Which IR filter?

[Pasha Patriki]

Tiffen's whitepaper says that their IRND's should only be stacked with Hot Mirror ND's and not the regular ND's.
That makes very little sense to me. In my understanding, a regular ND shgould be able to stack behind either a HT or an IRND.

[Jack Shanahan]

Tiffen's whitepaper says that their IRND's should only be stacked with Hot Mirror ND's and not the regular ND's.
That makes very little sense to me. In my understanding, a regular ND shgould be able to stack behind either a HT or an IRND.

yes i am finding it impossible to make a decision on what to get. its kind of an expensive game to trial and error...

i did a 3 day spot where DP used 3 stage MB with tiffen hot mirror and regular tiffen NDs behind it. seemed to work well...

my problem is I have the obox with only 2 stages and cant seem to get a straight answer on how to get effective ND without possible ghosting,IR pollution or not enough ND variations.


I am thinking buy an IRND -- perhaps a .6 -- and add regular NDs behind it. Maybe also get a IRND screw on filter in case I need a polarizer or something else?

[Will Keir]

You don't need IR with your ND until .9 up.

[Max M.]

We very recently did a pretty extensive test comparing Shcneider Platinum vs. Schneider "Tru-Cut IR" vs. Tiffen IRND vs. Tiffen T1 vs. Rosco IR.
We tested every combination we could get our hands on from the local rental houses in Toronto.
I would like at this point to thank PS Productions Services Toronto and Image Gear Inc for providing the filters and facilities for testing.

I will make a nice table in the coming days and will post the results here.
The test was done using Epic-X camera and Red Pro Primes.

can we already see they results somewhere?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

You don't need IR with your ND until .9 up.

Not entirely true, it depends on your shooting environment. It's recommended that you have IR protection with strong ND's -- usually anything in the realm of 1.2 / 4 stops and stronger. I would also recommend having a hot-mirror filter that can be used alone, or combined with other ND / filtration. There are times when IR anomalies can show up when not expected, even when not using ND's. Some types of synthetic fabrics will reflect more IR than visible light -- here's a thread where this is happening.

While the MX sensor handles IR contamination better than original M, it's OLPF still doesn't seem to block as much IR as what we've seen on some DSLR cameras. OTOH, DSLR's have a lot of internal correction and compensation, even in their so-called "RAW" modes, so it's difficult to ascertain what is preserved by their own IR filtration vs. internal color re-sampling and correction/compensation. With RED, it's just RAW, so we have to be prepared to deal with more contingencies or compromises in exchange for other additional abilities or choices in post.

Look at this discussion from past few days where we see an example of high IR reflectance from a tungsten source. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...ndering-Issues

IMO, they're setting themselves up for failure with their lighting setup, before even taking IR into account. The OP and one or two others seem to disagree with my assessment, so I guess I've said what I had to say and I"m done...


For use with MX sensor, my ideal ND and IR kit is this:

IR Hot-Mirror, ND .3, ND .6, ND .9, ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.5, IR+ND 1.8

You may also want an IR+ND .9, but I haven't found it necessary. If I need IR protection at .9 and under, which is rare, I can combine the lower ND's with the hot-mirror. I can also get to ND 2.1 without IR via 2 filters, or to 3.0 with IR protection with 2 filters.

I think I've decided that the Formatt IR+ND's work the best. The Tiffen and Pancro are a bit more color neutral, but Tiffen don't block as much IR and Pancro uses a surface coating that easily scratches/wears off.

[Bob Gundu]

Thanks for your insight Jeff. Just to clarify your kit. When you state "IR+ND 1.2" is that an IRND 1.2, or a combo of the hot mirror and regular 1.2 ND?

IR Hot-Mirror, ND .3, ND .6, ND .9, ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.5, IR+ND 1.8

Not entirely true, it depends on your shooting environment. It's recommended that you have IR protection with strong ND's -- usually anything in the realm of 1.2 / 4 stops and stronger. I would also recommend having a hot-mirror filter that can be used alone, or combined with other ND / filtration. There are times when IR anomalies can show up when not expected, even when not using ND's. Some types of synthetic fabrics will reflect more IR than visible light -- here's a thread where this is happening.

While the MX sensor handles IR contamination better than original M, it's OLPF still doesn't seem to block as much IR as what we've seen on some DSLR cameras. OTOH, DSLR's have a lot of internal correction and compensation, even in their so-called "RAW" modes, so it's difficult to ascertain what is preserved by their own IR filtration vs. internal color re-sampling and correction/compensation. With RED, it's just RAW, so we have to be prepared to deal with more contingencies or compromises in exchange for other additional abilities or choices in post.

Look at this discussion from past few days where we see an example of high IR reflectance from a tungsten source. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...ndering-Issues

IMO, they're setting themselves up for failure with their lighting setup, before even taking IR into account. The OP and one or two others seem to disagree with my assessment, so I guess I've said what I had to say and I"m done...


For use with MX sensor, my ideal ND and IR kit is this:

IR Hot-Mirror, ND .3, ND .6, ND .9, ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.2, IR+ND 1.5, IR+ND 1.8

You may also want an IR+ND .9, but I haven't found it necessary. If I need IR protection at .9 and under, which is rare, I can combine the lower ND's with the hot-mirror. I can also get to ND 2.1 without IR via 2 filters, or to 3.0 with IR protection with 2 filters.

I think I've decided that the Formatt IR+ND's work the best. The Tiffen and Pancro are a bit more color neutral, but Tiffen don't block as much IR and Pancro uses a surface coating that easily scratches/wears off.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Bob, I mean "IRND" or as in IR cut and ND filter in one. Some manufacturers label them as IRND, some as IR+ND and I guess I just got into a habit of typing it that way.

[Bob Gundu]

Bob, I mean "IRND" or as in IR cut and ND filter in one. Some manufacturers label them as IRND, some as IR+ND and I guess I just got into a habit of typing it that way.

Ok. Makes sense. About the stacking practise, you are only using the Hot Mirror in front of the regular ND's, and not the IRND?

Thanks,

Bob

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Ok. Makes sense. About the stacking practise, you are only using the Hot Mirror in front of the regular ND's, and not the IRND?

Thanks,

Bob

Correct, the IRND filters are hot-mirrors themselves, you don't want to stack multiple IRND [hot mirror] filters, as they are reflective. I firmly believe that the less you can put in front of your lens, the better. I almost never use more than two filters.

[Nate Clapp]

I have been using true cut 750 ir filter with my epic- I generally haven't seen clearly identifiable ir pollution but occasionally I feel foliage isn't being truly represented, with or without the true cut filter. Anyone have done a side by side of a truecut and any of these ir combo filters? I don't want to have to buy even more filters but curious if te true cut isn't cutting it, as it were. I know it came out to address RED One rather than Epic, but it is the same sensor if not same oplf....