Fine with Intravenus, but haven't tried it with anything lower, it's something you'll have to experiment with. Might be worth renting/borrowing one before finding out the hard way after buying one.

But you can always sell it on ebay or craigslist... or whatever.

I can't recall the exact words but David Mullen ASC was firm about that soft con is not of much use for dynamic range purposes. At most, you can gain about 1/3 of a stop, and that comes with a much softer look.. not to mention other problems that arise with more glass in front of the lens.

Filters can be of good use to alter the look of the image, but you can also f.i. use nylon stocking over the lens for that purpose.. These days, it's really not worth the hassle IMO (unless you really need a particular filtered look) - as most of it can be easily obtained in the grade, but some prefer mist filters for shooting high key to soften highlight rolloff, which produces a kind of halo effect around the light sources..

I have the tiffen ultra con 2 or 3, cant remember. I find it a little hard to grade when its effect is really strong, and not really worth it unless you are going for that lifted smoky look. The less intense filter numbers may be easier to work with.

Thanks for the video @Aria - looks like...

• If you can't capture the dynamic range of a szene (window with bright sunlight and shadow areas in frame), a ultra con filter can help a lot.

• If you don't need the ultra con filter (girl sitting), better don't use it.

In my opinion, UltraCons do better at extending DR than Low Con filters. I used to use this to lift shadows for the GH2 and then crush them back down a little in post. The goal was to lift the exposure above where the GH2 mushed everything together, but I think most cameras have moved past the need to do this. I wouldn't do it anymore. Maybe it still offers a benefit with the Ursa mini, I don't know, but my guess is that it's just replicating the flatter look of a log colorspace without providing the additional dynamic range.