I've tried a standard B+W UV filter, it doesn't fit under the EX1's hood. Given that all the B+W filters use the same housing I'd be 99.9% certain the standard 486 wouldn't fit either.

Piotr and Bob
Good news, I just tried and the B&W 486 fits inside the supplied Sony lensshade, normally I use a mattebox so therefore I didn't know.
So it seems to be different from a standard B7W filter.
I did not see anything unusual by using 486 between camera and LEX.
The IR rays are cancelled out by the coating of this filter and not mirrored back to where they came from.

Peter , is this the standard filter or the slim?

I'd rather get the standard with threads on both sides but want it to fit under the EX-1 hood.

Lenny levy

Peter, this is certainly good news for you, but not for me - I have made a mistake! I used the link, provided here by somebody else, to the B&H's "Slim" version, and ordered that one without further checking... Is your this one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tal_UV_IR.html

If so, it beats me why it's some 50 bucks cheaper than the slim version - having two threads and a cap.... And fits under the hood, AND can take the Letus! Ouch...

Does anyone not planning to use Letus (or using matte box solely) want mine 486 SLIM filter (just arrived, like new)?

Thanks Peter,
interesting. There's a good reason though why the slim filters cost more apparently. The housing is brass not aluminium. They seem to have done this as the Al housings can weld into the lens thread a bit and with the slimmer filter it could be a real beast to get it unstuck. So I'm not too worried about the extra cost, it could be money well spent.

The other standard UV filter I did try almost fitted, it might have with a bit of a push and a shove but not something I wanted to really try.

Or perhaps B+W have redesigned their filter so the standard ones do fit, it only looks like they missed the mark by less than 1mm.

I'd like to update you that after several tests, I have found the new settings best suited for the 486 filter. I'm getting a very good colour reproduction now - even indoors with tungsten light, which was most difficult before the filter...

The blacks are properly black, also the reds are not lacking any more after I simply dialed all matrix pairs settings beck to zero, and carefully calibrated the WB.

Piotr,

Thats really good news - when you say dialled all the matrix pairs back to zero - do you mean on Bill's PP settings (i.e.R-G used to be -75). Also are you finding the green hue around the edges to be a problem? I am about to buy the filter - but think that I would prefer the colour mis-registration to a green hue problem if it is too obvious.

All your help is appreciated.

Yes Graeme - Bill's modification need revising with the filter, that's for sure! Therefore, rather than use ungrounded values, I reverted to the factory settings in all my PP's, which now only differ with the gamma curves, matrices, and black gamma settings.

Regarding the greenish cast at the corners: unfortunately it is there, you cannot avoid it at full wide - just the laws of physics, I guess. But it's only visible at full wide and with tungsten light (see the grabs in my previous post here - what starts like the infamous vignetting, is the green cast in the corners actually; when you go fully wide - as seen in the right grab - it becomes apparent everywhere along the edges; the remaining colours are 100% accurate).

Personally, I prefer the colours I'm getting now with some green hue at the corners in specific circumstaces (usually possible to be avoided), to what I was getting before the filter - but of course this is a matter of personal choice.

Thanks Piotr,

I think that I will give it a try - but go for the filter that is threaded on both sides - that way I can use my Grad Neutral density filters without a matte box - I am using the Cokins with an adaptor - which needs to screw onto the front of the filter.

It would be nice if there was a non-filter solution - but I think that this might just be a problem with the chips - can't see how they could solve it with software.

Sony had this problem with the first batch of F23's (maybe Adam Wilt used one in his comparison), and solved it by changing the filter. I'm going to call again on Monday and hopefully they'll have some kind of a response.

Thanks Sean!
Be sure to let us all know what SONY says.

There's a good reason though why the slim filters cost more apparently. The housing is brass not aluminium. They seem to have done this as the Al housings can weld into the lens thread a bit and with the slimmer filter it could be a real beast to get it unstuck. So I'm not too worried about the extra cost, it could be money well spent.

The other standard UV filter I did try almost fitted, it might have with a bit of a push and a shove but not something I wanted to really try.

Or perhaps B+W have redesigned their filter so the standard ones do fit, it only looks like they missed the mark by less than 1mm.

Hi Bob,
my 486 filter has threads on both sides, it is marked on the outside of the filterring in golden lettering " B+W - made in Germany - F-PRO".
Its ring is far too heavy for alumium, I suppose its brass.
It fits inside the lenshood but only just, you don't have to push it in though.
It is always a good precaution to apply a very little bit of grease on the filterthread to prevent it getting stuck.
The old trick is to use some 'nosegrease': wipe your fingertip along your nose and that little skingrease on your fingertip is enough to lubricate the filterthread.

Thanks for the tips about the 486. I discovered that the best way to get a tight filter off is to grab it with rubber glove used for dishwashing. It really grabs on the filter.

Piotr,
Looking now at the pic you posted of the 2 women on the couch, the green looks completely unacceptable to me. I could never get that by a client.
How far do you have to zoom in to get rid of it completely?

Do you also see this on a 35mm adapter when using a wide angle?

I'm bummed.

Any pictures of just a flat wall at various zoom lengths would be nice.

I wonder why you only see it under tungstun.
Perhaps its not a function of tungstun so much as a wide open f stop as would be more likely indoors? That's when the light would bend more.

Lenny Levy

Lenny,

I do agree with you that just looking at stills, this may appear unacceptable - but it's not that bad when actually watching video; in uneven lighting from many weak (tungsten or incandescent) sources, large areas of same colour (like walls) tend to be recorded with all hues of it (depending on the viewing angle and the distance from those light sources) - even without the filter, and it's only natural.

However, you are right it can look very ugly. This is why I stated before that the necessity to use any additional filter in order to just achieve unpolluted blacks is a major EX1 flaw in the first place...

I'd be very grateful for a couple of examples posted by users of the other 486 filter version (the one with external thread), as well as of the 489 filter which absorbs rather than reflects IR.

As to your question about Letus use with the filter - unfortunately mine doesn't have the external thread, so I cannot fix the LEX without removing the filter fist.

UPDATE

This is something that might sound good for those considering spending their bucks on the 486 IR cut filter, but it's certainly not good news to myself...

Upon repeated and careful re-inspection of my footage with the filter, I must regretfully admit the effect in the corners is due to some definite accumulation of the 486 filter's inherent, greenish hue, AND my camera's vignetting (ouch, arghh - whatever your Anglo-Saxon onomatopoeia is for the sounds I have been emitting for some time).

Without the filter, I only managed to spot some minor, upper left of right corner vignetting at extremely fast panning and OIS on; who cares? - I thought.

But it has now been amplified by the green cast from the 486 filter, and it seems I DO have the vignetting problem, after all!

It'd interesting to know (although I sincerely doubt that Sony will ever reveal this): was the tight tolerances, leading to the potential vignetting, the reason to not implement proper IR filtering in the EX1, in the first place? Could the two be somehow related?

And, a logical question that follows: has it been rectified in the EX3?

Here is a frame from the same material I posted before, but when my camera happened to be more static (I shot it all hand-held); as you can see there still is SOME green cast along the very left/right edges, but NOT specifically the corners...

Could someone with the double-threaded version of the 486 filter post some screen grabs, preferably with and w/o Letus? I must make up my mind whether it's worthwhile to spend my cash on another one, before an important event where I'll be using my Lex... Thanks!

Piotr:

A double threaded version is hard to find - in fact of the B+W I don't think it exists, so this is what I did. I have a 77 to 100 step-up ring with a 95mm thread inside, to which I clamp my Cavision matte box (see my threads on that for interest). Inside this step-up ring I have a 95 to 77 step-down ring that holds the 77mm IR/UV filter on the inside so that the IR/UV filter is in fact in "backwards." This allows the use of the 77mm filter behind a matte box and is a lot cheaper than using the 100mm filter which is about $500 or wasteing a matte box slot. This arrangement works fine and there is no vignetting at any focal length by reversing the filter so it is as close as possible to the camera.

Mike

I actually have the double threaded version of the 486. It is a very difficult item to find, and I had to pay top dollar for it. I spoke to someone who is closely connected to schneider and it seems they were taken by surprise with the increased deman, so they need to make more. If I had a letus, I'd be happy to post some stills...

-Sean

I am still not sure if I will buy the IR cut filter. I find the green cast on Piotr's shot above far worse than an incorrect black. At least the incorrect black is not anobvious visual flaw to most observers. They would never know that the black was not slightly brown, but they could certainly see the obvious green cast at the edges. I agree it could be a much greater problem when trying to match 2 cameras - where one shows black and the other brownish black - but this is less of a problem to me.

I still might buy the IR cut filter - to give me the greatest number of options - but that green cast worries me enormously. I doubt that I can fix it in post satisfactorially so that I would be happy.

You must recolor balance to make a compensation for the 486. One reason the EX1 is such a good camera ity can do this - that what all thoses r-b, G-r, deals are in the Matrix settings. See my post re Bill's color sorrection and the 486 and do this first

Sean,

Is this the filter you have?

The filter I have is the B+W 486 77E. It has threads on both sides.

I spoke to someone at sony today, who said my complaint has been filed with the engineers in Japan, and they hope to hear something soon.

Does anyone have experience with the 489 filter, which is absorbing IR rather than reflect it?

Piotr:

This is an interesting question. These two filters may have different effect on the visible red muting. I went with the 486 following what Bob Grant did. I'm not sure if I will still use it as a general filter when not needed.

Anyway, I think both filters will need Bill Raven's color adjustment being redone but where is Bill? I have not seen him post for a while.

As I said, I'm using the 489 with great results. The person I talked to at Schneider told me it was the right one if I wanted to use it between a 35mm adapter and the camera since it absorbs the IR rather than bouncing it around.

Are any of you guys getting the green vignetting that Piotr reported, with either the 486 or 489? What are the pros & cons of those 2 filters by the way?

As I am a LEX user, I'm interested in the 489 - I understand it has two threads, but can it fit under the original lens hood, like the two-threaded version of the 486 is reported to?

OK - again, I can sell my 486 SLIM (cannot use it with LEX), but which one to buy instead: the regular (double-threaded) 486, or a 489?

Is there a confirmed opinion about either being better with LEX, while being also able to put the standard lens hood on?

The filter factor of the 489 is 1.2 as compared to the 486's 1.0; but should absorbing IR result in extremities being free from the green cast, I guess it'd be worth it!

486 IR CUT Filter
 

To all,

So I've watched all of the posts regarding this and I would like to speak on a few issues.

1) The B+W 486 filter is a very effective filter for the blocking of all IR light at about 670-700nm. This is extremely effective at preventing "IR Bleed" into the black tones. To date, most people using this filter have only used it because they are experiencing IR Bleed on their black tones mostly in high contrast situations (concerts being a very popular application). Your video camera already has an IR Cut filter infront of the CCD or CMOS that is generally very effective however not perfect. As the tests show, this is not a one size fits all type of application.

2) The filter is sensitive to the angle of incidence of the light. If the angle of view on your lens exceeds 60 degrees, then you might experience color shifts and chromatic abberations. This is a result of the design of the filter and unavoidable. Due to the proximity of the built-in existing IR CUT filter to the CCD or CMOS Chip, this problem is largely eliminated on the stock lens.

3) In our quest to solve the issue with RED users (whose internal IR CUT filter is woefully inadequate), we have had to develop this filter to meet the specific needs of video users. Hence, we have had to redesign the filter. The existing B+W 486 filter exists with an IR CUT on one side of the filter and a UV filter on the back. This is to solve UV sensitivities that are not present on video cameras. Therefore, we have redesigned the filter with the IR CUT on one side and an anti-reflective coating on the other side. This reduces internal reflections caused by the filter.

4) Use of the new Schneider filter (not 486, official marketed name tbd) must be done with the IR CUT side facing out toward the subject. The existing 486 filter is only made up to 77mm and there for the mounting direction should not be an issue. The new Schneider filter will only be made in square and 4x5.65 sizes to meet the demands of the largest user group of RED owners. The B+W filter is still an excellent application for most other situations as has been proven in the past.

5) Filters that combine ND and IR CUT in the same filter have been proven to be inadequate at completely eliminating the IR light at useful nanometer ranges. We are looking at development of this type of filter but the engineering challenges of doing it right is something that we need time to develop. My personal feeling is that this is not a good solution because it only solves your IR Bleed issues for one filter, not your entire set of filters that you paid a lot of money to acquire.

Schneider Optics will likely have this new version of the filter available in the next few weeks. Please contact your favorite dealer (hopefully DVInfo sponsors) to get on the growing waiting list for this filter.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Mike,

Your solution seems to be a great option for EX1 users. For RED users it doesn't work because of the thread size. This is why we made the mattebox option as well which full explaination is in my previous post.

Thanks for the good idea and solution for a EX users.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for your answers; however, sticking to the EX1 and Letus 35mm adapter applications, which filter I'd be better off: the existing 486, or the existing 489 one?

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

Thanks again Brian,

The specifics of the setup I mean is that with the 35mm adapter like the Letus, the 486 filter would be "closed" between the camera lens and the achromat lens of the said adapter. Reflected IR could bounce within this space (of course being partially absorbed), but wouldn't they contaminate the picture?

Conversely, with the 489 filter the IR would be absorbed by the filter, hence theoretically less reason for concern...

Is this theory right?

Piotr, earlier in this thread I suggested that perhaps that isn't so much of a concern. I still maintain that it doesn't really matter what happens to the IR light reflected by the 486, as long as it doesn't pass though to the sensor. It's not going to contaminate the image, and it's also not going to cook your Letus :)

Sean,

Considering that even without the Letus I am getting the green tint in the picture extremities (because of the angle of incidence of the light), the multiple reflections of the IR could increase this effect.

On the other hand, with LEX the camera is zoomed in to some Z78, which should help avoiding this...

Unless the multiple reflections will cause considerable amount of IR to reach the lens at the "wrong" angle also in the middle, and this possibility is the reason for my concern!

Since I need to make up my mind which double-threaded filter model to pick, I'd be grateful for some more authoritative answer.

Serena asked me does the 486 IR/UV work. It does - big time.

I just came back from three days in the desert (that was hot this trip) and I compared the 486 vs. the standard UV/Haze. The green foliage that looks brown with the UV/Haze is correctly green with the 486.

The 486 did mute the reds a tad and so I compensated with a matrix shift of G-R=15 and that seemed to work for me.

Mike

This thread mystifies me. Is there any consensus about the green vignetting that Piotr documented?

The pictures he posted were extreme, far worse than any red problem I've seen, but it doesn't seem like anyone else has seen it, or if they have they aren't concerned.

I could live with an overall green cast that's correctable, but the vignetting was unacceptable to me.

Are you other guys with the filter having any of this problem at wide angle or anywhere else? Is there any consensus about when you will or won't have the problem. Other images would be appreciated. Thanks

Lenny Levy

Yes, I'm wondering the same thing. Does the 486 IR/UV have the green cast issue on the edges?

I want to buy one, but I'm also confused on if its problems might out weight the IR contamination fix.

Guys, the green cast at the extremities is due to IR light angle of incidence, and even Ryan Avery of Schneider Optics confirmed it's unavoidable with those screw-on, circular filters - so I guess you cannot avoid it completely.

As I said: in natural light, this is not a problem at all (even indoors).

It's most pronounced with incandescent / tungsten (warm) lighting, as my pics posted earlier show (they were deliberately chosen from the worst part of my recording, though).

With LED light it's not visible (have done some tests recently, but only in the mixed natural light at dusk, and some LED lamps - see the grabs attached); unfortunately couldn't wait for the sunset at that particular location, so cannot be sure how it works with LED light on its own. One of the grabs shows the scenery in natural light at dusk; the other with LEDs switched on (taken within just a couple of seconds time). As you can see, there is virtually no green cast even in the corners (even though I was at the widest in the right grab).