IR passes through many things that visible light does not. The 1 1/2 stops of light loss from the mini35 doesn't really matter, this problem is seen with the RED camera when using heavy ND's like 1.5 and 1.8 (5 and 6 stops!). I used to shoot infrared ektrachrome, and I'd use an opaque filter which blocked all visible light and only transmitted infrared. As far as the 486 behind or in front of the adapter, I'm thinking it doesn't matter. First off, the 486 doesn't reflect the IR light outward like a mirror, it dissipates it between the layers of the filter coating. Also, even if it did reflect the light, why should that matter? The camera won't see it anyway, the filter still blocks it even if it's not traveling straight in. The amount of IR and wavelength we're talking about isn't like a heat lamp, so you won't melt your lens. Later this week I'm going to try a 486 with a mini 35 and cooke S4's. I'll keep everyone informed.

-Sean

Do I understand it right, that you will need one such filter for each lense you're using with your 35mm adapter (if they are different filter thread size, of course)?

That's why we buy matte boxes. They might seem expensive but compared to a set of screw on filters for every lens thread they start to become cheap.

The 486 filter does work to solve the problem, but it really shouldn't have to be there. I ran into a situation today where I needed the filter, but also a wide angle adapter. Even if I could find a filter in the approriate size, the wide angle doesn't have threads, and I can't put it behind since it mounts to the bayonet. In this case I wouldn't be able to do the shot. I spoke to someone named Lou at Sony support again today, to express my displeasure in the camera not performing as it should. He said he had heard of this earlier in the week from someone who saw it only in certain lighting conditions. He sounded genuinely concerned about the problem and said he would have the engineering team investigate at the beginning of next week. I referred him to this thread, but I think if we all call and complain maybe we can force Sony to step up and fix this. I don't like having to put extra glass in front of the lens.

-Sean

B&W 486 works fine, when you put it directly on the cameralens there is only a very very slight green coloring of the extreme corners when you zoom out all the way.
The Heliopan UV/IR cut filters give a greenish cast all over the frame and even more so in the corners when zoomed out.

Peter, while the 486 does work fine and I haven't seen any green cast (unlike the 489) I still maintain that it shouldn't have to be there. This is a design problem. A lot of companies use a weaker IR filter to increase sensitivity, but just like they did with a batch of F23's, Sony used one that allows a couple of wavelengths to pass that shouldn't.

Sean,

-I agree with you that a filter shouldn't be necessary at all, a proper one should be built in, maybe in the EX3.
-B&W 486 looks very similar to the Leica UV/IR filters supplied for M8 camera, however they don't make a 77 mm one.
-The B&W 486 is fine apart from very, very slight corner colouring when zoomed out, this is due to the light rays passing the filter at a very oblique angles in the corners. B&W says this happens at wide angles of 60 or more degrees and is inherent in the nature of this filter type.
-When used with Letus Extreme there is no problem.
-Light loss is minimal, in cool daylight only 1-2%, so I doubt light loss is the reason why the filter is not built in.

-Only the Heliopan UV/IR filter gives a greenish cast and is therefore better avoided.

-When used with Letus Extreme there is no problem.

Peter, how do you mean - you're leaving the 486 between the camera and the Letus adapter?

Yes Piotr, that is correct.

Can someone who is at NAB ask SONY what if anything that they are going to do for us about the "RED" (infrared not the 3K Scarlet) problem?

Can the EX1 be retrofitted with a proper strength IR filter?
Or is it up to us to take care of the problem ourselves with a screw-on filter?

There are IR/UV combo filters available that would serve three purposes; UV filtering, IR filtering, and lens protection. It's much better to pre-filter the light to the sensors so that they can better sense only the needed spectrum. I hope that by insisting on this change that other more important things don't lose their priority.

Mike, I think this is a more serious issue than you're giving it credit for. Pre-filtering the light to the sensors is what happens regardless of where in the optical path the filter is placed. I for one don't like to put any glass in front of the lens that I don't have to, since it defeats the purpose of the anti-flare coatings on the front element as well as taking up the filter slot under the stock lens shade. This is an image quality problem that can and should be solved, and sony doesn't have to stop working on the back focus problem to do that.

-Sean

Guys,

I have just received my B+W 486 filter and put it on my EX1. I have shot some test stuff in daylight; no greenish cast in the corners at full wide, as some have reported. Also, while - without the filter - the picture (using absolutely neutral matrix settings) tends to have some bias toward reds (especially with Hisat matrix), it's completely natural now.

But the real tests I will be doing this evening inside, with some tungsten lighting. I'll try to post some grabs of my girls' black and deep blue garment, which - without the filter - was notoriously recorded as brown or magenta, respectively. With the filter (which has been quite an expensive investment - with duty and VAT paid on top of the B&H price + shipment), I certainly do hope to be getting the right colours...

Peter, my Letus kit being away at the moment - how do you fit LEX on the EX1, with the 486 filter in place of the Letus EX1 thread ring?

Just a quick update:

Yes, the black clothes look really black, and deep blue are not magenta anymore, with the 486 filter attached in tungsten light (2600-3200K).

However, with all matrix settings being default (for both Hisat and Cinema matrices), red is not properly red anymore; will have to play with the settings and try to correct this.

Also, in tungsten light the corners indeed get greenish tint at fully wide.

All in all, the colours on my V1E looked much better, and without any filtering or the myriad of tweaks needed - this IR problem is something Sony should definitely be made to admit, and treat as a serious flaw on the EX1!

Edit: You can see the clothes looking right with the 486, but the greenish tint also visible (at the furniture, in the corners of the right image). Of course, both pictures are not otherwise identical in their parameters as they were not taken the same day; the WB was not re-adjusted to compensate, etc. - but the tendency is obvious and I picked them on purpose, to show how the filter improves black and deep blue, but introduces other problems instead.

Could someone post pics of the greenish cast. How bad is it?

This is disturbing to me. i was about to buy a 486 but am worried now.
i talked t a Tiffen rep at NAB about this and he should me new IR filters that were quite expensive (hadn't come up with a price necc yet.) and were made with a very elaborate process.


Lenny

Lenny,

See my grabs in the previous message.

Piotr, my 486 filter has threads on both sides, (I believe the slim version has only a thread on one side).
So I screw the filter on the cameralens and then the LEX onto the filter.

Hi Piotr,

Those two grabs are very telling. I have just re-read Adam Wilts' very informative shoot-out (albeit rushed and 'unfair', by his own admission) between an EX1, RED One and F23 - as has already been mentioned he notices the very same IR-heavy color response exhibited by the EX1 (and to a lesser extent the F23)

I hesitate to post grabs linked directly from his article but the effect appears so obviously that I think its noteworthy enough to justify this quote...

"Aside from the progression in shallowness of depth of field, what’s striking is the difference in colorimetry. Both Sonys show Tim’s black shirt as a reddish-purple... "
(from page 5 of his article which can be found here: http://www.provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/three_three_letter_cameras_ex1_f23_red/ )

Hopefully Sony are taking note and will act sooner rather than later. I would also suggest that you pester you're supplier for _atleast_ a reply from Sony on this issue.

Thanks,
Dave.

I can now say definitively that the Tiffen Hot Mirror is not strong enough. I picked one up to hold me over until a 486 slim arrives, and it barely has any effect at all.

Thanks Sean, That's very useful info.

Piotr, my 486 filter has threads on both sides, (I believe the slim version has only a thread on one side).
So I screw the filter on the cameralens and then the LEX onto the filter.

Thanks Peter; indeed mine is the slim version. Didn't know the double-threaded is available. Two questions though:

- does yours still fit under the EX1 lens hood?
- when using it with Letus on, don't you see any contamination from the reflected IR bouncing between the filter and the achromat?

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

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, 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/product/475095-REG/B_W_65031976_77mm_486_Digital_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)?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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

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 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.

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!

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