Neutral Density filters for use with the HVX

Gene Crucean · August 11th, 2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

If you open up, say an 85mm 1.4 lens to it's widest aperature you'll get a washed out (over exposed) image on the GG or diffuser. Then the camera will capture that image (so if you use your camera's ND filter, you are compensating for the 'blown out' image.

Not exactly compensating. It's more of the order of operation. Once the GG is over exposed, the camera will do nothing to fix it. I'm a firm believer that you need externals.

Stephen, you definitely will want external ND's. Even if it's only a single .3 it will only help that much, which might be enough to at least remove most of the blown out light for your particular circumstance. It can only help if anything. For bright sunlight and a fast lens you will probably want at least a .9 and a .3.

Leonard Levy · August 12th, 2007, 12:56 AM

"Once the GG is over exposed, the camera will do nothing to fix it. I'm a firm believer that you need externals."

Gene, Have you actaully seen this happen, or is it simply something that you believe in? Please don't take this as condescending, its a genuinely curious question. I really do want to know about when this might happen and don't want it to be a surprise on a shoot.

If you have seen it please describe the circumstances.

- Lenny Levy.

Gene Crucean · August 12th, 2007, 11:59 AM

Actually after I posted that I went onto my balcony to quickly shoot an example. The sun was out but for some reason it wasn't as bright and hot as normal. I think there was a thin layer of haze or clouds that were horking the sun. Either way it wasn't happening for me. I'll try and shoot an example soon and post it here.

The only thing I know is that when I use external ND's, my images are noticeably better looking. So whether or not it actually blows out the GG or something else happens, externals are better imo.

Dennis Wood · August 12th, 2007, 11:38 PM

The discussion of external vs internal ND's is always a lively one :-) Like Gene, I do use external ND's and nearly always shoot in this mode these days when shooting with the adapter. However, there's no question that I would (and do) use the internals in a pinch.

There are a few positives to using external NDs:

1. In many cases, they are used in matteboxes, which also shade the35mm or camera lens from non-image forming light. Lens flare, lens hazing and internal reflection are therefore minimized at the start of the optical chain. Nd's positioned downstream of the lens optics cannot help with this.

2. Reducing internal light levels (either in a set of lens elements, or a 35mm adapter) will coincidentally reduce internal reflection/flaring/hazing that may be introduced at the 35mm lens, imaging element, or achromat.

Add in some of the benefits of other filters (like polarizing filters to reduce glare) and the expense of an external mattebox/filter system becomes a bit more palatable.

Jon Wolding · August 13th, 2007, 08:42 AM

I never use the internal NDs when using my adapter.

Expose for the GG as best you can, then use the camera's iris for minor adjustment. Yesterday I had an ND .9, a CP, and the taking lens was stopped to f4... the most I stopped the camera down was 3.4, but it was usually open.

Stephen Pruitt · August 13th, 2007, 08:55 AM

Okay, Jon. . .

Stupid question time. What's a "CP"?

Stephen

Stephen Pruitt · August 13th, 2007, 08:56 AM

And, Jon, while we're on the subject, what external NDs are you using??? Brand, that is. . .

Thanks!

Stephen

Todd Giglio · August 13th, 2007, 09:29 AM

I believe CP means 'circular polarizer'. This is great when shooting through windows; cuts down glare and enhances contrast.

Leonard Levy · August 13th, 2007, 09:44 AM

Jon,
I hate to keep beating a dead horse , but did you see anything in tests that led you to prefer exterior filters to the interior?
I'm not questioning your decision, just wondering if it was based on tests or general principles. I'm really seeking to learn from someone who has seen problems from the interior glass.

I assume you're using very good quality multi-coated filters if you are stacking them since that can create its own problems with internal reflections.

Barry Green · August 13th, 2007, 02:26 PM

It is simply not possible for a ground glass to "overexpose", because a ground glass doesn't "expose" at all. It's glass. It's like a window -- can you "overexpose" a window? Windows don't expose.

(and yes, I've tested this, by taking a shot with a ground-glass adapter at one light level, and then at 256x that light level, compensating with internal ND filters and internal iris -- the results were identical).

The HVX's ND filters are not "electronic", they're physical filters that slide into position with the clunking of the ND filter switch, just like on a bigger broadcast camera. As to whether the ND filters are glass or gelatin I don't know.

Leonard Levy · August 13th, 2007, 05:46 PM

Well Barry, I'm with you on this all the way. We beat this death over at DVXUser and I just keep asking those people on this forum who tell you not to use the internal filters if they've ever actually seen any problems.

So far nothing has come up. I making my offer now - Free Pizza to anyone who can document overexposed ground glass or any other significant image problems from using the internal HVX filters as opposed to external ND's.

Stephen Pruitt · August 14th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Go Barry! Go Leonard!

SAVE ME SOME MONEY!

:-)

I simply don't want to buy external filters if there are no issues with the internal ones.

I've spent enough of my "hard earned money" at this dance.

:-)

Stephen

Brian Sargent · August 14th, 2007, 09:48 PM

Well I use both and I have to tell you it's like night and day.

Use 1/8 internal ND filter and split the difference w/an external B+W filter.

(seriously, for my 24hr Timelapse shots I use the B+W and click off the internal ND's as the light fades to achieve proper exposure from daylight to ambient city light)

Leonard Levy · August 14th, 2007, 10:46 PM

Brian,
I'm not sure what your saying here. Is this relevant to the question of image quality with a 35mm adapter, or is this just a way you have figured out to do timelapses efficiently?

Jason Boyce · August 14th, 2007, 11:39 PM

it would seem to me that if the image is "overexposed" on the GG, that it would be overexposed coming off of the subject, so ND filter placement doesn't really matter. As Barry said, the GG never holds the image, it simply refracts the light again from a set distance of a previously refracted image.

Either way, I use my internal ND filters and I've never had a problem with them.

August 12th, 2007, 12:56 AM	#17
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	"Once the GG is over exposed, the camera will do nothing to fix it. I'm a firm believer that you need externals." Gene, Have you actaully seen this happen, or is it simply something that you believe in? Please don't take this as condescending, its a genuinely curious question. I really do want to know about when this might happen and don't want it to be a surprise on a shoot. If you have seen it please describe the circumstances. - Lenny Levy.

August 12th, 2007, 11:59 AM	#18
Gene Crucean Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 295	Actually after I posted that I went onto my balcony to quickly shoot an example. The sun was out but for some reason it wasn't as bright and hot as normal. I think there was a thin layer of haze or clouds that were horking the sun. Either way it wasn't happening for me. I'll try and shoot an example soon and post it here. The only thing I know is that when I use external ND's, my images are noticeably better looking. So whether or not it actually blows out the GG or something else happens, externals are better imo.

August 12th, 2007, 11:38 PM	#19
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	The discussion of external vs internal ND's is always a lively one :-) Like Gene, I do use external ND's and nearly always shoot in this mode these days when shooting with the adapter. However, there's no question that I would (and do) use the internals in a pinch. There are a few positives to using external NDs: 1. In many cases, they are used in matteboxes, which also shade the35mm or camera lens from non-image forming light. Lens flare, lens hazing and internal reflection are therefore minimized at the start of the optical chain. Nd's positioned downstream of the lens optics cannot help with this. 2. Reducing internal light levels (either in a set of lens elements, or a 35mm adapter) will coincidentally reduce internal reflection/flaring/hazing that may be introduced at the 35mm lens, imaging element, or achromat. Add in some of the benefits of other filters (like polarizing filters to reduce glare) and the expense of an external mattebox/filter system becomes a bit more palatable.

August 13th, 2007, 08:42 AM	#20
Jon Wolding Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 195	I never use the internal NDs when using my adapter. Expose for the GG as best you can, then use the camera's iris for minor adjustment. Yesterday I had an ND .9, a CP, and the taking lens was stopped to f4... the most I stopped the camera down was 3.4, but it was usually open.

August 13th, 2007, 08:55 AM	#21
Stephen Pruitt Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Overland Park, KS Posts: 228	Okay, Jon. . . Stupid question time. What's a "CP"? Stephen

August 13th, 2007, 08:56 AM	#22
Stephen Pruitt Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Overland Park, KS Posts: 228	And, Jon, while we're on the subject, what external NDs are you using??? Brand, that is. . . Thanks! Stephen

August 13th, 2007, 09:29 AM	#23
Todd Giglio Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 265	I believe CP means 'circular polarizer'. This is great when shooting through windows; cuts down glare and enhances contrast.

August 13th, 2007, 09:44 AM	#24
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Jon, I hate to keep beating a dead horse , but did you see anything in tests that led you to prefer exterior filters to the interior? I'm not questioning your decision, just wondering if it was based on tests or general principles. I'm really seeking to learn from someone who has seen problems from the interior glass. I assume you're using very good quality multi-coated filters if you are stacking them since that can create its own problems with internal reflections.

August 13th, 2007, 02:26 PM	#25
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It is simply not possible for a ground glass to "overexpose", because a ground glass doesn't "expose" at all. It's glass. It's like a window -- can you "overexpose" a window? Windows don't expose. (and yes, I've tested this, by taking a shot with a ground-glass adapter at one light level, and then at 256x that light level, compensating with internal ND filters and internal iris -- the results were identical). The HVX's ND filters are not "electronic", they're physical filters that slide into position with the clunking of the ND filter switch, just like on a bigger broadcast camera. As to whether the ND filters are glass or gelatin I don't know.

August 13th, 2007, 05:46 PM	#26
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Well Barry, I'm with you on this all the way. We beat this death over at DVXUser and I just keep asking those people on this forum who tell you not to use the internal filters if they've ever actually seen any problems. So far nothing has come up. I making my offer now - Free Pizza to anyone who can document overexposed ground glass or any other significant image problems from using the internal HVX filters as opposed to external ND's.

August 14th, 2007, 12:40 PM	#27
Stephen Pruitt Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Overland Park, KS Posts: 228	Go Barry! Go Leonard! SAVE ME SOME MONEY! :-) I simply don't want to buy external filters if there are no issues with the internal ones. I've spent enough of my "hard earned money" at this dance. :-) Stephen

August 14th, 2007, 09:48 PM	#28
Brian Sargent Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 69	Well I use both and I have to tell you it's like night and day. Use 1/8 internal ND filter and split the difference w/an external B+W filter. (seriously, for my 24hr Timelapse shots I use the B+W and click off the internal ND's as the light fades to achieve proper exposure from daylight to ambient city light)

August 14th, 2007, 10:46 PM	#29
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Brian, I'm not sure what your saying here. Is this relevant to the question of image quality with a 35mm adapter, or is this just a way you have figured out to do timelapses efficiently?

August 14th, 2007, 11:39 PM	#30
Jason Boyce Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 77	it would seem to me that if the image is "overexposed" on the GG, that it would be overexposed coming off of the subject, so ND filter placement doesn't really matter. As Barry said, the GG never holds the image, it simply refracts the light again from a set distance of a previously refracted image. Either way, I use my internal ND filters and I've never had a problem with them.