Premium Member Greg Gross Posted October 21, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 21, 2004 I started with Tiffen filters due to my mentor using them. I figured if they were good enough to use on his Linhof they were good enough for me. I use them now to shoot weddings with great results. Weddings are the ultimate challenge for a photographer,the action starts and you had better get your ass moving be- cause there is no rehearsal,no script and no second place winners. You can tell a great story with wedding stills. Anyway I'm off the subject,love Tiffen filters and thats what I use. I have a great polarizer/warming filter(Tiffen). Some of my peers tell me that they use Hoya filters and are quite happy with them. I think Hoya has earned its place in professional circles. Greg Gross,Professional Photographer Student Cinematographer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidSloan Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hoya's are nice, and I use them myself, but they are not Tiffen quality. Hoya doesn't even make motion picture camera filters. They are geared towards the consumer market. I would not recomend Hoya over Tiffen for any serious photographer/cinematographer. The fact that they don't even deal in the motion picture industry should say enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hoya doesn't even make motion picture camera filters On the casing of my filters it says for photo and video. Then again, the filters I've got are quite old.. I think from this discussion Tiffen seems to have the upper hand, and if you have the money, go for them. Pro's say Tiffen are a notch above, and I'l take there word for it. But I'm still happy with my Hoya's, they do what I need and a good job of it. (Well, there you have it Nillo! Tiffen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 21, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 21, 2004 Fifteen quid a filter versus a hundred and fifty quid a filter. Something's going to be different! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Fifteen quid a filter versus a hundred and fifty quid a filter. Something's going to be different! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeh, heheh. Unless they have gold pakaging or something.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbuchanan Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Uh... not to get off track... but watch out for filters like the Tiffen Black Promist of Soft FX with the DVX100. The zoom is very wide, much wider than say an XL1 or XL2, thus, you can back the zoom out far enough to actually see the little black spots on the filter that soften the light. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE (not a fact, just my opinion). I have the Tiffen "film look" filter set for 72mm. I love LOVE the way these filter make DV look. And I never had any problem with them on my XL1s. BUT I sold the XL1s and replaced them with DVXs. I kept the filters (they are the same size), but have had some screwy things appear because of the DVX's wide angle lens. Worst part is, you don't always see them on the flip out or through the finder. You see them better when they are projected (doh!). SO, I'd watch this problem with the DVX and if you shoot a lot of "run and gun" quick set-ups, consider avioding these all together. By the way, I use Hoya and Tiffen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 21, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hi, It's not so much the wide-angleness of it as that combined with the small CCDs and huge depth of field. I've had this problem with mist and fog filters on my DVC-200, which has CCDs 30% larger than the DVX. Open the iris, move the filter closer to the lens, and zoom in! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbuchanan Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hi, It's not so much the wide-angleness of it as that combined with the small CCDs and huge depth of field. I've had this problem with mist and fog filters on my DVC-200, which has CCDs 30% larger than the DVX. Open the iris, move the filter closer to the lens, and zoom in! Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Phil... just when I think I know my explanations! I love this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Any way of applying a mist/fog effect, digitally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbuchanan Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Any way of applying a mist/fog effect, digitally? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eureka! "silk stocking" filter in FCP HD is a very good way to mimic a Fog or Promist (white promist, not black... you lose contast with the plug-in)... but I think it is much better to do it with the camera when you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Oh.. dam.. Would be FCP wouldn't it.. They planning on bringing that out for pc? Yeh probably better with a physical filter, then you don't get any artefacts.. (I don't know.. Phil?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 22, 2004 Hi, You don't need crutches like that to do this. Duplicate the layer, blur it, then either screen (white promist-alike) or multiply (black promist-alike) it over the original. You'll almost always have to use Levels to change the brightness and contrast of the upper layer to avoid the effect being overpowering. That said, some examples which are entirely overpowering: Original: Dark: Bright: Quite a lot of "Sky Captain" had this sort of look, although that was probably more to do with the recolouring they did. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Hi, Tiffen filters seem slightly greenish to me. Phil I saw a Tiffen / Schneider comparison at NAB. Schneider had a stack of clear 'optical flats' from each manufacturer. Things looked really green through the Tiffen stack, and really clear through the Schneider stack. Schneider makes a nice polarizer too. The Tru-Pol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Yeh but your talking about still pictures right? Extracting layers is bloody hard when it comes to video.. either that or I'm doing things the really hard way. (Using Photoshop, extract the foreground and edit the one layer and then tie them both together later on, for each and every bloody frame) So how do Schneider compare with Tiffen? (I prefer Schneider.. just sounds better I think.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 22, 2004 Hi, Premiere will do Screen and Multiply on video. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 My two cents... I'd say that the time it takes to render out the effects that Mr. Rhodes demonstrated is something that one should consider. Once all of the levels and transparency settings are set up, you could easily find yourself rendering at >3fps, which can be a problem, as time is money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 24, 2004 Hi, Oh, absolutely. With Gaussian (rather than Fast) blur, Levels and a layer of Screen, I generally get slightly less than that. Loading up on processors helps - there's nothing quite like Premiere on a dual 3-gig Xeon server board. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted October 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 24, 2004 Depends on how close the filter slot is to the gate. With some Arris, it's actually in the gate, making the slot only useful for hard mattes. I use the behind-the-lens slot on the Panaflex all the time (too convenient not to!), but you can get screwed when you don't notice a defect or speck on the filter before sliding it in. There is a whole day of footage in "Northfork" where you can see this fuzzy blob with Newton rings in the sky; luckily it sort of blended in with the cloud formations, looking a little like the Doctor Seuss clouds in "Grinch Who Stole Christmas"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Oh, absolutely. With Gaussian (rather than Fast) blur, Levels and a layer of Screen, I generally get slightly less than that.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I meant <3fps, not >3fps. Typo! :P Usually when I do those effects, I get somewhere between 1 to 2fps. Of course, I'm still running on an old P4 that is barely 1.4GHz. Hey, back then (just a few years ago), that was top speed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Depends on how close the filter slot is to the gate. With some Arris, it's actually in the gate, making the slot only useful for hard mattes. I use the behind-the-lens slot on the Panaflex all the time (too convenient not to!), but you can get screwed when you don't notice a defect or speck on the filter before sliding it in. There is a whole day of footage in "Northfork" where you can see this fuzzy blob with Newton rings in the sky; luckily it sort of blended in with the cloud formations, looking a little like the Doctor Seuss clouds in "Grinch Who Stole Christmas"... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My CP-16R has the filter slot right in the gate. I guess I'll use it, but be really careful to check my littel teeny filter gels first. So if someone asks me to get that cool "David Mullen Doctor Seuss" effect, I'll know what they mean! Anybody else here ever end up with dancing furballs in their footage because they didn't check the gate enough? Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now