Pro Mist reflections
- Thread starter scorsesefan
- Start date
scorsesefan
Veteran
Yes, and there are a few high profile subjects in this documentary that I definitely won't get another chance to interview...
scorsesefan
Veteran
Two different focal legths.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Seems odd to me that a reflection would stay in the exact same place in frame when you tilted the camera. Also I feel like you can usually identify the source of a reflection. If I had to bet, I'd bet there was a back-lit hair on your rear element or sensor. I'm trying to imagine if it could be a reflection from the sun glancing off the filter. But I feel like the angle should change more once you tilt the camera
scorsesefan
Veteran
Hmm. I remember blowing off the lens and sensor before the shoot. I do think it's a reflection caused by backlight because when I zoomed in for a closeup it wasn't there. I should have just changed the camera position slightly, but I was feeling a time crunch...
ahalpert
Major Contributor
then I think a french flag would help because it's probably caused by direct sun hitting the lens? I use this Flare Buster: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Kit_Extra.html
apparently not available anymore although I'm sure there are similar products. it's lightweight and the flexible clamp has a hot shoe mount, so it's very easy to defeat direct sun at a moment's notice without using a mattebox and without wearing the flag constantly
scorsesefan
Veteran
Thanks, Abe. I'll check it out.
scorsesefan
Veteran
No, actually. If memory serves me I had a similar issue with an ND filter way back when, but I exchanged it for a multi-coated one. But this is the first time I've extensively used Effect filters... I still never found out what the clicking sound was on my DVX100 BTW...
NorBro
Major Contributor
Multi-coating does help because it improves 'light transmission' which is like the CRI spec in the world of glass filters (you want 99% light transmission), but it's also overused as a sales buzzword and possibly even inaccurately published by some (biased findings).
However, there's really not that much worthy competition in this space for circular diffusion filters, and the Tiffen is close to $100 (or was) so it's not like the cheapest glass you can get - so I think you were just really unlucky, or maybe even had poor QC on your filter.
___
Actually there's a pretty good deal for the 77mm right now: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._Mist_1_8.html
The next normal one up, the 82mm, is ~2.6x the price.
However, there's really not that much worthy competition in this space for circular diffusion filters, and the Tiffen is close to $100 (or was) so it's not like the cheapest glass you can get - so I think you were just really unlucky, or maybe even had poor QC on your filter.
___
Actually there's a pretty good deal for the 77mm right now: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._Mist_1_8.html
The next normal one up, the 82mm, is ~2.6x the price.
G
Guest
Guest
I think there are a few films were cinematographers embraced the reflection on the filter? Perhaps the most extreme in the mainstream was the Spielberg/Cruise 'War of the Worlds'. Kaminski had some hella reflections going on.
Scorsese and Richardson on 'Hugo' had another reflection, and that was the split mirror. Because he was still hitting with that trade mark back light, the mirror was picking it up and creating a slight reflection and halation. They liked it, and rewrote the rules on shooting 3D.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Mostly what I remembered from War of the Worlds was the slightly bizarre circles around highlights caused by the Classic Soft filter.
G
Guest
Guest
Totally!
the halation was intense. Not sure if this was partial reflection or not.
Last edited:
scorsesefan
Veteran
Those scenes under the Bayonne Bridge looked great. Very surreal and eerie.
cpreston
Veteran
Tiffen filters are not coated at all, so they will easily reflect light to create ghosting. This is why higher end matteboxes will have a tilt option to get rid of the reflection by moving the reflection off of the glass.
What you are seeing, however is not any ghosting that I've seen on my filters. That really looks like a scratch or hair on the filter that is catching sunlight.
What you are seeing, however is not any ghosting that I've seen on my filters. That really looks like a scratch or hair on the filter that is catching sunlight.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I would suggest..
1) throw away all filters and soften highlights in post if you like.
2) get a proper grip on shading the lens. You need to see the whole lense covered in a shadow. In fact you need to struggle to see the lens/filter at all.
this could be mattes* in the matte box (everyone forgot about them) an a big top flag.. or even a 12x24 black cutter over the lens
most matteboxes are configured by most operators in a manner as to be useless
*drop in elements with a 16/9 (235) slot in them specifically made for that lens matte box combo.
1) throw away all filters and soften highlights in post if you like.
2) get a proper grip on shading the lens. You need to see the whole lense covered in a shadow. In fact you need to struggle to see the lens/filter at all.
this could be mattes* in the matte box (everyone forgot about them) an a big top flag.. or even a 12x24 black cutter over the lens
most matteboxes are configured by most operators in a manner as to be useless
*drop in elements with a 16/9 (235) slot in them specifically made for that lens matte box combo.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Because a lot of those guys are taking pictures of them, instead of using them to help them take pictures. They are camera fashion accessories for the 'gram...
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
That is an assumption based on having control or even input in the post process, which can vary from project to project. And not all filter emulation is as successful as the actual thing. You certainly can't perform all the duties of a polarizer in post, for instance (deepening a blue sky yes, dialing down reflections in glass to better see through it no),
Probably more the case now than ever, in an a time when it is fashionable to accept all flares as art. I've seen plenty of lenses with no mattebox or shade utilized of late.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The thing is there is flare and there is flare - the OP 'bloke with a building was horrid' and IMO that flare needs gone.
Typically 'wash' off a filter is horrid
I rareley use a mattebox as they seem to waste time.. I do have a french flag and may call for (ha ha.. go and get) that 12.24 floppy - I like proper lens flare but not the sort that just costs you a couple of stops of contrast.
Of course pola and others are critical when used appropritely, Im defo doing pola and glass with cars a lot.
I do have a mamiya 67 extendable belows for when the going gets really tough (backlit in the studio) and they make 4 stops more contrast.. wonderful.
Even the filters that halate the highlights are of course better than post but do need to be used with skill and cuation
Typically 'wash' off a filter is horrid
I rareley use a mattebox as they seem to waste time.. I do have a french flag and may call for (ha ha.. go and get) that 12.24 floppy - I like proper lens flare but not the sort that just costs you a couple of stops of contrast.
Of course pola and others are critical when used appropritely, Im defo doing pola and glass with cars a lot.
I do have a mamiya 67 extendable belows for when the going gets really tough (backlit in the studio) and they make 4 stops more contrast.. wonderful.
Even the filters that halate the highlights are of course better than post but do need to be used with skill and cuation
scorsesefan
Veteran
I bought a Smallrig mini matte box but returned it. With the lens adapter and Pro Mist filter stacked there was corner vignetting. Does anyone know of a small form factor matte box that doesn't cause vignetting at short focal lengths?