Filters in the Red digital environment

Homersapien

Homersapien

Well-known member
Reading another post about how filters make a big difference between HD and film it got me wondering about the use of Filters in the Red digital environment.

First off I'm a novice when it comes to filters so please feel free to educate me. I understand the necessity of a matte box because it is tailoring the ammount of light entering the lense. What I am wondering is this:

With something like Red capturing such a very sharp and large image won't it be easier to colour correct/soften/alter/even add grain to an image in post? What advantages does one get from using filters exactly? Does it change the way the light fills the lense so that the shot is significantly altered that the same effect could not be replicated in post? Or is it a purist point of view that you should capture more in the actual filming of a sequence than rectify in post?

I'm guessing that it might be argued that doing such things in Post is taking something away from the art of capturing the images but personally i see the whole process of capture through post to final output as the art, especially with advances in modern software and hardware.

Many years ago I can observe from a laymans point of view the reasons for using filters, but now motion pictures require professional colour correction experts to make the image look the right way. Do filters become less useful with digital tools such as Red and the suite of excellent software available to recalibrate images?
 
I'm no filter expert, but I've always found that most things can be done in post, but for NDs and polarizers.

EDIT, so as not to add a new post:

I've used several types of filters at various points, but is it too pedestrian to say that most just limit your future options when you're starting out in digital anyway--such as any sort of haze or grain filters? You can never get it back--and can be done just as well in post?

But, I can certainly see a desire for breadth of artistic expression in various media--and I suppose filters and glass are every bit a medium as digital effects applied later. Some people like oil, some water color, and some like spray paint on alley walls.
 
Last edited:
I would psyched to use a filter if it could deal with highlights before they even hit the lens and then the chip/neg without muddying up the shadow detail. Several of the Jerry Bruckheimer shows, particularly CSI, get a sexy glow off the really hot sources, usually high wattage practicals. Is this done with schmutz over the lens, or in post? I have tried to duplicate this look in post but have never been able to nail it. For a lot of shoots I would be happy to be able to open up another stop and have blown out areas, as long as the blooms had smooth edges. If a low contrast, pro mist or frost filter can buy me an extra stop of useable latitude it seems like a good deal to me.

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19
 
Personnly I would say that some filter are quite hard to reproduce in post, like the polarizing filters or ND.

Also it is an advantage to use filter if you know on set what you wants, because you are saving time and money for post.

Some poeple do prefer to shoot neutral, and work on the style in post, others do not. But to buy a whole set of filter is, once again, costing a lot of money.
 
When I'm shooting film I generally try to achieve most, if not all of the parameters of the image that I'll need right then - at the acquisition stage. When I'm shooting video (or electronic digital cinema), I almost always shoot the footage as clean as possible, except for the necessary use of ND filters. Especially with the REDCODE RAW and straight RAW workflow, I anticipate shooting almost all of my RED One footage as clean as possible. In the RAW or REDCODE RAW workflow I'll have lots of choices in how to "develop" the RAW footage in post, edit it, then grade it as necessary. My business plan calls for multi-use of footage for other projects, when I hold the copyright to the footage. Stock footage is also a major portion of my business plan - and stock footage has more utilitarian value (and economic value) when it is clean. Clean, un-effected footage simply has more ancillary revenue stream potential than specialty, effected footage, because the clean REDCODE RAW and RAW footage (and RGB footage), is easy to use and license out - not the case with specialty effected footage. The most valuable asset of any production company, whether it be large or small, is it's footage library. That said, clean footage generally has more economic value in your footage library than specialty effected footage.
 
Last edited:
Gibby brings up many good points. Shooting Raw, just as you would with a Still, you dont really worry about color effects until the post session, as the underlying value of shooting raw gives you the most maluable image possible.

That Said, many DPs prefer to lock the look into the camera if they are not confident on the color timing expectations down the road, specially on low budget features. And polarizers, low con filters, nds and other wavelength modifying filters cant be recreated in post (yet) as for the mattebox, i would never shoot anything without a mattebox... so its a must filters or not filters for me.
 
Some filtration looks best done optically. It's more organic and filmic. Certain gradient filters do a fantastic job at making skies and clouds pop. You can't recreate that in post.
 
Jarred Land said:
Gibby brings up many good points. Shooting Raw, just as you would with a Still, you dont really worry about color effects until the post session, as the underlying value of shooting raw gives you the most maluable image possible.

That Said, many DPs prefer to lock the look into the camera if they are not confident on the color timing expectations down the road, specially on low budget features. And polarizers, low con filters, nds and other wavelength modifying filters cant be recreated in post (yet) as for the mattebox, i would never shoot anything without a mattebox... so its a must filters or not filters for me.
Click to expand...

Good points, Jared, Gibby.

Just don't forget about the optical flat when you're purchasing. :)

One Dp I know prefers to get 1/2 the effect in camera and 1/2 in post (whilst shooting digital cinema)... The caveat being he's done extensive pre-testing of all the looks, all along to the final result. If everyone's on the same page then it makes the process so much easier.

Frankly, I wonder who on the RED team first came up with the idea of treating the RED footage in a 'digital negative' capacity. The more I think of it, the more I'm impressed with it's simplicity.

I guess another factor will be the power of the software/post facilities you're employing to final deliverables. You might want to get more of the effect in camera, depending.

At the very least shooting RED 4K RAW clean should give great impetus for producers to budget for Dps being present for the effects and grading work; since much of the final look will be determined there. I know the union here is in favor of that :beer:
:beer:


RED # rebel with a clue
 
From the reading up on Polarizers and ND's I can certainly see the reason for using these now, so thanks for that. The points made are very good ones and thankfully are kind of along my original thinking on the subject. I'm sure there are many people who believe that the art is only in the acquisition - the probability is that these are the same types who naysay digital over film without any room for discussion. But from the outsider/newcomer point of view of people like myself I foresee digital advances negating the need for certain filter options if they haven't already.

Incidently, could any of you point me in the right direction of decent Matte boxes & Filter holders as well as the best types/makes of Polarizers and ND filters that would be suitable for use with RedOne with Cine and/or Nokia lenses (Red Zoom on Red Rails would be a key one). I understand certain makes are good such as Chrosziel, what I'm less sure about is the sizes of filters and therefore the holder that would be required for such setups. 4x5.650 and below appear to be typically suited to HD setups and 4x4 to DV setups with some variation. Is there a standard size used on Cine lenses or does it differ from lense to lense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top