Tiffen ultra contras 1/8 quick test

roei z

roei z

Veteran
did a quick test with the filter i got today.
sorry didn't have time to shoot without the filter for differences.
78 file is smooth -2 -2 0 -2
79 is nostalgic.
if the dark areas in the building give any indication of effect, it looks nice to me.
although the noise will always be there on blacks...
http://www.mediafire.com/?q8y6xxq06txqn
 
would be nice to hear more input..
i don't know if that's considered a very limited DR or decent DR..

thanks
 
Looks pretty good to me. I couldn't see any highlight clipping, yet detail in the building was there.

Was this shot with -2 sharpness btw?
 
yup.
thanks.
i'll be happy to try a more serious DR stress test if you like to.
i just tell what to shoot.
 
People in sunlit condition, to see how it does with skin tone would be nice. Many times I saw test of these filters in dull grey weather which defeats their use. Contrasty, harsh light are where they could make a difference. Being able to underexpose the image to protect the highlight and keeping details in the shadows that can be boosted in post afterward.
 
So I'll shoot a busy street with people, direct sunlight and shadows..
Any color mode requests?
 
of course..
damn it was pretty sunny here and just today turned cloudy, so i shot some footage but not really helpful..
hope for sunnier day tomorrow.
 
here you go:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3at047icxxjbh

i will be happy if one of you experts will deep examine these side by side, cause i really can't see a significant difference.
the tiffen might give a little bit more headroom. check my forehead highlights.
if you can tell me it has a little magic to it, i'll keep it on most of my shooting.
please also give me some conclusions on color modes.

thanks!
 
ok, i examined them more closely..
for my non expert eye the filtered ones are a bit less contrasty, which is nice. but i need someone to really check if it's just an illusion or it DOES manage to squeeze a little DR.
if it has the same DR and you can have the same look through post than it's really has no use whatsoever.
it seems to have a little downside.
some stiny areas which have detail on the non filtered shots like small portions of the tree, tend to get less detailed with the filter. they now look smudged. but just with a very close eye.
 
At first I did not see any difference, but putting it in photoshop, I could see a difference when flipping from one to the other. It was further confirmed by the histogram. You can clearly see that the dynamic range has been expanded because more detail has been compressed in the histogram. What is strange is that the gain is into the highlight. Normally it should be into the shadows. One explanation is that perhaps the filter is takin some light and thus decreasing the exposure and then it is lifting the shadows. The result is the highlight is lower and the shadows are the same.

ultracon.jpgultracon version
no ultracon.jpgno ultracon version

You can see higher resolution version here https://picasaweb.google.com/danyyyel/UltraconTest#

I think that many of the test that have been done before where a bit flawed. People tested it in low contrast lighting that did show the filter effect well (grey winter weather or very low level sunlit winter light with snow acting as a reflector). In more contrasty lighting I think that a more powerful version would have shown more of its effect for dynamic range.
 
at last !
thanks Daniel (and let me know about your Japanese friends ;) )

i think the 1/8 version already show a little (but very little!) 'fog' on the whole frame, which is actually nice and flatter while still being delicate.
btw if you compare to the different color modes, i noticed the filter effect mostly the cinema mode (at least to the naked eye).
but you're right, shadows don't get more light or real detail, just a bit less dark.
the jpegs you put show quite a big difference to my eyes :)

my question is- can you get the exact same result in post?

will be glad to hear more opinions.
thanks!
 
You should think about it differently. Your test is a very good example of where such a filter can be useful. Look at the blow highlights on your forehead, these cannot be brought back in any way in post, they are blown... they are blown (except if you go image by image and use something like clone tool in photoshop!!!!!!!!) and is quite distracting. With the filter you can see a little transition in the highlight, it is subtle, but you can clearly see it with even some detail in your forehead. What can be clearly seen is that the filter has compress the upper part of the curve without crushing the shadows more. Perhaps it could have given you the opportunity to lower a bit more your exposure on the camera to minimize the blown highlight or with a stronger filter with the same exposure it would have compress more the higher part to put it within the dynamic range of the sensor.
 
Last edited:
Nice work, roei.

Can you please test the filter with ND filter? I'm thinking about using it with Fader ND filter if your results is good. Thanks!!!
 
this was all done with the fader ND, so you're settled :) did you think i could have used 5.6 without it ??
 
Haha. Nicely done. Superbly done!

I'm from Asia and I learned that it's a terrible idea to crush black in post-processing because of black hairs, eyebrows, eyes. But keeping details in dark has highlight overblown too much. This ultra contrast filter might mitigate the issue.

Which is recommended order of filter stacking? 82mm ultra contrast filter + 77mm Fader ND + lens?
 
Danielvilliers said:
You should think about it differently. Your test is a very good example of where such a filter can be useful. Look at the blow highlights on your forehead, these cannot be brought back in any way in post, they are blown... they are blown (except if you go image by image and use something like clone tool in photoshop!!!!!!!!) and is quite distracting. With the filter you can see a little transition in the highlight, it is subtle, but you can clearly see it with even some detail in your forehead. What can be clearly seen is that the filter has compress the upper part of the curve without crushing the shadows more. Perhaps it could have given you the opportunity to lower a bit more your exposure on the camera to minimize the blown highlight or with a stronger filter with the same exposure it would have compress more the higher part to put it within the dynamic range of the sensor.
Click to expand...
+1 This is what I see also. I kept going back and forth between takes and I actually like what the filter does to the highs. Overall it also looks (for lack of a better term) filmic. I can tell there is less contrast right away. And I also noticed that the lows are not affected much.

Good job Roei z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top