C300: Filters for taking the edge off 4k footage?

S

seanarmada

Well-known member
Hi guys

I'm in the development phase for a feature length doc at present, which will involve much more 4k shooting than I've done so far with my C300 Mark II.

I'm curious which lens filters you guys have found to be helpful in taking the digital edge off 4k footage from the C300? Any other general settings recommendations would be helpful also.

Thanks ya'll!

Sean
 
The popular diffusion filters here at my work (rental house) are Hollywood Blackmagic, Black Pro Mist, and lately Glimmer Glass. I get the occasional Classic Soft as well.
 
Save the money on optical filters: you can do it in post and have a lot more control over the look. Duplicate the video track, add Gaussian blur, then change Opacity/Blend mode (go through them all to see what they do) and also adjust Opacity level and blur amount for different effects. Works well on faces/close-ups. There's also plugins that do this for faces and skin-tone areas of the frame e.g. https://digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html . Neat Video can also work (with or without masking just the face- depends on the shot).

There are other techniques, including working on just highlights etc.: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=diffusion+in+post+premiere+pro
 
Dustin Svehlak said:
The popular diffusion filters here at my work (rental house) are Hollywood Blackmagic, Black Pro Mist, and lately Glimmer Glass. I get the occasional Classic Soft as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions! Are any of the above more appropriate in different scenarios/for different looks?
 
seanarmada said:
Are any of the above more appropriate in different scenarios/for different looks?
Click to expand...

Oof, now you're asking me to wade into VERY subjective territory lol. This is all my opinion so make of it what you will. I would advise to watch some demos for yourself but-

  • The Hollywood Blackmagic and Black Pro Mists have a fairly similar look to me. They'll make light sources bloom and soften skin. I shoot with Black Pro Mist 1/8 and 1/4s on my C200 w/ Sigma Art lenses and the look reminds me of a subtle vintage nature I got with with Canon FD glass
  • The Classic Softs are just a natural softener, mainly for skin tone etc. I've heard a rumor that the Alexa sensors has a very low grade Classic Soft in its protective glass to give a nice soft roll off
  • As for the Glimmers, the also allow light sources to glow but I feel like they dirty up the image a bit (I don't like them personally but they've been requested often lately)

As I said before, take all of this with a grain of salt and watch some demos online. Good luck! If you're in the Austin, TX area and want to demo some of these, PM me and I can set something up!
 
The London Filter Company (a division of Tiffen) posted a bunch of tests on their Vimeo page:
https://vimeo.com/user2332866

(I hope it’s okay per DVXuser policy that I linked to it.)

I keep it bookmarked to refer to often. Although I haven’t been able to give them my rental business (I’m in the Midwest, US), it has influenced my Tiffen purchases.

Cinema 5D a while back did a similar test but testing different filters AND different sensors—including the C300.
https://www.cinema5d.com/beauty-filter-test-6-cameras-18-filters-to-enhance-digital-on-skin/

I kind of like the Cinema 5D Test better for showing not just effects on skin and hair and texture details, but also different specular highlights and halation: there’s not just one type of specular highlight but several. But they are both fun tests to dig into, and I’m grateful for the work those testers have shared with us.

As far as filter preferences, it’s horses for courses, right?

Good luck!
Djangosan
 
Dustin Svehlak said:
Oof, now you're asking me to wade into VERY subjective territory lol. This is all my opinion so make of it what you will. I would advise to watch some demos for yourself but-

  • The Hollywood Blackmagic and Black Pro Mists have a fairly similar look to me. They'll make light sources bloom and soften skin. I shoot with Black Pro Mist 1/8 and 1/4s on my C200 w/ Sigma Art lenses and the look reminds me of a subtle vintage nature I got with with Canon FD glass
  • The Classic Softs are just a natural softener, mainly for skin tone etc. I've heard a rumor that the Alexa sensors has a very low grade Classic Soft in its protective glass to give a nice soft roll off
  • As for the Glimmers, the also allow light sources to glow but I feel like they dirty up the image a bit (I don't like them personally but they've been requested often lately)

As I said before, take all of this with a grain of salt and watch some demos online. Good luck! If you're in the Austin, TX area and want to demo some of these, PM me and I can set something up!
Click to expand...

Thanks man, that's really helpful!
 
jcs said:
Save the money on optical filters: you can do it in post and have a lot more control over the look. Duplicate the video track, add Gaussian blur, then change Opacity/Blend mode (go through them all to see what they do) and also adjust Opacity level and blur amount for different effects. Works well on faces/close-ups. There's also plugins that do this for faces and skin-tone areas of the frame e.g. https://digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html . Neat Video can also work (with or without masking just the face- depends on the shot).

There are other techniques, including working on just highlights etc.: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=diffusion+in+post+premiere+pro
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do some digging into this
 
Quick rule of thumb: when the woman on the left starts to look like the woman on the right, it's probably too much filtration
 

Attachments

  • Cinema 5D test.jpg
    Cinema 5D test.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 0
seanarmada said:
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do some digging into this
Click to expand...

A while ago I did some tests with my Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 (with 1DX II and C300 II 4K). I found that not only could I replicate the basic look (diffusion, halation/glow, reduced contrast, nicer looking skin), I could get some really interesting looks with contrast and color that made doing the diffusion in post really worth the effort: it opened up more creative looks as a side effect.

An optical filter can still produce different looks (especially halation, stars/streaks) vs. basic layer copy + blur + blend. This is where more advanced plugins can be used to simulate those effects in post.

Tiffen sells the DFX suite to simulate their filters in post: https://tiffen.com/dfx-products/ . I thought they sold the DFX suite to a third party... link to purchase DFX V4 didn't go anywhere, though via google I found this: http://www.tiffen.com/dfxv4_trial_registration_form.html . In any case, suggest trying the simple layer copy + blend method first, which is easy + fast + runs in real time and will work in PP CC, FCP X, Resolve, Avid, etc.

See also Glimmer & Glow effects here: https://www.redgiant.com/products/universe/ , https://www.redgiant.com/products/trapcode-starglow/ , https://www.newbluefx.com/products/stylizers/illuminate/ (+ more out there...)

For fast turn around, optical filters still have their place, especially if they provide the exact look/effect you or the director/DP are looking for. The tradeoff is, if too light/strong filter is used, it can't really be undone in post (you can sharpen + increase contrast a bit to reduce the effects).
 
I have to agree with JCS here. The only optical filters I use anymore are solid NDs on my Fujifilm XT-3 because it has no internal NDs (variable NDs, even the good ones, do bad things to your images) and the occasional circular polarizer on my C200. You can't really do proper ND in post if things were shot overexposed. You can definitely do polarizing in post but I find I get weird artifacts when doing it digitally versus optically.

All of those softning and diffusion filters have the same problem they had 20 years ago when I was using them on my Betacam, you and more importantly your client have to be 100% committed to the look. Once you shoot, it's baked in, never to be revised or removed. They all provide somewhat of a stylized look that can work well for some films and look horrible on others. Also, these days, clients and even distributors can be pretty wishy washy about things like this. Always best to do it in post. Many more options and most importantly, you can nix it if client or you or distributor changes their mind about that affected look. It would be like shooting something in B&W today. Why would you ever do that when it's so easy to do spectacular B&W looks in post and you can try thousands of looks whereas if you shoot it in B&W, you are done. My XT-3 has the B&W Acros preset, which looks cool, but I wouldn't ever use it on a client or paying job, too risky if someone changes their mind, which people do all of the time.

One other thing. IMHO, doing optical effects like filtration in post isn't a trend, it's the most flexible way. Using optical softening filters is an artistic choice but I find a lot of fellow DPs who are doing it are doing it because it's trendy, the same as using old crappy lenses with tons of flares and aberrations. Nothing wrong per se with doing it, but you need to ask yourself if you are making an art film for yourself or commercial product you want to sell/license or are getting paid for. If so, do it in post.
 
Last edited:
rob norton said:
Committing to certain filtration choices might leave little to no choice in post but that may also be the whole point.
Click to expand...

^^ this is a good point. I think going digital is a good idea if you are handling post production and / or trust the editor to not go nuts with the grade haha. I still prefer the optical method (that’s just like, my opinion, man!) but I totally understand wanting that flexibility in post.
 
Dustin Svehlak said:
^^ this is a good point. I think going digital is a good idea if you are handling post production and / or trust the editor to not go nuts with the grade haha. I still prefer the optical method (that’s just like, my opinion, man!) but I totally understand wanting that flexibility in post.
Click to expand...

I still have a ton of ProMists laying around, a few Hollywood EFX too but it just makes me nervous that clients can decide "I am not in love with that look" which also typically causes halation on light sources too and if you shot that way, you can end up with a frustrated client. For my own stuff, still fun to play with filters, but for client stuff, I avoid it, if possible.
 
I sometimes reference this test: https://vimeo.com/92660033

My opinion is that if you are looking for bloom or streaks around light sources, you really can't do it in post very well. I also think that a subtle blooming is one of the key ingredients that makes the viewer feel an image has an organic look since it is a good representation of what happens with a person's eye and gives a better sense of the actual dynamic range fo a scene when highlights clip at the sensor.

Anyway, my current favorite filter is the Tiffen Black Satin. I believe that Schneider just released a similar version but I don't know what it is called. The Satins seem to be a slight glimmer glass mixed with a digital diffusion FX. It slightly blooms highlights, although it seems to do does it less than a black promist 1/8, and it diffuses color in a way that is hard to describe but works quite well on skin tones. If you don't tell the director or producer, they will never know you are using it. But they will definitely notice when you take it away at which point they will tell you to put it back on.

I don't think I would every use diffusion on a doc unless it was a short form doc that was pretty well planned out. I would be too worried about reflections on the filter, incident light from hard light sources, and changing cameras and footage types.

Has anybody every experimented with the selective diffusion in camera on the C300? Every once in awhile I get the urge to do some tests but I figure it is probably meant for continuous studio work.
 
puredrifting said:
I still have a ton of ProMists laying around, a few Hollywood EFX too but it just makes me nervous that clients can decide "I am not in love with that look" which also typically causes halation on light sources too and if you shot that way, you can end up with a frustrated client. For my own stuff, still fun to play with filters, but for client stuff, I avoid it, if possible.
Click to expand...

Completely understand! I like to live dangerously, bruh :kali:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top