ND filters?

X

xhridhar

Active member
We will be shooting outdoors in strong light. I was wondering what brand and strength of ND filters are recommended when using tokina 11-16.

Many thanks
 
I found the Hoyas work well. I believe they are the Pro HD or something like that. The version above the base Hoya NDs. I tried the cheaper Tiffens and they had a green cast. No color cast at all with the Hoyas so go with those.
 
OK, I'm curious -- I've shot outdoors in VERY strong light (Arizona / Utah desert, light-coloured rock all around), and didn't have any problem with the built-in NDs. In fact, I don't think I even used the top one. Why do you need add-ons?

BTW, if you do need more ND, maybe add a polariser?
 
You can get some diffraction problems if you step down a lens too much. Generally it's best to shoot around F4/5.6 - especially for the wide lenses I would have thought, which can have some edge sharpness problems at the best of times.
 
Ah. Thanks for this info. I was just playing it safe. :) Am travelling to U.S to buy a bunch of equipment for the shoot and so was checking to see if I should need them .
 
AtticusLake said:
OK, I'm curious -- I've shot outdoors in VERY strong light (Arizona / Utah desert, light-coloured rock all around), and didn't have any problem with the built-in NDs. In fact, I don't think I even used the top one. Why do you need add-ons?

BTW, if you do need more ND, maybe add a polariser?
Click to expand...

shot some test plates yesterday for VFX. Very strong sunlight. Sony F3, s-log which meant 1600 ISO. Had to use strongest internal ND filter and yet had to use a t-stop of double digits. Very curious as to how you managed to shoot at 2000 ISO in very strong light and not use strongest ND?

Maybe you didn't use 2000 ISO? :) or maybe I messed up ?
 
The internal ND's are good for about F4-5.6 outside(providing you are using base iso). With bright highlights you can still easily still clip your highlights though. Nothing will surpass a matte box and quality ND's but they aren't exactly easy to travel with or quick to adjust.

Depending on what you are shooting a vari-nd might be a good option as well. There are some drawbacks, but they are fast, easy to adjust and are travel friendly! Tiffen makes a great one that I own and often use for shooting wide open in bright conditions.
 
Last edited:
xhridhar said:
shot some test plates yesterday for VFX. Very strong sunlight. Sony F3, s-log which meant 1600 ISO. Had to use strongest internal ND filter and yet had to use a t-stop of double digits. Very curious as to how you managed to shoot at 2000 ISO in very strong light and not use strongest ND?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would I use 2000 ISO?????? I shot on a fairly simple profile, no extra gain (so ISO 640 or so). I don't remember the actual settings I used at all times, bit I would guess the worst I hit was f11 on the top ND filter. So yes, it's double digits, and if you're trying to avoid that, you would potentially need another ND. Or a polariser.

And certainly if you need to shoot ISO 2000 (???) then you would need NDs.

Actually, thinking about it, I *did* have a polariser on -- so I guess I was technically using an extra ND!

The results certainly looked pretty good to me, but then I was mainly focused on just being able to film at all -- working from a small boat with just one person to drive meant running in and out with the camera, walking up the 3" wide side deck with the camera in one hand, jumping the other hand along the rail, etc... being able to shoot with the camera as is made it all possible. Used the kit lens mostly, the Zeiss 12mm in the narrower canyons.

Worst moment -- waist deep in quicksand, FS700 held over head in left hand, the rest of my kit in my backpack, thinking "OK, now what...".
 
AtticusLake said:
Why on earth would I use 2000 ISO?????? I shot on a fairly simple profile, no extra gain (so ISO 640 or so). I don't remember the actual settings I used at all times, bit I would guess the worst I hit was f11 on the top ND filter. So yes, it's double digits, and if you're trying to avoid that, you would potentially need another ND. Or a polariser.

And certainly if you need to shoot ISO 2000 (???) then you would need NDs.

Actually, thinking about it, I *did* have a polariser on -- so I guess I was technically using an extra ND!

The results certainly looked pretty good to me, but then I was mainly focused on just being able to film at all -- working from a small boat with just one person to drive meant running in and out with the camera, walking up the 3" wide side deck with the camera in one hand, jumping the other hand along the rail, etc... being able to shoot with the camera as is made it all possible. Used the kit lens mostly, the Zeiss 12mm in the narrower canyons.

Worst moment -- waist deep in quicksand, FS700 held over head in left hand, the rest of my kit in my backpack, thinking "OK, now what...".
Click to expand...

It sounds like xhridhar is most likely shooting sLog2, which has a base ISO of 2000. And yes, that polarizer is definitely what's making the difference. On top of that, on most lenses he might want to avoid f/11 if possible. In that intense of lighting condition, he's going to want a polarizer plus I'd carry at least one 6-stop standard (non variable) ND filter and then use the camera's ND's to make adjustments.
 
I've mentioned this before. I use a GENUS variable ND filter ILO any other type of ND filter. Variable ND filters work like polarizers. In doing so, the dynamic range of the scene is reduced, especially if there are a lot of specular hilights. The net effect is a reduction in overall scene DR by attenuating only the reflections, as well as a general attenuation of the entire scene.

So, for example, if the DR of a scene is 13 stops unfiltered, it will be reduced to 12 stops with a variable ND. as well as having the overall ev reduced by an amount anywhere from 1-4 stops.
 
I use variable NDs only when I am lazy in private filming but never for paid jobs. Be careful as the the polarizer can create horrible effects (interference pattern) on laminated glass or transparant acrylic glas.

edit:
see this sample here. Luckily I realized it when checking the footage. We had to re-do the shot
but I didn't tell the client due to what reason ;-)

interference.jpg


Also note that vario ND reduce reflections but sometimes you want to keep them
 
Last edited:
yep...in fact, polarizers are used to see stress patterns in acrylics. Like all filters, some judgment is needed...:badputer:
No solution is perfect. Even ND's will affect the image, no matter how perfectly parallel the surfaces are, which is why some manufacturers don't include them on a camera. It makes backplane adjustment more difficult.

The pattern tou see in the pic you posted is due to the varying distance between the two panes of glass. Really an indication of the process used to bond the glass plates together. Once we start playing with the wavelength(s) of a light ray, as you will do with a polarizer, all kinds of odd effects start to happen. It's just important to be aware of this, that's all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top