Using ND filters for EFP

[Bob Franco]

I'm wondering if anyone has figured out how they are going to approach EFP style shooting they may be doing now with a Sony/Panasonic camera, with the Red camera. Today I was shooting with my Sony and switching ND settings frequently as well as iris setting using the camera's auto iris to get me in the ballpark and adjusting how I wanted it. I'm used to doing it and it is done very quickly. I'm thinking that with the Red camera and Nikon or Canon lenses, I would probably have a heavy ND filter screwed into each lens and have another filter in the matte box, as needed. Or maybe the other way around would be faster. Due to the wide dynamic range of the camera, maybe I could be a stop or more under or over and still get a very good picture? Anybody have any ideas on how they will address the ND and iris settings in a fast moving shooting scenario?
Bob

[Ken Corben]

"Fast Moving Scenario" is the buzz term. I've been kicking this one around a bit based on Red's 500 ISO rating and the 11 stops of latitude with the "half under" practice from film.

Who's to say really until it is field tested - even then, the operators will have personal choices/opinions. I am thinking screw on ND filters for single operator, fast moving, hand held with out a matte box. Why?

Well if I am using an ND 2 in daylight I'm ISO 125 at 1/48th sec exposure and living in f-stops where critical focus won't kill me as it would below f5.6, no? Also, hand held with a matte box that covers 16:9 is wieldy and I'm used to having a first and second AC to reduce the workload. It may take a few seconds more to screw and unscrew ND's rather than dropping them in but the lighter load for fast moving hand held is the deciding factor.

If I am on sticks for an "event" then the reverse is true and I have the luxury of an assistant and matte box is the way to go.

Of course this is just thinking out loud - Gibby and I are going to test these theories to the max in order to develop a tried and true working system for any given application.

Sharky

[Bob Franco]

Mel,
I guess we'll know when the camera is in the hands of people who will disover the Red production "work flow". Maybe one way to go would be to use series 9 filters with one of the large rubber lens shades... that could be a solution for one man crews. However, if you can adjust the ISO rating maybe it's not as big a problem as I think.
Bob

[tj williams]

Maybe in a run n gun situation it will be easier to just shift the EI on the camera, than change filters. So we'd put up ND for the brightest part of the shoot and increase camera sensitivity by a preset button bump, for the lowest light levels. When you look at the posted images with very high EI set on the camera it's pretty amazing the crispness of the blacks!

[Unwounded]

So, just curius, why did red choose not to go with a filter wheel? Even high end cameras like the viper and F23 have filter wheels. Was it for overall cost savings (so they could make the 17,500 price point like what they did with the CF module)? Was it engineering spatial concerns? Or something else.

[chuck colburn]

So, just curius, why did red choose not to go with a filter wheel? Even high end cameras like the viper and F23 have filter wheels. Was it for overall cost savings (so they could make the 17,500 price point like what they did with the CF module)? Was it engineering spatial concerns? Or something else.

Morning Unwounded,

One reason I can think of why not to use behind the lens filtration is that you always have to have one in place even if it's just a clear one. This is due to the fact that a filter even though it's flat (plano) acts like a positive lens element and will optically increase the flange focale depth (FFD) by appx. one third the thickness of the filter. For non back focus adjustable lenses this can be a problem area as the individual filters would have to be matched for thickness to a very precise degree. A .003" difference results in a FFD shift of .001" which would be unacceptable for a short focale length high speed lens. This is not much of a problem with video lenses with their slower speeds and you could always adjust the back focus anyways. Also there is the possibility of image degradation if the behind the lens filter is not optically perfect in all ways. This includes flatness, parallelism, proper surface coating and surface quality. So I think that the choice to not include a filter wheel is a wise one as who would want to take the chance of degrading a beautiful 4K image.

Chuck

[David Battistella]

So, just curius, why did red choose not to go with a filter wheel? Even high end cameras like the viper and F23 have filter wheels. Was it for overall cost savings (so they could make the 17,500 price point like what they did with the CF module)? Was it engineering spatial concerns? Or something else.

It had to do with the PL mount.

David

[chuck colburn]

It had to do with the PL mount.

David

Hi David,

I'm not so sure about that as the PL FFD is over two inches which leaves plenty of room for a filter wheel. It could be since the front of the camera is so compact and the S35 format is larger than standard video cameras that the filter size that would be required precludes the use of a filter wheel.

Chuck

[David Battistella]

Hi David,

I'm not so sure about that as the PL FFD is over two inches which leaves plenty of room for a filter wheel. It could be since the front of the camera is so compact and the S35 format is larger than standard video cameras that the filter size that would be required precludes the use of a filter wheel.

Chuck

Chuck,

You are correct on this. It would be a very difficult thing to incorporate without altering the entire design of the body.

David

[David Battistella]

"Fast Moving Scenario" is the buzz term. I've been kicking this one around a bit based on Red's 500 ISO rating and the 11 stops of latitude with the "half under" practice from film.

Sharky

I think some of Jim's indy images were exposed at 320ASA (not sure if you can gain this one stop with all production releases.

I think you are right about the run and gun. I still think a matte box could be faster if you had the filters in the holders on your person, sliding those in might be quicker than screwing them in. Also, it means new filters for every lens making the overall kit and what you carry grow.

Some are suggesting at least a three stage matte box because so much filtration will be needed in daylight and some of the ND's are harder to get in larger sizes. If I was a filter maker I would be pretty happy about RED as it definitely makes a Matte Box and ND's mandatory. Most EFP on 2/3 inch camera's relied on grads or pola's because the ND was taken care of with the filter wheel.


David

[David Groundwater]

hi, i've been shooting with pro35 on front of various hd cameras and one of the great things about it is the variable iris on the back of it which allows you to change exposure without changing the lens's iris and so d-o-f is not affected. for stills there is the http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html which goes on the front of the lens. is there no variable nd that would work with red and cine lenses?
david g

[David Battistella]

hi, i've been shooting with pro35 on front of various hd cameras and one of the great things about it is the variable iris on the back of it which allows you to change exposure without changing the lens's iris and so d-o-f is not affected. for stills there is the http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html which goes on the front of the lens. is there no variable nd that would work with red and cine lenses?
david g

Not sure about the quality of that glass. Also, the RED 18-50 is a 105mm thread, so it looks like that one only goes to 82mm.

David

[David Groundwater]

yeah - ideally you want a variable nd that fits into a matte box and works in front of a range of different diameter glass - has anyone heard of such a thing?

[Martin Drew]

yeah - ideally you want a variable nd that fits into a matte box and works in front of a range of different diameter glass - has anyone heard of such a thing?

You can do it with 2 Polas and lots of caveats.

:turned:

[Steve Gibby]

Also, the RED 18-50 is a 105mm thread, so it looks like that one only goes to 82mm.

With RED #8 I received the RED 18-50 zoom and RED 300 prime. The outside thread measurement of the lens hood of the 18-50 is 105mm, but the actual lens barrel inside of that, where you can screw filters on if you choose, is 72mm. If someone wants to buy inexpensive screw-on 72mm filters to get them by for "run n' gun" situations where they don't want to use a matte box (or can't because of space constraints), then 72mm filters are widely available at any photography store.

The 300 prime has a gigantic diameter at the front end of the barrel - I haven't measured it, but I'd guess around 150mm. Fear not through! As I was figuring out possible filter options for the 300, I called Jarred Land and he tipped me off to a great feature of the lens: about 3" above the PL mount, on top of the lens, there is a small receptacle that pulls right out of the lens. It is designed for you to be able to screw filters into it and simply place the receptacle back in. The cool thing is that the thread diameter for that filter receptacle is only 43mm.

Screw-on filters in all sizes and types are easily available online or at your favorite photography store. If you're specifically after ND screw on filters, they're readily and inexpensively available in ratings of .2 all the way up to 3.0. I ordered several screw on ND filters in 72mm for the RED 18-50 and 43mm for the RED 300. I'll still use a matte box and drop in filters when the projects I'm working on call for that, but having a pouch of screw on filters for the lenses keeps the setup streamlined and light for the situations where that is needed.

[jbeale]

With RED #8 I received the RED 18-50 zoom and RED 300 prime. The outside thread measurement of the lens hood of the 18-50 is 105mm, but the actual lens barrel inside of that, where you can screw filters on if you choose, is 72mm.

Thank you for this info! This is the first dimensional data I've seen on the Red lens- I thought it would be on the Red website, but was unable to find it.

[David Battistella]

With RED #8 I received the RED 18-50 zoom and RED 300 prime. The outside thread measurement of the lens hood of the 18-50 is 105mm, but the actual lens barrel inside of that, where you can screw filters on if you choose, is 72mm. If someone wants to buy inexpensive screw-on 72mm filters to get them by for "run n' gun" situations where they don't want to use a matte box (or can't because of space constraints), then 72mm filters are widely available at any photography store.

The 300 prime has a gigantic diameter at the front end of the barrel - I haven't measured it, but I'd guess around 150mm. Fear not through! As I was figuring out possible filter options for the 300, I called Jarred Land and he tipped me off to a great feature of the lens: about 3" above the PL mount, on top of the lens, there is a small receptacle that pulls right out of the lens. It is designed for you to be able to screw filters into it and simply place the receptacle back in. The cool thing is that the thread diameter for that filter receptacle is only 43mm.

Screw-on filters in all sizes and types are easily available online or at your favorite photography store. If you're specifically after ND screw on filters, they're readily and inexpensively available in ratings of .2 all the way up to 3.0. I ordered several screw on ND filters in 72mm for the RED 18-50 and 43mm for the RED 300. I'll still use a matte box and drop in filters when the projects I'm working on call for that, but having a pouch of screw on filters for the lenses keeps the setup streamlined and light for the situations where that is needed.

OK. THis is the kind of hard core info that I can only be completely grateful for!

Thanks Gibby.

David

[Bob Franco]

Gibby,

Thanks for the info. For short set up times screw in filters are probably a fast way to go. I'm thinking about using a two stop screw in filter for outdoors shooting and add one more in a matte box if needed. If you can avoid vignetting, you could probably stack two screw in filters together or use series 9 filters. I've got a bunch of those! Thanks for all the feedback.
Bob Franco

[Michael Brennan]

Sure screw in filters will work.
But an internal filter wheel is fast and easy and works with ultrawide without fringing on the edges and makes using lenses of different front element dimensions a breeze without a mattbox. (although I think weight of a clip on mattbox isn't an issue and is faster than screw on.)

Internal filters reduces troublesome reflections when using an effects/soft filter and a ND.

In the case of Red it need not be a wheel (which would require a bulge in the body) but an internal vertical rail arrangement behind the mount which would be good for one clear and one ND.
Being able to swap these around via a tray/door would be handy

Could also imagine a ND with graduated extension that could do double duty or simply it could be one piece of glass (4x2 aspect) that is clear one end ND the other with grad in the middle.

RED has opportunities to be innovative in this area in a way that film cameras and 3 chip cameras cannot.




Mike Brennan

[David Groundwater]

Sure screw in filters will work.
But an internal filter wheel is fast and easy and works with ultrawide without fringing on the edges and makes using lenses of different front element dimensions a breeze without a mattbox. (although I think weight of a clip on mattbox isn't an issue and is faster than screw on.)

Internal filters reduces troublesome reflections when using an effects/soft filter and a ND.

In the case of Red it need not be a wheel (which would require a bulge in the body) but an internal vertical rail arrangement behind the mount which would be good for one clear and one ND.
Being able to swap these around via a tray/door would be handy

Could also imagine a ND with graduated extension that could do double duty or simply it could be one piece of glass (4x2 aspect) that is clear one end ND the other with grad in the middle.

RED has opportunities to be innovative in this area in a way that film cameras and 3 chip cameras cannot.




Mike Brennan


i'm with mike on this - dropping in or screwing on filters is a pain in the ass when you're covering actuality and moving indoors / outdoors, full sun / shade etc. there's just got to be some way to achieve really quick variable nd. or else be able to manually dial the iso rating of the camera without having to go into menus or whatever. cheers, david

[John Bishop]

With RED #8 I received the RED 18-50 zoom and RED 300 prime. The outside thread measurement of the lens hood of the 18-50 is 105mm, but the actual lens barrel inside of that, where you can screw filters on if you choose, is 72mm. If someone wants to buy inexpensive screw-on 72mm filters to get them by for "run n' gun" situations where they don't want to use a matte box (or can't because of space constraints), then 72mm filters are widely available at any photography store.

The 300 prime has a gigantic diameter at the front end of the barrel - I haven't measured it, but I'd guess around 150mm. Fear not through! As I was figuring out possible filter options for the 300, I called Jarred Land and he tipped me off to a great feature of the lens: about 3" above the PL mount, on top of the lens, there is a small receptacle that pulls right out of the lens. It is designed for you to be able to screw filters into it and simply place the receptacle back in. The cool thing is that the thread diameter for that filter receptacle is only 43mm.

Screw-on filters in all sizes and types are easily available online or at your favorite photography store. If you're specifically after ND screw on filters, they're readily and inexpensively available in ratings of .2 all the way up to 3.0. I ordered several screw on ND filters in 72mm for the RED 18-50 and 43mm for the RED 300. I'll still use a matte box and drop in filters when the projects I'm working on call for that, but having a pouch of screw on filters for the lenses keeps the setup streamlined and light for the situations where that is needed.
Thanks for the info Steve! I didn't know about the small compartment on the 300. Have you used screw-ons with the red primes? I heard that the filter size is 105mm. I wish there was a thread further in for a 72mm like the 18-50.

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks for the info Steve! I didn't know about the small compartment on the 300. Have you used screw-ons with the red primes? I heard that the filter size is 105mm. I wish there was a thread further in for a 72mm like the 18-50.

This is an old thread (2007), but I'm happy the info was of use to you. Almost all of the work I do with Red cameras is mobile hybrid EFP (along with DSLR still photography) in the genres of adventure travel, alternative sports, wildlife, music, cultures, tourism, nature, and documentaries of various kinds. For that work, lightweight 35mm still zooms are far and away the most practical lens choice - thus I rarely use prime lenses - and the primes I do occasionally use are 35mm still lenses, not PL lenses.

The work that us mobile hybrid EFP people do requires a high degree of mobility. The more heavy and bulky a camera rig is, the more mobility is restricted - and when mobility is restricted, the types of shots we can get is also then restricted. We work hard to get the highly creative, hard to get mobile shots that we simply couldn't get with bigger heavier rigs, larger crews, and an AC focusing workflow. So mobile hybrid EFP shooters like me opt for the much lighter weight and less bulk of 35mm still lenses on Red One and Epic. We also routinely accessorize our Red cameras in a "bare bones" configuration - no matte box (we use screw on filters), and no follow focus (we eye focus by operator, no AC).

The Red 18-50 and Red 300 I originally posted about are good lenses and I shot some excellent images with them. But in late 2007, due to the constant mobility needs of my work, I transitioned over to using all 35mm still lenses on my Red One cameras - mostly Nikon, but also some Canon with PL mount conversions. With Epic I'll be using 35mm still lenses exclusively - Canon and Nikon (when mount is ready). When the new Red Electronic zooms and mount are ready I expect them to be great lenses - closely matched with the camera, strong motors, etc - so I'll get those and probably use them mostly, then use my Canon and Nikon lenses when it makes sense to do so.

Though I learned still photography and cine style cinematography early in my career, I found my passion was for mobile EFP work, and I added back in still photography with the advent of DSLR cameras. I don't own a matte box or follow focus - and never have. Screw-on filters are where its at for the mobile hybrid EFP work I do - and since the mobile hybrid EFP industry is giant, I expect a large portion of Epic and Scarlet users to opt for similar setups - lightweight camera setups using 35mm still lenses and screw on filters.

The fixed lens Scarlet features an internal ND filter wheel. That combined with its small size, and a lot of EFP-friendly features, has me convinced it will be a superb mobile EFP camera. I'll post more about that, and the mobile hybrid EFP 35m still lens use of Epic, in this same forum sometime in the relatively near future.

There is a huge image shooting industry out here using Red cameras beyond the cine style/PL lens crowd - namely non-hardlined EFP, hardlined EFP, hybrid, and still photography. The combined hybrid EFP and stills styles of shooting represents a large majority of the Red camera shooting customer base. With these new DSMC (digital stills and motion) cameras from Red, the combined hybrid/EFP/stills industry is the big elephant in the room in terms of number of productions each year, number of people represented, and amount of equipment bought.

Hope this added insight helps you John. A big thanks to Red for creating these new DSMC cameras - its a great time to be working in the combined hybrid, EFP, and stills industry!

[David Rasberry]

Unlike most cameras though, changing ISO settings on a Red does not alter how the sensor is exposed or recorded, it only alters meta data. Iris, shutter speed, and filtration are the only things that directly affect the raw image that is recorded. Changing ISO settings on camera just shifts your monitoring value range. Slipping different values of ND filters into a lightweight clip on matte box would seem to be the handiest solution for run and gun with compact zooms. Leave the camera at its best ISO rating for correct exposure and maximum DR. Control light hitting the sensor instead.

[Meryem Ersoz]

I use screw-on filters as often as possible, mostly with the 18-50mm RED lens (72 mm) and the 11-16 Duclos/Tokina (77mm). As soon as that Canon mount is in wide release, it will change everything about shooting in fast, mobile environments with little weight.

But I have to give a shout-out to RED for their excellent new mattebox. It attaches fast and weights nothing. I've mostly hated matteboxes for their price/value ratio, but this is the only mattebox I've ever truly loved. It is the only one that I can really imagine using in fast environments. I think RED designed it that way. It has changed my mind about using a mattebox for nature and outdoors shooting.

[Steve Gibby]

Unlike most cameras though, changing ISO settings on a Red does not alter how the sensor is exposed or recorded, it only alters meta data. Iris, shutter speed, and filtration are the only things that directly affect the raw image that is recorded. Changing ISO settings on camera just shifts your monitoring value range. Slipping different values of ND filters into a lightweight clip on matte box would seem to be the handiest solution for run and gun with compact zooms. Leave the camera at its best ISO rating for correct exposure and maximum DR. Control light hitting the sensor instead.

I'm thinking your ISO setting comments were for someone else earlier in this thread - as you'd guess, I've had a real good handle on that ISO info since long before Red's emergence. Remember, this thread dates clear back to 2007 when others were just getting their feet wet on how to use a Red One in the field, and the challenges of mobile field EFP production with a Red One.

Matte boxes
Me, my crews, and scores of other mobile hybrid EFP shooters with Red cameras found early on that the lightest, least bulky, and least expensive way of filtering 35mm still lenses in our work is screw on filters - no matte boxes of any sort, even lightweight clip on matte boxes. Even a clip on matte box increases the bulk and weight of the camera, changes the center of gravity of the rig, greatly diminishes your ability to do "under the radar" shooting ("pro looking" equals more security problems in many locations), hinders your ability to move quickly through cramped spaces, and is a much more expensive setup than screw ons. A small waist pouch of ND filters in the sizes needed for the days shooting is tiny, keeps the lens light, is way less expensive of a setup, enhances mobility of the rig, keeps you in "guerrilla" mode, and with a little practice the screw ons can be changed out just about as fast as drop ins in a matte box.

Mobile hybrid EFP rigs are all about functionality - form follows function. Any bulk/weight that can be kept off the camera is kept off. The more stationary production of some other styles of shooting enables bigger lenses, bigger accessories, and bigger crews - but mobile EFP is all about getting good creative images in a fast moving environment, with the lightest, most mobile camera setup possible. Matte boxes simply don't fit into that scenario. Beyond that, tons of mobile hybrid EFP shooters with Epic and Scarlet are now or will be using these DSMC for stills shooting as the need arises - after all that's one of the functions of these cameras. Beyond my decades of cinematography and videography work, I've been shooting 35mm stills since 1969 - and I've yet to use a matte box on a stills camera. Stills shooters have always routinely used screw-on filters on their lenses - even in fast moving mobile shooting scenarios. So the transition for them to use screw on filters for shooting both motion footage and stills with a 35mm stills equipped Red DSMC camera is quite natural.

Check out my avatar and you'll see that even with Epic I still follow what I just described. That's me and Ketch's Epic M 0008 in the pic, which was shot in early February. I'm using Ketch's Red 17-50, Bomb EVF, and the rig is totally kept down to functionality - and no matte box - low evening light and no ND was needed.

The above said, the Red Matte Box is indeed priced well, light, and strong. For cine style shooters, I.E. those who don't shoot mobile hybrid EFP, I think it would be a very good kit item. But for mobile hybrid EFP production, and for that matter any kind of production that requires a high degree of mobility, I recommend screw on filters for the many reasons I listed above. Some more stationary EFP productions with Red One and Epic cameras may choose to use a matte box - but not for mobile productions. But with the fixed lens Scarlet I see no need for a matte box no matter whether the production is mobile or stationary - because the camera has internal ND's. If I need a polarizer or grad with fixed lens Scarlet I'll simply use a screw on.

For shooting mobile, hybrid EFP and stills with Epic and Scarlet I really see no reason to incorporate heavy/bulky/expensive cine style filtration equipment like matte boxes - much less follow focus units. I could care less about having my camera rigs be perceived as being accessorized like those of a "real cinematographer". After all these years working in the industry I'm just after functionality, mobility, economy, and getting the real good images the networks I produce and shoot for expect. As the mantra goes - Horses for courses.

I've rambled on a bit here Dave - but this is an EFP forum and I've aimed this post at those interested in some input on how to best setup Red cameras for mobile hybrid EFP work.

[Adam C Lubkin]

Steve, do you step up your lenses to a common filter size or just carry a variety of filter sizes?

[Steve Gibby]

Steve, do you step up your lenses to a common filter size or just carry a variety of filter sizes?

I do have some step up and step down rings if I need them. But a lot of my 35mm still lenses use the same filter sizes - 77mm and 82mm being the most common. I also have a few that use 72mm. My long lenses that use the small drop in filter tray just in front of the mount, use 39mm or 43mm filters. Since my work almost always calls for 35mm still zooms, and most of the ones I take a lot use the same filter size, before I head out to shoot I just analyze what lenses I'm going to use, which filters I'll need, and then pack those filters into a very small, quick draw filter pouch that stays on my belt while I'm shooting. That way on location I can completely select and change out screw on filters on a lens in about 30 seconds of time.

The filter pouch I use will hold five filters, or four filters and a step up/down ring. The filter selection is usually three levels of ND and a Polarizer, although sometimes a grad filter is in there too.

[Tom Greenberg]

Steve, what do you think about using variable ND filters? They seem like they would be a great way to save weight, changeover time, and complexity.

[Steve Gibby]

Definitely Tom. I've used variable ND filters in some of my DSLR still photography, but since I already had travel pouches for Red containing three separate ND and a Pola, though I intended to, I never got around to trying a variable ND on Red One or Epic. Singh-Ray Vari-ND filters are good, and I'm sure some other companies make good ones too. Variable ND filters are pricey for a screw on filter, but then again it could save you from buying multiple strengths of single ND filters. Then for mobile natural light shooting a tiny waist pouch containing the variable ND and a Polarizer could do the trick.

I don't use matte boxes on Red One or Epic, so if the variable ND filter is threaded on the front I'd use it with a simple screw in lens hood, then in operation simply and quickly twist the shade to change ND levels. I've already been using that type of setup and operation with circular polarizers on some of the 35mm still lenses I use on Red cameras. If the variable ND isn't threaded on the front I'd simply use a clamp on lens hood, clamp it onto the outer ring of the variable ND (or pola), and simply twist the hood to adjust levels.

Link for Singh-Ray Vari-ND info:
http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html

[Tom Greenberg]

Thanks, Steve! Great info as always. We do use matte boxes when teaching cine-style shooting, but students are also doing run-n-gun doc and reality shoots. I will check out the Singh-Ray vari ND. Seems like it would a great thing for student use (less pieces to break or lose), and still give them the benefits of a full set of screw-on ND filters.

[Enrique Blein]

i'm with mike on this - dropping in or screwing on filters is a pain in the ass when you're covering actuality and moving indoors / outdoors, full sun / shade etc. there's just got to be some way to achieve really quick variable nd. or else be able to manually dial the iso rating of the camera without having to go into menus or whatever. cheers, david

I use variable NDs but the are not "clear" at any point, so you end up having to unscrew them for critical indoor situations: they are not the ultimate solution.

[Steve Gibby]

I use variable NDs but the are not "clear" at any point, so you end up having to unscrew them for critical indoor situations: they are not the ultimate solution.

True, variable ND filters aren't clear at any point. There really is no "ultimate solution" to filtering, whether you use a matte box with drop ins, or screw in filters with a lens hood. There are naturally tradeoffs involved. For highly mobile outdoor shooting with 35mm still lenses, a variable ND is a good solution, as is a set of regular screw in filters. If you're going alternately indoors and out in mobile work, then a set of screw in filters does fine - many here have been working that way with Red for years now.

Horses for courses...

[Ryan Lalonde]

Hey Steve, do you run into a lot of IR problems with the cheap screw on NDs?

[Steve Gibby]

Nope...and I don't use "cheap" screw on filters. I use good ones...

[Joe Pontecorvo]

For now I am using a combination of Matte box with 4x5.6 ND filters for shorter lenses, and series 9 filters for long lenses.
But I was just wondering...
Do you think some type of electronic ND could be created, something that could be built into a future firmware update?

[James McLellan]

There is some speculation on reduser that a future camera brain could include a few built in nd filters. That would rock IMHO.

[Trevor Meier]

Steve (and anyone else who wants to chime in), any preference for your brand of screw-ons?

I like Hoya for the glass & coatings, but dislike their aluminum rings (makes them hard to attach/remove). B+W is nice but their selection is limited at 77m (my preferred size).

[Steve Gibby]

Trevor:
Most of my screw-on filters for my Red cameras and my DSLR cameras are Hoya - their top of the line multi-coated versions. I've had very good results with them. That said I've owned and used multiple B+H, Tiffen, Formatt, and Singh-Ray filters too. They cost much more than the Hoya filters, but they're generally better built. To me Hoya offers the best performance to price ratio in screw-on filters.

James:
I love cameras with built-in ND filters - a feature regularly found in mid-sized and full sized EFP camera systems, but usually not found in digital cinema cameras. I believe some DC cameras have began to feature, or are planning to feature built-in ND filters. Sure, built in ND isn't a traditional feature on DC cameras - but then again DC cameras borrow significant parts of their technology from EFP cameras , so why not internal ND? Flange depth needs of some lenses would be an answer for that - to a certain extent. Cine traditionalists aren't demanding internal ND in their DC cameras, but those who arrived at the DC camera usage from the EFP industry, and are using their new DC cameras in a mobile/hybrid/EFP style of shooting, could seriously put internal ND to great use. BTW - beyond its multiple other EFP-friendly features, the 2/3" Fixed Scarlet was scheduled to have internal ND filters - something I felt very good about. As you might guess, all along I've been a proponent of considering placement of internal ND on Red cameras.

[James McLellan]

My background is mixed. Currently I always shoot with a matte box but I could see the advantage of built in ND's. I think when our Epic arrives I will be moving to still glass and thread on nd's. Undecided though. Might just stick with a matte box if I have too many different thread sizes. I guess the flange focal distance is an issue though. As I understand it the leica M mount has a very short flange distance so things like that might make it an unworkable concept.