ND filters
- Thread starter trueindie
- Start date
I'm not absolutely sure I need them. However, I do have a variable ND filter I bought for 180 bucks, that's pretty good and that I've used before. And I liked using it. But I sometimes use two cameras in my shoots, and I was thinking of possible calibration issues and thinking of using fixed NDs.
But although I'm not "sure" that I need them, I definitely see advantages of having them for outside shoots. Since I'm planning for one, I was asking the question.
But although I'm not "sure" that I need them, I definitely see advantages of having them for outside shoots. Since I'm planning for one, I was asking the question.
drapeama
Well-known member
1) If you have the money, I definitively second that. If you take care of them, they will last long enough to be cost-efective.
2) That's the main question. On the other hand, I bought a set of 4x4 to use with my mattebox, and I wouldn't shoot outside without that stuff again, so better to have it I'd say.
For outside shooting, I'd say it's pretty needed. Shooting with up to f/22 aperture and ISO100 won't help much on a bright sunny day, you'll still have an overexposed picture.
Grug
Veteran
I can't really see how anybody could shoot effectively without them - how else do you control your exposure without them?!
With any glass that's going in front of your lenses, you want the best you can afford - I went for a Tiffen 'water-white' set (0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2) which I'm able to use in combination with the internal ND filters on my camera. If you don't have internal NDs on your camera already - you'll probably want at least one stronger ND for bright outdoors shoots - say a 1.8 (6-stop ND) at a minimum.
The good ones aren't cheap, my four 4x5.6 ones cost about $900. But I've never had any issues with colour-cast from them, and they get used on every single shoot I do, so to my mind they're an essential investment.
If you're only using SLR lenses, you'll be able to save a lot of cash by opting for 77mm versions over the 4x5.6 ones.
With any glass that's going in front of your lenses, you want the best you can afford - I went for a Tiffen 'water-white' set (0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2) which I'm able to use in combination with the internal ND filters on my camera. If you don't have internal NDs on your camera already - you'll probably want at least one stronger ND for bright outdoors shoots - say a 1.8 (6-stop ND) at a minimum.
The good ones aren't cheap, my four 4x5.6 ones cost about $900. But I've never had any issues with colour-cast from them, and they get used on every single shoot I do, so to my mind they're an essential investment.
If you're only using SLR lenses, you'll be able to save a lot of cash by opting for 77mm versions over the 4x5.6 ones.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Forget Tiffens (they get progressively more greenish in tint as you go higher in ND) and get Schneider ND filters.
drapeama
Well-known member
The Cavision glass ones gets a little bit blueish when stacked, but nothing I can't correct in post. So for the price (~65$/pc) I'm happy with them.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I've shot some tests with my cheap Tiffen screw-in NDs here (LCW Fader ND mk2 and other cheap filters featured too). They do get green pretty fast (4 stops and it's clearly noticeable), but you can solve it easily by using custom WB (the kind where you point the camera at a grey card and use that to define white) (not the same as using better filters, but not a bad solution either if you don't have the cash at hand for more expensive filters).
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Depending on which camera you are using, you may need IR ND's or hot mirrors instead of regular ND to avoid far red contamination.
Joshua Cadmium
Well-known member
The best IRND right now for matte box usage is Mitomo's True ND. Otherwise, if you can deal with 82mm or less (and there are 82mm to 4x4 adapters for matte box usage as well), Hoya's ProND is the best (more strengths, cheaper, and very very similar). You might want to use their IR Cut filter on top as well. Here's a ton of info over at BMCUser: http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?6403-4K-update-Hoya-ProND-Rolling-Report-Thread . The Blackmagic Pocket and original Cinema Camera basically have no IR protection whatsoever, so those cameras stress test any IRNDs and these look fabulous on them.
Last edited:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I concur. Have been using them since last fall and they are far superior to the Tiffen and Schneider in terms of color matching throughout the range, plus they can be used interchangeably between classic IR and hot mirror applications (RED). Major drawbacks is that the coating is fragile and they are very expensive. The latter is why I didn't mention them in my post.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Cavision filters produced optically poor results (blurry images) on longer lenses< so i can't really recommend those cheap filters.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Wow, those Mitomos look sweet but are really expensive...
I was thinking of upgrading from my cheap Tiffens, to the more expensive Tiffen IR/ND kit. At $120 each, the Hoyas could be in my budget too, if I don't get a full set (currently I have 1,2,3,4-stop filters, and 90% of the time I just use the 2-stop and the 4-stop, alone or stacked together). Are they clearly better than the Tiffen IR/ND?
Joshua Cadmium
Well-known member
The Hoya's are absolutely better than the Tiffens. Also, if you follow that link I posted earlier, you can pick up a set for cheaper, plus 10% off (it's like a BMCUser group buy.)
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Cool, thanks a lot.
I preordered an a7s, so I don't know yet which filters I will need: it will depend on how the image changes with ISO. But guessing that ISO 200-800 will be fine (it doesn't shoot video at ISO 100), I'm thinking 3+7 stops or something like that. The a7s has a lot of ISO headroom, so going for stronger filters and pushing up the ISO a bit shouldn't be a problem at all. But I need to play with the camera in order to decide which ones to buy.
I preordered an a7s, so I don't know yet which filters I will need: it will depend on how the image changes with ISO. But guessing that ISO 200-800 will be fine (it doesn't shoot video at ISO 100), I'm thinking 3+7 stops or something like that. The a7s has a lot of ISO headroom, so going for stronger filters and pushing up the ISO a bit shouldn't be a problem at all. But I need to play with the camera in order to decide which ones to buy.
vincent thomas
Well-known member
Few questions i will like to have your opinions ....
- I try to be based on 77mm ring size, for longer best investisement, is it wise to buy 82mm filter or stick to 77mm? Logically i will off course go for the more natural solution , the second one but...
- Second.. Considering the mitomo filter are roughly 5 times more expansive, that you need a matte box with 2 or 3 stages with 15 or 18mm rods so your camera start to be not a light and discrete , in which situation i will strongly regreat not to have use a mattebox/4x6 combo intead of a circular 77mm Tiffen IR/ND k?
- How much quality will be lost when using the best vari ND filters instead of a circular Tiffen IR/ND filter or best a mattebox with a Mitomo filter?
Thnks you for your feedback,
Cheers guys
________________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
Creative Art Director & VFX supervisor / Senior Lighter & DigiMatte Painter / Concept Designer
http://fr.linkedin.com/in/vincentthomas
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
- I try to be based on 77mm ring size, for longer best investisement, is it wise to buy 82mm filter or stick to 77mm? Logically i will off course go for the more natural solution , the second one but...
- Second.. Considering the mitomo filter are roughly 5 times more expansive, that you need a matte box with 2 or 3 stages with 15 or 18mm rods so your camera start to be not a light and discrete , in which situation i will strongly regreat not to have use a mattebox/4x6 combo intead of a circular 77mm Tiffen IR/ND k?
- How much quality will be lost when using the best vari ND filters instead of a circular Tiffen IR/ND filter or best a mattebox with a Mitomo filter?
Thnks you for your feedback,
Cheers guys
________________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
Creative Art Director & VFX supervisor / Senior Lighter & DigiMatte Painter / Concept Designer
http://fr.linkedin.com/in/vincentthomas
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
The improvement one sees with the Mitomos is that the filters do not color shift. Typical IRND's can shift the color temperature considerably, I've measured up to 800 degrees Kelvin within a set of Tiffens. It's nothing that can't be color corrected out in post however, so if you have more time than money, you won't have an issue. This is not the same thing as using a standard ND vs an IR ND, which will allow for increasing far red and infrared pollution so the blacks move towards red and other more subtle color shifts that are harder to correct out in post.
The primary advantage of a mattebox is light control. It's not actually the mattebox itself that provides most of the protection from lights flaring the lens, it's that it acts as an attachment point for a top flag (eyebrow) and side flags. The filter trays allow for more convenient filter swapouts than a screw-on type, and rotating stages are ideal for grad filters, split diopters and polarizers. Since the filters are always larger than the diameter of the lens, you have an easier time avoiding vignetting on wide lenses. I'll pass on making the "matte boxes look cool" argument.
One last thing--take care in describing round filters as circular, as a circular polarizer refers to a specific function of the design rather than its actual shape.
The primary advantage of a mattebox is light control. It's not actually the mattebox itself that provides most of the protection from lights flaring the lens, it's that it acts as an attachment point for a top flag (eyebrow) and side flags. The filter trays allow for more convenient filter swapouts than a screw-on type, and rotating stages are ideal for grad filters, split diopters and polarizers. Since the filters are always larger than the diameter of the lens, you have an easier time avoiding vignetting on wide lenses. I'll pass on making the "matte boxes look cool" argument.
One last thing--take care in describing round filters as circular, as a circular polarizer refers to a specific function of the design rather than its actual shape.
vincent thomas
Well-known member
Thanks Charles, great feedback.
In photography, i have never really enjoyed so much circular polarizer for my work, and so far i haven't seen much etablished DOP using then.. Am wrong?
Looks like for now, i will take the risk to have flare and bypass a mattebox. I like accident , diffused light on uncoated lens, and be able to operate light and fast is probably more important for myself
Any words about comparing the best variND filter produced today to the best ND filter?
In photography, i have never really enjoyed so much circular polarizer for my work, and so far i haven't seen much etablished DOP using then.. Am wrong?
Looks like for now, i will take the risk to have flare and bypass a mattebox. I like accident , diffused light on uncoated lens, and be able to operate light and fast is probably more important for myself
Any words about comparing the best variND filter produced today to the best ND filter?
Michael Carter
Veteran
For the cheapskates... my first 4x4's were a set of 3 Lee Nd's, .3, .6, .9. yeah, they're plastic, Under $100 for the set.
Honestly, they were damn good for the money. I still have 'em and used one last week (grabbed the wrong pouch when I packed). Footage is sharp & tasty. No problems with color cast. Maybe if I shot gray charts & eyedroppered the RGB values I'd see something, but my footage was always nice with 'em.
Honestly, they were damn good for the money. I still have 'em and used one last week (grabbed the wrong pouch when I packed). Footage is sharp & tasty. No problems with color cast. Maybe if I shot gray charts & eyedroppered the RGB values I'd see something, but my footage was always nice with 'em.