2 pills to be taken at the same time, for each shoot[list=1] rubber lens hood avoid pointing the cam towards a bright light source[/list=1]

Doesn't work in Hawaii, Frank. Also, lens hood doesn't work well with a WA - at least I haven't found one yet that does it for my WA. Back to the drawing boards.

wouldn't a Polarizer filter help?

Patricia, have you tried this one:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24563

A polarizer masks glare, not lens flaring; but I could always be proven wrong. :-))

=) not this time =))
sorry thought you were talking about the vertical "smeraing" of bright objects.

I like the lens-flares actually =) cometimes they give a "cool" look

Yup, I've been using a polarizer for awhile now. The salesman at the only really decent camera shop here (at least that I know of) convinced me to try it. One of the expensive ones, too (but it's a thin). The only reason I don't hate myself for spending that kind of money is that it does pretty well outdoors in Hawaii, though you still get some flare. Someone else (the fellow who owns the super mamba) says he uses an ND filter. But then you've seen his setup if you've seen the photo, so you know how he feels about shooting. Being perfectly happy as an amateur, I like it simple. BTW, I've also tried the Tiffen low-contrast (not the ultra contrast you asked about in your other thread). Works to flatten out those big bulgy glares you get outdoors off certain surfaces - but the polarizer is better for people-oriented stuff. Still waiting for someone to come up with a hood that works with my WA.

What's a super mamba? the silver one?

Tame those angry flares with the Flarebuster. Check it out at http://www.digitalprods.com/flare.htm
The best twenty bucks you can spend.

Wayne Orr, SOC

Frank, the super mamba is the one with the big hood glued to the Panasonic WA lens. I think Young Lee posted a link to it earlier asking if it was supposed to be the gs400. It's actually owned (or at least the original was) by a gs100k owner who lives in Hawaii.

Looks good, Wayne, but does it add much weight? I have a small cam for a reason. As I've added a WA lens, a mike, a quick release plate so it will work best with the dvcaddie jr, not too mention the dvcaddie jr itself, I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered searching so hard for a worthy small cam. (Yes, I know, why have a worthy cam if you're not going to do anything worthy with it. But, you see, that's the free pass you get with being a not very devoted amateur.)

Wayne, you mean this http://www.dvfreak.com/consumer.htm ?

Frank, you have everybody's photo on your site. Kind of neat. Let me ask you a question, though, about UV filters - which I don't use anymore. I know people say stick one on to protect your lens if nothing else. But does it make sense to shoot though a $20 piece of green glass when you've gone through all the trouble to take care that your camera lens itself is high quality? I have Hoya thins (which I don't use much anymore), and supposedly they are not green glass. The reason I went to the more expensive filters is that it didn't make sense to me to have paid for a supposedly good lens and then put a coca-cola bottle in front of it (okay, now I'm exaggerating). But does it really matter? And if it doesn't, why not? Is there some magical thing that a good lens does that negates green glass?

...does it make sense to shoot though a $20 piece of green glass when you've gone through all the trouble to take care that your camera lens itself is high quality?Even a cheaper UV filter like a Cokin is about 4X the glass quality of the "best" lens. Something like the Zeiss UV is about 6X the quality and a Leica UV filter is about 8X, or so I am told. With miniDV being such low resolution when compared with film, I don't think you'll see any difference between a Cokin UV and a Leica UV. So "does it really matter?" I don't think so. Not with DV.

So why bother with B&W, Schneider, Hoya pros, etc? Is it just marketing?

So why bother with B&W, Schneider, Hoya pros, etc? Is it just marketing?Thin filters are closer to the lens for less flaring, but these high end filters are really meant for higher end resolution lenses found on film cams and broadcast cams. In the film world, especially 35mm, you want to get the best results. So if your cam and lenses cost you an arm and a leg, and you know how to operate them for the desired result/effect, you go for the best filters as well. For hand-held DV cams, it doesn't matter on the quality of the filter glass, because even cheep filters are good enough and because these cams have low resolution and low-end built-in lenses---it doesn't matter if the lens has a Zeiss or Leica stamp on it. Yeah, it's just marketing.

You're not off the hook yet. What about Tiffen filters? I have a few, and they certainly don't give the appearance of high-class glass. But the claim is that most were developed for use with film - not dv. Is there a difference between what Tiffen sells the film industry as opposed to what it sells the dv industry (in terms of glass, I mean, not filter size)?

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data...ry/IMGA0830.JPG

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data...ry/imga0831.jpg

Tiffen has a line of specialty filters developed for the film industry. These filters are for special effects. So it doesn't matter if the glass is cheaper glass or German Zeiss glass.

Thank you, Frank. Now I (or, rather, my wallet) feel safe going back into that camera store: the only filters worth paying extra for are the ones that cut down flare, whether green glass or not.

the only filters worth paying extra for are the ones that cut down flareCutting down flare is best achieved with a hood and avoiding pointing at light sources. Usually using any filter can cause flaring, but mult-coating helps reduce this as well as thin filters which sit closer to the lens. A lot of photo guys I know don't use a protective filter but just as many do. But the ones that do use a Zeiss or Leica UV or skylight (for protection), and they all use a lens hood. This is photography, however, higher resolution, it is not low resolution video. Personally, I'm a filter believer. All my lenses are like new because I keep them protected. I also believe, even with photography, using a Cokin UV or a Heliopan UV doesn't make a difference, or at least I can't tell from my photos. In fact, I don't worry if my filters are multi-coated because I avoid shooting towards bright light sources, and I use a hood.

Oh, and these "purists," who don't believe in using a protective filter on their Leica, Zeiss or Nikkor lens, well, they usually go through a lot of lenses. If you can afford a Leica then you can afford going for a fresh lense or 2 every couple of years or sooner if the worst happans. This is not Pokey's way. Don't be afraid to use your gear, but always keep your gear protected. A UV offers good protection for the most important part of the camera: the lens.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Cutting down flare is best achieved with a hood and avoiding pointing at light sources. Usually using any filter can cause flaring, but mult-coating helps reduce this as well as thin filters which sit closer to the lens. A lot of photo guys I know don't use a protective filter but just as many do. But the ones that do use a Zeiss or Leica UV or skylight (for protection), and they all use a lens hood. This is photography, however, higher resolution, it is not low resolution video.-->>>

As many times in the past, and being an old chap, I would like to speak of what we did in the old 16mm Bolex days. In those times my task was to shoot 16mm as if it was 35mm, and with DV we wish to shoot as if it was Digibeta. I go even farther and wish to shoot DV as if it was film, but that is only my film head working.

The best to avoid a flare is to shade it, and not even the best hood, by Arriflex or Panavision, will solve them all. A french flag of some type should be what every serious videographer should take anywhere. A simple one: an articulated arm with a small flag should do it. The ones I know are from Lowel, but there are many cheaper around. They should cut 99.99% of the flares.

But if you are shooting against a bright source, the only thing that will cover you are your filters and lenses. The better multicoated they are the better you will come out a winner. Take advantage of it, don't fight it.

Personally I think the best filters for video are NDs (0.6 and 0.9 to keep F stops low), graduated NDs (this I would keep on the camera all the time. 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9) and pola screens. Pola screen are great for working outdoors, because they cut your stop by 2, and because they mekae your images look better.

You are certainly right, Frank, that people should always have a filter as lens protection. All the time.



Carlos

"A french flag of some type should be what every serious videographer should take anywhere. A simple one: an articulated arm with a small flag should do it. The ones I know are from Lowel, but there are many cheaper around. They should cut 99.99% of the flares."

As I said earlier, Carlos: Flarebuster.com.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr :
As I said earlier, Carlos: Flarebuster.com. -->>>

On the spot, Frank. That's the one I didn't remember.

The polariser will be GREAT for Hawaii. You get super deep blue skies and well exposed skin tones when a polariser is used on sunny days.

Hoya's SHMC (Super Hoya Multi Coated) filters lets in 99.99% of light and prevents flaring by minimising internal refractions. That's the main reason why my UV(0) is on the lens all the time. I have NEVER scratched my lens in 5 years of video and photo shooting, not even the filter on the lens, but insurance in the form of a $20 filter is certainly worth it.