Hi all,
I have this dude, I know polarizing filters do a great job, but I like to explain something. I recorded a leopard in zoo protected by a heavy methacrylate glass and the transparency and contrast was really terrible due to adverse ligth. I thought that was a lost file. Anyway, at home I play a litlle with that file in Sony Vegas Video, using curves, profiles, contrast, etc. and the final result was pretty good, usable and now the file is in a family video.
Filmed with my HV 30, not a perfect focus, but enough to see the effect.
So, if you use a polarizer, what is easier?, reducing contrast and saturation got with the optical filter or raising up leves by software? What do you prefer?

Thanks

I would use a polarizer if you have one.

Thanks, Bill. By the way, I have one Kenko pro polarizer 72mm from my photography gear, circular polarizer.
But I am asking the following, does the light rays go the same way to one CCD/CMOS captor from a DSLR camera that to three independent CCD , R, G, B?
A bit confused this way.

Thanks again.

The answer appears to be no, based upon what I know. There's anecdotal evidence insofar as you need to use a circular polarizer with a DSLR and you can use a linear polarizer on the A1.

Rather than a bunch of us giving you dribs and drabs about the differences between the two, you'd probably be better served by checking out these links.

Digital single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_SLR_camera)
3 CCD Structure - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD)

To answer your original question, it's generally best to get it right through the lens and then use tools in post to refine the image.

You can use the circular polarizer with a video camera. It's just that there's no advantage over a linear one.

Thanks to all. I have made a little test with the Kenko polarizer attached to the Canon XH A1 and everything seems to be ok.

Cheers