ND filters

robbie75vr

you mean that ND filters light but no IR right ? so in proportion there is too much IR when using a dense ND.. ? it's about the same problem with dark and cheap sunglasses, they stop light but no IR and at the end of the day your eyes are red because wide open pupil didn't stop ir...

I agree 1.4 shooting is difficult, but it's a creative choice

Gabel

@robbie75vr: The reason those amount of ND stops are popular are two-folded:
1. You don't shoot that wide-open. Up until the rise in DSLR filmmaking, most people did not want to shoot that wide-open (and in professional filmmaking don't). Most Hollywood films are shot at around T4-5.6 and low-bugdets around T2.8. This gives you much sharper picture and some depth-of-field (1.4 allows very little movement). Shooting that wide-open is crazy IMO. Stills photographers doesn't need that much ND too, as they will have a higher shutter.

2. The main issue though is IR filtration. Beyond three stops of ND filtration, you get problems with the infrared spectrum. This causes major color shifts in the picture, which is very bad. Then you need to use an IR filter. They are rather expensive (but they exists, there are also ND/IR filters combo).

My tip is to just stop down some (if it's above T8 it'll be fine). Shooting at 1.4 is a bad idea in the long run anyway.

robbie75vr

I bought the Opteka 62mm HD Multi-Coated Variable Neutral Density (2-8 Stops) and I'm very disappointed, a total waste of money in my opinion, you'll lost all the details at about any focal length.

Why are ND 2-4-8 so popular ? If we shoot with 1.4 lenses in sunlight we need about a ND256 or a ND128, are they so bad in general ? Are there better solutions ?

For 1080p at maximum 200mm (m43), are optical glass ND really needed or are resin filter just fine?

What set of 3 ND do you suggest to shoot 160 ISO with very bright lenses (1.4) under sunlight ? (4"x4", GH2).

(please suggest specific filters, not generic suggestion like "buy from ebay"..., thanks)

Thanks

Ptchaw

Any recommendations for (cheap) 4x4 polarisers? I'm thinking of buying 2 and using them like a fader ND: its easier than having carrying around multiple ND filters and quicker to change, plus you always have a polariser with you if you need it.

I already have a couple of 77mm (threaded) polarisers; might see if I can make a mount to hold them in a 4x4 slot.

_gl

@Psyco, I don't think so, the ND filter shouldn't have any effect on polarized light.

Psyco

Does it make any difference if put a polarisation filter in front or behind a ND filter?

(No vari-ND, just a play ND filter.)

lolo

Hello!, i just wanted to say that, the problem that danyyyel describes, can also be found on these:
Ly shi branded, ebay seller: jiakong

http://cgi.ebay.com/Slim-49mm-Fader-ND-Filter-Neutral-Density-ND2-ND400-/250811498918?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item3a6587c1a6

because i own one :p

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@Psyco

I never found any reviews of them.
So, very hard to tell.

Psyco

Has anybode tested these:

http://www.thecinecity.com/eshop/product.php?productid=379&cat=258&page=1

Hazna

Tiffen IRND are great. FilmTools have the best prices.

AmandaNL

Any suggestions for a ND filter on the Panasonic fish eye?
It takes filters at the back of the lens.

_gl

Well, I ended up buying the cheapest 46mm faders I could find - the same that Rambo linked. They're made by Green.L (Chinese), but the ones I bought are unbranded in orange plastic cases: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/250854593997

I lucked out - these do NOT act like linear polarizers! They are circular at the front, linear at the back - ie. they don't filter linearly polarized light. The downside is they show a slight colour cast that moves from yellow to blue as you screw them on (seems typical of circular faders), but the actual fading doesn't introduce any extra cast. And auto-white balance (or manual balance) takes care of it.

So they're ideal for a 3D rig or where you don't want polarizing filter effects - and they're ultra compact so I'm happy. Only thing I can't try is long focal lengths (I only have the 14mm and 20mm pancakes).

So it looks like there are many fader configurations - eg. the 7dayshop ones are linear/linear.

Tommyboy

Is anybody using Schneider 4 x 4 True-Pol Circular Polarizer? Any thoughts about Schneider vs Tiffen Filters?

danyyyel

Yes the only problem is that in terms of convenience, because a set of nd8, nd4, nd2 should cost less than the aforementioned 77mm fader ND.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@danyyyel

Look at the start of the topic.
Marumi ND filters are very good.

danyyyel

I don't know if a set of these is not a better solution if someone does not want to compromise on the quality.

http://www.2filter.com/marumi/MarumiNDfilters.html

kshalm

@danyyyel Interesting test. It seems to confirm much of what I have seen. The ETC mode should magnify the faults of the filter dramatically; for regular video modes the downsampling of the sensor should hide some of the filter's faults. For my purposes the LCW works well. I rarely shoot with lenses larger than ~50mm. In these cases being able to control the exposure has a huge benefit (as seen in the above video). Any colour cast introduced by the filter is easily removed by white-balancing properly.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev You are right. To be more rigorous it would necessary to test many copies of the same filter. If I ever get rich I'll buy multiple copies of many different filters (and donate every future panasonic camera that came out to your cause)!

Vitaliy_Kiselev

It could be very interesting to test big numbers of fader filters, I mean 5-10 of each model.
As far as I can see no fader filter holds good in photo at >80-100mm.

danyyyel

@Kshalm, Hi thanks for the follow up. In my opinion and everybody can have theirs, I think it is not an option as I think it degrades the image quality too much. In my research I have seen this discussion and video

Where you can clearly see how the image is degraded when the focal length reach 50mm and above.

If you take the the ones in the sun where the aperture is about 5.6 (the one in the overcast sky, he is at 1.7 opening so the dof might be to shallow to be sure if his girl is in focus or not.) you can assume that the dof is enough for the girl to be in focus and you can clearly see that as the focal length is increase the sharpness decrease dramatically. In fact it makes the image very Canon like.

His test has one flaw in terms of perception. In the end, in terms of pure esthetics, the one with the Fader can look more pleasing and much more creamy compared to the no fader one which looks very videoy as the dof is at F22 and everything is in focus. For the test on the subjective way would have been to use a classic Neutral Nd filter. At 46 sec he made en error, I am sure he interchanged the result for the 35mm shot. You can clearly see from the color and the dof that he has interchange the with and without ND and this brings another problem talked on the forum post. One of latest post talked about skin tone about corpse and you do see it. The colors without ND is much nicer (more orange yellow) than the ones with, which are more on the pink and very dull, nearly gray. I think it is the effect of the polarizer on highlights and general colorimetri.

kshalm

@danyyyel I finished up the long focal length test with the LCW Fader ND MK II using my 45-200mm lens. After about 50 mm the resolution starts to drop. By the time 100 mm is reached there is a noticeable drop in quality, and by 200 mm fine details are blurred. Here are the images: http://www.quantumpie.com/light-craft-workshop-fader-nd-mark-ii-review/

I definitely won't use the Fader for photography with long reach zoom lenses. For video though, I don't think the loss of resolution would be as noticeable.

@B3Guy The smooth adjustment of exposure is a definite bonus.

B3Guy

FWIW, I have the LCW on my 14-140, and I haven't ever noticed quality issues. Once again, the thing I love about the variable filter is you turn it and it smoothly adjusts your light intake. Many modern lenses have no physical, manual ring for doing this, and it is something I've never understood. I love being able to just grab and turn as opposed to rolling little thumb wheels or pushing buttons.

soapey

Does anybody know if there is any difference between the $120 Tiffen ND Kit here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674665-REG/Tiffen_77NDK3_77mm_Digital_Neutral_Density.html

and the Tiffen Indie Image Makers kit that is over $200 more? The Indie kit says it is Water White glass while the cheaper kit says it is ColorCore Glass. But I have seen other Tiffen filters described as Water White ColorCore glass. So, I'm starting to think they are the same thing and the Indie kit is just being marketed to people who feel better about what they're buying when they spend more money.

danyyyel

@kshalm thanks for your test, will be looking forward at your further test.

kshalm

@danyyyel I did a quick test late last night with my 45-200mm lens set to 200mm to see if resolution is lost with the Fader ND. The test was difficult to carry out indoors with little light, but based on my first impressions there is not much loss in resolution at 200mm. Things are a bit softer, but nothing nearly as bad as what was reported in the DVXUser forums last year. Maybe higher optical quality filters are now being used.

In the next few days I will do a more controlled and systematic test of the filter from 45-200mm. I am not putting too much stock in the rough initial test, but the preliminary results are encouraging.

kshalm

@danyyyel No offence taken whatsoever. I am now quite curious about the performance at longer focal lengths. I am also curious as to what would cause the resolution loss. It must be the optical quality/flatness of the polarizers themselves (which longer focal lengths would be more sensitive to).

Most circular polarizers are constructed by putting a quarter-wave plate in front of a linear polarizer. This is why the circular polarizer must be reversed; it is really acting as two linear polarizers. Two high quality linear polarizers with good coatings is probably a better bet than a reversed circular + linear (no need for the extra quarter-wave plate).

In the future, if I need a longer focal length lens, I'll most likely make my own.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters