Schneider Optics True-Cut 77mm waste of time

Vaughan Wood · February 10th, 2009, 11:34 PM

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

Brian Cassar · February 11th, 2009, 03:22 AM

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?

Bob Grant · February 11th, 2009, 06:23 AM

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.

Piotr Wozniacki · February 11th, 2009, 06:42 AM

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 :(

Derek Reich · February 11th, 2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaughan Wood

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

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!

Piotr Wozniacki · February 11th, 2009, 08:57 AM

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

February 10th, 2009, 11:34 PM	#46
Vaughan Wood Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 278	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

February 11th, 2009, 06:42 AM	#49
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	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 :( __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

February 11th, 2009, 08:57 AM	#51
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	The only setting that might mitigate it would, in my opinion, be one with severely crushed (compressed) blacks. __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

February 11th, 2009, 03:22 AM	#47
Brian Cassar Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Malta Posts: 306	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?

February 11th, 2009, 06:23 AM	#48
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	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.