Personal View site logo
ND filters
  • 257 Replies sorted by
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    From the test I see a color cast from the no nd to the fader ND test, like more magenta. In your video also I see the skin tone a bit on the magenta but as you don't have a with and without it is a bit difficult to judge. I have seen some test some time ago where the result were terrible beyond about 50 mm. Did you do a test at these focal length. I have seen many test of the light craft fader that did not test beyond these focal length that praised it without talking about this flaw.
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    I took a little time to go and search for where I saw the example on the LCW fader ND because I did not want people to think I was just speculating. I was on the way to buy one when I saw those reviews. As is noted the problem start from about 40 - 50mm, so many people did not see the rapid decrease in quality from those focal length and above. The problem with this product is that it started from philip bloom and it gained so much momentum that it is like a snow ball effect. It is very hard to get to the truth.


    For the price that they are selling it, it is much better to invest in some good quality ND or polarizer to make a diy fader ND.
  • kshalmkshalm
    @danyyyel
    There is definitely a slight colour cast between having the filter on and not having it on. This can be easily fixed by white balancing with the filter on. The colour cast is constant though (does not change) as the filter is rotated through the different stops; white balance once and you are done.

    The original version of the Fader ND from Light Craft Workshop introduced a significant loss in resolution (softness) and a stronger colour cast. The updated version (Fader ND Mark II) solves these issues.

    As far as lenses go, I have only tested the Fader ND with my 20mm 1.7 Panasonic and the 50mm Canon FD lenses. There is no resolution loss or (significant) colour cast with either lens. The appearance of the x pattern at higher amounts of attenuations is supposed to become worse for wider angle lenses. I can test again with my 14mm pancake (widest lens I have), but I think this will be OK as well—the Fader is specced for up to 8 stops, but I manage to get over 10 stops with the 20 mm without any problems.

    At the telephoto end of things these variable NDs based on polarizers are supposed to perform worse. I have not tested this, but I do have the 45-200mm Panasonic lens. Maybe this weekend I'll see if there is a significant loss of sharpness with longer focal length lenses.

    The colours in the video are not accurate. Not because of the Fader ND, but because of the quick colour correcting I did in FCPX. Still haven't mastered the new colour correcting tools. I really wish there were s-curves like those available in decent photo editors.
  • B3GuyB3Guy
    the second link I think is not on the mkii?
  • kshalmkshalm
    @B3Guy The second link that danyyyel posted is about the original Fader ND. The first one deals with the updated MK II that I own. From the tests it looks like the Fader ND MK II still does not perform well with telephoto lens. I personally rarely use longer focal lengths, so it is not a problem for me. If you need to use longer focal length lenses then this looks to be a no go, but I'll try and run some tests on my own copy of the MK II. Perhaps something has changed in the meantime.

    I think this will be a problem with any homemade polarizer solution as well. You need decent polarizers to avoid colour cast and loss of sharpness. Does anyone know if the much more expensive Sigh Rays also suffer from this loss of resolution with longer focal length lenses? For longer focal length lenses the best (cheapest) option is probably to invest in fixed ND filters.
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    @kshalm i hope you undestand that in no way I was slacking you and I will await your test on longer lens. In this link below you have a test with a diy fader Nd. The result is still much better than the MKii. Perhaps they have change it since then.


  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    It is very late where I live, but if you do some search on the helios or heliopan and sighray they are as sharp on long focal lens. But they cost a lot compared to the LCW and more so the DIY. So it is more and issue with the LCW one. I think the best bet would be for us to search for a good combination of linear+circular or two linear polarizer. In fact just need two 82 or 77mm ones and it is very easy to do it because they have threads.
  • kshalmkshalm
    @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.
  • kshalmkshalm
    @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.
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    @kshalm thanks for your test, will be looking forward at your further test.
  • soapeysoapey
    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.
  • B3GuyB3Guy
    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.
  • kshalmkshalm
    @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.
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    @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.


  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_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.
  • kshalmkshalm
    @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)!
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    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
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev
    @danyyyel

    Look at the start of the topic.
    Marumi ND filters are very good.
  • danyyyeldanyyyel
    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.
  • TommyboyTommyboy
    Is anybody using Schneider 4 x 4 True-Pol Circular Polarizer? Any thoughts about Schneider vs Tiffen Filters?
  • _gl_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.
  • AmandaNLAmandaNL
    Any suggestions for a ND filter on the Panasonic fish eye?
    It takes filters at the back of the lens.
  • HaznaHazna
    Tiffen IRND are great. FilmTools have the best prices.
  • PsycoPsyco
    Has anybode tested these:

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

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