PDA

View Full Version : Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8



Medavoym
10-03-2014, 12:06 PM
Hi!

I think it is absolutely great that RED are implementing the interchangeable OLPF solution. I am all for it!

First, I must admit that having separate "low light" and "highlight" OLPFs is less than ideal. I even lost track of how people are naming them now, etc.
I hope RED will release soon the already-announced "Standard" OLPF which will please both crowds, and make things more simple for everyone (the users and even RED as a company).

I also hope that all the different variants of OLPFs will have the "Standard" one as a base. I can't imagine "low light + IR" OLPF, "highlight + IR" OLPF, "standard + IR", "low light monochrome", "highlight monochrome", "standard monochrome" etc.
I hope "Standard" will be the gold standard and all the other variants will start from here. V1 and V2 will become specialty OLPFs.

Secondly - I fully agree with the majority of people here. We need a Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8, with slight blooming of the highlights. It will provide the most 35mm-like image and it would be the best choice, in my opinion, for narrative filmmaking.

This screen capture (which I posted before simply as a random example) is from Errol Morris' documentary "The Unknown Known". I have no idea how they achieved it, but it doesn't matter. This is the general direction (it's exaggerated here but you get the point).

This, combined with the already great roll-off on the Dragon, should produce some great 35mm-like results. For narrative projects, I think it will be the best choice. I hope the development of such an OLPF is not far, since I would actually venture to say it's the most needed at the moment.

Kudos to RED for pushing things forward!

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk19/medavoym/Highlights.png (http://s276.photobucket.com/user/medavoym/media/Highlights.png.html)

Phil Holland
10-03-2014, 12:21 PM
Hi!

I think it is absolutely great that RED are implementing the interchangeable OLPF solution. I am all for it!

First, I must admit that having separate "low light" and "highlight" OLPFs is less than ideal. I even lost track of how people are naming them now, etc.
I hope RED will release soon the already-announced "Standard" OLPF which will please both crowds, and make things more simple for everyone (the users and even RED as a company).

I also hope that all the different variants of OLPFs will have the "Standard" one as a base. I can't imagine "low light + IR" OLPF, "highlight + IR" OLPF, "standard + IR", "low light monochrome", "highlight monochrome", "standard monochrome" etc.
I hope "Standard" will be the gold standard and all the other variants will start from here. V1 and V2 will become specialty OLPFs.

Secondly - I fully agree with the majority of people here. We need a Standard OLPF + Low Contrast 1/8, with slight blooming of the highlights. It will provide the most 35mm-like image and it would be the best choice, in my opinion, for narrative filmmaking.

This screen capture (which I posted before simply as a random example) is from Errol Morris' documentary "The Unknown Known". I have no idea how they achieved it, but it doesn't matter. This is the general direction (it's exaggerated here but you get the point).

This, combined with the already great roll-off on the Dragon, should produce some great 35mm-like results. For narrative projects, I think it will be the best choice. I hope the development of such an OLPF is not far, since I would actually venture to say it's the most needed at the moment.

Kudos to RED for pushing things forward!



The Low Light Optimized, Skin Tone - Highlight, and Dragon Standard OLPFs will not need additional IR filtration when using NDs.

I honestly don't think that the Dragon Standard should have a Low Con effect. I think actually if you were looking to mimic film the most you would be using the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (maybe even the Dragon Standard) with a small, very small low contrast filter. Like 1/16th. But it shouldn't just be the Dragon Standard.

I do agree that a Low Con/Haliation OLPF is a good idea potentially, but there is no "right answer" for this particular aesthetic choice. Especially when you combine the fact that much of the look of older films comes from vintage lenses, filtration, and properties of film combined. Dragon Standard OLPF should allow for high contrast and color accurate images so people can use what they want in front of the lens to carve out a specific look.

If it is some thing Red makes it should be called something like Low Con - Haliation OLPF or whatever.

Considering the type of image quality you get from the LLO and STH OLPF I wouldn't really call them specialty, especially since the highest quality images are coming out of the STH.

Ignacio Aguilar
10-03-2014, 02:00 PM
I think a 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, etc. low-con filter integrated on a OLPF is going a bit too far- too much a specialized item to find an audience, even it may look great. But it can also introduce artifacts (for instance, too obvious halos against bright sources) than can make it undesirable for certain aspects of every day's shooting.

A standard OLPF, with good shadows and a nice handling of highlights, should be enough for general purposes. And then, if you want certain effects halo or glow, you can use some light diffusion filters or older lenses with less improved coatings. A couple of months ago I used for the first time in my life a set of nicely rehoused Cooke Speed Panchros with an Epic Mysterium-X. I did several interior shots against bright windows, and the effect was very close to this picture, without the need of going into more complicated stuff such as swapping OLPFs. Just a piece of old glass et voilá!

Medavoym
10-03-2014, 02:11 PM
The Low Light Optimized, Skin Tone - Highlight, and Dragon Standard OLPFs will not need additional IR filtration when using NDs.

I honestly don't think that the Dragon Standard should have a Low Con effect. I think actually if you were looking to mimic film the most you would be using the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF (maybe even the Dragon Standard) with a small, very small low contrast filter. Like 1/16th. But it shouldn't just be the Dragon Standard.

I do agree that a Low Con/Haliation OLPF is a good idea potentially, but there is no "right answer" for this particular aesthetic choice. Especially when you combine the fact that much of the look of older films comes from vintage lenses, filtration, and properties of film combined. Dragon Standard OLPF should allow for high contrast and color accurate images so people can use what they want in front of the lens to carve out a specific look.

If it is some thing Red makes it should be called something like Low Con - Haliation OLPF or whatever.

Considering the type of image quality you get from the LLO and STH OLPF I wouldn't really call them specialty, especially since the highest quality images are coming out of the STH.

I actually agree with you, Phil.

I wasn't calling for the upcoming "Standard" OLPF to have a Low Con permanently embedded in it. Far from it. I want the Standard to be just that, the standard OLPF inside the camera.
I was saying that if RED or third parties start offering multiple OLPF options, they should start with the "Standard" as the base, or starting point.

So, I would want the "Low Con/Halation" OLPF to add that extra effect to the "Standard" OLPF. Same for whatever other variants RED will eventually make.

Don't you think it will be too complicated to have a low con version only for the Skintone OLPF? What if people prefer to shoot with the "Low Light" OLPF, or the "Standard OLPF" but they also want the halation/low con effect? With so many OLPFs, you could go crazy with the different combinations.

Presumably, the "Standard" OLPF will be the best of both worlds. Naturally, I would want to keep that as the gold standard, fixed benchmark, constant variable, if you'd like. I don't want to have different versions of the Low Light OLPF, different versions of the Highlight/Skintone OLPF, different versions of the Standard OLPF. My head hurts just thinking about that.

In my humble opinion, I think RED should stop developing the LowLight OLPF and Highlight OLPF, and concentrate on the Standard OLPF. From there, they could move over to as many varieties as they'd like - but with the Standard as the gold "standard". In that sense, the Low Light and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs will remain "specialty" OLPFs.

Life would be much simpler.

P.S. I'm sure that RED can develop a "Standard" OLPF which has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, given the power of the Dragon sensor itself.

George A.
10-03-2014, 02:13 PM
I think a 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, etc. low-con filter integrated on a OLPF is going a bit too far- too much a specialized item to find an audience, even it may look great. But it can also introduce artifacts (for instance, too obvious halos against bright sources) than can make it undesirable for certain aspects of every day's shooting.

A standard OLPF, with good shadows and a nice handling of highlights, should be enough for general purposes. And then, if you want certain effects halo or glow, you can use some light diffusion filters or older lenses with less improved coatings. A couple of months ago I used for the first time in my life a set of nicely rehoused Cooke Speed Panchros with an Epic Mysterium-X. I did several interior shots against bright windows, and the effect was very close to this picture, without the need of going into more complicated stuff such as swapping OLPFs. Just a piece of old glass et voilá!

Hi Ignacio,

Tell that to the people who love the Alexa image :-)

I personally think that an equivalent OLPF (I think Alexa has a 1/8 or 1/4 Low Con in there) would be great as an extra option for RED shooters.

Cheers my friend!
George

Ignacio Aguilar
10-03-2014, 02:21 PM
Hi Ignacio,

Tell that to the people who love the Alexa image :-)

I personally think that an equivalent OLPF (I think Alexa has a 1/8 or 1/4 Low Con in there) would be great as an extra option for RED shooters.

Cheers my friend!
George

Hi George!

I don't know if the Alexa has some kind of integrated Low Con filter in its OLPF -I've used it several times, and love the images it delivers-, but certainly it doesn't give you the halo effect shown in the first post of this thread. Maybe, if it has that kind of filter, it just does what a modern Tiffen Ultra Con / Soft Contrast, and that's why its dynamic range is so pleasing and wide. Just call me a purist, but when we talk about Low-Cons I can only think about Harrison & Harrison's from the 1970's, and those certainly look more prone to get flares, glowing highlights, halos, etc. than the Alexa with sharp & coated modern glass (Zeiss CPs, Ultras, Cooke S4, etc). At least, in my experience!

David Battistella
10-03-2014, 02:32 PM
I've been doing some stuff with the STH and a 1/8 locon and the results are pretty good. It really took the edge of the MX and the dragon STH really does not need it as much as the highlights have a pretty nice rolloff built in.

I agree that the naming might seem weird but I understand it.

If you are on set and need to know which OLPF is in there then you look in the gate and you read it right on the OLPF. No messing around with v1, v2, what does this one do? What does that one do?

right now it is:

LLO - Low Light Optimized
STH - Skin Tone highlight

orginally it was

v1- low light in alpha dragon cams
v2- skin tone highlight
some might also say that the current LLO is a modified version of the original v1

when the cameras go in for upgrade to the swappable OLPF system, the OLPF going forward those will have a name.
If there is no name, then it is either the v1 or v2

i know it is confusing but hopefully this clears things up a bit.

battistella

Gunleik Groven
10-03-2014, 02:42 PM
nope... true.. no halo on the a...

Jim Hoffman
10-03-2014, 03:02 PM
We going to send in our second camera. Our first Dragon has V2 - not sure if I should match or have a different option. How are the Clips from different versions cutting together - I assume there would be no real trouble - just the artifacts from each versions signature.

Gunleik Groven
10-03-2014, 04:00 PM
they'll edit well... Dunno if Phil disagrees, but as long as you expose for what they are, they will intercut much better than RED ONE and Epic MX

Phil Holland
10-03-2014, 04:17 PM
they'll edit well... Dunno if Phil disagrees, but as long as you expose for what they are, they will intercut much better than RED ONE and Epic MX

You can see in the side by sides I posted that there is a very slight color difference, but it's rather negligible.

For those working on feature productions who are concerned with texture, they should be aware of the 1 to 1.3 stops of textural difference between the two. Shooting at ISO 400 on the STH OLPF looks a lot like ISO 800-1000 on the LLO OLPF and so on/so forth.

Gunleik Groven
10-03-2014, 04:18 PM
Sure... But that's rather the point, isn't it?

Phil Holland
10-03-2014, 04:27 PM
Sure... But that's rather the point, isn't it?

Pretty much I imagine. I only state that for some productions, and this is really mainly feature territory where I find it's a large focus, where texture is rather an important factor to have consistency on screen shot to shot.

This is useful for a variety of situations when mixing and matching shots from multiple OLPFs on the same production and trying to maintain a consistent "energy" on screen.

I may shoot STH at ISO 500 at the studio and roll LLO at ISO 1000/1280 elsewhere for instance.

Medavoym
10-04-2014, 10:16 AM
Hi Phil,

Also - I've been thinking more lately about the need for slight Low Con/halation.

Why would you prefer to have it with the Highlight/Skintone OLPF? In my opinion, it is more needed on the Lowlight OLPF - theoretically speaking.

Outside, in daylight, there aren't many things to bloom anyway. OK, the occasional specular highlights etc.
The need for slight halation is indoors with practical lights, or outside at night, with street lamps, car headlights, practical fixtures again etc

IMO, people prefer halation on small, intense, bright light sources which can clip and thus feel more "digital". That's 90% of the time practical lights in the frame at night or in low light - when you'd use the Lowlight OLPF. Of course, low con/halation is extremely useful outdoors during daytime as well, but it produces the most filmic images with practical lights, which are almost always a giveaway for digital.

That being said, I'd still prefer for RED not to go forward with developing the Lowlight and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs anymore. Keep them as is, for whoever needs them.
Develop a fantastic "Standard" OLPF which can do both lowlight and highlight, and then go forward from there. Including having a "Standard+ Low Con 1/8/halation" OLPF which the users can use both at night and in daylight.

I think we are on the same page actually!
Cheers Phil.

Phil Holland
10-04-2014, 11:03 AM
Hi Phil,

Also - I've been thinking more lately about the need for slight Low Con/halation.

Why would you prefer to have it with the Highlight/Skintone OLPF? In my opinion, it is more needed on the Lowlight OLPF - theoretically speaking.

Outside, in daylight, there aren't many things to bloom anyway. OK, the occasional specular highlights etc.
The need for slight halation is indoors with practical lights, or outside at night, with street lamps, car headlights, practical fixtures again etc

IMO, people prefer halation on small, intense, bright light sources which can clip and thus feel more "digital". That's 90% of the time practical lights in the frame at night or in low light - when you'd use the Lowlight OLPF. Of course, low con/halation is extremely useful outdoors during daytime as well, but it produces the most filmic images with practical lights, which are almost always a giveaway for digital.

That being said, I'd still prefer for RED not to go forward with developing the Lowlight and Skintone/Highlight OLPFs anymore. Keep them as is, for whoever needs them.
Develop a fantastic "Standard" OLPF which can do both lowlight and highlight, and then go forward from there. Including having a "Standard+ Low Con 1/8/halation" OLPF which the users can use both at night and in daylight.

I think we are on the same page actually!
Cheers Phil.

From what I understand and what's been stated is the Dragon Standard OLPF is going to be somewhere between the STH and LLO OLPF. Right now the most "film-like" image comes from the STH OLPF. Until the Dragon Standard OLPF exists and can be tested I don't really know. I'm sure it could fit on all three of these OLPFs, but the key is to not have it "always" and just make an optional Low Con/Halation one as well. Here's why.

The concept of adding Low Con and Halation to any of these filters isn't going to be a "need" it's going to be more of a "creative choice". Dragon Standard is or is going to be designed as the "standard" and shouldn't have a baked in effect of low contrast or halation, though a separate version of it is welcomed. The thing is Low Con and Halation can be controlled in front of the lens in various degrees of strengths. Red is not going to manufacture 20 different OLPFs with various varieties of Low Con and Halation. There's likely going to be maybe 1 to 3 options at the most. Low, Medium, and Strong and that will likely be logistically the best they can do. Though I think what most who are interested in this would generally be looking for is a "low" option as to not contaminate the general contrast and perceived details too much.

Time will tell.

At the moment I'm more excited about the Dragon Standard, IR Color, and IR Monochrome OLPFs. I've spoken to a few of the Bubble Blowers about the Underwater OLPF and there's a lot of excitement surrounding it.

What's been exciting lately has been seeing what the Low Light Optimized OLPF has become in comparison to the "V1". It's just slightly improved in a few ways and is providing that cleaner higher ISO shooting that many, many people have been looking for.

Nick Morrison
10-04-2014, 11:32 AM
I have to agree with Phil. It's so easy to add halation with BPM or other filters. We do it on our shoots all the time. I'd rather have the flexibility of a cleaner Standard OLPF.

Earlier I was excited about this more "filmic" halation, but now that I think about it...if I had the choice, I agree the Standard should be "clean".

That said, if a 3Rd party wants to make a "low con" or other "creative" OLPF, I'd certainly be interested!!

Joseph Coleman
10-04-2014, 12:12 PM
Phill, Just curious...What Low con filtration do you use or suggest to help simulate the Alexa's low con look? I have a client that loves the Alexa but is curious about the dragon. I'm looking to show them that the dragon can match that look and hopefully surpass it in some ways.

Nick Morrison
10-04-2014, 12:36 PM
Phill, Just curious...What Low con filtration do you use or suggest to help simulate the Alexa's low con look? I have a client that loves the Alexa but is curious about the dragon. I'm looking to show them that the dragon can match that look and hopefully surpass it in some ways.

We use BPM 1/8 all the time.

Medavoym
10-04-2014, 12:49 PM
Guys!

I'm not proposing that the STANDARD OLPF have a baked-in Low Con/Halation effect! Far from it!

I want the Standard OLPF to be just that, Standard.

However, when RED creates a Low Con/Halation OLPF (or any other variety), it should add that extra layer to the Standard OLPF. That's all I'm saying.
I think all "creative" OLPF should have the Standard as a starting base. I want things simple. I don't want several varieties of Low Con/Halation OLPFs (for the Lowlight OLPF, for the Highlight OLPF, for the Standard OLPF). Imagine if other varieties/strengths come into play. It will all become crazy.

I agree. A LowCon/Halation replicating the Alexa look (so probably a Low Con 1/8) would be enough. It will give the shooter that starting point to be happy - a low con look for slightly more dynamic range and 35mm-like blooming. What you get on the Alexa. You want more? Start playing with filters in front of the lens. They do it with Alexa, too.

I don't think we need different Low Con strengths and a variety of OLPFs to get further confused. Let's admit it, many people are already confused.
We need a single Low Con/Halation OLPF, ideally on top of the Standard OLPF. That will cover 90% of the needs, if you want that creative/specific look. KEEP THINGS SIMPLE for directors, producers, DPs. You have tons of other optical options if you want to explore more.

P.S. In my humble opinion, having two different OLPFs - one for lowlight with certain drawbacks, one for highlights with other drawbacks - is not ideal. However, they exist, they are here, they are being used on great projects - so let's keep them around.
I think the number one priority for RED would be to develop an all-around Standard OLPF which performs great in both shooting conditions. Then, once you nail that, use it to develop other "creative" OLPFs. Keep the V1 and V2 OLPFs if people need them - but keep them as is. Don't mangle the whole OLPF business with all sorts of options and combinations which will further confuse everyone.

My two cents! I know RED will find the proper solution.

Donald MJ Anderson
10-04-2014, 01:54 PM
I think the number one priority for RED would be to develop an all-around Standard OLPF which performs great in both shooting conditions. Then, once ....

I`m sure that is the case.

My concern is the V1 and V2 are already pretty close to each other in terms of performance. How big a performance benefit will there be if I swap from standard to a V1 or V2?

I`m hoping RED develop an EXTRA LOW LIGHT and EXTRA HIGHLIGHT STH version. This would give a clear reason for the STANDARD OLPF to exist.

So, I hope there are variations to come on the V1 and V2 that push their specifications far enough away from the STANDARD olpf to give me a dramatic performance reason to do a swap.

David Battistella
10-04-2014, 03:04 PM
Just a comment on locon or halation filtration.

this might be an option if there is a very controlled shooting situation, but I think I would probably prefer to have the option to use this filtration in front of the lens so it can be removed for certain shot types.

Also, there is the question of whether each OLPF, will need a tuned color science or be added via firmware as a means of tracking which OLPF via metadata. So I think there might be some authorized (read official) and unauthorized OLPFs available.

While the decision to open up the OLPF to some limited third parties is a good one, I do think that it will still be somewhat rigidly controlled by RED.

As as far as the Standard or goldilocks OLPF, I'm not seeing a huge difference in Phil's tests of the two current offerings and I am not sure a "middle way" OLPF will ever satisfy all situations the way each one, in its own right, can do that now. For anyone thinking that there will be a Standard, that does all the skintone and all the lowlight in one magical pixie dust OLPF, I'm just not sure that will happen. Sure, we can want it, and I'd certainly want it too, but I'm not even sure it's possible from an engineering standpoint.



Battistella

Nick Morrison
10-04-2014, 03:12 PM
Just a comment on locon or halation filtration.

this might be an option if there is a very controlled shooting situation, but I think I would probably prefer to have the option to use this filtration in front of the lens so it can be removed for certain shot types.

Also, there is the question of whether each OLPF, will need a tuned color science or be added via firmware as a means of tracking which OLPF via metadata. So I think there might be some authorized (read official) and unauthorized OLPFs available.

While the decision to open up the OLPF to some limited third parties is a good one, I do think that it will still be somewhat rigidly controlled by RED.

As as far as the Standard or goldilocks OLPF, I'm not seeing a huge difference in Phil's tests of the two current offerings and I am not sure a "middle way" OLPF will ever satisfy all situations the way each one, in its own right, can do that now. For anyone thinking that there will be a Standard, that does all the skintone and all the lowlight in one magical pixie dust OLPF, I'm just not sure that will happen. Sure, we can want it, and I'd certainly want it too, but I'm not even sure it's possible from an engineering standpoint.



Battistella

The new "lowlight" OLPF is looking so good to me already, the "Standard" may just be gravy.

I do a lot of run gun work and slowmo, so for me the lowlight OLPF suites my workflow. But I'm a big fan of options, so loving where these modular OLPFs are going. I think they may open up some very, very interesting creative options over the next couple of years!!

David Battistella
10-04-2014, 03:28 PM
Yup.

its all about extending creativity and extending options, but it's also about speciality situations, which is why underwater and color IR are at the front of the list.

The two offerings at the moment are both going to potentially be be stay in all the time filters as they are. I just finished a whole film with lots of varying situations on STH and I would not hesitate in leaving it in all the time, and there was some lowlight stuff in this film.

Good times.

Battistella

Brian Merlen
10-04-2014, 05:27 PM
i think red working on the low light OLPF is awesome actually.. the highlight one is essentially good as is, no complaints i know of at all (other then the light loss which in my opinion is the nature of that OLPF in design and cannot be avoided or they would of done so). so once the standard is perfected, why wouldn't they also want a low light option without red dots? it makes perfect sense, even more so if they are increasing the low light performance, which is an absolute godsend to low light shooters! let them work all they want, my current high light skin tone OLPF is fine and i can wait.

i would love something that matches the alexa look/film look as far as low con haloing... that would be my go to OLPF personally speaking, even if they made a different version for each current OLPF i wouldn't care.. though if they started coming out with many incremental things WPM or BPM or ND or IR .3 .6, 1.0 etc I could see ACs getting a little upset about not just doing it in an easily malleable matte box lol.. maybe thats what we need? a way to stack OLPF inside like a matte box?

George A.
10-04-2014, 05:44 PM
I would love the Low/Con/Halation option to mimic the look from Alexa/35mm
It would stay in my camera all the time. One less filter in front of the lens is always better.

I think the Standard OLPF for me would be the Low Light OLPF without the red orbs and the red dots.
Even if it loses a bit more light than the current Low Light OLPF. Let's say half a stop (instead of the 1.3 stops we lose with the Skintone OLPF)

This half a stop "loss" would also make it possible to have improved highlight rolloff, compared to the current Lowlight version. Maybe not Skintone OLPF territory, but still noticeably better.

Nick Morrison
10-04-2014, 10:09 PM
I would love the Low/Con/Halation option to mimic the look from Alexa/35mm
It would stay in my camera all the time. One less filter in front of the lens is always better.

I think the Standard OLPF for me would be the Low Light OLPF without the red orbs and the red dots.
Even if it loses a bit more light than the current Low Light OLPF. Let's say half a stop (instead of the 1.3 stops we lose with the Skintone OLPF)

This half a stop "loss" would also make it possible to have improved highlight rolloff, compared to the current Lowlight version. Maybe not Skintone OLPF territory, but still noticeably better.

George, beauty is the "new/revised" Lowlight OLPF seems to have lost most of the orbs, etc...and from Phil's recent tests...looks even more usable and clean. I'm very intrigued by it actually...

David Battistella
10-04-2014, 10:43 PM
I think when we talk about loosing stops it might be more accurate to moving stops as essentially the camera doesn't loose any stops with eith OLPF, the stops are just moved around to favor highlights or the low end.

So changing olpf olpf moves the dr around to favour the highlights or the shadows, but you don't loose actual DR or stops.

Phil, can correct me on this of course.

Battistella

Alan Gordon
10-04-2014, 10:54 PM
Between the two OLPFs you don't lose stops of DR you lose stops of light.

Robert Hart
10-04-2014, 11:25 PM
Just to make life a little harder for the R & D folk mining at task in the clean room.

Years back, I briefly tried illuminating front, also edge of the groundglass disk of a home made AGUS35 35mm adaptor with a TOSLINK optical cable with a thought of extending the "apparent" dynamic range. It showed some interesting potential but also exhibited unacceptable flicker. My kitchen-table and back verander engineering quality was not good.

It would be interesting to have a low-contrast filter in the space behind the lens, maybe incorporated in an OLPF panel with a facility for edge or face illumination as a hack to emulate pre-fogging of film, which was my original notion on the AGUS35. I had intended to try colours between the source and the pick-up at the lit end of the TOSLINK cable but tired of the process pretty quickly when it didn't work properly.

Edge illumination has been sorted with LCD screens so it might be possible in miniature these days without the banding flicker I was getting. As there would be no moving parts involved anymore, this might be worth re-examining by somebody with the engineering smarts and precision skills.

Robert Ruffo New
10-06-2014, 09:09 AM
I want to see a Goldilocks OLPF that has fixed:

- CMOS smearing
- Pink orbs arounds bright sources
- Has at least as good shadow handling as MX

Right now neither OLPF gives me resolution to all 3 issues, I have to choose one or the other (and both seem to have CMOS smearing problems) Much of what we shoot would trigger all three above issues, so I would need to switch the OLPF within the camera move, or change our shooting style (or both) which obviously is not desirable.

I strongly suggest that Red resolve the above in a new OLPF / firmware / recall / whatever is needed - and make a very, very public announcement about it- because regardless of what anybody tries to say here, it's what many in the industry are waiting for before feeling safe shooting Dragon. And unlike some here who shoot mainly on their own, mainly in outdoor daylight, etc., for some of us the concept of safe/guaranteed is more important than getting something amazing looking, but only some of the time, with potential gotchas that add stress to already extremely stressful shooting situations. Give me 100% reliable / no bad surprises first, then give me spectacular.

Meanwhile everyone here trying to downplay these issues only reduce trust in Red. There's nothing worse than having a problem/mistake and not fully admitting to it. Marketing history shows that to be true, again and again.

My father was involved in advocating that Johnson and Johnson fully admit their Tylenol packaging error some decades back. It cost the company a lot of $$$, but a year later, their stock was back, as was consumer confidence in all Johnson and Johnson products. That action turned a potential PR disaster into a PR triumph.

I'm risking getting banned, or my account deleted again for saying this, for sure, but I want to see Red thrive long term, and I really want a Dragon upgrade that I can use. That's my real motive.

So… Now you can all flame me (call me a troll, etc.) and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about….

Kemalettin Sert
10-10-2014, 01:56 PM
George, beauty is the "new/revised" Lowlight OLPF seems to have lost most of the orbs, etc...and from Phil's recent tests...looks even more usable and clean. I'm very intrigued by it actually...

Orbs are CMOS things.They occure even on best DSLRs
http://i.imgur.com/4KjF3zD.jpg

Robert Ruffo New
10-10-2014, 02:58 PM
Orbs are CMOS things.They occure even on best DSLRs
http://i.imgur.com/4KjF3zD.jpg

Indeed Red dot is very easy to avoid and not among Dragon's the real problems. Red dots show up on any CMOS system given the right - and quite rare in practice - circumstances.

Red orbs are another matter, and a serious issue for some styles of shooting. Red orbs I have only seen on Dragon OLPF 01.

Phil's tests seem rather forgiving on the issue, using only a highly dimmed-down light in the frame.

With all due respect to Phil I would need to do my own tests before I draw any conclusions. Unfortunately I could not find any "New OLPF 01" Dragons in Montreal, and when I asked someone to point me to one here or in Toronto so I could do my own tests and publish them on Reduser, I was heavily flamed, even called a troll by a moderator, so I guess we will have only Phil's tests to go on, which, so far, provide insufficient data on how Dragon behaves in the particular situations I personally frequently encounter and would be most relevant to my style of work. (In advertising, they make you do similar things, that you are known for, all the time, so I need to do very specific tests).

So… So far I have no idea about whether the New OLPF 01 has adequately solve the Original OLPF's problems or not.

sergio arguello
10-12-2014, 09:23 AM
You can see in the side by sides I posted that there is a very slight color difference, but it's rather negligible.

For those working on feature productions who are concerned with texture, they should be aware of the 1 to 1.3 stops of textural difference between the two. Shooting at ISO 400 on the STH OLPF looks a lot like ISO 800-1000 on the LLO OLPF and so on/so forth.

This brings up a different but rather significant problem to the working DP who is renting from proffesional rental houses. Recently shot three camera Epic commercial one package being mine and of course i know which Version Olpf i have but they couldn't be 100%
certain what body had what in it. I assured them it could probably be determined by date but seemed too busy that day to entertain me...that said this is a problem as that essentially two different stocks on the same lighting set-up...

David Mullen ASC
10-12-2014, 09:24 AM
It's a pretty bad rental house if they don't know what OLPF they installed on their own cameras...

Phil Holland
10-12-2014, 09:57 AM
This brings up a different but rather significant problem to the working DP who is renting from proffesional rental houses. Recently shot three camera Epic commercial one package being mine and of course i know which Version Olpf i have but they couldn't be 100%
certain what body had what in it. I assured them it could probably be determined by date but seemed too busy that day to entertain me...that said this is a problem as that essentially two different stocks on the same lighting set-up...

What David said.

Also, there's a mark on the base of the camera that can inform you. If that's not easy enough, call them up and have them stop down a lens to T16 and point a flashlight in there. If they see the Red Dot Grid or not you know exactly what's in there.

Evin Grant
10-13-2014, 07:48 AM
I tested pretty much every diffusion, mist, frost and low con filter out there (on Dragon) looking for the most subtle but effective blooming/halation effect and by far the best choice was the Schneider 1/16 HD Classic soft. The Hollywoid Black Magics and HD/regular classic soft filters also display it but much more heavy handed. The 1/16HDCS is nearly invisible unless there is a source in frame and can be used on lenses as wide as 16mm without issue. It also helps with smoothing highlight rolloff and wraparound in backlight shots.

Kemalettin Sert
10-13-2014, 07:50 AM
I tested pretty much every diffusion, mist, frost and low con filter out there (on Dragon) looking for the most subtle but effective blooming/halation effect and by far the best choice was the Schneider 1/16 HD Classic soft. The Hollywoid Black Magics and HD/regular classic soft filters also display it but much more heavy handed. The 1/16HDCS is nearly invisible unless there is a source in frame and can be used on lenses as wide as 16mm without issue. It also helps with smoothing highlight rolloff and wraparound in backlight shots.

any samples you can share?

Gunleik Groven
10-13-2014, 08:39 AM
+1 to classic soft

luigivaltulini
10-13-2014, 08:47 AM
I tested pretty much every diffusion, mist, frost and low con filter out there (on Dragon) looking for the most subtle but effective blooming/halation effect and by far the best choice was the Schneider 1/16 HD Classic soft. The Hollywoid Black Magics and HD/regular classic soft filters also display it but much more heavy handed. The 1/16HDCS is nearly invisible unless there is a source in frame and can be used on lenses as wide as 16mm without issue. It also helps with smoothing highlight rolloff and wraparound in backlight shots. Evin good information, you have some still R3D? I am undecided on what to buy. :)

Martin Stevens
10-13-2014, 08:48 AM
My current favorite is a 1/8 Tiffen Pearlescent filter for halation etc.

sergio arguello
10-13-2014, 09:31 AM
It's a pretty bad rental house if they don't know what OLPF they installed on their own cameras...

Hello David,

Let me try to understand your statement. "they installed"? didn't it get installed at red and these cameras go in and out all the time and some i imagine got V1 and some I imagine got V2 and i imagine at the time it wasnt the issue it is now, correct? So it probably wasnt noted as it needs to be now.
As it stands the Industry out there has little idea this alli is happening OLPF thing at RED I am enlightening people everyday from DP's to Asst's to rental mngrs etc...So as for your statement that its not much of a rental house I beg to differ Its the biggest in the city ( i won't name) but its not their fault
as alot of owners dont have a clue.

sergio arguello
10-13-2014, 10:40 AM
What David said.

Also, there's a mark on the base of the camera that can inform you. If that's not easy enough, call them up and have them stop down a lens to T16 and point a flashlight in there. If they see the Red Dot Grid or not you know exactly what's in there.

thats helpful. Thank you Phil.

Evin Grant
10-13-2014, 06:20 PM
I'll see if I can dig up a sample or shoot an A/B test.