together - if so which in front?

or simply polarizer when needed?

basically to cut haze on landscapes....

leslie

I use the Cokin P filter system and it works just fine. I bought their glass linear polarizer for about $40 and it seems fine. I have a half dozen gradual ND filters and a clear resin filter for protecting the lens. It all fits in a sort of mini plastic matte box and even can fit their plastic lens hoods. I use one of their $10 plastic hoods and leave it and the filter system on all the time. I think the filters are fine, but you must make sure they are really clean if you are going to have two extra pieces of material in front of your lens with 4 surfaces to collect dust.

much appreciated marcus. will look into the cokin - was looking at formatt 600 or cavision...

all the best

leslie

There is an advantage to the 4x4 filters, but they are about five times the price and have a bit of a size tradeoff. The Cokin P fits nicely on the end of the VX7 with plenty of clearance for two or three filters without vignetting. The polarizer is round and has it's own slot in which it can rotate. The whole fixture also can rotate. It's the cheapest way to have a square filter system by far.

FYI, the square filters are resin/plastic so they can scratch if you are not careful. The polarizer is glass. The great thing is that if they get scratched it only costs about $20 for a replacement. I scratched one of mine by storing the polarizer next to it with it's serrated edge touching the resin filter. The polarizer has a serrated edge a bit like a giant quarter. I think it is to make it easier to grip on the edges or maybe to help it stay put in the holder. It's hard to explain, but if you keep the polarizer on one end of the filter case and have the serration on the outside it shouldn't scratch your other filters. I got the soft Cokin filter bag and just need to remember to put the polarizer away facing the right direction.

whilst looking at that, a friend in the uk just bough one of these from india:

ebay item: 120082040810

anyone know anything about it / quality, etc.,

leslie

Does that have a rotating stage for polarizers?

apparently not, but i was thinking i could look at one of the circular drop ins, such as the lindhal on the page below, or large rotating one - but i'd be happy for your thoughts as i have no experience with polarizers on video - thought i am familar with graded ones:

http://rotpolar.notlong.com

though i am open to other suggestions if you have any. i have two main 'problems':

well three if you count budget :-)

1. one of the gigs i have is shooting race horses on studs (i love saying that to people who don't know the terminolgy), and both the horses and landscapes look much better with polarizers. especially the horses coats (i also shoot stills occasionally).

2. i'm in outback aus. and i can tell you it gets VERY, VERY bright! hence the need for good lens hood / french flag...

thanks for your time and interest,

leslie

you need the rotating stage for the polarizer so you can dail in the amount you want depenting on position of your camera and the sun.

other than the lindhal i looked at above, could i use a 100mm circular polariser and simply rotate it in the fixed slot?

leslie

You probably need to have both the mattebox and filter in your possession to know if it will work. It will depend on the way the slots and the filter are shaped. For instance, on the Cokin filter holder a plain round filter would just fall through since the slots on the holder actually hold the filter with a spring action. If the mattebox you are looking at has an actual bottom of the square filter stages and the polarizer isn't too thick to fit, it may work.

Honestly, without a rotating filter stage, a mattebox is limited in use. The most useful filters are gradual ND and a polarizer and both of those might need to rotate. A gradual ND that can be rotated to better align with your horizon or bright area of sky is more useful. Most other types of filters can be replaced with digital coloration in post.

My personal feelings are to either spend the $500 on a real mattebox with at least one rotating stage or get the cheap Cokin stuff until you can afford the best.

marcus, you're probably right - i really would need to have all the bits together to see if they work properly. i was just hoping that i could get away with the fixed filter holders and use a rotating filter....

i'll have to see about stretching the budget.

many thanks for your input, most appreciated

leslie

I am totally new to polarizers guys, so please forgive my naive question, but: rotating is important to circular polarizers only right? Well, somewhere I read with HD camera's the non-circular ones are just as good, and much cheaper. Can it be true?

hi pitor,

cut and pasted from Jim Dees /Waldemar on another thread:

What is the difference between the Polarizer and the circular polarizer ?

A circular has an additional quarter-wave plate or scrambler behind the (still linear) polarizing foil. Although not scientifically correct, it more or less restores the natural 50/50 vertical/horizontal balance of polarization, without affecting the initial pictorial result.

Only by restoring this natural balance it will allow the light metering and AF sensors to work properly, as they use polarizing beam splitters. With a linear filter, you would risk a cross-polarizing effect, ie a black-out. Bad for both light metering and AF.

In spite of what most people will tell you: the main reason to buy a circular polarizer is *not* the AF sensor, but the light metering system. You can *see* when AF goes haywire (it won't shift focus, it just has more difficulty to lock on), but you can only guess what happens with your light meter!

Actually, the first circulars were required long before AF existed, and are still required for non-AF cameras today (Rollei 600x series is a nice example).

POLARIZER TIPS

TIP #1: How much a polarizer filter will darken a sky depends on the type of sky and your shooting angle in relation to the sun.

TIP #2: On a sunny day, position your shoulder towards the sun and your subject at a right angle to your shoulder. When the sun is high in the sky, maximum polarization will result along the horizon. When the sun is low in the sky, maximum polarization will result in all areas in front of and behind you.

TIP #3: A polarizer has very little effect when used under a gray, overcast sky.

TIP #4: Remove any protective lens filters when using a polarizer.

TIP #5: Use a polarizing filter indoors only for reducing relections and glare. Any color saturation will be minimal. Remember, a polarizer filter will effectively reduce your lens aperture by up to 2 f:stops.

TIP #6: Use a polarizer filter to control depth of field. This is similar to using a Neutral Density filter, except that the Neutral Density will render "neutral" colors, while the polarizer saturates colors. Neutral Density filters are available in greater light reducing densities than polarizers.

TIP #7: To distinguish a Circular Polarizer from a Linear Polarizer, turn the filter backwards and look through it into a mirror. If the filter image in the mirror is black, you have a circular polarizer. If the image is clear, you have a linear polarizer.

Tip # 8: A Polarizer tends to cool down the image. I find adding a Warm filter will restore warmth and a more natural image.

Thanks Leslie for this round-up! Is there a way to effectively use a circular polarizer without rotatable holder/mattebox etc. (I know, it'd be a compromise but I don't want to invest too much in my V1 just now, with the EX1 round the corner). If so, which model/brand is good for the V1?

wish i could help you out - i'm going through the same hoops, as you can read above.

i understand the principle of being able to rotate a pol. to obtain the best results for the situation (i do it all the time with stills on my nikon), but with video, well, i don't know cause i haven't got anything to play with, boo-hoo.

i'm sorta hoping that i can get a circular (physically) pol that'll drop into a fixed slot, so i could rotate it through the top. my problem with this is i really don't know who makes a suitable sized pol. the lindhal above looks on paper to be the answer, but without physically trying it, i'm loathed to part with any cash...

leslie

The V1 doesn't seem to need a polarizer. I don't think polarized light is used for AF and AE anymore.

The polarizer must rotate in order for it's filtration to line up with the polarized waves of light. The visual analogy I use is that the polarized light that bounces off a shiny surface must be blocked with a "shield" that is perpendicular to it's orientation. Depending on the angle of the sun to your shiny surface, the angle of the light you want to filter will change. Without finding the correct alignment, the filter will not have a desirable effect.

Polarized light is light moving in waves of the same orientation. For example, the ocean has all of it's waves moving up and down. Since light can orient in any 3D wave pattern, it can have side-to-side, diagonal, or any orientation. A polarizer blocks waves coming in at one orientation but lets the others pass. Since light reflected off a shiny surface acquires polarization, it can be singled out for filtration. This is what allow a camera with a polarizer to "see" through the shine on water or leaves. The net result is that the color underneath the shiny highlights can be seen as long as you have rotated the filter to align with the polarized highlights.

The V1 doesn't seem to need a polarizer. I don't think polarized light is used for AF and AE anymore.


You got me lost here Markus - do you mean it doesn't need a *circular* polarizer? That's exactly what I heard (only it was so long ago I confused it with HD cameras being ok with linear pols; it's of course about their AF and AE systems).

If a linear is OK, and better still - could fit under the lens hood, where to search for one?

[QUOTE=If a linear is OK, and better still - could fit under the lens hood, where to search for one?[/QUOTE]

ah - back to square one - especially so with the kit wa. and hood - nothing fits under it, and even if it did, how would you rotate it?

leslie

Fair enough, Leslie. So much for a cheap, low-profile sky-puncher:)

I have a Cokin filter system I bought 30 years ago for my OM-1. It's a good system for the money however for video / film use there's drawbacks.

The seriously expensive matte boxes load the filters into a carrier and this isn't just to justify the high prices associated with all that precision machining. When the filters and the carriers are in the matte box light can only get in one way, the Cokin system lets light into the top of the filters. Standing in the bright Australian sun with light coming in the top of the filters I think you'd have a problem. One could address this issue in some ways (gaffe tape?) but loose a lot of the functionality.
Another issue to consider, not all the light that hits a filter goes through the filter, same goes for a lens. Light can bounce around between two filters or a filter and a lens. Careful design is needed both of the filters and the matte box to minimise this. Using the smallest possible number of filters also probably helps. Another issue is the quality of the filters. Some ND filters don't block IR, that can cause color shifts (CCDs are very sensitive to IR) and might throw auto focus and AE systems out of whack.

evening bob, like rust, you never sleep ;-)

you're obviously quite right in your observations - that's why i liked the formatt matte box with the little flap over the filter slots, one of which is rotatable. it looks like this is going to be my final solution - it's about as 'cheap' a box as i can get, without resorting to the indian line from ebay - which look appealing though i'm loathed to buy before i know a great deal more about them. unfortunately, i've sent a good many emails recently to various people there and have got 'this is most suitable for your camera' replies from all of them, but no answers to any of the technical questions i asked...

my problem now is finding the best 'cheap' polarising 4 x 4 filter. cavision make one for $55us,

http://cavpol.notlong.com

followed by most others at around $150us, then jumping to $250us. i'm left wondering what $55 get's me compared to the $150

http://tifpol.notlong.com

after all, i'm not shooting for bertolucchi, just bloody horses and landscapes, so i'm not after perfection, just as close to it as possible for as little as possible....

good night one and all, it's almost 11 and though i no longer need my beauty sleep, my brain needs to rest those few active cells left functioning.

leslie

You might want to try cinevate.com for a $530US matte box that has two rotating filter stages. It also has a french flag and side flags (possibly optional).

You might also want to consider that a matte box probably requires a rail system which adds quite a bit to the cost and bulk of the camera.

Nevermind, I see that the Formatt screws onto the filter threads instead of mounting to rails.

[QUOTE=Nevermind, I see that the Formatt screws onto the filter threads instead of mounting to rails.[/QUOTE]

thanks marcus,

yes, that's why i'm leaning towards the formatt, and the fact that bob showed me his - which was reasonably well made, light, and would seem to fit the bill. the other alternative was the cavision, but it's more money and a bit more sophisticated - but what i'm after is plain and simple and cost effective, after all, what i really what is a glorified sunshade and somewhere to rotate a polarizer...

again, thanks everyone for your constructive thoughts...

leslie

okay - finally settled and received this one from india - ebay item 120082040810

almost immediate delivery.

pro's: cheap, reasonably well made, does the job i want. it doesn't have a rotating filter stage, but works with either 4x4 or (i have yet to get one) circular filter. don't workwith grads so not a problem. truth is, my sunglasses dont rotate either and they work well enough ;-)

con's: dont make a 86mm t0 95mm adaptor. however, cheapskate that i am - a plastic down pipe box for guttering has the cicular bit, ready for it - 90mm internal, 94.5mm external. one wrap of gaffer tape and i now have a rock solid hood on my sony kit wide angle.

would i do otherwise knowing what i know now? probably not. i appreciate the engineering that goes into proper matte boxes (i used to have one on my 400sp rig), but for what i want, and can afford in retirement, they're out of my league.

my home made improvisation is as good as it gets.

so far, don't see the need (literally) for rotating stage. i generally set up my shots with teh sun in optimum position, so the polarizer by default works at it's best (yes took it off and turned it to check).

cost (aus$) box 175, cavision pol. 85, down pipe 2.50. so, for around 275 i have what i needed, and as an added bonus, the rig now looks more pro than ever - not that that matters to me, but the clients are impressed enough to NOT quibble with my fees...

leslie