Optical diffusion vs Post

D

dadoboy

Well-known member
A few weeks ago shot a commercial with the RED and used several Classic Soft filters. The first day of the shoot, I asked for a 1/4 soft to be put in, and the 1st AC (who the producer had brought on - not my guys) said that he preferred to soften the image in post when he shot the RED. I politely told him to shut up and put the filter in.

The first day of a shoot is not a time for me to ruminate on the use of a filter set I had been using for quite a while. Most DP's I've AC'd for use classic softs, but the advent of digital and RED does make me want to re-think this topic now . I don't want to be "old school" if the gains of doing it in post outweigh the bother of putting in optical filters.

Wondering if other shooters / AC's can tell me if they prefer doing it in post (After FX?) and why? Do plug-ins in AEX really do a better job than expensive optical filters such as Classic Softs?
 
MY 2 cents: The only real way to know is for you to run tests. In doing so you will make your own judgement call based upon your own values. That's what people pay for after all, someone's judgement they trust who know the tools well enough to come up with a stylized look that's appropriate for the story at hand.
 
I prefer post largely for the amount of control it gives. My history with digital things explains why I'm in that habit, it might not be the same for everyone. I've never really seen an advantage to using filters for softening. My goal is generally to have as efficient a shoot as possible, and not taking the time to deal with optical filters helps with that. It's much better to work on it in post when there really is the time to do so. And I'm saying that as an editor as well, so I'm not just pushing the work onto someone else.
 
Last edited:
In camera for most filtration... not only because knowing what you are doing on set is faster... always... but because many filters can only be fully used optically, not post. Some react and control light in a way that altering 1's and 0's can't.

There are MANY filters which provide use you CANNOT get in post:

Polarizing filters
Grad ND filters
UV/haze filters
infrared filters
Closeup/Diopters
Low Contrast Filters
 
I spent a small fortune on soft filters, but found that post looks better and gives much more control. I now only use polarizers, NDs, and grads in the mattebox.
 
I echo what Ryan said. Like that silly motivational poster says, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. If you have the experience and have run the tests, then do it optically. I have worked with the CineAlta, Varicam, and Red, I prefer optical filters to those in post. Keep in mind compression will run down the data you get to work with in post. Even though RedCode is pretty solid (that may be an understatement), its still compressed. Light going through a filter will always be easier and less expensive (filters in post=time and time=money) if thats what you want and need, and will affect the image better (IMHO) then something in Post.
 
The problem is that you can't undo an optical filter. It takes two seconds to drop Magic Bullet onto a channel, and maybe 5 minutes of tweaking to get the look you want. There's no tweaking glass filters.
 
It's only a problem if you're prone to second guessing your actions on set. 10s had it right - you are hired for your judgement. Any fast food cinematographer can shoot flat and let the editor/colorist massage the footage.

Frankly, that's not what attracts me to cinematography. There are too many directors that don't know what they want and too many cinematographers that won't stand up for their images.

dadoboy: Probably should have slapped the 1st AC, unless he was also the editor! I'm only so far along in all of this, but I'm amazed at the lack of hierarchy on sets at times...
 
Taylor Rudd said:
I

dadoboy: Probably should have slapped the 1st AC, unless he was also the editor! I'm only so far along in all of this, but I'm amazed at the lack of hierarchy on sets at times...
Click to expand...

LOL! He was the producer's pick and I don't know where he got him. Sometimes I can't get the crew person I want because of either budget or they are not available and then it falls on production to fill that position. That's sometimes a good opportunity to work with new people, and on a two day commercial shoot even if they get on your nerves, that's OK. I'm a pretty nice guy and try to apply the golden rule to my crew since I sometimes do crew work too to pay the bills. But yeah, I don't question my bosses aesthetic choices and I expect my crew not to do the same when I lead. Enough said that I won't be working with that guy again.

I had to laugh though, I saw a Korean DP slap his cable wrangler on a Korean financed shoot in San Francisco. Man, what they can get away with in the far east!

It's a down time for me - no work for the last several weeks - so definitely a time to test, ask questions, ruminate, stew, worry about rent, nash teeth, arggh!

I may try to get some raw R3D footage and apply filters in post just to compare with the footage I shot - but I don't know FCP at all or Adobe After FX. Again, I'm sold on classic softs, but I just want to know cuz I have the time right now.

Thanks for your input all.
 
For what it is worth, I just ran some tests on the RED with the Black Pro Mist and the Classic Soft filters. The results of which I will be posting on MY BLOG, and in the QUEST FEST THREAD. That might help you out a bit. (The short answer being that I prefer the Classic Soft over the Black Pro Mist.

In regards to if you should do it in camera or in post, I'm a big proponent of doing it in camera for 2 reasons:

1. It is quicker, easier, and cheaper to do it in camera. A $9 rental fee for a filter is a lot cheaper then paying an editor or colorist to play around with the footage until you get the look you are after. It will only take 30 seconds or less to put the filter in- editing takes experimentation and render time- both of which can be costly.

2. Control of your image. This is what people are paying you for after all. Regardless of IF you can do it in post or not, WILL it be done in post? Many times due to tight schedules, limited budgets, or just general forgetfulness filters that can be done in post are left out. If that is the look you are going for, then why not get it in camera where you can have the say on how much and what the image will look like. Will you be there to oversee how the filter is applied? If so, then that again goes back to the previous reason- now you and an editor are eating up time and money for a choice that could have been made quickly and easily on set. Further more, softening filters especially do not look good in post IMO. They just make the image look blurry and out of focus ...

If you know the look you are going for, get as much of it as possible "in the can". Post should be used for getting things that were not possible on set. Just my $0.02.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
In camera for most filtration... not only because knowing what you are doing on set is faster... always... but because many filters can only be fully used optically, not post. Some react and control light in a way that altering 1's and 0's can't.

There are MANY filters which provide use you CANNOT get in post:

Polarizing filters
Grad ND filters
UV/haze filters
infrared filters
Closeup/Diopters
Low Contrast Filters
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my finger tips, Ryan. I'm right behind you with this stance. While I feel wonderful things can be done in post, a real DP should always have a vast understanding of color science, color space in digital, the countless ways to manipulate light and color, and almost most important of all: know how to use optical tools! As Ryan mentioned, it will save time and help build confidence in your own work/style/evolution as a DP.
 
Black Pro Mists

Black Pro Mists

Ryan,
Regarding black pro mists:
Black pro mists seem to be on the way out here. I personally don't like the look of them, and DP's I work for seem to like sexier, newer filters if they need to put "black" in the image. I haven't put a BPM or WPM in a matt box for anyone in two years.

I enjoy reading your posts BTW in the questfest threads. Good stuff.

Ryan E. Walters said:
For what it is worth, I just ran some tests on the RED with the Black Pro Mist and the Classic Soft filters. The results of which I will be posting on MY BLOG, and in the QUEST FEST THREAD. That might help you out a bit. (The short answer being that I prefer the Classic Soft over the Black Pro Mist.

In regards to if you should do it in camera or in post, I'm a big proponent of doing it in camera for 2 reasons:

1. It is quicker, easier, and cheaper to do it in camera. A $9 rental fee for a filter is a lot cheaper then paying an editor or colorist to play around with the footage until you get the look you are after. It will only take 30 seconds or less to put the filter in- editing takes experimentation and render time- both of which can be costly.

2. Control of your image. This is what people are paying you for after all. Regardless of IF you can do it in post or not, WILL it be done in post? Many times due to tight schedules, limited budgets, or just general forgetfulness filters that can be done in post are left out. If that is the look you are going for, then why not get it in camera where you can have the say on how much and what the image will look like. Will you be there to oversee how the filter is applied? If so, then that again goes back to the previous reason- now you and an editor are eating up time and money for a choice that could have been made quickly and easily on set. Further more, softening filters especially do not look good in post IMO. They just make the image look blurry and out of focus ...

If you know the look you are going for, get as much of it as possible "in the can". Post should be used for getting things that were not possible on set. Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...
 
dadoboy said:
Ryan,
Regarding black pro mists:
Black pro mists seem to be on the way out here. I personally don't like the look of them, and DP's I work for seem to like sexier, newer filters if they need to put "black" in the image. I haven't put a BPM or WPM in a matt box for anyone in two years.
Click to expand...

I can see why- I liked effect of the classic soft better then the BPM. I personally do not like the effect the WPM has, so I did not even try that one out when testing the BPM.


dadoboy said:
I enjoy reading your posts BTW in the questfest threads. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks I'm glad you are liking the posts. They have been fun to do- it has been a good exercise for me to put into righting what is going on in my head. Helps me to clarify things and evaluate what I do and why. It's good to know that they are also beneficial to others. :)
 
dadoboy said:
I haven't put a BPM or WPM in a matt box for anyone in two years.
Click to expand...

Just as a side note- it does seem that with digital formats people are starting to add in filter to help "dirty" up the image some. (Digital images can be so clean at times.) For example, the show Leverage is filming in town and they are shooting on 2 - 3 Reds, and they are using a lot of 1/8 and 1/4 Pro Mist on the lens.

I'm currently playing around with filters to see how they / if they help with the roll off into the white areas. There are some photographers on flickr who are doing just that with their DSLR's.
 
It just comes down to preference. I think it's already been said that you just need to test them both and just weigh the pro's and con's. If you've had a lot of trouble getting your word in on the color correct, then screw it, just put the filter in the box. It'll ease your mind and you'll get your classic soft.

But then again, if you get a good amount of control over the image in post and things look better, then why not? I really don't like how people somehow equate waiting to put a look in in post to being wishy washy. You're just waiting so you can tweak things exactly how they need to be. You never get as much control on set as you do in post, and that's just sorta how it is...

Obviously though, as said before some filters can't be done in post. So you know...keep em handy.
 
Great thread, Great Question,

One thing to consider is to always reduce potential banding and artifacts that may come up in POST, two many digital filters ( plug ins ) can look like rubbish when it's compressed down for DVD or VOD. What will be the final output that will be the most viewable?

The question at hand will call on you on a scene by the scene basis, it always depends on what you are doing and the equipment you use. Variables like DOF Adapter or Raw HDV camera, Soft Lens, Sharp Lens, Smoke in the scene, etc.

Also if the scene is too dark or too bright, if the subject needs some filtration ( beauty shots ) , if you want it to be gritty or super clean.

True enough POST gives you the option afterwards but any experienced DP and/or Director that truly knows what they and how to get it will use filters on the set every time! Ala Spielberg, Ridley Scott! etc...
 
Ryan E. - A lot of DP's I've worked with lately prefer the use of Tiffen Black Diffusion FX over BPM. You might try one of one of those sets out as a rental.

By coincidence, there's a thread on reduser that parallels this discussion. David Mullen always has posts that are balanced and informative. Sorry to refer to reduser twice in one day - but there is some interesting stuff posted there:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=425797#post425797



http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=425797#post425797
 
For decades directors and DPs have been deciding on set/pre-pro what the look of a particular scene should be. They take the plunge and live with it.
Kinda like having the cast recite lines from the script. You don't change them in post.

And I'm seeing more young ACs who'll come onto a set ready to reinvent the wheel. Had to fire one for insisting that it wasn't neccessary to put down a mark for an actors final. Don't hire someone whose name ends in "the third".:laugh:
 
David Mullen posted some new stuff today per my questions that is quite good.

My questions for you guys is about the "do it in post" route. What filters do you use to approximate a classic soft or a black pro mist? Given the optical nature of either: small dots embedded that diffuse only parts of the image...I'm not sure how that can be accurately done in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top