ND filters and all that

Vultch

Vultch

Well-known member
On a recent threat the pros and cons of the Black Magic Ursa minor not having built in ND filters was tossed around.

Personally I wish they had fitted them but here were are, I don't like variable NDs due to the polarising effect so I am stuck with a set of fixed ND that have to be changed for my DSLR shoots (pain in the ass when the sun is in and out).
But then I was wondering the glasses or spectacles industry have had photo reactive lenses for some time, is there a reason camera or lens manufactures don't go down this route.
 
I can't see that as being practical at all. If your ND filter was photoreactive, you'd be completely beholden to the filter's reaction and how dense it becomes. In other words, if you cannot control how much ND filtering is applied, you really cannot control your image.
 
Admittedly it would need a lot of development but the idea of a variable ND without polarisation appeals.
 
You'd need development of something you couldn't have -- precise control of the density.

You're better off just switching out precise filters.
 
I switch filters all the time. It's really not as much of a pain as you think. Most of the time if only a small variation in light occurs you can simply go up slightly on shutter speed or close the aperture a bit. Especially for small indie shoots.
 
In an age where DPs are showing up on set with smaller and smaller cameras the big mattebox might actually be a welcome sign. Usually to the clients eyes, bigger is always better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top