Dangerpays
Well-known member
Anyone know where I can find some? I was looking at Cavision filters and they seemed reasonable, but I think I can be doing a bit better price-wise. Any suggestions for this?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Inexpensive 4x4 Filters?
- Thread starter Dangerpays
- Start date
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Are you using stock lens to shoot? If yes, then go ahead use cavison. If no, then why use cheap glass in front of your expensive glass??? Do you really think that somehow the cheap guys found a magic source of cheap glass that the expensive guys don't have access to???
Dangerpays
Well-known member
Not at all. I think Formatt makes some nice glass, but I am on a budget here. I have a T2i and I use a hand-made EOS to FD lens converter so that I can use a set of Canon Prime FD photography lenses (28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm). What are you using for your setups?
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
The question remains: why put sub-par glass in front of your good glass? Budget is indeed a factor but are you willing to compromise (and how far) the image quality?
David W. Jones
Veteran
High quality used filters can be found at bargain prices in the for sale area and on eBay. I recently picked up a dozen filters from a rental house that went out of business for a very good price.
starcentral
Veteran
Try the Cokin series that Henry's or Vistek sell (I see you are fellow Canuck), but they mostly have to be used with their own frame that screws onto the front of your lens. If you can't afford the larger sized filters (4x4 or 5.65x4) that is a good alternative for now.
Also don't be fooled by filter gimmicks, most effects can be done in post where you have time to spend finessing your image... my advise is to stick to the main filters to help expose your image in-camera and do everything else in post. If you start with a good image and your codec is half decent you can make subtle changes to your image to hit the look you are aiming for.
Lastly if you still don't want to spend the cash, buy circular filters and just screw on your lens
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I have a bunch of resin filters that works great. Resin is not the best material but despite this they don't degrade video shooting. I always drop filters so it's not good to have glass because then I would brake alot of filters. But I also have higher quality glass filters to screw-mount directly onto lenses when shooting without mattebox.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
That's incorrect. Only very skilled high end After Effects artist can create believable effects that look good. Otherwise you get half-believable image. On top of that many filters create extreme effect that if trying to replicate in AE would look super fake. Get the image you want in camera.
starcentral
Veteran
If you are saying it is possible, how does it make it incorrect? You just contradicted yourself.
With resolution being where it is today on top of it cameras with higher dynamic range, it makes way more sense to worry about exposing your image in camera and dealing with the rest in post. In fact, even major manufacturers of glass filters are now selling software as plugins for your favourite editing or post production software to simulate individual glass filters that use to cost $100 (or more) each.
marlontorres
Well-known member
+1. I've been using After Effects for 8 years and Nuke the past 2 years. You can do most (but not all) filter effects in post. The only REAL filters I use nowadays are Polarizers, ND's, and IR's. Anything else, I'll do it in post.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
"Do it in the post" is not a valid business or creative approach. There is only so much one can do on the budget given or within time given for personal projects. If i can get it done in 30 seconds it takes to put a extra filter on the lens why spend considerable amount of $$ or time (If you are doing it on your own in free time) to get the very same effect? Not only that "the very same" effect will never be IT, as the in-lens approach is always more natural because... well it was done in camera.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
It is practiced less today because of the capabilities of a digital post workflow. If you read Sidney Lumet's Making Movies, it's almost comical how much they would do in-camera to achieve an effect - an effect that simply could not be done in post at that time. Everything from haze filters, diffusion, warm filters, etc. was used to make a certain character look a certain way.
Today, the general (apparent) consensus is that it is a better practice to get a clean image and then add in your effects that would otherwise be achieved in-camera (lens flares, color, contrast, textural filters, etc.). Although that approach is more expensive, it allows more freedom in post to change your mind or experiment with other things.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Oh come on guys, you can't be serious with your comments.
Take this spot for example (nothing fancy, gut gets the job done):
http://patrykrebisz.com/c_mercedes1.html
The company only had $ for 1 day of shooting and 2 days of edit. No money for CC or more advanced post. Do you still suggest that the image should be shot flat (without all those flares) to give as much versatility as possible in the post? What post - there is no money (or time) for that! And this is one of many examples. Even on jobs where the client can afford the post often due to time constrains it's not done - I have seen it way too often to relay on "We'll adjust it in the post" comment.
Take this spot for example (nothing fancy, gut gets the job done):
http://patrykrebisz.com/c_mercedes1.html
The company only had $ for 1 day of shooting and 2 days of edit. No money for CC or more advanced post. Do you still suggest that the image should be shot flat (without all those flares) to give as much versatility as possible in the post? What post - there is no money (or time) for that! And this is one of many examples. Even on jobs where the client can afford the post often due to time constrains it's not done - I have seen it way too often to relay on "We'll adjust it in the post" comment.
marlontorres
Well-known member
I like to do it in post because it gives me "options". Same reason I don't color grade my footage in-camera. Yes, it takes longer in post but having the option to create the look I want in post gives me a bigger creative palette. So saying that not my practice isn't a valid or creative way of doing it is offensive and ridiculous. On the contrary, having the freedom to add, remove, enhance the footage in post gives me much more creative fulfillment than having a burned in image out of the camera.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
I was posting for others to construct an opinion and to show the two schools of thought in effects workflow, not to make an argument for one way or the other.
RyanT
Veteran
Sure it's not always possible to do it, but again, to say that there's absolutely no other way to get the job done is a little silly. Flares and streak filters are obviously a different matter though, as doing those effects digitally is a little bit of a struggle. I'm talking more so about subtle color grading that can easily be done in post.
Just don't say that your way is the end all and I'm sure a lot more people will agree with you.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
This shouldn't really turn into a piss match...
marlontorres : "The only REAL filters I use nowadays are Polarizers, ND's, and IR's. Anything else, I'll do it in post."
How do you want me to take your advice seriously if you make such an outlandish comment??? Anything else you do in the post? Fantastic but i shoot for some damn high end clients and most of them have no budget or more often time to do it in the post. So you still want a crappy flat image to be defacto final image only because you have 3 filters in your toolset??
RyanT : Where am i implying that there is only one way?
Bottom line, there is a thousand and a half times where you would NOT use any filtration but there is probably 10x as many situations where you would. There is no best way but certain real-life circumstances (time it takes for instance) have to be taken under considerations. Thus having the toolset (both skills to know what's possible and how long it takes in the post AND real glass available) is vital to accomplish what one invisions.
marlontorres : "The only REAL filters I use nowadays are Polarizers, ND's, and IR's. Anything else, I'll do it in post."
How do you want me to take your advice seriously if you make such an outlandish comment??? Anything else you do in the post? Fantastic but i shoot for some damn high end clients and most of them have no budget or more often time to do it in the post. So you still want a crappy flat image to be defacto final image only because you have 3 filters in your toolset??
RyanT : Where am i implying that there is only one way?
Bottom line, there is a thousand and a half times where you would NOT use any filtration but there is probably 10x as many situations where you would. There is no best way but certain real-life circumstances (time it takes for instance) have to be taken under considerations. Thus having the toolset (both skills to know what's possible and how long it takes in the post AND real glass available) is vital to accomplish what one invisions.
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
IMO the most important filters are exposure control ones, like NDs and ND Grads (specially these). If we're talking about budget restrictions here.
Patryk, your stance is completely valid in your circumstances. I just parachuted into this discussion so don't hit me!
Patryk, your stance is completely valid in your circumstances. I just parachuted into this discussion so don't hit me!
marlontorres
Well-known member
It's really funny how your "so damn high end clients" have no budget for post. I personally won't take a job that won't let me do my job properly. No budget for post? No thanks. I'm not that desperate for work.
Last edited: