Let's talk about filters?

[Emanuel]

From this conversation here and because no less often, people start to blame the camera device other than some other choice of the user or even taste : X let's start with the black mist one... who likes it and not?

Here's some comparison test with distinct values of it:

Horses for courses ;- )

[kye]

I bought a BMP 1/8, shot a test video on it of a walk around the city centre, and then discovered in the grade I didn't like it.  It gave a softer look, but all the shadows were lifted, and when I tried to give it a more contrasty look it just looked wrong.

This was day external footage, so very high DR.  Considering that the average lens has a little of this already, and you can add it in post if you only want a subtle effect, it's not for me.

[Emanuel]

22 minutes ago, kye said:

I bought a BMP 1/8, shot a test video on it of a walk around the city centre, and then discovered in the grade I didn't like it.  It gave a softer look, but all the shadows were lifted, and when I tried to give it a more contrasty look it just looked wrong.

This was day external footage, so very high DR.  Considering that the average lens has a little of this already, and you can add it in post if you only want a subtle effect, it's not for me.

As written up there, horses for courses and to each its own... that's where the whole matter of 'taste' pops up and it's useless to discuss the choice for yellow (to those who still don't "believe me", please watch this and you'll be prone to about eight minutes of fun, a trustworthy portrait of a lot of grounds over here which could be addressed to these and other boards and respective 'talks' related and, a masterpiece... enjoy!)

...but it's a point of merit this one for sure, hence a solution for use later on going along the post:

And also another useful source of information, especially as first grade but always no less a helpful reading, towards the topic:

https://diopte.com/blogs/camera-filters/the-best-filters-for-achieving-cinematic-effects-in-2024

[eatstoomuchjam]

If I want a software look with lower contrast, I prefer to use a vintage lens.  Want really low contrast?  Go single-coated or uncoated.

[eatstoomuchjam]

A softer* look.  Sheesh.

[kye]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

A softer* look.  Sheesh.

Talk about Freudian slips!  

But it's ok..  we all secretly want the software look.

[Emanuel]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

A softer* look.  Sheesh.

LOL I stand my like though : ) but I thought you meant some outcome coming from post instead versus native acquisition and made sense anyway when you placed that "if"... take a 2nd take and read it again ; )

[bjohn]

Another type of filter that gets used frequently in cinema is ultracon filters. The name suggests that they increase contrast, but in fact it's the reverse. They don't cause halation or soften the image in any way, they just distribute more of the ambient lighting toward the shadows, reducing contrast.

They come in a variety of strengths; 1 is subtle; 2 is more noticeable, but they go all the way up to 6 I believe. I have #2 and got it specifically to tame the high contrast of the Sigma 18-35 when shot outdoors, where it can produce very ugly footage. I have an OLPF on my cameras that softens the image a bit already, so I'd rather not soften it further.

I found a brief demo of this filter at #1 strength on the Sigma 18-35 here:

The only drawback to these filters is that a very bright light source, such as sunlight reflected off water, can wash out the image and make it milky.

[PPNS]

huge fan, i own a set of formatt hitechs black supermists. shot a whole short on the 1 strength filter. 

[MrSMW]

Freewell VND 1/8th mist at all times for video.

Bloom Gold 1/8th stills.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Glimmer Glass is my personal favorite. I also use the Tiffen Smoque for some interview setups when I have a practical  source in the frame

[A_Urquhart]

Im a big fan of the Schneider Classic Soft. Not as bloomy as ProMist .

[kye]

I think the missing part that no-one seems to mention is how they're used.

Pros will choose which filter, at which strength, if any, is used for each camera angle and each shot.  It will be tailored to the exact contents of that composition, including the actor/actress who is in the shot.  It was common back in the day for big-name actresses to include a clause in their contract that all shots that they appear in must have a particular filter used.

Amateurs buy one, slap it on their lens, and never take it off.

There's a reason that amateur footage looks amateurish.  Probably the biggest giveaway is razor sharp footage with diffusion on it.

[MrSMW]

35 minutes ago, kye said:

buy one, slap it on their lens, and never take it off.

That’s me, but actually it’s considered.

For video, because my cameras do not have an OLPF (except the S1H which is being replaced) I find that a 1/8th mist is quite subtle and takes off that digital edge whilst helping reduce or eliminate any moiré.

For stills, the 1/8th Bloom Golds just reduce the overall contrast a little and again take off that digital edge and make the resulting files that little bit more ‘filmic’ SOOC.

For me, it’s about doing more in camera in order that I have the best/a better and consistent starting point when it comes to editing.

Could you spot it? Probably in lower light shots when there are visible light sources such as lamps or strings of lights etc, because there is some inevitable (and wanted) diffusion going on.

But only nerds like us would spot it and my clients would simply ‘like the images’ but not be able to technically break down as to why.

[kye]

52 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

That’s me, but actually it’s considered.

For video, because my cameras do not have an OLPF (except the S1H which is being replaced) I find that a 1/8th mist is quite subtle and takes off that digital edge whilst helping reduce or eliminate any moiré.

For stills, the 1/8th Bloom Golds just reduce the overall contrast a little and again take off that digital edge and make the resulting files that little bit more ‘filmic’ SOOC.

For me, it’s about doing more in camera in order that I have the best/a better and consistent starting point when it comes to editing.

Could you spot it? Probably in lower light shots when there are visible light sources such as lamps or strings of lights etc, because there is some inevitable (and wanted) diffusion going on.

But only nerds like us would spot it and my clients would simply ‘like the images’ but not be able to technically break down as to why.

Maybe I should have said "Amateurs buy one, slap it on their lens, and never take it off because they never thought about the decision in the first place and don't ever."

Obviously this isn't you.

Also of note is that in the wedding genre, the vibe is almost always towards a happy / dreamy / soft / luxurious aesthetic, which is what such a filter provides.  This isn't the case with the "wave the camera around, cut on the beat, put on the LUT, upload, get the likes" folks.

In my tests I found the Tiffen BPM 1/8 to be pretty strong.  This was in daylight exteriors where you have huge DR, and in nighttime cityscapes which have even more DR from lights and shadows.  On a set with controlled lighting that's a different situation.

For my money, the diffusion that the 12-35mm F2.8 had was about right.

[zlfan]

 

this guy used pro mist 1/8 on his s5iix and penny 24-70 f2.8. image quality is pretty good.

actually, I compare this video to my c300 og video. if doing pixel peeping, yes, there is more details in s5iix. but if looking at the whole picture, the final footage on YouTube (YouTube compression may affect) is comparable on my laptop screen.

considering most of the YouTube viewers are using their phones and iPads, I doubt if viewers will see the difference.

I think human eyes have certain threshold on image quality parameters, like resolution, contrast, dr, etc.   

[zlfan]

I feel that c300 og has a strong olpf, more than c100 mk ii, but less than r1mx. I think for c300 og and r1mx, there is no need for filters, unless in very special situations. 

[zlfan]

strong olpf has its pros but has its cons too. I feel that the c300 og and r1mx color kind of is impacted. the sensor and the olpf may tune for the skin tones, so there is no issue there. but if you do landscape, the color hue is not as rich as 5d3 and f3. f3 may be the best in the crop. 

I assume other filters may affect the image quality in a good way, and maybe bring some cons too. 

[zlfan]

af100 has probably the strongest olpf, the resolution and the color are all impacted. but no matter what I do, there is no moire, alias, sharpening artifacts showing up. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

On 7/6/2024 at 1:11 AM, kye said:

I think the missing part that no-one seems to mention is how they're used.

Pros will choose which filter, at which strength, if any, is used for each camera angle and each shot.  It will be tailored to the exact contents of that composition, including the actor/actress who is in the shot.  It was common back in the day for big-name actresses to include a clause in their contract that all shots that they appear in must have a particular filter used.

Amateurs buy one, slap it on their lens, and never take it off.

There's a reason that amateur footage looks amateurish.  Probably the biggest giveaway is razor sharp footage with diffusion on it.

This partly true. Many pros will also come up with a lens/camera/filter combo that matches the look they want for a specific project, then stick with that combo all the way through. They then will add specific filters for specific shots. It's what I see done a lot anyway.