The 489 was not designed with the cut rates necessary for the EX1/EX3. It will create a blue cast on wider angle incidences of light. This filter was designed mostly for industrial applications.

I had one user buy it without consulting anyone and it wound up not working for his EX1.

We are looking at the IR issues presented by the EX1/EX3. The True-Cut 750 IR seems to work in some cases but not others. Most users we have sold this filter to have not complained and use it extensively. As the test pictures show here in this thread, there are some fabrics that the IR light is more of an issue. More to follow soon.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

To Ryan Avery
 

Hi, Ryan! After ninety days, I can't help but wonder if we're any closer to a resolution with this IR problem on the EX cameras?

Thanks!

Ryan I too am anxious to know if there were any developments. I've just bought the 486 and I feel that I've wasted my money. It does correct the IR contamination but produces the horrible green vignetting which is not that easy to correct in post (or at least it's time consuming). If to correct one problem another one is induced than it is a scenario of "out of the frying pan into the fire..."!

I'm really dreaming of that elusive IR filter that settles once and for all this headache.

we all are!! just there doesnt seem to be one right now!

If ...
 

If an IR filter does not do the trick, I wonder if sony can do an internal software adjustment to cut off the IR levels in the EX1/3? This may be an option, no?

PP influence
 

I remember before Xmas, when I was videoing a wedding which the groom's black suit was being severely hit with IR contamination, when I had a spare moment I flicked through the (Bill Raven's) PP's on the camera and was surprised to see that some of the PP's gave much more contamination of the suit than others.

Has anyone explored this avenue to see what results can be achieved?

(May be a separate topic).

Cheers,

Vaughan

Vaughan, I'm not using any PP's - just the factory standard settings (1080 50i format). Whenever I have a wedding in a venue which is lit up entitely with tungsten or halogen lights and the fabric is of a particular type, then there is IR contamination galore! Now I'm in a dilemma whether to put on the 486 and have the green vignetting or do not use this filter and have the IR contamination.

Or else I'm thinking of putting on the 486 filter when absolutely necessary - I rarely if ever have seen IR contamination in churches. So I will pop it in according to the circumstance.

What are other users doing?

I have a 486 slim that I've never taken off my EX1. The 2x EX1s and 2x EX3 we rent out also have 486s that never come off. So far no one has mentioned a problem with green vignetting. When we first fitted the 486 we warned customers they may strike the problem but no one reported any problems.
The only time I've seen a problem with the 486 was when I tried shooting macro with an object very close to the lens. The light bouncing off the filter was a wierd color that affected the subject. I can certainly see why you've never put a filter in front of a 486.

I've not seen a sample of the dreaded green vignetting problem posted. I'm certain it's there but I'd like to see an example so I can see how hard it is to grade out. I do know the IR contamination is next to impossible to grade out. I had much of the blackout cloth at the back of a stage affected by it before I fitted the 486 to my camera.

Bob,

I posted this example a couple of months ago:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/862316-post113.html

This comparison shows it with tungsten light; what's worse, the green tint is also vignetting my daylight, wide-angle shots with the 486 on :(

Interesting that this came up. In another thread (Filter for IR Contamination?) that I started a while ago, I mentioned this idea. I was speaking with a Sony tech about this and the first thing he asked was if I was using a custom picture profile. He did not infer that he had any knowledge of custom profiles exaggerating the appearance of the contamination on blacks, but wondered if an adjusted profile might just do that. He suggested the next time I see the issue, to switch back to a standard profile and ascertain if there is any difference. The contamination is not CAUSED by a custom profile, I think we all know that. There have been posts by others who have seen it in a standard profile.... however if it can be mitigated somewhat with the camera's profile settings, maybe we can have a temporary solution of sorts until which time a working filter is produced, or Sony addresses the issue with some other fix? Of course, if a profile could be created which would reduce the appearance of the contamination (I won't go so far as to hope one could eliminate the problem) it is likely it would have some other adverse effects on the image under 'normal' shooting circumstances. But, if we had a profile we could just switch to when the issue does appear, I would find this a better alternative than even using a filter for all of the reasons previously stated by different filter users (vignetting, reflections, macro shooting) as well as the difficulty of using one with a matte box. I personally don't want to give up a stage of my matte box full-time to an IR filter, and what do you do if you're not using the matte box? Have two filters, a 4x4 and a 77mm? That's getting a little crazy....
Anyway, I mentioned it before.... I would love to see someone smarter than me see if this is a possibility!

The only setting that might mitigate it would, in my opinion, be one with severely crushed (compressed) blacks.