To Filter or not to filter.

[Trevor Trombley]

Hey guys I'm a new kid on the block who is eager to learn everything I can about the digital medium.

 

Right now I'm trying my hand at achieving the "film Look" in camera as much as possible before moving on to post where I'll do color correction, Deinterlace blend etc...

 

Right now i don't know if i should plunk down money on a matte box for my camera so i can use ever filter I can get my hands on, or use step up rings and varied sizes of filters to fit on my Telephoto and Wideangle lenses. Right now I have a UV and a Circular Polarizer.

 

Currently I own a sony trv-950, (not a high end cam, but a relatively cheap one with some good features.)

 

Other's tell me that soft fx filters, Diffusion filters, and Pro mist filters are a waist and that good lighting can achieve the right effect you're looking for, and that post production can garner the results I'm looking for without the hastle of costly filters.

 

But what about Shallow depth of field? What are the best techniques to achieve that? Tell me everything, I'm a piece of clay, mold me.

 

CINE

[Alvin Pingol]

>>>Other's tell me that soft fx filters, Diffusion filters, and Pro mist filters are a

>>>waist and that good lighting can achieve the right effect you're looking for,

>>>and that post production can garner the results I'm looking for without the

>>>hastle of costly filters.

 

It is impossible to reproduce the image you would get from a ProMist filter in post. You can imitate it, but not reproduce it. The filter works so that the brighter the source, the larger/denser the diffusion halo. However, once the image is on tape, you can only get so bright - thus, a white shirt and a light bulb that both read at 100IRE will diffuse the same amount if done digitally, versus the more natural way you would get had you used a filter.

 

Plus, replicating diffusion in post takes a while to render.

 

>>>But what about Shallow depth of field? What are the best techniques to

>>>achieve that? Tell me everything, I'm a piece of clay, mold me.

 

Shoot wide open. Try f/2, or whatever your camera opens widest to. Then use telephoto lens.

[Jason Mann]

I'll second that.

If you know a filter can give you the effect you want, and it's a nice piece of glass, it'll be easier and better-looking to shoot with it. The less post tweaking/effects stuff, the better. (IMO)

[PhilPowers]

Hi there - the one thing the guys have overlooked is that of course to get your lens wide open you may need to use a 'neutral density' filter on the lens. These filters as the name sugest do not colour or alter the image in any way, but they do absorb some of the light and as a result you need to open the lens appeture. The more you do this, the shallower the depth of field. these come in various strenghts.

 

Also move the camera away from the subject and use a more telephoto lens to give you the same shot. This will blur the background even more.

 

Hope this helps a little

[Guest Ken2e]

I switched from film to video in the mid-80's, and currently shoot sx. The hardest adjustment to digital cameras is they are so good in low light. I've found that some cameras allow you to shoot in negative gain, or bumping up the shutter speed a bit will force you to open up more, giving you greater depth of field.

You just have to adjust to lighting at much lower levels than your probably used to.

Just my 2 cents!