On-Camera Filters vs. FX in post

[JRAnderson]

Was wondering what differences in image quality folks have seen between using on-camera filters vs. using Vegas' built-in FX tools.

Seems like automatically you have a much greater range in post -- softer softs, bigger flares, whatever looks better, than the static effect you get with a screw-on filter. But are their trade-offs in the quality of the image itself?

Anyone out there experimented?

Also, anyone have a rundown of Tiffen filters and their equivalents in Vegas?

 

[Matt Grunau]

There are few things (not counting UV and Polarizer) that can't be achieved in post.

My take on it has always been this:

Get the most even, balanced, properly lit, untweaked video you can, and set your mood in post. It's always easier to darken than lighten, always easier to add contrast than take it away, and always easier to add noise than to get rid of it.

Once you film something with a certain look, you are pretty much stuck with it. You can always remidy to a point, but at the same time, you can only push your video so far.

If you want a certain look, do it in Vegas. You will always have your base footage to fall back on if you ever want to lessen the amount, or remove it for visual contrast, or change it to another look.

Same thing applies to audio. I'de much rather have a clean, noise free recording with a good mic and add elements or change the kind of sound (like talking through a phone) in an audio editor.


As to equivalent filters in Vegas, there are sets of filters for film looks, far less expensive and just as compitant as their higher priced brethren, and things like white and black diffusion are only a blur and blending mode away. Vegas' blending modes are a huge asset.