After reading the article and seeing the with and without Tiffen filter photos, I feel that with the filter all the colours have a reduction in their punch - it seems that the contrast is lost. I'm not sure whether I'm using the right choice of words - but although I hate the IR contamination, I do not wish to lose any punch from the camera. The 486, although producing the undesirable green tint, leaves the contrast and colour punch the same.

As the article points out, the reduction in colour could be due to those colours having that element of red that the filter is removing in them.

The EX paint functions are extensive enough that you can very easily dial in a compensation saturation or matrix setting if it bothers anyone. Putting a filter in front of the camera is always going to have trade off's. In this case I'd rather have proper blacks and a slight reduction in saturation that is easily compensated for than maroon blacks that are nigh on impossible to correct in post without a lot of secondary CC and masking etc.

I've noticed that several posters have added the "slim" qualifier to their suggestion for use of the B&W 486 IR blocker on the EX3. Is there a physical or vignetting issue with the standard version when used by itself (no stacking)?

Thank you in advance.

Its very dangerous to judge too much from photos on a web site. These tests were done very fast and then they are digitized on a web site. To my eye working with Art I saw no difference of consequence. ( Its possible we didn't always even re- white because the difference was subtle.)

Go back to Art's first article about the Tiffen filter where he takes a shot of a DSC chart with and without the Tiffen prototype filter, (both white balanced). Then he puts them on a vectorscope in post and imports the 2 shots to photoshop where he lays them on top of each other. (I think that was the process) The points lined up perfectly indicating no color change at all.

It was an elegant test and convinced me.

In that article Art did say "I’d be curious to see which version of the chart you prefer: saturated reds, or desaturated reds". And for those seeing the problem as an unforgivable flaw: "It could be that (Sony)are emphasizing the camera’s ability to reproduce a wide variety of reds at the expense of ensuring that every black material seen by the camera remains black".

Generally the cameras do record black correctly, but there are some fabrics that cause problems. In a production it is possible to avoid using those fabrics, but not easy in less controlled work (e.g. weddings and interviews). My memory of the first (I think) posting about this problem, in which a talent's blonde hair had recorded with a red tinge, was alarming. The new Tiffen filter looks like the answer to such issues, but I'm beginning to think that Leonard has a point in suggesting this is not IR contamination. In fact Art has confirmation from Sony that the camera's hot filter cuts everything longer than 720nM and here we're talking of "visible far red" as being 780nM, so that alone says we're dealing with visible red "contamination".

Serena,

I think your basically right but without our own spectral measuring devices its hard to know exactly what's what, likewise a bit of fuzziness about what the limit of visible red is.

I would be quite surprised if Sony consciously chose to give us better red rendition at the expense of our black materials.

My completely wild guess is that until the Red and the Ex-1 started seeing this stuff nobody had much noticed it before. I was stunned to see the problem with my naked eye while looking through professional grade ND's . It would surprise me if the manufacturers knew it would be an issue but didn't care. However I think that people in general would notice black material in tungstun situations. Actually i want to test the old workhorse D-30 next week with Tiffen ND's (only because I have them) to see if the issue has been with us for longer than we realize. If anybody else can do that at home let us know.

On the other hand I'm also curious about digital still photographers - You'd think professional fashion photographers would scream about this problem. How have they escaped it. Are the chips that different?

Very likely the black fabric issue wasn't noticed in development because it wasn't included in tests; not surprising. In early reviews the different rendition was noticed but not considered significant and for most subjects there is no problem. Generally the visible bandwidth is taken to be 380 to 750 nM, perhaps extending to 780 nM. Still photographers refer to IR as being 700 to 1000 nM, so there is an area of possible overlap. Individual eyesight varies as well. However if Sony say that nothing longer than 720 nM gets through to the sensors it is reasonable to suggest that little or no IR is contaminating the image. I presume Tiffen have measured the spectral sensitivities of the cameras (easy to do when one has the lab gear) and have designed their new filters accordingly. I would have thought they would happily release that data, and normally they provide transmission spectral characteristics with every filter they sell. That you could see by eye the fabric problem tells me that it falls within the visible bandwidth. I would expect with the development of digital cinema Sony would be working to broaden the spectral sensitivity of cameras, so once we start thinking about the process I'm not surprised that previously unnoticed problems are discovered. If they had designed their hot filters to cut into visible red (say, start attenuating at 680 nM) we wouldn't have seen the non-black black issue. This may well be the reason your fashion photographers haven't seen it.

probably photographers are using lot of light , more than most videographers, because they are using flashes. flashes produces very few IR and probably not so much in the red.

Check out the Lecia M8 forum ... it is replete with IR issues that require the use of a Leica supplied IR blocking filter. So photographers, at least those using Leica M8 series of digital cameras, are experiencing the same issues with black, mostly synthetic, fibers.

Check out the Lecia M8 forum ... it is replete with IR issues that require the use of a Leica supplied IR blocking filter. So photographers, at least those using Leica M8 series of digital cameras, are experiencing the same issues with black, mostly synthetic, fibers.

It appears that the M8 can be used for IR photography (the subject of several threads) so one would need to use IR control filters (pass or block) in normal work. But certainly they have encountered the same problem with fabrics.

spectral graphs for Canon and Nikon indicate no extended red response ( at least to my uneducated eyes) . So perhaps no fabric problems. Test your cameras at home folks.

Canon EOS Digital Rebel vs. Nikon D70 - Spectral Sensitivity (http://scien.stanford.edu/class/psych221/projects/07/camera_characterization/spectral_sensitivity.html)

I have noticed several posts suggesting that a "slim" filter is required when searching for an IR Blocker. Although the B&W 486 may not represent the best solution it appears to be the only current screw-in available, unless I have missed something in this thread. With that said, the standard, non-slim version fits just fine on my EX3. The lens shade fits over it and locks into place without any coaxing.

P.S. Please excuse the title's typo, it's getting late and there is no way to edit same.

What a lot of post's.

I have just been filming on the coast (UK) with the EX3 and I too noticed my black jacket turned brown. Having spent a small fortune on this camera and other bits to go with it, I am not going to spend any more money on IR filters. Maybe Doug Jensen can shed some light on this issue.

btw. I cured the black to brown problem by buying a dark blue jacket.

btw. I cured the black to brown problem by buying a dark blue jacket.

You think you did, eh?

Dark blue is rendered as magenta under tungsten, for the very same reason black turns out maroon.

:)

I am not going to spend any more money on IR filters.
.

That's probably a good decision. Are you saying you'll never buy filters? The new Tiffen filter isn't designed to cut IR, but just that portion of far red that distorts the colour of some synthetic fibres (as I interpret the published test results).

You think you did, eh?

Dark blue is rendered as magenta under tungsten, for the very same reason black turns out maroon. :)

I am sure we could create a good musical on this topic, I must have a word with Joseph he also has a technicoloured dream coat

Here is Sony's response about the far red issue with the EX 1/3 and F35:
ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams | Cinematography (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/far_red_on_the_ex1_ex3_f35_its_a_feature_not_a_bug/)

worth thinking about for those who intend to put an IR cut filter (or the new Tiffen color core) and just leave it on all the time.....

Yes - this would confirm my observations when testing the 486 filter, that (while getting rid of the long red contamination in blacks) the filter did adversely affect reds in general.

This, plus the green vignetting, made me give up the 486 solution. I'm planning now to purchase the 4x5.65" version of the new Tiffen filter, and only use it when needed.

I think Art Adams gives a fair answer to the problem. For me it is not a real issue, as I said I just replaced my black jacket with another colour. However, for the wedding guys it may be more of a problem. In my photographic experience over the last 38 years I have always had to compromise with one thing and another; barrel, pincushion distortions, colour balance on lenses, innaccurate shutter speeds, poor lab processing of films etc. I guess this red issueon the EX is another one to add to the list.

The creative person will always find a way arround any problem.

It is not a bug, it is a feature?

Juan's response bears some logic. But, I'm not going to buy that so easily. In the EX cameras it is too pronounced. If the technology exists in the high end cameras to reduce the far red then you should find a way to have that in the EX. This should not be a "that's what you get for a 7k camera" answer. Things like red smearing and moire were obvious artifacts of all NTSC cameras. Far red is not an artifact of all HD cameras to the degree that it is with EX.

Well I'm not sure that is reasonable. The F35 has similar characteristics and RED really does need a hot filter. Excessive red response isn't something I've found with the EX, but there are situations where additional filtering is needed. But isn't that so with all cameras? Certainly is shooting with film.

I was recording a wedding a few days ago with my EX3 and noticed part of the lapels of the grooms and best mens jackets were reddish brown but the rest of the jacket was OK.
(I forgot to screw the filter on at this stage)

Can anything be done to help fix the lapels.

Inside the church the jackets were perfect BTW.

Thanks in advance.

Anthony I've seen it too - that's because the lapels are usually of a different fabric and usually are shiny. I have now got into the habit of keeping the filter in my jacket pocket - when one of the inner family male member appears in front of me I zoom on the jacket and have a close look. At the first sight of any brown tint, I'll just screw on the filter and keep it there. I have now realized that the green vignette is so small that I'm sure the couple and their families will not notice it.

It is much easier for them to spot the colour difference between the lapel and the jacket.

Frankly when I did not have the filter, I never bothered to correct this issue - as I doubt whether it is possible without affecting the rest of the picture. If someone complains or comment, you can always say that the fabric of the lapel reflected back the halogen light and produced such a brown tint.

If someone complains or comment, you can always say that the fabric of the lapel reflected back the halogen light and produced such a brown tint.

Thanks Brian, a good tip, I'll keep that in mind.

I didn't think anything could be done about it, yes, the lapel does appear to be made of a different material and it does look shiny.

Once I screw the filter on everything was fine, pity I didn't catch on a bit earlier. I'll know for again.

Thanks Brian.

Anthony, with regards to this IR issue or far-red or call it what you want issue and weddings, I've observed the following:

- for evening weddings, almost every black rental suits for the groom and his male relatives ends up with this problem unless corrected by the 486 filter (as long as the indoor venue has halogen / tungsten light)

- for morning weddings this is rarely a problem since most rental suits are greyish rather than black. If however a black suit is rented than due to the intensity of the sunlight, you may find that you have to use the 486.

- I tend to anticipate in advance the probability of running into this problem and decide before getting out of home whether to attach the filter or not. For example, whenever the venue is indoors such as a hotel, I know for sure that the venue will be entirely lit with a multitude of halogen lamps, so the filter goes on. However we do have some venues which are horribly lit with energy saving lamps - these venues have now become my favourite as I do not use the filter at all. I'm applying the same principle for churches.

shinier fabrics seem to have more Red problem than others, but all fabrics are different.

Thanks again Brian,
I did a school concert a few lights ago, in fact I have to record it 3 times in total. The first night I didn't have my filter on, I thought, just wait and see what happens first, it wasn't long till I discovered I needed the filter.

I Think you said Brian not to leave it on at all times, only when needed.

Thanks.

shinier fabrics seem to have more Red problem than others, but all fabrics are different.

Did I read somewhere that reds can give bother too.

I Think you said Brian not to leave it on at all times, only when needed.



Yes that's what I did say a few weeks ago but I have changed my view. Due to the fact that the green vignette is hardly noticeable in wedding videography, I decided that if there is a possibility that I will run into this IR problem, I put on the filter immediately. I believe that people are more readily to notice a brownish suit (which should have been black) than a slight green vignette. Having said this, none have complained so far about the brown tint when I did not have the filter. But out of the 2 problems I prefer a black suit with a slight green vignette on wide shots only.

Brian, Have you tried to color correct the green vignette out?

Leonard, I didn't try hard enough. I use Premiere CS3 and I didn't find a quick way to do it and I did not bother to delve in further. If maybe someone can enlighten me......I'll appreciate it greatly!

I've realised that when one views the edited video on a 40 inch or larger TV, the eyes would focus in the middle of the screen and hence the green vignette at the edges is not so prominent. I do not know whether others would agree on this.

Has anyone tried tricking the white balence with a 1/3 green gell in front of lens to balance the green out, or is it just too subtle.

The tint isn't uniform, being a function of incident angle through the filter; increases from zero on axis to greater towards edges. Noticeable on wide angle. Can be corrected only in post, but since it is a function of lens focal length then correction isn't too painful.

Jason ,
The 1st prototype Tiffen Filter (still under development) is a uniform light green and balancing under that tint does work. As Serena explained the 486 is a green vignette green so it is not so simple.

Today I received the filter 486, we tested the EX1 has a tenta vignetare green but the picture obtained is much more true to color. Is visible to outside shooting, but a ok:
Maybe to show something from tiffen, which is currently the best solution .. my opinion :-)

Jason ,
The 1st prototype Tiffen Filter (still under development) is a uniform light green and balancing under that tint does work. As Serena explained the 486 is a green vignette green so it is not so simple.

If you have Tiffen's ear on this, they should consider making replacement filter sets for the EX3 ND filter wheel, or even a complete filter wheel assembly to replace the stock one. That would be the perfect solution. Replacing the stock filter wheel in the EX3 is a 10 minute job with a small screw driver. I believe it is even possible to replace the filters in the stock filter wheel with a bit of careful persuasion. One of these ideas would be the perfect solution and make using the EX3 an almost carefree thing. I have no idea how hard it would be to do this for the EX1.

If you have Tiffen's ear on this, they should consider making replacement filter sets for the EX3 ND filter wheel, or even a complete filter wheel assembly to replace the stock one. That would be the perfect solution. Replacing the stock filter wheel in the EX3 is a 10 minute job with a small screw driver. I believe it is even possible to replace the filters in the stock filter wheel with a bit of careful persuasion. One of these ideas would be the perfect solution and make using the EX3 an almost carefree thing. I have no idea how hard it would be to do this for the EX1.

I'll second this idea. I really don't want to add a 4X4 or bigger filter on a matte box nor a 77 screw in if I don't have to. I also have the W/A lens so a filter for that will be even bigger and more $$$.

Tiffen is still working on development of the filter itself. Its probably premature to ask for them to create replacements for internal Sony parts and there may be legal issues - I don't know.
It would probably depend on whether they end up designing a filter that appears colorless. If it remains green then it would not work as an internal filter.

I think Sony may be working on this issue as well now.

BTW balancing through a green filter didn't work for me except through the Tiffen prototype.

I have just read through most of the posts on this thread.

Yesterday I shot a stage production of Grease using the EX3, with a Canon XH A1 as a second camera. The intention was to mix and match the two in post production. However, the IR contamination on the Sony has rendered the clips useless. The Canon clips are perfect. I am bitterly disappointed with the Sony footage and will have to go back for a re-shoot on Friday. This is the first re-shoot that I have done in my 38 years as a photographer.

For what it is worth, my opinion is that the Sony camera with the IR problem is not fit for purpose. I don't see why users should be looking to third party filters to correct a problem which should not be present. I am today writing to Sony to ask them to provide a solution, the camera as it stands is fundamentally flawed. I would urge other owners to also write to Sony.

I think Art Adams gives a fair answer to the problem. For me it is not a real issue, as I said I just replaced my black jacket with another colour.

The creative person will always find a way arround any problem.


I take back what I said in my earlier post, it is now a real issue. This problem will be rectified when I go back and do my re-shoot using a Canon XH A1.

I am very, very angry

Vincent, Can't say you weren't warned though (unfortunately not be Sony).

I was warned fair and square, although not at the time of purchase with the EX3.

I will find a way around this problem. I just can't believe Sony would let such an obvious flaw as this through their hands, after all they are supposed to be the leading light in the video industry.

Oliver, unless, at the time of writing, you do not buy the 486 then there is no way you can find a way to this problem. In my case I just couldn't stop recording a wedding and ask the groom to change his rented black suit because the present one is turning brown in my viewfinder. The 486 resolves this problem quite well with some limitations. Hopefully the Tiffen one would be even better. I have no hope in Sony ever correcting this issue for the EX1 and EX3. They might address this issue in the next EX series camera.

Vincent -
Just keep telling yourself "but... its a feature - not a problem!"

Brian is right. Right now the 486 is the only solution but soon there will be something better from Tiffen and others chasing their tail.

Yesterday, I climbed on top of my house and shouted from my rooftop that I hoped no more posts would appear on this subect . . . it apparently did not work.

Yesterday, I climbed on top of my house and shouted from my rooftop that I hoped no more posts would appear on this subect . . . it apparently did not work.

I didn't hear you Brian.

Yesterday I spent three hours recording a production of Grease, and yes most of the cast were all in black T-shirts or sweaters. My Canon footage looks fine but the Sony footage is unusable. I will now spend another three hours on Friday doing the same job.

Here are two stills from the show. (sorry, I have blanked out the faces)

I simply keep 486 filter on my EX1 at all times, out of necessity. You never know when will the black contamination issue occur, so... as always - better be safe than sorry.

Here's the source where to get it (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/235343-REG/B_W__77mm_486_Digital_UV_IR.html/BI/2187/KBID/2932 target=_new), or here's another source as well (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&keywords=B000B6BB92&tag=mo7iescom-20&index=electronics&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 target=_new).

these screw on filters are great unless your going to attach something to the front of the lens, ie: wide angle, telephoto, and even a 35mm adapter. looks like i'll be buying a 3-stage mattebox instead of a 2-stage to go along with my Letus. thanks Sony.

...most of the cast were all in black T-shirts or sweaters...the Sony footage is unusable....

I just did a school concert of Grease and the first night I recorded it without the filter and yes, most of the blacks colours were useless but the 2nd and 3rd night I recorded it I used the 486 filter and it worked out great, a big improvement.

Just had a look at the sony still Vincent and yes, thats what mine looked like too, before the filter was fitted.

I can see that the 486 filter is an essential item for this camera, just as the DM baseplate, and other software to make HD to SD acceptable. I wonder what else I can spend my money on?