C100: Filters

TSDavis

TSDavis

Well-known member
Hey guys, so I know this is open ended and an opinionated question but what is your favorite filter to toss in front of the C100 (or any other cam)? Just purchased my first Black Pro-Mist and I'm loving what it does. I'm aware of others like Schnieders hollywood blackmagic, but what are some other ones out there that you enjoy?

Would love to see some frames if you have em.
 
These days, promist happens to be one of the few filters I'd use. Half ND, PL. That's about the list, unless I was to come across something that offered a unique look that I happened to be chasing.
 
I use a B+W 77mm XS-Pro Kaesemann circular polariser with nano coating directly fitted to my lens when I need.
 
That Satin filter looks good on the BMCC, I'm going to have to remember that next time I have a project with one. But you're right, may not have such a positive effect on C100 footage. Going to have to try it out anyways.

Indiawilds, when do you use your polarizer? I think the only time I've used one was shooting through car windows.
 
I have tested a number of filters. I keep falling back to the BPM's when I want a bit of texture. The 1/4 or 1/8th is really great for adding a bit of halation and flare saturation to the image. People tend to think it looks like film. I have also done some preliminary tests with the black satin filters. I really can't compare them to other filters. They add quite a bit of diffuse halation and bring down the contrast in a very interesting way. They seem to smooth out textures and skin tones due to the decrease in localized contrast, but they have a very minimal effect on actual perceived resolution even at 4k.
 
TSDavis said:
Indiawilds, when do you use your polarizer? I think the only time I've used one was shooting through car windows.
Click to expand...
Apart from Car, you can use it in modern buildings with lots of glass surfaces. You can use it when the scene has water ie streams, rivers, pools etc and you want to take out those unwanted reflections. I also use it at times in outdoors by slightly turning it to darken the sky a little bit in some scenes apart from nice landscapes. At maximum intensity the sky turns very deep blue. Rather than doing that, in normal scenes if you slightly turn the polarising effect then it helps. Also just to state as a matter of fact, the best polarisation happens when the light is from 90 deg from the sides.

The polariser also cuts light, so when the outdoor light is harsh and you still want to shoot wide open, then along with the built-in ND you can use the polariser as well. You just need to be careful with the panning.
 
In the days of Betacam and Varicam many TV broadcast clients requested interviews be shot with a Promist for that gorgeous look. The intensity was determined by the camera's sharpness setting, better to be too weak than strong.

I haven't thought about using it with the C100 but now that you mention it I might. The issue is you're baking it in. But to achieve the same effect in post would require a really adept expert and some time, which I don't see many people doing nowadays unless it's a high end job.

The Promist series was great in getting the tiny wrinkles out of middle age womens' faces in tight shots. Just the wrinkles, whereas if you're doing it in post you're probably effecting the entire frame. The danger I see is that in the old days my monitors were more high end, larger, costing several thousands of dollar and nowadays I'm using a little LED 7" 80% of the time, so it will be hard to discern what effect the Promist is having.

Thanks for reminding me to use my Promists.
 
Nedcam, baking in the effect was one fear of mine which is why I went with a lighter version.that and I prefer subtleties. Actually my main goal was merely to reduce the "digital-ness" that I saw in the canons coming from Red. I originally tested out Tiffens fx plugin and dialed in a look I thought I liked. It was great cause it was non-destructive. However, it's just not the same.

Anatusa, to be honest you're the first person I've ever heard mention Zeiss filters. I need to go look into some.
 
The polarizer can be useful when dealing with an interviewee that, for whatever reason, isn't interested in having powder applied to their face.
 
I think that the Promist and Soft FX lines of filters should have been called Crow's Feet Filters to Make Aging Women Look Younger. Unlike many DPs here I usually hand off my media and I don't know who will edit. So I assume that they way it looks on location is probably the way it will go out to the audience, so for me to "bake in" is more about career protection: I want it to look nice NOW.

Many middle age women will jokingly ask me to make them beautiful and I reply that I have the Ten Year Filter on. This all has to be done in conjunction with your tweaked sharpness and detail settings, the kind of soft key light and diffusion you use, some powder, etc. If you stay with 1/8 & 1/4 strength filters you can't piss anyone off, they aren't very powerful. But if a woman is starting to have smile lines, crows feet, little wrinkles around the lips, these two lines of filters are great. For some reason they attack just the fine detail such as little wriinkles. I can't compare them to post filters because I am old school and haven't used them. When the camera manufacturers came up with the horrid Skin Detail feature it reminded me of open casket funerals.

BTW, with aging women I flatten them out by bringing the key closer to the lens. Unless I don't care for them.
 
I like the effect of diffusion filters because they can dramatically increase the perceived dynamic range of a scene. The diffusion creates a glow around hot spots, lights, and glints that allows the viewer to see how hot the light source is relative to the actual scene. Rather than just having a clipped signal at 100%IRE, you get a glow. The black pro mist also diffuses the light so that a colored light source actually glows the color of the light source rather than just being interpreted as white. Mists also add a perception of grain and help with skin as said before. I am honestly surprised that diffusion filters have not caught on among videographers and low budget filmmakers.
 
I recently used a 1/8 Pearlescent by Tiffen. It did some nice things. Most diffusion is a bit to much for my tastes. This was just within range for me. Really takes the hard edge off the ditigal look, without losing too much detail. i might prefer a 1/16th pearlescent, but not sure if they make those. Anyway, not cheap: $400
 
Trying to get everyone's opinion on the black satin filter or any softening filters in general... i am using the canon 17-55 F2.8 lens, if you had to pick one, which one would you choose and why? black satin 1 or black satin 2?
 
nedcam said:
I think that the Promist and Soft FX lines of filters should have been called Crow's Feet Filters to Make Aging Women Look Younger. Unlike many DPs here I usually hand off my media and I don't know who will edit. So I assume that they way it looks on location is probably the way it will go out to the audience, so for me to "bake in" is more about career protection: I want it to look nice NOW.
Click to expand...

This and in addition - you can't emulate everything a promist will do as nicely in post. Promist has a range of strengths, use what works.

I've heard the pearlescents are good - havent tried them.
 
I don't have a video test of the black satin filters available yet, but I know there are some pictures online somewhere. Both the black satin filters 1 and 2 are very subtle when it comes to softening. They are similar to glimmer glass but with more halation and decrease in contrast. Even the black satin 2 is less noticeable than a black promist 1/2. I would probably go with the stronger strength as it has a slightly higher impact. Neither will reduce the perceived resolving power of the 17-55 f/2.8, they will just mute the contrast and blemishes on skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top