Any experience with oddball filters like Blue-Yellow Polarizers?

[Imamacuser]

I just read a Ken Rockwell article on filters that mentions a Cokin 173 Blue-Yellow Polarizer, which I think gives the same effect as a Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue Polarizer. It looks like a pretty cool, interesting filter, has anyone ever used one before? If so, what are your thoughts on it, and what was your experience like.

My interest is purely academic at the moment, but I could see a filter like that providing a unique look for an alien world or dream sequence.

I get a warming effect on my 4x4 CPL if I insert it backwards, not sure if that's the same thing as a warming polarizer or not.

Feel free to chime in about other oddball filters like a Singh-Ray ColorCombo Polarizer.

 

[puredrifting]

I just read a Ken Rockwell article on filters that mentions a Cokin 173 Blue-Yellow Polarizer, which I think gives the same effect as a Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue Polarizer. It looks like a pretty cool, interesting filter, has anyone ever used one before? If so, what are your thoughts on it, and what was your experience like.

My interest is purely academic at the moment, but I could see a filter like that providing a unique look for an alien world or dream sequence.

I get a warming effect on my 4x4 CPL if I insert it backwards, not sure if that's the same thing as a warming polarizer or not.

Feel free to chime in about other oddball filters like a Singh-Ray ColorCombo Polarizer.

It's 2020, that's what post is for ;-)

A tip for you, Ken Rockwell is fine for entertainment but he's pretty far from a knowledgeable authority about many things he professes to be, other than
running a very successfull website.

Few these days would chance optional optical filters with fickle clients, studios and audiences. Optical filters are a one way street.
If the world is happy with the end result, great, but one outlier in the whole producer, studio, distributor, client chain who sees it and decides they
hate it and you are screwed. That's why I cringe at all of the hipsters "softening" their harsh digital cameras with circa 1980s lame filters like Black Pro Mists.
It's such a dated look and once you are ProMisted, that footage is ProMisted forever. I experimented with them back in the 90s when we didnt
have the digital options to try to soften up interlaced SD video, it looked lame back then, it looks lame now, other than at the most mild 1/8 strength and even
the 1/8 looks horrible against skies, flat color walls, etc.

From an optical perspective, I'm a DP and I know that the optical interactions between lens element, filter and light source are difficult if not impossible to precisely reproduce in post.
But I'm also a producer and clients are mercurial and fickle as audiences too can be. To me, any optical filter other than NDs, Polas or possibly ND grads are not worth the risk in 2020,
the risk/reward equation doesn't pencil out at all unless you are a hobbyist goofing around.

 

[ahalpert]

Tiffen Black Satin - it's so subtle you can use it for documentaries. Does nice things for the skin. Ever so slight halation/glow on light sources/windows. Halation stays constant as you go up in strength so you never get insane glow, just more softening. Every filter claims it doesn't look filtered but this is the only one I've tried that delivered. I used it on my S1 with the Lumix 24-105 but not with my Rokinon primes which I didn't think needed it. Unless you want a very sharp look, you can always get away with Black Satin and it's a subtle filter no one will complain about.

 

[Imamacuser]

I'm not taking Ken Rockwell as gospel, I ran across his article while attempting to research filter Nanometer transmission.

I thought 1/8 & 1/4 Black Pro-Mist filters were well liked and widely used. What about Hollywood Black Magic filters?

On the photo side, I tend to use a CPL and sometimes grad ND to get the look I want in camera, and apply little to no post processing. On the video side, I think there is tremendous benefit from post processing, but I still try to get it as close as I can in camera, which is where filters can play an important role in alleviating the necessary amount of grading, to prevent the footage from breaking under heavy grading. I know that's not much of a concern if you're shooting RAW (which I'm not), but I still think people should have good shooting habits, even with the flexibility of RAW.

Oddball filters would see very little use from me, so I'd look to rent them when needed, but it might be hard to track down a rental house that has them, as they wouldn't make as much from them as they would with NDs, CPLs, and grads. The rental places in Des Moines don't have much photo/video gear, and what they do have is from the Stone Age.

I find the looks that can be accomplished with filters fascinating, and would like to learn about rare and oddball filtera, even if I never have a project that merits them.

 

[Grug]

It's 2020, that's what post is for ;-)

A tip for you, Ken Rockwell is fine for entertainment but he's pretty far from a knowledgeable authority about many things he professes to be, other than
running a very successfull website.

Few these days would chance optional optical filters with fickle clients, studios and audiences. Optical filters are a one way street.
If the world is happy with the end result, great, but one outlier in the whole producer, studio, distributor, client chain who sees it and decides they
hate it and you are screwed. That's why I cringe at all of the hipsters "softening" their harsh digital cameras with circa 1980s lame filters like Black Pro Mists.
It's such a dated look and once you are ProMisted, that footage is ProMisted forever. I experimented with them back in the 90s when we didnt
have the digital options to try to soften up interlaced SD video, it looked lame back then, it looks lame now, other than at the most mild 1/8 strength and even
the 1/8 looks horrible against skies, flat color walls, etc.

From an optical perspective, I'm a DP and I know that the optical interactions between lens element, filter and light source are difficult if not impossible to precisely reproduce in post.
But I'm also a producer and clients are mercurial and fickle as audiences too can be. To me, any optical filter other than NDs, Polas or possibly ND grads are not worth the risk in 2020,
the risk/reward equation doesn't pencil out at all unless you are a hobbyist goofing around.

I'm going to have to take the counter argument with this one. I think if a filter gives you the look you want, and can protect you from having the look ruined in post (by not being able to be "recovered" from) then I think that's absolutely the way to go about it.

There are some situations where I'd take a different tack - black and white conversion for example, where it's better to keep information in all three colour channels (rather than using contrast filters) so that you have more range to finesse the contrast after the fact. But if you know how you want to manipulate the light hitting your sensor (in order to funk it up) I say go for it.

The world would be far too dull if everyone did otherwise!

 

[Imamacuser]

I personally don't like black & white, but if I had to shoot a black & white project I'd probably use various filter, and maybe even a Wratten 29 or similar sky darkening filter. I like dark skies, as I think they make the footage look less like video.

I guess one reason I don't really like black & white is that most portable devices had black and white screens when I was a kid (tablets ((Apple Newton)), PalmPilots, portable TVs, GameBoys, etc.); companies started to release color devices, but they were a lot more expensive, so black & white seems like cheap old technology to me.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate black & white movies, in fact, Captain Blood and The Great Dictator are some of my favorite movies, but in this day and age I prefer to shoot color.

Surely there are some old-timers on here with their own special list of oddball filter secret sauce.

 

[puredrifting]

I'm going to have to take the counter argument with this one. I think if a filter gives you the look you want, and can protect you from having the look ruined in post (by not being able to be "recovered" from) then I think that's absolutely the way to go about it.

There are some situations where I'd take a different tack - black and white conversion for example, where it's better to keep information in all three colour channels (rather than using contrast filters) so that you have more range to finesse the contrast after the fact. But if you know how you want to manipulate the light hitting your sensor (in order to funk it up) I say go for it.

The world would be far too dull if everyone did otherwise!

And I'm not saying either of us are right or wrong. My statement is a business decision, based off of my experience as a working camera op and DP and being a producer for twenty years. There are still occasional projects where the DP working with the director
is regarded as the person with the artistic vision and it's not questioned or micro/committee managed to death. For those lucky enough to shoot in that style in those circumstances, go sick, use whatever crazy filters or lenses you'd like.
But the majority of DVXUsers have never been in that space and have to answer to boards, committees, brides, ad agencies, marketing departments, often lay people little common sense about video production or artistic vision.

I'm running into this right now as we speak, did a studio shoot of a presenter doing some training with a product, with a national sales manager present, I lit the stage and presenter nicely, with a very Chiaroscuro type lighting over a boring white and gray background with some nice pools of light in the BG, the talent lit the brightest
in the frame. So any DP would look at the scene and think, "Limited grip and lighting resources, it has some drama and dimension to it, has depth and the talent will pop off the screen because they are rim light and the their face is the brightest." National Sales Manager was on set, loved how I made it look, signed off on it, shoot proceeded
and all was well. We go through post, feedback is good except national sales manager's boss and her boss are giving us notes that "It's too dark." I double check my waveform, skin tones are right where I want them to be around 70 IRE, over scene is in the 70/80 IRE range, there is one lit sign in the BG that had no dimmable LEDS to it is
blowing out on the waveform but you only see it in one of the three angles. I try to determine what devices the two execs are viewing on, mostly iPhones, which as you know, self adjust brightness depending on ambient lighting. I try boosting up the gamma, then run more tests. Essentially, National Sales Manager "gets" the lighting, pools of
light and dark, but his colleagues essentially are only used to blasting a set with tons of soft light, no dynamic range, no Chiaroscuro lighting, no contrast. Where we are at now is by having boost the lighting levels to almost the point of blowing out and boosting the gamma way up on their Vimeo uploads, the two execs seem happy because it
looks "bright enough" on their uncalibrated, wildly fluctuating light level phone screens. This is typical of what many DVXers go through whether they are pleasing a bride, a CEO or a marketing agency. You have to often bow and compromise what's right or technically correct to please someone who has little to no knowledge or vision.

Clients like these would often see something shot with optical filtering, especially if it's not super subtle and have a meltdown when told that the halation, softness or blooming highlights effect can't be eliminated. I was given little direction about how to light the set so I lit it to objectively look good. The client who was at the shoot got it and loved how it looked but these things are often done by committee and committees are almost always terrible clients. The two execs weren't at the shoot but if they would have been, they would have looked at the good lighting, not "gotten" it and made me light it like a 1980s three camera sitcom, which in 2020, looks terrible and boring. That's the other thing, when I go through a new project worksheet with clients, one of the first questions is "Who is the client? Who has final say over the project? Who are the stakeholders? Does legal need a review? Marketing?" 90% of the time, the client I am working with will say the buck stops with them and 90% of the time, we end up finding at the 11th hour before delivery that "their boss and their bosses boss" has to sign off on it. And inevitably, someone else on the "Approval committee" will have some dumb, inane, makes no sense notes that my "client" doesn't know, care about or agree with. Honestly, trying to be artistic and use filtration creatively for these type of clients is just handicapping yourself.

Of course, this isn't every situation. But if you work for the studios, as I do, the networks OR corporations, you will constantly run into this dynamic. Not saying you have to make your work generic or boring. But if you get into filtration, Chiaroscuro or dramatic or contrasty lighting, often any lighting that's not soft, flat and boring, non-creatives will have a problem with it. Because they simply don't get it. Non-creative, opinionated people in power have always been the bane of film and video makers, they kind of have tendency to heavily influence you via a contract or witholding pay, to make you make the end product visually boring, generic and they rarely trust artistic vision and creativity. Ever since we have had good digital post tools to manipulate images and add filtration, other than ND, pola or ND grads, I eschew optical filtration simply because the potential payoff versus the potential hassle and financial disaster are not very well balanced. I often will add subtle diffusion, glow, halation or digital makeup plug ins to make people look their best, especially women. But at least that way, if the client dislikes the look, it's pretty easy to turn off the filters and do another output. For me, having a plan B outweighs the subtle differences between optical and digital filtration, that typically, the only person who would see a difference would be other DPs or possibly an editor or director. We all know that the majority of clients cannot see things the way our eyes and brains do because we live this stuff every day and they don't. Same with lenses, we may see a huge, gaping quality difference between two identical shots, one with a Zeiss Ultra Prime and the other shot with a Rokinon. But 98% of people don't.

 

[Imamacuser]

That's a valid point puredrifting, but I'm not factoring it in too heavily at the moment, as I'm still trying to learn what the filter options are, so that I can present my brilliant filter plan and get shot down in due course. :smile: My question is for theoretical and academic purposes, not for an upcoming shoot.

P.S. I suspect that some of the CEOs get the lighting, but they try to justify their existence by pretending to know better than the DP.

 

[John Brawley]

Those “whacky” Cokin polarisers are available in a few styles.

I bought some myself of course, after reading about Philippe Rousselot using them on the 2001 Planet Of The Apes remake.

It’s hard to see them, but check out the open desert scenes here and look at the colour of the sky.

https://youtu.be/rwhGmiEoQXs


Pretty sure *I think* they were used on this as well on the exteriors....it’s certainly what the more extreme version of these looks like....

https://youtu.be/Uuq6HgKgEFQ

The VARICOLOR ones are the more extreme

https://cokinfilter.com/collections/polarizer

(Don’t forget to think about the small size of these filters if you’re planning on using them)

JB

 

[John Brawley]

It's 2020, that's what post is for ;-)

I’m with GRUG here...I think there’s a lot of things filters in camera can do that aren’t easily replicated in post. They also tend to be more unique and you get immediate feedback on the look as you shoot.

Hey flares can be replicated in post so easily, but should they be ?

Optical filters are a one way street.

As long as it’s the right street then you’re fine.

One of the biggest problems I feel we’re seeing with “modern” cinematography is intention, something that came up from David Mullen ASC on a recent Zoom chat. Intention behind the lighting, intention behind the staging...

A choice like this forces a you to commit and then forces you to not play safe and to take some risks.

It forces you to make a choice....!

I’ve always tried to have a visual manifesto of “rules” for every show I do. Forcing thee kinds of choices and then overcoming the limitations of these self imposed choices leads to wonderful creative discoveries.

A great film worth a watch is the documentary “The Five Obstructions Of Lars Von Trier”

https://vimeo.com/340580198

It’s a masterclass in creative process.

Lars Von Trier challengers his mentor to re-make his academy award winning short film, and each time gives him more and more ridiculous obstructions....the real creativity is in overcoming these obstructions and seeing how they affect the film...

JB

 

[Imamacuser]

Thanks John, I haven't seen that Planet Of The Apes movie, just the original and a couple of the Andy Serkis ones.

I couldn't find the Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue Polarizer on any of the online rental sites (BorrowLenses, LensProtoGo, & LensRentals). Outside of KitSplit and ShareGrid, are there any other online rental sites that I'm overlooking? They're probably not that hard to find in NYC or Hollywood, but the Midwest has pretty slim pickings.

 

[John Brawley]

Thanks John, I haven't seen that Planet Of The Apes movie, just the original and a couple of the Andy Serkis ones.

I couldn't find the Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue Polarizer on any of the online rental sites (BorrowLenses, LensProtoGo, & LensRentals). Outside of KitSplit and ShareGrid, are there any other online rental sites that I'm overlooking? They're probably not that hard to find in NYC or Hollywood, but the Midwest has pretty slim pickings.

I think those filters are very obscure and not many people will own them. You might have to buy...

JB

 

[Grug]

And I'm not saying either of us are right or wrong. My statement is a business decision, based off of my experience as a working camera op and DP and being a producer for twenty years. There are still occasional projects where the DP working with the director
is regarded as the person with the artistic vision and it's not questioned or micro/committee managed to death. For those lucky enough to shoot in that style in those circumstances, go sick, use whatever crazy filters or lenses you'd like.
But the majority of DVXUsers have never been in that space and have to answer to boards, committees, brides, ad agencies, marketing departments, often lay people little common sense about video production or artistic vision.

I think that's a totally valid point, and important one to consider. Context (as usual) is everything.