Filters vs Post Production

T

TimB

Well-known member
So I'm shooting a series of short films this summer documenting the lives and trades of craftsmen & women in the UK. I really want the pieces to have the "artisan" feel, so I've opted for the "Tobacco" look/feel.

My question is this;

With such advances in consumer colour grading (Magic Bullet etc), are non-ND 4x4 filters really worth it these days? I've been looking into getting some filters for the series, but I have a tiny budget;

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fotga-4-x...ra_Filters&hash=item2eb9dda4ca#ht_2398wt_1348

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fotga-4-x...s=63&clkid=8717835915767130437#ht_2398wt_1348

I don't want to spend the money if they're surplus to requirements these days.
 
My opinion has always been that if it's your project, and you want a certain look for it, get it as close (or in the ballpark) in camera as possible. Why? Two reasons. Less work in post to "create" the look, and less chance of "breaking" a codec trying to create the look you want.

Let's say you're shooting with the AF-100. If you're recording to the on-board media, your bit depth and color space are limited. So the closer you can get to the look you want, the more likely you are to not reach the limits of what the codec/color space allows. Now, obviously if you're shooting raw on RED Epic or Arri Alexa, your options are much broader. But I've never been a big fan of the "shoot it flat" approach, especially with most of the cameras we talk about here at DVXUser.
 
I am a big fan of the shoot it flat approach to an extent, not to an extreme. For most filters I've moved to post only. My editing also takes a lot longer than it could because of this decision, but it allows me to shoot faster and with less of a team while at the same time allowing options in post. It fits for most of my work. While I see the value in getting the look in camera, the problem with these codecs lacking detail can work in the other direction as well. Getting your look can mean throwing out detail, and throwing out that detail can leave you stuck in the editor. Especially if you don't have a good monitor, which I don't. Not to mention the benefit of not buying physical filters you might only use a few times.

So there you have it. Two completely different answers in the first two replies. Does that help clear things up?

The point here is that it depends on how you want to shoot. You can go in either direction and get perfectly useable footage.
 
Magic Bullet =/= a colourist, and a colourist will always give you better results, no matter what input source you give them.

Shooting on cheaper cameras that don't shoot in raw or log, you sort of need to treat them like reversal film.. Get as close as you can in camera ad then jsut tweak in post.

When shooting digital, I don't use colour filters because you can simply select the colour temperature you want. I also think 'warming filters' are pointless, as you can get the same/better results with lighting and lighting a scene better is always going to look better than slapping on a warming filter. I do, however, shoot with a lot of soft filters, most commony the Schneider Classic Soft, though sometimes I'll use Black Forst, Pro Mists etc depending on the look I'm going for. I don't tend to use high strength soft filters because you can always increase the softness in post but you can't take it back.. I do like to soften digital cameras though as I feel like RED and even Alexa can almost get too sharp, and sticking a softening filter on the lens gives you a much nicer, softer, filmic look.
 
I'll agree with what's been said here, in-camera will undoubtedly provide a better look than putting on a filter in post... but I'll add the caveat that, like everything, the best choice depends on the needs of the specific project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top