within this class, the EX series is certainly the worst.

Mr. Martinez, are we really supposed to spend the fortune (actually, comparable to the EX1 price) to get our blacks black (rather than brown), and dark blues - blue (instead of magenta)?

Please express the Sony's opinion on that. Thanks in advance, and Regards

Piotr Wozniacki

I think we have been getting a lot of support from Ryan of Schneider; thanks Ryan!



Mr. Martinez, are we really supposed to spend the fortune (actually, comparable to the EX1 price) to get our blacks black (rather than brown), and dark blues - blue (instead of magenta)?

Please express the Sony's opinion on that. Thanks in advance, and Regards

Piotr Wozniacki

I fully agree with Piotr here. I too have experienced this problem. We are talking here about a Cinealta badged camera for Pete's sake and not a $400 camera that Aunty Mary has bought to film her newly born niece!!

I've just got a quote for the IR 750 and it will cost me €370 to (hopefully) correct a problem which Sony were not able to minimize or eliminate in the first place. I'm not going to buy an add on enhancement accessory but a correctional accessory made by third parties!! The IR contamination is way too much to be acceptable by the intended users of this camera, i.e the professionals. It is not even acceptable to the man in the street.

But obviously Sony will not dare utter anything, like what happened in the case of the vignetting, the back focus issues......and others. If CMOS + HD will result in this IR contamination, then maybe the technology is not good enough as yet to start marketing HD cameras. However I cannot tell my clients that the black dress has turned to brown due to a limitation of present technology. And what am I supposed to do with the camera - throw it away in 1.5 years time when the new generation of CMOS sensors arrive?

Since Mr. Juan Martinez of Sony has recently been active in this forum,

Now, I'm aware all cameras do suffer from it to some extent - but within this class, the EX series is certainly the worst.

Mr. Martinez, are we really supposed to spend the fortune (actually, comparable to the EX1 price) to get our blacks black (rather than brown), and dark blues - blue (instead of magenta)?

Please express the Sony's opinion on that. Thanks in advance, and Regards

Piotr Wozniacki

I would guess that Mr. Martinez is not verry active here these last few month to get any information about his EX! is he ?

I fully agree with Piotr here. I too have experienced this problem....

And so have I. Last July we did a two camera shoot of an outdoor concert in late afternoon light to twilight. Both cameras are mine, the EX1 and XH-A1. The blacks from the EX1 are brown, the blacks from the XH-A1 are black. You can really see that when the footage is intercut.

Note the color of the loudspeakers, roof, and the shirt on the guy wearing the headband.

Note the color of the loudspeakers, roof, and the shirt on the guy wearing the headband.

Tom, I dare say the colour differences between the two pictures are much more than one of the 2 cameras having the IR contamination problem; I'm sure you're aware of that :)

BTW, Tom's pictures above remind me of another phenomenon I'm not sure whether somehow related to the IR problem: while the blacks of fabrics (and alike) materials tend to show brownish, I've noticed that black and "cold" materials (like polymers, or glossy leather) often adopt a somewhat greenish hue (I'm NOT talking about the frame extremities, coincidence angle side-effect of the IIR cut filters; also, this happens in daylight as well, while the IR contamination is most pronounced with tungsten lighting).

Anyone noticed that?

Tom, I dare say the colour differences between the two pictures are much more than one of the 2 cameras having the IR contamination problem; I'm sure you're aware of that :)

Yes, the first one is a lot cooler and the second on the warm side.

Tom (edited.. originally said Steve), I would say the difference between your two shots is down to 3 things. The white balance difference (as has already been discussed), the fact that the cameras are shooting at different angles relative to the sun and the different colour matrices the two cameras use. If you colour balance the images in Photoshop they both come out looking remarkably similar, including the blacks. IR contamination is much less of an issue under sunlight anyway.

Steve, I would say the difference between your two shots is down to 3 things.

Thanks Alister, but these are not mine... LOL
They were posted by Tom roper.

I agree about IR in daylight is not that much of an issue.

OOPs my apologies Steve! This thread is just toooooo long :)

Thanks Alister, but these are not mine... LOL
They were posted by Tom roper.

I agree about IR in daylight is not that much of an issue.

Steven (or anybody), would gelling a tungsten lamp to raise the color temp possibly reduce the IR contamination problem? For example, if you were shooting an indoor interview and there was a lot of ambient light getting into the room, would adding a CTB or 1/2 CTB reduce the IR any at all?

Dave, I imagine it would, but by how much, I'm not sure.

It would be great for someone to set up a test tunsgsten with increments of CTB and compare the results.
Or just plain tunsgsten bulb (white balanced), then switching lights to daylight balanced bulb (white balanced).

If this has already been tested, I would be interested in the results.

I'd be willing to try it if I can get some time in my buddy's studio some time soon. I'd be testing this with a Lowel Rifa light so I'm not sure what effect the diffuser panel would have. When I first got this softbox, I noticed right away that the black baseball hat my subject was wearing came out as a very dark brown so I guess the diffuser panel doesn't block IR to any appreciable degree. I might test this with one of the FL heads that can be swapped on the Lowel light too......if I can get my hands on one! ;-)

Steven (or anybody), would gelling a tungsten lamp to raise the color temp possibly reduce the IR contamination problem? For example, if you were shooting an indoor interview and there was a lot of ambient light getting into the room, would adding a CTB or 1/2 CTB reduce the IR any at all?

First of all, I agree with Alister (and others) that in sunlight, the IR is not a problem, really.

For indoors, my Sony LED light (5600K) also allows to avoid it almost completely, but it's ugly on human faces.

I'll repeat my question; is the greenish cast to "cold" blacks (equally seen here in sun and tungsten light) also related to the IR contamination ? Did anyone notice that?

I think I mentioned it before in this tread, I took a picture of a Black metal chair covered with black matérial.
The tissue is brown instead of black but the metal parts legs and backrest came out perfectly black

So personally I would think that the greenish issue you are mentioning has no common ground with the IR problem