Really cool new gel

Michael Collier · May 29, 2008

http://www.rosco.com/uk/video/roscoview.asp

Looks very very interesting. I can see it being useful in situations where outside there are large fast moving clouds and you anticipate a varying outside exposure, while your trying to maintain interior-through-the-glass exposure. Especially if its a long indoors shoot where you'd ND the windows anyway. Now if they release this in a combination with CTO, I am way down. Also I can see it being usefull for impresionistic effects/special effects.

Has anyone used this gel yet?

Adrian Sierkowski · May 29, 2008

I've been dying to get my grubby hands on this as well; but i'm sure it's pretty expensive for the gel and the on camera filter :/

Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC · May 29, 2008

Awesome!

Rick Sharf · May 29, 2008

thats amazing! it looks like it could be really useful for day for night situations. The bottom picture with 90 % polarization, could be extremely helpful. good spot michael, i had no idea about this stuff

Michael K Bergstrom · May 29, 2008

Some quick facts on VIEW, it's only available on roll, it reduces light at a stop per layer, the viewing angle is about 65 degrees for it to work effectively, and it costs right around 100/foot for 56'x8". for that price, I think I'll stick with my ND. :D

Michael Collier · May 30, 2008

100 bucks a foot? doh. In that case, I will stick to a 4K Hmi and ND(For the price it might even be cost effective. I am sure I can convince my gaffer to drop or remove a scrim if the light outside changes.)

Looked cool. but 5600/roll? no thanks. Rick Sharf- Bergstrom found it, emailed it to me and I posted it like its my idea. Then he comes on this board to nay-say the find he got. I will never understand that guy, but hes a genius at what he does, so I will let it slide.

and only one stop? Surely that can't be right. Polarizers that are off axis are nearly 100% light loss, if they are true polas. What good could 0-1 stop variation be on set, given the cost. I am going to keep it in mind for special effects, and big budgets.

*EDIT- after looking closer, its one stop loss through the camera filter. I am sure the gel goes opaque when the filter is fully off-axis.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Michael Collier

Jonathan Bowerbank · May 30, 2008

Blows my mind. I actually had the thought a couple months ago that there had to be something like this out there. Glad to hear Rosco is staying at the forefront of gel technology.

Now all I have to do is hope for a project where the script calls for an effect like this to be done in camera. Or at least something with the budget to buy a roll of the stuff.

Ollie Bartlett · May 30, 2008

Look like a lot of fun... cant wait to see some of the in camera voodoo and wizardry that people pull off with this stuff.

Although with it being an expendable i doubt i can rent it and i certainly cant afford it, therefore none of said voodoo or wizardry will be on my part :(

Edited May 30, 2008 by Ollie Bartlett

Michael K Bergstrom · May 30, 2008

Let me clarify on price, I don't know for sure, I haven't called Rosco or seen this for sale, but I've heard it's $800 for a roll.

Chris Keth · May 31, 2008

Anyone know why there is a special filter for it? Why not just use a 1-stop POLA?

Adrian Sierkowski · May 31, 2008

my money's on Marketing. . . (for the special filter).

Jamie Metzger · May 31, 2008

Anyone know why there is a special filter for it? Why not just use a 1-stop POLA?

Seems like you can put it on the windows (the gel), with the Pola filter on your camera, and you can dial the pola in varying degrees as needed. You don't need to use either, but they can both be on camera and on the window, ready to rock when needed.

Chris Keth · June 1, 2008

Seems like you can put it on the windows (the gel), with the Pola filter on your camera, and you can dial the pola in varying degrees as needed. You don't need to use either, but they can both be on camera and on the window, ready to rock when needed.

But my point is that the gel is just polarizer, so any old 1-stop pola would do the same thing as the special filter they're marketing for it. I guess, as Adrian said, that they're banking on a lot of people not noticing that and buying another 1-stop pola with the different name.

John Hoffler · June 7, 2008

that is awesome!

too bad I am a broke student...

Adrian Sierkowski · June 7, 2008

GO get on some shoots, and you can pillage the gel scraps!

That's how I started gathering up gels!

I still have a few of those laying 'round; not that I'd want to use them for anything but uber-run/gun/throw it in my backpack type shoots.

I've also made it a habit of giving away most of the gel scraps to anyone who I'm working with who wants/needs it.

Hell, I don't need a 12x12 piece of 216 THAT badly; I have 2 whole rolls sitting at home!

Valerio Sacchetto · June 8, 2008

But my point is that the gel is just polarizer, so any old 1-stop pola would do the same thing as the special filter they're marketing for it. I guess, as Adrian said, that they're banking on a lot of people not noticing that and buying another 1-stop pola with the different name.

This was exactly my thought! What's so revolutionary about it?

Daniel Madsen · June 8, 2008

What I don´t understand is how come the exposure doesn´t change as the dolly moves around the table. With a regular pola light is only polarized at a certain angle. Am I right or wrong?

Dan

Saul Rodgar · June 9, 2008

Interesting. Kinda like putting two polarizer filters in front of the camera. I saw some footage that was shot accidentally like that when the AC forgot there was a pola in the mattebox and the unsuspecting DP put a second one in. Depending on the (changing) angle of the second pola shot after shot, the image changed from 1 stop under to two or more. The difference here being that the second pola is BEHIND the subject, so the foreground is not under exposed, only what is behind the gel, keeping what is between the filter and the gel properly exposed.

I wonder if one would have to compensate for the first (on camera's) polarizer (the woman's exposure in this case). It seems logical that one would have to: A polarizer is a polarizer after all.

Oh, by the way, the AC in question was fired when the DP realized the unintended dual pola filter action and he is not getting much AC action lately (hum, wonder why?) . . .

Edited June 9, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

Miles Heckendorn · June 9, 2008

I found a few prices from a UK site.

http://www.lcauk.com/#/roscoview/4527949163

Looks like the roll is a bit over $900 (£480).

Bob Hayes · June 9, 2008

I, for one, can?t wait to try it!

John Holland · June 9, 2008

Quite amazing its taking this long to this come on the market .[Wish i had thought of it] Its the same principle as used on animation stands for years polar filters on the two lamps and a photo polar round one in front of the camera lens mostly used to get rid of scratches from the artwork cells . Just think this could be really expensive to use on a big location .