ND filter for video

S

-Sandro-

Well-known member
Hello,
shooting in daylight I've always had a problem with exposure. I really want to keep a 1/50 - 1/60 shutter speed while shooting to keep both the filmic look and shallow DOF.
So I was thinking to buy a ND filter. Do you have any advice what filter could suite best? Is it better ND4 or ND8?

Another thing...on ebay there are several types selling for below $5 from China. Are they any good or are they going to degrade the video quality like color shifts? Thank you.
 
ND4 is 2 stops, ND8 is 3 stops. So do your calculations (with ND8 you can open up the iris 3 stops more from the f-setting you are shooting correctly exposed without ND).
From my personal experience cheap ND's may induce magenta color shift, but this can be partly corrected if you set manually your white balance with the filter on.
The LightCraft Workshop (LCW) Fader ND is a good solution (variable ND filter from 0 to 6 stops), but people argue that there is sharpness loss especially on telephoto lenses.
 
I have an LCW ND fader mk2 and a set of tiffen ND filters (the cheapest ones, ND2,4,8)

the price was about the same for each solution

since I got the ND fader, I've never mounted the tiffen ones again, and I doubt I'll ever do (edit: I totally changed my mind, see post below)

the only reason for taking those out again would be if the fader caused me trouble with long lenses; so far I think I've never used it with anything above 90mm

(I should test the fader against my one dollar resolution chart, just to know exactly what I'm doing to my images... I may do so over the weekend...)
 
Last edited:
ok, I just took my 77mm ND fader mk2 against my one dollar resolution chart, and WOW, was this an interesting experiment!!

in the following days I'll go through all the stills, crop the relevant bits, and upload a nice table of results; but the conclusions were so clear-cut that I thought I should post this right away, with proof coming later on

so, here's the deal: since I got it, I've loved my ND fader, it's a breeze to use, much, much, much better than swapping my screw-in tiffen filters, which was a slow and annoying process

BUT

from today on, I'll only use it when there's no viable alternative

my carl zeiss jena sonnar 135mm f/4 is a beautiful lens, sharp and nice; put the fader in front of it, set at ND2, and it becomes the softest piece of glass I've ever seen, by far; turn the fader to ND4 or more, and it gets even worse

so that's what people were talking about: don't use your fader on long lenses

but there's more: even on my leitz elmarit-r 35mm f/2.8, which is an even nicer lens, the fader makes a very noticeable difference: not so much that you don't want to touch it at all, but enough that I wouldn't want to use it if there was an alternative

I've got a $3 chinese UV filter that I got from ebay just to see if it would help me reduce moire; it definitely affects sharpness; from what I've seen today, the ND fader makes my pictures even softer

my other ND option is a set of ND filters, which cost me $25 each at bhphoto; they also have an effect on sharpness, but it's much, much smaller; even on the 135mm, you really have to go pixel peeping if you want to see it

I'll keep my ND fader: the screw-in filters are an awful pain to use; but I've convinced myself today that I have to suffer that pain whenever it is possible, at least until I have the money to go for the much more expensive slot option

(thanks for the push, it really was an interesting test)
 
Last edited:
SDesign said:
Check out these "Polaroid Optics Variable Range ND" filters in several sizes on Amazon. No reviews yet, but they look like a decent solution for having many ND options in one filter. I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

If you pull the trigger on these, please share your results. I've been in the market for good ND filters for video.


@NormanBates

As usual, you post something worth reading.

Very interesting test. I would love to see some grabs/stills.
 
yow Norman...thanks for that. I could have told you that wihtout the extensive testing though. But its very good to hear that you tested it well. I was excited to get my Fader mark 2 for a film back in July...and when i got it and put it on the first lens(supertakumar 50 mm which is pretty sharp)...i saw an immediate difference. Green shift was the first thing i noticed...and it jsut looked soft and murky...in essense like crap. Put it on my other lenses...same thing. Heart dropped. Its SOOOO convenient, but at what cost. I hate it to be honest and i dont use it at all. I am considering Tiffen IR water whites. Shane Hurlbut tested those and others extensively and his conclusions were very good. He only uses those now. Others here have tested the singh-ray and have reported no sharpness loss even on long lenses. The singh-ray would be the same cost as the set of Water Whites...so thats my dilema now :(

Here's shane's article if anyone is interested

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/10/filtration-beware-of-the-reaper-of-cheap-glass/

where u can buy it
http://www.filmtools.com/tiffen-77mm-indie-standard-irnd-kit-w77indstdkt.html

and pro kit

http://www.filmtools.com/tiffen-77mm-indie-pro-irnd-kit-w77indprokt.html

may end up with both the Water whites for highest quality in controlled situations with time to set up shots and singh -ray for run and gun where i just need to get the shot quickly. But which to get first :(. both are costly.
 
Last edited:
ok, here are my results
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsn.html

as you'll see, it's absolutely dramatic on a 135mm, and not so bad but still not nice on a 35mm

It is very bad news for me, because the fader is soooo convenient; it's a pity that it looks so bad

if you're tempted to think "well, on the 35mm it's still bearable", you're absolutely right, but consider this:
* the standard tiffen screw-in filters are about the same price (for a 0.3+0.6+0.9 set, at 77mm), and provide much better performance; they are a pain to use, though
* I got a sharper image on the corners at wide open with no filter than at f/3.5 with the ND fader; in the past, I have stopped down this lens in order to get a slightly sharper image at the corners; that means I don't want to use the fader, if I can avoid it
* even on a 35mm, my ND fader mk2 degrades picture quality more than my $3 Chinese UV filter from ebay


@jambredz:
you nailed it! (tint and all)
plus, Shane is the biggest image quality freak I know about, you can bet those IR tiffen filters are absolutely awesome; they are also out of my budget, though
 
thanks for doing this Norman.

Yuck! I'm just gonna bite the bullet and save for the Water Whites. Long term investment and all .
 
ND faders are a pair of polarizing filters back to back. As you dial in more light reduction, you are also reducing the acceptance angle of light. This causes both loss of resolution and color shifts from diffraction.
 
To be honest, this is one reason cinematography gets on my nerves. Maybe ND faders are supposed to be low quality, maybe they aren't, but either way, I can't spend $400 on a set of quality filters, especially when in most of the outdoor situations I've been in call for an extreme loss in light - if I had to choose between a much darker filter and a minimal one, I'd have to choose the darker one and just buy that for now. So is the ~$30 0.9 Tiffen Filter a good buy? The tests on this thread seem to point to the brand being a good one, and for my budget, $30 is even a bit stressful for a filter, but not far off.
 
Well this is not a good news. I seriously can't spend that kind of money on a filter! I wish there were another ways to keep the DOF without using those high shutter speeds (i'm talking about video here)
 
NormanBates said:
my other ND option is a set of ND filters, which cost me $25 each at bhphoto; they also have an effect on sharpness, but it's much, much smaller; even on the 135mm, you really have to go pixel peeping if you want to see it
Click to expand...
What brand and model were the ones from B&H? I am in the market for ND's and did not realize the issue with softness, thank you for posting this.
 
jambredz said:
yow Norman...thanks for that. I could have told you that wihtout the extensive testing though. But its very good to hear that you tested it well. I was excited to get my Fader mark 2 for a film back in July...and when i got it and put it on the first lens(supertakumar 50 mm which is pretty sharp)...i saw an immediate difference. Green shift was the first thing i noticed...and it jsut looked soft and murky...in essense like crap. Put it on my other lenses...same thing. Heart dropped. Its SOOOO convenient, but at what cost. I hate it to be honest and i dont use it at all. I am considering Tiffen IR water whites. Shane Hurlbut tested those and others extensively and his conclusions were very good. He only uses those now. Others here have tested the singh-ray and have reported no sharpness loss even on long lenses. The singh-ray would be the same cost as the set of Water Whites...so thats my dilema now :(

Here's shane's article if anyone is interested

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/10/filtration-beware-of-the-reaper-of-cheap-glass/

where u can buy it
http://www.filmtools.com/tiffen-77mm-indie-standard-irnd-kit-w77indstdkt.html

and pro kit

http://www.filmtools.com/tiffen-77mm-indie-pro-irnd-kit-w77indprokt.html


may end up with both the Water whites for highest quality in controlled situations with time to set up shots and singh -ray for run and gun where i just need to get the shot quickly. But which to get first :(. both are costly.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, Shanes article mentions nothing about sharpness testing or potential issues, he only addresses color?
 
NormanBates said:
ok, here are my results
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsn.html

as you'll see, it's absolutely dramatic on a 135mm, and not so bad but still not nice on a 35mm

It is very bad news for me, because the fader is soooo convenient; it's a pity that it looks so bad

if you're tempted to think "well, on the 35mm it's still bearable", you're absolutely right, but consider this:
* the standard tiffen screw-in filters are about the same price (for a 0.3+0.6+0.9 set, at 77mm), and provide much better performance; they are a pain to use, though
* I got a sharper image on the corners at wide open with no filter than at f/3.5 with the ND fader; in the past, I have stopped down this lens in order to get a slightly sharper image at the corners; that means I don't want to use the fader, if I can avoid it
* even on a 35mm, my ND fader mk2 degrades picture quality more than my $3 Chinese UV filter from ebay


@jambredz:
you nailed it! (tint and all)
plus, Shane is the biggest image quality freak I know about, you can bet those IR tiffen filters are absolutely awesome; they are also out of my budget, though
Click to expand...
WOW! All I heard about was the magic ND fader, I assume this is the same one I was hearing about? UNUSABLE - soft, but what really kills it is the color shift. The Tiffens on the other hand look very very good in both color and clarity.
Is there a model number on those Tiffens?
 
I got excited and purchase the lcw fadernd mark ii and was very dissatisfied. It has horrible flare, it makes my colors shift to this weird muddy green tint and you definitely lose some sharpness. After I did a test between raising the shutter speed and using the fadernd I decided to just stick to raising the shutter.
 
Hmmm, not sure what to do. I have a GH2 and manual Nikon Nikkors in 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm all converted to 72mm filter threads. Probably not going anymore telephoto than that for now because of the 2x crop sensor and the tele-conversion feature. I need a fader ND and the Light Craft Workshop one is within budget, but I'm a bit scared off by all this talk of softening and green tinting. Equally scared off by DIYing it with two NDs because of possible vignetting. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top