Fader ND is killing my sharpness

if you're talking to me, sure, but it'll be during the day tomorrow. i'm on my wife's laptop right now. i'm kind of curious as well. but i have posted a video on vimeo that is quite sharp, but i never removed the ND, so i couldn't compare that way. i'mm do a fresh test for you in the early afternoon tomorrow.
 
Fortinbras said:
Well, isn't it sometimes a matter of being able to shoot a bit un-sharp, or not being able to shoot at all?

Sharpness is often overrated. I see far too many razor sharp videos without story line, message or plot what-so-ever. Too many people show-off their newly acquireed L-lens, their 18 mega pixel camera etc. but forget all about story-telling. A good story can be told with a 5 year old minidv camera and captivate peoples mind and imagination...

I bought the 550D with the kit lens. Run a search on 'kit lens' in this forum, and witness the poison this lens is covered with.
Then watch this video I made with it, a simple home movie that at least has the intention of telling a story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlUMSrSxvM
Click to expand...

?

A 4+ minute food stuffing of your baby is telling a story? I'm sorry but that was a poor example. Way to long and more of the same over and over again. Also your child seems way to young for being fed food anyways.

I would have introduced the "story" very different such as his bottle or breast feeding then finally stepping up to his first solids. As an actual video editor your example was not very inspiring at all and actually makes no sense with the discussing at hand regarding Fader Nds.




Now on to Chris Light, yes these are all opinions. personally I did not like them, but in the future things could change. Yes you are correct we must stay cool and not argue, it's just strange that people think they need fader nds, z finders, etc. to make a nice image when I feel this is simply not true.




Gone from here as this will only bring problems, good night everyone
 
Well in theory anything you put before a lens is going to soften it up slightly. Remember you're going through two filters but I see more of a differance in contrast than sharpness here. I think you are looking at an effect here simular to unsharp mask. There may be a very slight loss in sharpness but couldn't say for sure.
 
UM.jpg

I rest my case.

Edit:
Ian is correct in his statement that it seems to affect sharpness also. It is an illusion. When the contrast changes the perceivable lines are strengthened creating the illusion of a sharper image. Unsharp mask does just that…it does not sharpen anything. If we apply unsharp mask we unchange what the fader did but also prove that the detail is still there…the sharpness did not change (in any truly measurable way), just the perception of sharpness.
 
Last edited:
nothing that an uhsharp mask couldn't fix. The difference is so slight i would consider it negligible. In some cases it may help the moire/aliasing. And the benefit from being able to cut light so easy has a higher utility to me than the tradeoffs. Just my opinion though.

this is not a fair comparison for dynamic range, however, as the ND shot looks about a half-stop under the other.
 
What about these leaves? Clearly you get more detail on the leaves with the ND filter...

leaves.jpg
 
Cieloent

Most people don't think they need a fader ND or z-finder/loupe of some sort to make a nice image; however, if you want to be able to judge exposure in bright daylight you need something covering the LCD and if you want a shallow DOF in the same scenario you'll need an ND of some sort to keep the shutter speed at 1/50. Otherwise you'll be cranking the shutter and that's not always the effect people want. It's a matter of having total control over your image; not a matter of hoping the add-ons will make pretty pictures for you.

You should also show a bit more respect to other posters. Especially since this topic is about whether or not a fader ND creates a drop in sharpness. Not "should I buy a fader ND? Will it make my image better?".
 
Rory_B said:
Cieloent

Most people don't think they need a fader ND or z-finder/loupe of some sort to make a nice image; however, if you want to be able to judge exposure in bright daylight you need something covering the LCD and if you want a shallow DOF in the same scenario you'll need an ND of some sort to keep the shutter speed at 1/50. Otherwise you'll be cranking the shutter and that's not always the effect people want. It's a matter of having total control over your image; not a matter of hoping the add-ons will make pretty pictures for you.

You should also show a bit more respect to other posters. Especially since this topic is about whether or not a fader ND creates a drop in sharpness. Not "should I buy a fader ND? Will it make my image better?".
Click to expand...

This is simply not correct. There are many ways around this. Now for the part of respecting someone I agree 100%, but my problem is how can you basically disrespect everyone saying people have no idea on how to create a story and then you show a poor example yourself?

In fear of being moderated and stoned I will stop here, imo yes a fader nd does mess with the sharpness and creates a weird haze on your images. Personally I do not like them, maybe I just had a bad model or did not use it properly but you get weird effects on clouds and a nasty tint overcast that I simply do not like.


It's almost like wearing a pair of sunglasses, sure you can open your eyes wide open now but your vision is tinted.
 
Not acceptable quality loss for me,footage start to remind of some diy 35mm adapter videos with such "sharpness".
We were on the moon in 1969 ,now we have year 2010 and still no company figured out a piece of glass ,variable ND filter without losing sharpness ? Weird.
Im 80% sure ill pass on fader ND and stick to regular ND's.
 
MadHMC150 said:
What about these leaves? Clearly you get more detail on the leaves with the ND filter...

leaves.jpg
Click to expand...

My god man! Do you really see a big sharpness loss here? Do you see any?

I'm going to stop posting in this thead...it's becoming pointless. If you decide against the fader more power to you.
 
I was just ready to pull the trigger.

Back on the fence.

So far, we've only seen vid caps from one member (who is dissatisfied with fader ND). It would really help us all if we could see more shots, and from members who are satisfied too. If you have time. Thanks.
 
Are both of those frame grabs at the same aperture? I have no doubts that a cheap filter can degrade the image, but if you're comparing a grab from a lens at 1.4 to a grab from a lens stopped down to 6.0, the stopped down lens will be sharper.
 
IMO there is 0 competition between my ND 6 and my 2 polarizers stacked together,with regular ND i see zero loss of sharpness but when i put on my polarizers (diy fader nd) to get similar exposure then im losing too much detail,its not worthy to use them when i have no quality loss with regular ND filter.
I have to buy ND 8 and see how it looks I dont care that much about tint as much as sharpness,this cam is nearly 720p in its 1080p mode , i dont want to make it SD in its full hd resolution.
 
Sacksnack said:
Are both of those frame grabs at the same aperture? ...
Click to expand...

Yes, its 1080p24 footage with the same aperture (7D). The shots were taken several months ago and, for sure, these test-pics are not scientific ;-). But, believe me, every time i use the fader-nd there is a noticeable loss in sharpness. Its not correct to say that i´m dissatisfied with this puppy but i only take it when i absolutely have to. I hope by myself that some other members here will show some comparisons, perhaps some better ones...
 
Dude, honestly, that looks like it's been zoomed a good 400X, if that little amount of blur is an issue for you then yeah, forget the Fader ND. But it also seems to minimize a bit of the aliasing, which to me is more of a benefit than anything since you can use a very slight unsharp mask in post to match them again without adding to the aliasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top