From another post, I was recommended a white promist filter, also just called promist. I looked these up on ZGCs site, and it says they soften excessive sharpness and contrast. I believe I've seen pictures of these filters in use somewhere on the watchdog (stills from a movie called "Loved Walked IN?) and I don't like the way it looks. . .very soap opera-y. I was also looking at the ultra contrast filter--which seems kind of cool, except that it lowers contrast, rather than adding it? Yet it says it's good "for a film look shot in digital video." Is this just a marketing ploy? Lowering contrast doesn't make sense for making DV look like film, as has a greater latitude than digital video. Right or wrong?

Also, is there a difference between a screw in filter and a glass 4x4 filter of the same type? Obviously the weight from the matte box you'd have to use for the glass filter is a difference; but other than that?

Josh,

There are two advantages I know of to the matte box filters...one, you have the matte box blocking any incidental glare and, two, you can slide graduated fllters up and down to suit your needs.

If you don't like the softness of the Promist, you might want to consider the Black Diffusion/FX filter by Tiffen (you can see it here (http://www.tiffen.com/black__diffusion.htm)).

There's an article about using this filter here. (http://www.lafcpug.org/curseofdigital_feature.html)

Cool. Still curious about this ultra contrast though.

And what's up that homeboy dissing the XL1? Granted I've never used it, but I can't imagine it's that differnt from the 'S--where does he get off with "grating" and "harsh" to describe the camera's images? Foo!

Do not the XL1 and S have the same video effective CCD pixels?

Hi Josh,

The idea with the Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter http://www.tiffen.com/BFILT_26_27.htm is that it can sometimes help to lighten shadows throughout the image. As you know, video, especially the DV codec, does not handle extreme contrast too well as film does. When used properly, it can help you to see into the shadows, without affecting color or sharpness.

http://www.tiffen.com/Header_page_tiffen_filters.htm
http://noisybrain.com/onloc1_01.html
http://noisybrain.com/onloc1_02.html

- don

Indeed, as John noted, a mattebox can be a very handy (albeit, expensive) accessory for the reasons he noted. It's also much quicker to change square filters in a mattebox (slide 'em in, slide 'em out) than it is to change screw-on filters.

Note however, that 3x3 and 4x4 filters are much more expensive than screw-on's. A good polarizer that might cost $60 as a 72mm screw-on might cost $140+ as a 4x4 filter.

Re: the diffusion/enhancement filters such as the ProMist and Black Diffusion filters, I have mixed feelings. I own several ProMists and a Black Diffusion and have used them occasionally. They can produce some very pleasing results when used very carefully. Personally, however, if post time permits I prefer to shoot the truest footage possible unmitigated by these filters, and then manipulate the results digitally in my NLE. My reasoning: the NLE affords more variable control of the results. Getting the truest native image also provides me with the greatest amount of image information. I can always change that information through digital processes but I can never add more image information than I originally captured.

Of course, if time is short and contrast and sharpness must be altered these filters can be a blessing. One cautionary note: while these filters will work with video applications, their original heritage is largely that of 35mm still photography, a much higher-resolution medium. In my experience this legacy can lead to some poor, almost coarse, results in the low-res world of video. As with so many things practice with them will give you good judgement on their best applications in your work.

I like my Moose filter on my Canon XL1-S
http://www.moose395.net/gear/moosefltr.html

Ken, I understand what you mean about the truest image, but hasn't been officially decided that doing work in post degrades the quality of the final output because of the necessary rendering? Adding contrast or something like that is usually always a good thing. When I do tweak in post, that's one thing I always notice makes my video look more filmy--those slightly blown highlights against a nice deep dark area.


If anyone's used these contrast filters, I'm curious, and I hope this doesn't sound stupid: Does it maintain the dark vs. light level WHILE bringing out detail in the shadow areas, or does it compromise the darks in order to bring out the detail? I was also thinking of using a polarizer, as I know this increases contrast and can be used to darken a sky and make it look overcast. Don't know if only the circular polarizers do this, or the 4x4 kind too. I have both.

What's the general consensus about the preferred square filter size for the XL1? 3x3? Or 4x4? I'm looking at matte boxes now and am wondering if one has an advantage over the other.

(for the 16x and 3x lenses)

I use a 4x4 matte box and faced the same question. Ultimately, I decided that there's no point getting kinda pregnant. I think the 4x4 is a good choice, particularly with your 3X lens.

I faced the same dilemma, and went the 3x3 route. Less money, lighter weight, didn't vignette on 3X when I tried it, so I kept it. If you were to use the Century Optical Wide adapter for the 3X I suspect it would vignette and would need to consider that possibility. I haven't priced filters recently, but at the time, there was a considerable difference between the two sizes.