Krzysztof Wlodarczyk

I noticed it while testing filters for tv series I've just started. I was having two matched cameras connected to the same HD-CRT monitor pointed at the same subject in exterior. I was testing filters by putting them on one camera, and switching channels on monitor to see the difference. The one with ultracon had less contrast and a was a little more green - probably because of flare from bright areas in the frame. There was no direct light hitting the lens. I worte earlier that it's not a big problem as I can fix it on a paintbox. So "The greenish image" is not the issue here, it's fixed without any problem in the camera and these filters seem to work very well with digital. We decided to use them on this production along with SoftFX set - it gave us less contrast and softer look. Only thing that we have to be aware using two filters most of the time is the double reflected image. But usually shifting mattebox does the job.

I shot one commercial lately on fraziers with 900R+pro35 - on the panavision set. It might be a great lens with a film camera, but is a real pain in the ass on HD in a studio and tungsten light... it works properly from T.11, and if you are using pro35 you loose another 2 stops. Now imagine lighting for that in a studio with tungsten light... In the set you have different lens Canon and Nikkon - on HD you could notice that you need to adjust detial to match the sharpness of different lens. If you want to use that setup you need a day of preparations to adjust all the lens (digitally in the camera). And the last thing about using this with pro35 - even if you set the speed on pro35 to 8 you could still feel the groundglass rotating - probably because the lens were closed to T.11 and the adapters prefer wide open lens in front. But on the other hand the lens made their job - we needed them for extreme depth of field. Great lens but I wouldn't recomend them for HD. Havn't tested on RED yet. Chris PS. Tomek chyba sie poznalismy przy okazji "Na kredyt" rok temu;) Obroniles juz prace? Pozdr

I used DigiCons and was really happy about the result, they seem to look like Tiffen Ultra Cons - probably different name for simmillar patent. If you want to reduce contrast use either of these. IMO have them always in your HD set for some extreme sittuations (high contrast scenes). When I tested the UC lately I had to color correct the image on set - as it was making the image a little greenish. I know many people here leave everything for post - but remember that (pre)grading in the camera lets you work with the image before it gets the compression of the format it's recorded on (tape/disc etc.) Low contrasts make the highlights glow - so use them if this is the desired look.

I was once preparing for a special shot for a feature with swing&shifts. We tested arri and clairmont and decided to take arri. But when we were about to leave panavision the technical manager there told us that we could also try some "toy" Janusz Kaminski brought to PV Poland (at least that's what we were told). We tried this out.. and decided that it was just enough for the couple of shots we had to do. Kaminski's name always works good for polish cinematographers;) ...and setting the apperture on lensbaby is so much fun! We tested the PL version, v3 i suppose as we were able to lock the position easily. Though I would rather reccomend buying it rather than renting. It's cheaper way;) Chris

Hi Phil, I also did some test with these filters and was really pleased with the results. I tested UC 1 & 2 on F900R and they were enough for me for exteriors with sky and shade in the frame. I also did a test with a backlight (but not hitting the filter) and it looked OK. I wouldn't say they give me couple of stops but rather 1/3 or maybe 1 (in blacks) but anyway ANYTHING counts in HD in the meaning of contrast;) I am starting a TV series tommorow and I will be trying these out in exteriors. Maybe I will post something more after some experience with them in the field. I haven't noticed much glow (in highlights) - as I did on Low Contrasts. The diffusion is not a problem for me, as most of the DPs want to diffuse digital. Another filters I was really pleased were Schneider DigiCons - got them from a rental in UK. Really good filters for reducing contrast on HD. When I have the possibility I take them (but almost no rentals have them in stock unfortunatelly). On all the setups I am using paintbox of course to tweak the desired effect;) Chris

I would use neither of these two. I remember RedRock from past few years and it was always nightmare for focus pullers. Maybe it gives you less depth of field, but setting it up is never precise. Forget the lens angle - zooming on the camera will never let you get the proper lens angle (backfocusing). The same problem I had with letus (extreme I think) - the lens were alays longer than thay should - because of focusing and adjusting zoom on the adapter. Two weeks ago I had a small project shot on 2 EX1s, and we were supposed to shoot with letus. We threw away letus after couple of scenes and finished on naked ex1;) . We used ex+letus+nikkon lens first - we wanted to have longer lens than normal EX1 zoom - the effect was a surprise - ex+letus+300mm was almost the same lenght as longest lens on ex zoom! The other combination was ex+letus+pl zeiss planar T2.1 set. when we set the whole configuration (mattebox, follow focus on 15mm), backfocused on the groundglass we ended up with twice as long lens as we wanted (angle). 16mm looked more like 32 - zoom on the camera was almost maximum (95%). This configuration lasted only one setup. It seemed also that it looses more than 1/2 stop. I don't have to mention that distances marked on the lens were far from true;) After all of that I was preparing for another short project on ex3. We decided to try pro35 for 2/3" mount as we didn't have the one designed for 1/2" mount. We compaired EX3+pro35+RED zoom 18-50 (the only 35mm lens left in rental that day ;)) vs. EX3+2/3 to 1/2mount+ HD Cinestyle Fujinon 5-50 lens vs. EX3 with basic lens...guess which configuration looked best ... I am working a lot with 35mm adapters (pro35) on 2/3 cameras (F23, 900R, XDCam HDs, Panasonic AJ-HPX2000) and I am always satisfied with the result. It was never the case with consumer/prosumer small camcorders. If I had to choose any of the adapters I would trust P+S Technik only, and take the adapter dedicated to apropriate type of camera: Pro35 for 2/3", Pro35 (1/2") for 1/2", and Mini35 for small camcorders with integrated lenses. The money spent on that always gives you back the time you would loose working on worse adapters. And time is money;) Take care Chris

Hi Steve, Absolutely the best is the good old Astro 3014 Monitor or any newer version of that. Forget all the Panasonic, Marshall and Transvideo. Astro has the best resolution (HD-SDI in) and color reproduction, and the 3014 has the best scopes. The panasonic ones look so amateur comparing to these. I work as DIT and often as 1stAC and i wouldn't buy any other than astro - the best one you can rely on in both jobs. For 1st ACs - good resolution, peaking, and excelent image magnification (1x,2x,4x), for DITs - good color reproduction and scopes. You can power it from any camera or V-Lock, Anton Bauer Bateries. But if you think of something different than the monitor to ease your pain look for cinetape or laser measure;) Never use Panasonic monitors with Sony cameras - they don't have the same gammas. I did a few tests with Panasonic monitors straight from the factory and was never satisfied. Probably they match with Varicams and the rest of Panasonic products. Good luck Chris