scorsesefan
Veteran
I’ve been using 1/8 BPM for some time but I find it gives me a bit too much halation /blooming in certain situations. Does glimmerglass produce a more subtle effect? Just looking to soften the digital edge…
Glimmerglass vs black pro mist
- Thread starter scorsesefan
- Start date
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Yes, Glimmerglass produces less halation than BPM. I'd also recommend looking at Black Diffusion FX, which provides less halation still. I generally go heavier on both, like 1/4, sometimes 1/2 or even 1 if I want the effect to be noticeable.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks I’ll look into the glimmerglass and the black diffusion fx
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Those two have been my go-to's for a number of years, depending on the project. Very good at taking the edge off sharp lenses (which is generally what I shoot with, for flexbility). However at this stage of the game if I have say in color, I'd be more inclined to forego the physical diffusion and use Scatter or equivalent, to speed things up on set (not having to protect the filter from backlights, double reflections etc).
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks, Charles. Is Scattered available as a plug-in for Premiere. I own DaVinci Resolve but I haven’t mastered it yet even though it’s a better CC than Premiere… btw saw Office Space for about the 50th time the other day and it never fails to entertain…
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
It looks to only be ported to Resolve at the current time.
I saw a 25th anniversary screening of "Office Space" last month at the Egyptian Theatre here in Los Angeles. I don't think I'd watched it theatrically since it first came out.
Last edited:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
That was indeed the case. In early '96 I was in Boston, much of my bread and butter work was corporate, shot on Betacam. Two years later I was on "Office Space", my second studio feature; had moved to LA, quadrupled my income. Dream job yep, surreal, yep.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I don't know if anyone would say that this business is better than it was a few years ago at this point, especially not now with production waaaaay down for the past year. Overall, it's been the death of a thousand cuts. It's a shame.
cyvideo
Veteran
As Charles says. It appears not.
From what I understand, Video Village are the ones who ended up continuing on with Tiffen's DFX suite ideas. Tiffen's DFX plugs installed software versions of virtually all their glass filters. Enhancing, diffusion, grads etc. etc. It installed as an OFX suite. Black Promist, Warm Promists, Glimmerglass, Pearlescents, Diffusion/FX, Satin, Soft/FX etc are all there in a myriad of strengths.
If You can find a copy of Tiffen's DFX v4.0 you'll get many of the capabilities that Scatter brings to Resolve but in Premiere. Works well with Power Windows in the Color Tab in Resolve. Tiffen DFX is one of my go-to plugin sets. It can render up to 32-bit floating point if so selected. It also harnesses any GPU muscle you have. It can deliver very smooth grads that I really can't pick from my glass filters.
Rumour has it that Tiffen bailed out on DFX as it really started to effect their glass filters sales. It was just too good! DFX became a threat to their bottom line.
Attachments
scorsesefan
Veteran
Charles, is there a noticeable difference between the black glimmerglass 1/4 and 1/2? BH has a sale on the 1/2. Just looking to take the digital edge off of my Sony 24-105 on my fx6...
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
Lensrentals has 15% off of used gear right now for several more days. Personally I'd get a used filter from them for cheap. https://www.lensrentals.com/catalog...ber_filters":[],"number_range_filters":[]}&q=
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks, Dustin. BH has more than half off the 77mm 1/2 but no other strengths so I figured I'd take advantage.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
There's a bit of difference, of course. I think it's a subtle enough filter that 1/4 is kind of a "barely there"--I generally use 1/2 or 1.
cyvideo
Veteran
From the Tiffen filters demo video. Only a JPG, but I think it gives one an idea. To me, I see a little more highlight halation overall on the 1/2. The individual hairs look a little softer on the 1/2. Probably the most notable for me are the eyes. They look sharper on the 1/4. That's to be expected, I would suggest.
Chris Young
Chris Young
Attachments
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks. My BPM 1/8 was giving me a little more halation and reducing contrast more than I wanted so I think the 1/2 glimmerglass will have less of an effect.
rob norton
Veteran
If opting for digital diffusion, on set would you just cycle through LUTs with different diffusion options (e.g. in case it impacts light placement or other reasons), or would you make your bed with a single LUT with diffusion already dialled in?
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I don't get precious about the image on set unless I have a DIT who is dialing in live color. The majority of the time when I don't have a DIT I use 709 as the viewing LUT because I know where I am with that--once I start monkeying around with show LUT's it can steer me into lighting to ratios that might not be the right ones. In any event, I wouldn't consider diffusion part of a LUT. And one of the nice things about post diffusion is that you have full flexibility so you don't have to preview the effects on set--a hot window or light source can be managed separately from the overall diffusion layer.
Ironically, this "modern" approach lost me a job recently where the director was apparently so hung up on doing it "in camera" that they didn't like my offer to give them maximum flexibility by doing light diffusion on set and the rest in post (not that they communicated any of that to me). It literally got turned against me. Wild.