IR Problem Costs Thousands

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you put the filter on the lens you need to re-white balance otherwise the green cast is more pronounced. In the clip it isnt white balanced so it looks worse than it is, I doubt you'd need to do any post correction once you have white balanced properly and if you did it would be a simple eye dropper type white restore function.
 
Thoughts

Thoughts

The filter fixes the problem but there are noticeable side effects. My client is going through with a Class Action Lawsuit anyone interested Private message me.
thanks.
AB
 
asafb said:
The filter fixes the problem but there are noticeable side effects. My client is going through with a Class Action Lawsuit anyone interested Private message me.
thanks.
AB
Click to expand...

In all sincerity,

Good Luck......... Hope you have allot of money....... And don't bring a Pea Shooter to a Grenade fight.

frisco
 
A class-action suit for something like this could have an undesirable chilling effect on further product development.

There might be a short-term gain. But in the long run -- and in this weak economic climate -- we all might end up having to kiss aggressive product development goodbye.
 
to reiterate: the first posting talks about 50 extra hours of work to colour correct the footage right?

a class action suit for this sort of claim is not going to work.:Drogar-Love(DBG):

any lawyer who tells you the opposite, is a shark.

LawOffice.jpg
 
DCSensui said:
A class-action suit for something like this could have an undesirable chilling effect on further product development.

There might be a short-term gain. But in the long run -- and in this weak economic climate -- we all might end up having to kiss aggressive product development goodbye.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, with all the problems Sony has had with products like batteries of the last few years this would be a small problem. All they need to do it replace the ND filters with ones with proper IR filtering. Sure it might cost them profits, just as fixing the battery drain issue does, but it would fix the issue much cheaper than replacing who cameras etc

I've still got an investigation on though with a service centre on incorrect blacks (caused by this issue), I have no reason not to continue to pressure them for a fix as the camera is clearly not capturing colours properly.
 
If the plaintiff wins and punitive damages are awarded, it'll cost Sony way more than just replacing filters. Punitive damages in a civil suit can be several times actual damages.

It will affect the price of products as well. Litigation drove the price of civil aviation way up. About 1/3 the price of a Lycoming engine is just to cover legal costs. Beechcraft and Cessna had to stop production until congress passed a bill limiting liability to aircraft less than 10 years old (many aircraft can be up to 20 years old or more).

I'm not saying that Sony or any other camera company should be reckless. But I am saying that in things like this battles need to be fought with due care. And if the plaintiffs get too demanding (compensating for loss of revenue, reputation, etc) then it will certainly cost Sony more than just fixing customers' cameras. And Sony will probably have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees as well.

If Sony is proactive and sense big trouble brewing they might develop a solution and send out a notice to replace the existing IR filters before a complaint is filed in court.

And then there's a possible defense: If the consumer doesn't like the product, don't buy it. Caveat emptor. The defect doesn't subject persons or property to possible illness or injury. As I would often tell myself when I find myself in a mess, no one lost a limb and nobody died. So how bad it it? It puts things in perspective.

Since the problem becomes apparent upon use under conditions encountered by most cameramen, the question may arise: Is a user's failure to discover a flaw which then affects the quality of work actionable in court? If so, that opens the door to a lot more pieces of equipment and supplies that are less than perfect in performance. That includes hard drives, tapes, lenses, tripods, bags, microphones. The list is endless.
 
Your kidding right?........ Sony legal will delay it and stretch it out to see how much endurance and resources you have. Come up with users that are happy with the product and service. Makes motions like there looking into it........ Fast forward 24 months..... New models have been coming out.... EX1/3 are discontinued models...... Cost you a million dollars to get slow played and you get Air......

frisco
 
Last edited:
asafb said:
The filter fixes the problem but there are noticeable side effects. My client is going through with a Class Action Lawsuit anyone interested Private message me.
thanks.
AB
Click to expand...


All legal filings are now posted on-line by the state they are filed in. Can you please post a link to your filing.
 
Once bitten twice shy though, this type of problem will be one to watch out for in future models before purchasing. Sony dropped the ball with this particular design decision and I know at least I will be testing any new model camera I buy from Sony for IR contamination and it may well be an influencing factor which stops me buying something I probably can't afford at the time....

Seriously though, this shouldn't be rocket science to Sony, even my little Sony HC7 doesn't seem to have this problem.
 
Problem Exists in Other Cameras

Problem Exists in Other Cameras

I was also informed by Sony that their $150K F23 camera also has this issue. The Panasonic Tape-based Varicam also has this issue. I am lucky my client doesn't demand a $20,000 refund from me as the videographer. I got very lucky.
 
GuyB said:
Seriously though, this shouldn't be rocket science to Sony, even my little Sony HC7 doesn't seem to have this problem.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how a corporation that spends that much in product development would let something like this get through. With all the tech data that is collected on image sensors in the design and development stages, I can't see a camera designer not realizing there are certain peculiarities to their response characteristics.

One possibility, considering that a lot of other cameras exhibit similar symptoms, is that the right type of filter didn't yet exist when the cameras were released to the consumer. Perhaps the nearest fit was used since it solved most of the problem.

Even the filter manufacturers don't yet have the perfect filter to resolve the problem. And whatever they eventually come up with will be used in addition to what Sony has already installed in the camera.

So there may not be any easy answers soon, either in the lab or in the courtroom.
 
It might be an HD thing.

I recently purchased an EX-1 with the 486 filter. Pointed the camera at some black cases under tungsten light and held the filter in front of the camera. The camera cases were reddish without the filter and black as I put the filter in front of the lens.

This I expected from reading about the issue.

What I did not expect was the same thing happened when I pointed my HPX-500 at the cases!

So this is not limited to Sony or CMOS...

So I will be buying another 486 filter for my HPX-500.
 
Bassman2003 said:
It might be an HD thing.

I recently purchased an EX-1 with the 486 filter. Pointed the camera at some black cases under tungsten light and held the filter in front of the camera. The camera cases were reddish without the filter and black as I put the filter in front of the lens.

So I will be buying another 486 filter for my HPX-500.
Click to expand...

How much is the 486 filter? Can you share the part number and brand of your filter, Thks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top