Low Contrast Filters
Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM
Though the Tiffen Ultracons are objectionable, I found these as well:
Granted they need a matte box, but Schneider makes some killer filters. These are water-white Schott glass with laser treatment. They claim no color cast, or loss of resolution.. No flaring in the highlights as well... Which was apparently an issue on the Tiffens. Formatt makes some low contrast high def filters for this as well:
I can't find a single sample of footage from either the Schneider or the Formatt. Here is a test of the Tiffen Ultracon filters though:
This video doesn't show movement however, or whether there is any weirdness when light hits it in motion..
I'm sure you guys have discussed this at some point, but it seems like there are better options than the Ultracons from Tiffen. If you guys have any experience with these I'd love to get some feedback.. This could be a possible solution for those of us that wanted a log style profile for the Gh2, or the Gh3 if it doesn't have one.. (And it's looking that way.).
Another thing, if these work well, wouldn't affecting the contrast of the image before it hits the sensor be FAR better for the 8 bit resources than internal processing with a reverse "S" gamma curve? Granted the Gh2 with a high bitrate, All-I patch would handle it much better, the banding a flat curve produces seems to be the issue most people are having with Cinestyle on the Canons by cutting the tips off of an already low 8 bit range..? (Somebody can fill me in on that one...
Long post, over.
Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:39 PM
3x3 and 4x4 with Arri Matte boxes
'If it looks good , it is good!'
Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:14 AM
Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:06 AM
Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:23 PM
Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:23 PM
as the more filters you use the softer the image becomes
so I keep it simple !
it works best
'If it looks good , it is good!'
Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:35 PM
Everything that is put in front of a lens is potential problem. The Tiffen LCF1 causes reflexes in backlight and will also cause stray light to form brighter puddles in the image. But what it does too is providing a flat image at full range. I think a mattebox would help to avoid the aforementioned issues. As for the allegedly better Wratten or so, I doubt they will perform much better. I have the LCW FaderND. Because of some problems, I searched the net for an alternative and bought the much more expensive Heliopan. The problems remained, and it's really hard (for me) to tell, if there is any difference in quality.
Yeah, ya know i actually debated the Heliopan for months... But it was hard for me to justify a $400 filter... I had the same one you do when i first bought my Gh2, then i bought an Opteka vari-nd as a backup because it was $30... I ended up returning the Fader. Later when the Fader Digi-pro HD's came out, i bought one of those thinking it fixed whatever issues i had with the mark ii.... Negative. In all honesty, i totally agree with you.. Because i really don't see a difference large enough to justify the $120 gap between the Opteka and the Fader Digi pro. I believe the Schneider is a mattebox only filter probably for that specific reason you stated addressing light when it hits it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users