Filter Question

T

Thistlebop

Well-known member
I think I have read a few negative things about "Crystal Optics" either on this website or another, but I don't remember any negative comments about their Filters.

If anyone has any NEGATIVE thing to say about their filters, or anything positive about any brand name of any UV filters.

Thanks in advance

--Bop
 
Re: Filter Question

Here's a hard and fast rule:

If it goes in front of your lens, don't go for cheaper. Optics are one of the few places where you really get what you pay for.

Even with semi-high end photo lenses, there's subtle differences in performance and quality between lenses of different retail cost. Sigma, a relatively respected lensmaker, makes some great affordable zooms...but none of them perform as well as their counterparts from Canon, Nikon, Contax, Rollei, etc. On the surface, it seems like you're getting a great lens for a great price...but they just don't hold up in comparative optical tests (usually at the wide end of their range).

The same really goes for filters as well. You might not notice the difference on the surface, but there is a difference in quality that will sometimes show on your image. Cokin filters are cheap, but there's a strong quality difference between them and say, a company like B+W.
 
Re: Filter Question

Thanks TC and J Barnes.

Your advice is spot on and very helpful.
I'd rather pay a little bit more and be happy, so thanks for pushing me in that direction.

--Bop
 
Re: Filter Question

A little confused here - help me clear this up please. It seems to me that the filter effects might be best done in post - that way during the shoot you get your best light, your sharpes/crispest imgages, bets angles, etc. But the look, color correction, etc. should be done in post - where you have the luxury of time to see what looks and/or works best. Is that not the way to go?

And second - what would be the best all inclusive NL editort that has filtering effects that can be used accros multiple clips?
 
Re: Filter Question

globalsearch,

regarding post vs filtering the camera, I think if you search the site you will find plenty of discussion on this issue. Not everything can be done in post (nd grads, pola's for example) and other effects may not look exactly the same.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
 
Re: Filter Question

Bill,

But once you commit to using a filter(s) for a complete shoot - then the footage is locked in. Is not post then limited in its "filter/color correction"? Expsecially since you now have "prejudiced" footage (by filter) as oppesd to clean, unadultorated footage?

I mean, if you made a mistake - is not clean footage easier to correct than "filtered" footage?
 
Re: Filter Question

But some filters might be necessary to get the shot you want, like a polarizing filter to shoot through a car window, or an ND filter to keep an exterior from getting washed out. That's not really something you can fix in post.
 
Re: Filter Question

I absolutley agree on using "MINIMUM" filtering to get that clean/sharp in-focus, properly lighted shot.

But when I was talking about filters, I meant filters that achieve a certain look - such as Bad Boys II, or Van Helsing, or The Matrix.

Each of those used filter combinations to achieve "the look" the director wanted. That is filtering I am talking about. And, I think, unless you are an expert or have a really good feel to commit to a set of filtering during shooting - for the rest of us - would it not be better to shoot as clean as possible and add it later?


- just a humble thought.
 
Re: Filter Question

I don't think so, always get the best image you can first on film or DV, photo or video, and if filter help to do so, do it. You can correct on post but you will never add what you don't have in the original image, image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top