Tiffen Digital diffusion with Variable ND, will it work?

T

Tass

Active member
I've tried to Google it but can't find any answers... I have a Heliopan variable ND and would like to know if it is recomended to use a Tiffen digital diffusion 1/4 filter with it.

As far as I understand you can combine ordinary ND filters with a digital diffuser but does the same rule apply to a Vari ND such as the Heliopan? Also, should I place it in front of the ND or behind it, what would you recommend?

Any help is appreciated!:D
 
If you have a particular reason to use the diff filter...it will work fine with the ND filter.

There would be no "recommendation" to use it in that combination apart from that though. Why would there be?
 
Shooter said:
If you have a particular reason to use the diff filter...it will work fine with the ND filter.

There would be no "recommendation" to use it in that combination apart from that though. Why would there be?
Click to expand...

Well yes my reason is that I find the image out of my GH3 a bit to sharp and digital. I have tried some diffusion filters with Magic bullet looks but I think that nohing can beat an optical diffusion filter, among other things...

I was thinking since it is a variable ND it creates a bit more ghosting some times, and maybe this effect will get even worse when combined with the diffusion filter... I find the green ghosting really bad some times with my Heliopan filter, and if you stack another filter on top of that maybe it will get better, or maybe even worse.
 
Tass said:
Well yes my reason is that I find the image out of my GH3 a bit to sharp and digital. I have tried some diffusion filters with Magic bullet looks but I think that nohing can beat an optical diffusion filter, among other things...

I was thinking since it is a variable ND it creates a bit more ghosting some times, and maybe this effect will get even worse when combined with the diffusion filter... I find the green ghosting really bad some times with my Heliopan filter, and if you stack another filter on top of that maybe it will get better, or maybe even worse.
Click to expand...

I agree that optical diffusion is great. I think almost everything done optically is great, with some exceptions if shooting in a RAW or LOG format.

That said, if you really care about your image quality, stop using a variable ND filter. Some are better than others, yes. You can get away with them at times, and I've seen stuff shot with them that is good looking... however, at the end of the day, (if you have time) use real ND or IRND filters.

Variable ND filters not only create undesired polarization issues (for times you may or may not want it, which do funky things for skin tones and etc...) but when used to greater effect, create strange exposure discrepancies in organic patterns across the screen. They create many other minor optical issues which drive me crazy. FWIW, I have never ever used a variable ND on a professional shoot (as a DP or an AC) that wasn't some docu-style run and gun madness. Every commercial, narrative piece, commercial, etc.... all used Tiffen or Schneider ND's. We stay away from vari-ND's for the reasons listed above and more. I have only had the convenient misfortune to use these on shoots where the gun was to our head to move faster than any professional should really be made to move.

Again, my advice usually isn't helpful for those who can't afford filter sets at $350/filter, but my advice comes from professional world where we have a choice and you should know that variable ND's are left in the bag 99% of the time.



What's my point? My point is, you were concerned about using the diffusion filter for quality reasons with the Vari-ND... I'd say the most harmful thing in the equation is the Vari-ND. Kill it. :)
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I agree that optical diffusion is great. I think almost everything done optically is great, with some exceptions if shooting in a RAW or LOG format.

That said, if you really care about your image quality, stop using a variable ND filter. Some are better than others, yes. You can get away with them at times, and I've seen stuff shot with them that is good looking... however, at the end of the day, (if you have time) use real ND or IRND filters.

Variable ND filters not only create undesired polarization issues (for times you may or may not want it, which do funky things for skin tones and etc...) but when used to greater effect, create strange exposure discrepancies in organic patterns across the screen. They create many other minor optical issues which drive me crazy. FWIW, I have never ever used a variable ND on a professional shoot (as a DP or an AC) that wasn't some docu-style run and gun madness. Every commercial, narrative piece, commercial, etc.... all used Tiffen or Schneider ND's. We stay away from vari-ND's for the reasons listed above and more. I have only had the convenient misfortune to use these on shoots where the gun was to our head to move faster than any professional should really be made to move.

Again, my advice usually isn't helpful for those who can't afford filter sets at $350/filter, but my advice comes from professional world where we have a choice and you should know that variable ND's are left in the bag 99% of the time.



What's my point? My point is, you were concerned about using the diffusion filter for quality reasons with the Vari-ND... I'd say the most harmful thing in the equation is the Vari-ND. Kill it. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great info! I have used my filter a lot and I can agree on what you say. I got the Heliopan version since it is one of the best ones out there. I have managed to get past some of the strange color shifting by white balancing after putting it on and adjusting the exposure with it. Right now I cant afford that expensive filters that you mention and I only use it outdoors, so I guess that not all is bad =).

While I have you on the line, as you seem to know a lot about filters, would you say that the Tiffen digital diffsuion FX 1/4 is a good all round filter for both wide and close shots, if you only could choose one?
 
Tass said:
Thanks for the great info! I have used my filter a lot and I can agree on what you say. I got the Heliopan version since it is one of the best ones out there. I have managed to get past some of the strange color shifting by white balancing after putting it on and adjusting the exposure with it. Right now I cant afford that expensive filters that you mention and I only use it outdoors, so I guess that not all is bad =).

While I have you on the line, as you seem to know a lot about filters, would you say that the Tiffen digital diffsuion FX 1/4 is a good all round filter for both wide and close shots, if you only could choose one?
Click to expand...

On most diffusion filter sets, I normally don't go over 1/4 if I'm trying to be subtle. Now what I use (1/4, 1/8 or even 1/2) depends on what I'm shooting. It depends on the lenses you are using and the circumstances of the subject matter.

On the shoots I DP, if I'm using modern and overly crisp lenses (ultra primes, fujinon cabrio, etc) I tend to rely on Black ProMist 1/4. If using lenses that feel more gentle, 1/8 (cookes, Angie zooms, if I could shoot with Leica,Leica etc). If vintage and/or wide open (super speeds, kowas , Cooke 18-100, etc) , I'll probably skip it. That is the strengths I'd use to take the edge off. If I want it as an effect, I use a BPM 1/2 or even a 1, but it (1) can be overkill most of the time. Black pro mist is commonly preferred to most diffusion series by cinematographers when just trying to soften the image with slight shadow contamination but not diffuse too much or make the bright areas go nuts. Lately, a filter called Hollywood Black Magic has been picking up popularity for similar effect as BPM's.


I understand you are not really in the market for cine-filtration , but perhaps you can call the manufacturers of these filters and ask if they have equivalent effect filtration in whichever format you seek. I'm not sure what you want the filter to exactly do, but based off your description the BPM's or HBM's are a good starting point. See if there are affordable filters that do the same kind of effect.

Otherwise, I would go lighter strengths over stronger. Do you buy glass filters or resin?

temember you can always rent on a per project basis. In LA a filter is around $10/day, three day weeks before any discount you might negotiate .
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
On most diffusion filter sets, I normally don't go over 1/4 if I'm trying to be subtle. Now what I use (1/4, 1/8 or even 1/2) depends on what I'm shooting. It depends on the lenses you are using and the circumstances of the subject matter.

On the shoots I DP, if I'm using modern and overly crisp lenses (ultra primes, fujinon cabrio, etc) I tend to rely on Black ProMist 1/4. If using lenses that feel more gentle, 1/8 (cookes, Angie zooms, if I could shoot with Leica,Leica etc). If vintage and/or wide open (super speeds, kowas , Cooke 18-100, etc) , I'll probably skip it. That is the strengths I'd use to take the edge off. If I want it as an effect, I use a BPM 1/2 or even a 1, but it (1) can be overkill most of the time. Black pro mist is commonly preferred to most diffusion series by cinematographers when just trying to soften the image with slight shadow contamination but not diffuse too much or make the bright areas go nuts. Lately, a filter called Hollywood Black Magic has been picking up popularity for similar effect as BPM's.


I understand you are not really in the market for cine-filtration , but perhaps you can call the manufacturers of these filters and ask if they have equivalent effect filtration in whichever format you seek. I'm not sure what you want the filter to exactly do, but based off your description the BPM's or HBM's are a good starting point. See if there are affordable filters that do the same kind of effect.

Otherwise, I would go lighter strengths over stronger. Do you buy glass filters or resin?

temember you can always rent on a per project basis. In LA a filter is around $10/day, three day weeks before any discount you might negotiate .
Click to expand...

Wow thanks for that info, that means a lot for me! Well I am shooting with a Panasonic GH3. I really like the image I get out of it, but I do find it a bit to sharp and digital. I would like it a bit more smooth and soft while still being in focus if you understand what I mean. I use fairly sharp lenses, Tokina 11-16, Voigtlander 25 f0.95 and Minolta 50mm f1.4 (not as sharp but still pretty good). So many times when I shoot I just find the image to sharp... The filter I have found is a 72mm that i screw on in front of my lenses with a step up ring or directly to my vari ND filter, http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-W72DDFX14-Digital-Diffusion-Filter/dp/B001U889SG

I find the 1/4 to be a nice middle of softening while not being to strong. Where I live we don't have a renthouse for that type of equipment, and I am the type that likes to own what I work with :).
 
I, on the other hand, love Vari NDs cause they let me get a shot in those run&gun situations. There is nothing worse then missing an opportunity because to get better image you deal with ND. My philosophy it's better to get two decent images then one (there is no great images in run&gun world). That said though one should understand what Vari ND does by controlling which surfaces are more or less shinny it does affect how light interacts with human skin.
 
David W. Jones said:
I almost always use the lowest value filtration.

My most used filter is the Hollywood Black Magic 1/8 followed by 1/4.
Click to expand...

I agree. From memory the glimmerglass set doesn't do typical the typical 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, steps which most diff filter sets do. I believe it does increments of 1, 2, 3. So I believe the 1 would be the best choice as it is the least powerful.
 
Yes that is correct, I have done some research and the Glimmerglass comes in 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I think that number 1 is what I need out of one all round filter. I don't want the highlights to bloom to much (don't want that cheap dreamy look that was common in the 90's).

I really like my vari ND, I guess that I don't have such a level of expertise to see what it does with skin tones and what not. For me it looks nice and I have never heard any of my clients complain about it... I shot this music video a while ago with the Vari ND on the whole time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npP2GWTmtJw

The interesting thing will be to test the glimmgerglass with the vari ND and see what it does. Those two filters combined will probably give quite some diffusion (so that's why I agree with you that glimmerglass 1 will do for me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top