DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
I say go big or go home. Get a Glimmerglass at a strength of 4 and use it for everything.
Glimmerglass vs black pro mist
- Thread starter scorsesefan
- Start date
cyvideo
Veteran
I say go big or go home. Get a Glimmerglass at a strength of 4 and use it for everything.
Kubicixfactor
Active member
Does everyone use it for interviews? I use promist for some stills (when I've got time) but never use it for video - I'd really like to give it a go though.I say go big or go home. Get a Glimmerglass at a strength of 4 and use it for everything.
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
I will use a Black Promist at low strength for a lot of interviews. Usually 1/8 and 1/4 on the A and B cam angles.
Not always, but it's nice to have the filters when there are any lights in frame or just to take the edge off, ever so slightly.
rob norton
Veteran
That is wild
, the logic sounds a bit pretzel-y and seems like they already had their mind made up.I was mainly thinking about scenarios like out of focus glass elements in the foreground, very close to the lens, where you likely might need to adjust brightness, angle, quality etc. of the light hitting the glass.
Would you go light diffusion in camera then remainder of the effect digitally, if only to have more of an idea of the effect? Or would you be fairly happy not using any in camera diffusion, and providing enough light will be enough for the Colorist to take it the rest of the way?
cyvideo
Veteran
These days, I hardly ever use filtration on the lens. Shoot naked images, and almost anything can be done in post these digital days. Below is #1, a simple image of some glasses. The left side has the Tiffen software "Bronze Glimmerglass #10" applied to it, with no additional filter adjustments applied. The right side is the original.That is wild
I was mainly thinking about scenarios like out of focus glass elements in the foreground, very close to the lens, where you likely might need to adjust brightness, angle, quality etc. of the light hitting the glass.
Would you go light diffusion in camera then remainder of the effect digitally, if only to have more of an idea of the effect? Or would you be fairly happy not using any in camera diffusion, and providing enough light will be enough for the Colorist to take it the rest of the way?
#2 is a shot of the Tiffen FX control panel. This gives you access to a massive range of filtration parameters that can be adjusted within any filter node that is applied. So much more freedom to get exactly the look your client wants. In Resolve's color Tab you can of course 'stack' filter nodes, diffusion, color enhancing etc. etc. Like stacking filters in a matte box. But all done in GPU 32-bit floating point math. Love it!
Chris Young
Attachments
rob norton
Veteran
Thanks for the reference Chris, the Tiffen FX looks great. But you don't need to sell me on the possibilities! And dialling in diffusion after the fact is a pretty enjoyable post task, compared to so many other tedious parts of the job. I've been using Film Convert's Hazy and have been liking it so far.
See the below samples:
(one of the GOAT music videos)
(skip to 01:11)
(specifically the shot at 01:21)
throughout this one
my own work for good measure
my work 2 (no foreground elements but significant part of the look on right side of frame
vimeo.com/508714049
I'm talking about where the halation/"bloom" effects are a significant part of the shot, with a completely digital diffusion approach, isn't there a leap of faith element? I was wondering if Charles would preview the effect in similar scenarios to above, or if he's provided the post workflow with even a ballpark, that'll be enough for the effect to get taken the rest of the way in post?
For the last link, upper right corner blue flare, it was quite difficult to get the light (575W HMI PAR with blue gel) in the right position - hitting talent but not too much, no stand in shot, not hitting the lens too much and giving the desired large soft flare. This was with Scheider 1/4 Hollywood Black Magic in front of the lens. Without the diffusion, it would've been harder to tell what the post diffusion effect would look like - separate to post diffusion having more control. So even if committing to an all digital diffusion project, if you want to audition the effect, it seems like a LUT or physical filter on/off (removed before recording) would work well as a preview tool?
Last edited:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I consider practical diffusion to function in two different ways: predictable and unpredictable. Generally speaking, I prefer it to be predictable, in that it has a uniform effect that is consistent with camera movement and elements in the frame. Unpredictable is when you pan into a highlight or a highlight appears in frame, and the effect shifts wholly or partially. This can either be a good thing or a bad thing. If it is the latter, what do you do? Sometimes we have to compromise the shot to keep the filter from introducing those elements, and that is NOT a good thing. Post filters will tend to be more predictable in this regard, so I like them for establishing a base look, but I don't rely on them for the wild flare type situations. Another example of bad was the Ultracon filters I used to use in the SD video days, in an attempt to lower contrast and achieve a better dynamic range. If you panned into a highlight, the shadow values would raise noticeably. Again--bad.
In the past, I've done a light filter and taken it the rest of the way in post. These days as I said, I'd just rather shoot clean and do it all later.
In the past, I've done a light filter and taken it the rest of the way in post. These days as I said, I'd just rather shoot clean and do it all later.
rob norton
Veteran
Thanks Charles!
I imagine certain DPs back in the day would've owned tens of thousands of dollars of filters alone. On the other hand, it likely meant they were working when production was valued more. At least with digital diffusion, I'm sure even those with extensive filtration collections would still be glad to move on.
Jeez, I looked at some Ultracon samples, the raised shadows are definitely noticeable lol.
I imagine certain DPs back in the day would've owned tens of thousands of dollars of filters alone. On the other hand, it likely meant they were working when production was valued more. At least with digital diffusion, I'm sure even those with extensive filtration collections would still be glad to move on.
Jeez, I looked at some Ultracon samples, the raised shadows are definitely noticeable lol.
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
I haven't dug too deep into the digital diffusion programs like Scatter, or equivalents. My basic understanding is that it takes a lot of power windows and extra work, vs. just throwing a filter on during shooting, so I've avoided them thus far.
Anyone have more extensive experience who can comment on the ease, or lack thereof, of using the software equivalents?
Anyone have more extensive experience who can comment on the ease, or lack thereof, of using the software equivalents?
scorsesefan
Veteran
Actually, I think this is what I've been looking for: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457704-REG/Tiffen_W77DDFX12_77mm_Digital_Diffusion_F_X.html
cyvideo
Veteran
I understand exactly what you are saying. And yes I've used glass filtration on set to preview certain looks, to give clients, producers etc. an idea of what I'm driving at as a 'look'. But like Charles is saying, "These days as I said, I'd just rather shoot clean and do it all later." I agree with him as that seems to be the way the industry is going. The biggest problem I run into these days, and a few others have commented the same to me, is smaller crews, less time on set and smaller budgets... well that's the in my field these days. A lot of my contemporary producers, directors etc have now retired... or passed on to the big studio in the sky. So I find I'm working with younger and younger producers, some fairly fresh out of film school, where a lot of the altitude seems to be, "... it can all be done in post." And I am finding with a lot of the more experienced younger producers, they have a fair idea of the flexibility that applying filtration FX in post allows them. That's coming from their exposure to a lot of later editing techniques and experiences.
The clip I link to below just shows the varied looks I can cook up in minutes with a mixture of Tiffens's filters, These clips have no grading other than levels adjustment and the filter nodes applied. Much like you would be doing with the Film Convert ones you are using. I find once you are used to the flexibility of developing a mixture of treatments a producer can pick from in minutes in post, it is making it much harder to go with an on set baked in look that leaves you with nowhere to go later. Even extreme strong dirty frame lighting affects like your love story clip, I like that look, can now be done with Tiffen's, now Boris FX's lighting filters.
Chris Young
https://youtu.be/4kz4sUCzNPY
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I tested Scatter in Resolve a year or two ago and was going to pull the trigger on it, but with work being so slow I couldn't really justify it for "fun". It's very easy to use and if you are looking to emulate an overall look, it's as simple as dropping it on a node and adjusting strength. The power window part is really more of a strength than a weakness, in that you can tailor the effect throughout the frame if desired (which you can't do with a glass filter of course). So if you wanted an overall diffusion but didn't care for the amount of halation you are getting from a hot light source in the frame, you can track that light and dial down the effect to taste in a separate node. Or apply different amounts of diffusion to different characters in the shot. But all of that is optional, and added value.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I haven't really been in a situation where we wanted to push a notable flare on screen and I relied on it in post. That's one situation where yes, I would be likely to introduce a glass filter for the effect. The concept of shooting a test clip with and then shooting the scene without is something that makes perfect sense, but in practice I've given up on because on a project where there is a full post team (vs a small project where the grade is being done within the project, so all clips are accessible), this requires a type of communication that I have found all but impossible to achieve. Let's take an example where I wanted to capture more dynamic range in a given locked down shot than the camera could manage, so I shoot a sky pass, stopped down three stops. I send a note to editorial to earmark this as a clip that the two passes should be comped. I get a "received, thank you!" in return. A month or two later, I'm in the grade and looking at the raw clip in the cut timeline and there's no comp, no sky pass clip anywhere to be seen. If I'm very lucky I can convince the post supervisor to go back and find the elements, but most likely we sit there qualifying the sky and trying to pull some color back into it with mild to no success. Hate it, but it has happened more times than I can count, so I've grown to not rely on this process any more.
rob norton
Veteran
I think I'd be pretty far down any younger people's lists of who to hire, nowhere near cool enough.
Thanks for the cautionary tale
cyvideo
Veteran
That's much the same here. Where I'm running into younger producers is through a couple of ad agencies that I have contracted with for years. Some of the senior people I've known for years are still there. They are the ones who book me, and then they send out these fresh new 'producers' to tell me how to do it all.I think I'd be pretty far down any younger people's lists of who to hire, nowhere near cool enough.
Thanks for the cautionary tale
Chris Young