must have filters at DVinfo.net

Jaser Stockert · February 20th, 2006, 04:39 PM

other than a uv filter, what are other essential filters for the hvx? what is in your filter kit?

Matt Irwin · February 20th, 2006, 07:04 PM

I tend to only carry a POLA and some ND's. I personally hate using grads and diffusion filters, so my filter kit is pretty minimal. If you only buy one filter other than the UV, get a good POLA.

Robert Lane · February 20th, 2006, 09:20 PM

Jaser,

"Essential" would depend mostly on your personal needs and what creativity you make in-camera.

Two good rules of thumb about filter usage:

- Never use the any camera without a protective UV filter in place. Even a cheap Tiffen or Hoya is easier to replace and less costly than scratching or damaging the objective on the camera.

- If you modify the light going into the camera, you're stuck with that modifier. Whereas, you can create almost anything in post that you can with lens-mounted filters and obviously do even more than with just filters alone.

Especially when it comes to color correction you're better off not using anything in front of the lens other than UV, ND or Circular Polarizers.

Be very careful about using ND filters, even the ones built into the camera. They almost always will cause a white balance shift off from "normal" and you should always re-balance white after installing an external ND or selecting an internal one.

Although the topic is one that has always been hotly debated especially with the advent of HD bodies, you want to make sure you put quality glass in front of your lens regardless what filter is being used. I've been partial to Heliopan filters ever since being introduced to them in the 80's. B+W is another good schott-glass type of filter (not to be confused with B&W studio monitors - speakers, that is.)

From my experience with DSLR's, the Heliopan ND's are as close to absolutely neutral than all others. Even the best B+W's often have cause a white-balance shift. You can readily see this difference with the naked eye: (if you have the ability to do this) take a plain-white peice of paper and light it with a bright constant light. With the two filters side by side look at the paper with one eye closed through the filters. You'll notice that the Heliopan appears mostly neutral whereas the B+W looks *warmer*.

I've often considered shooting a demo of this white-balance shift in ND's and giving it to Chris to host but I'm not sure enough people on the forum would be interested in such a comparison. After all, all you need to do is rebalance white once you've selected any ND filter.

Tiffen and others do make their versions of high-quality glass filters but they often don't have the same level of quality control and are known for color shift.

Matte-box type filters are a whole other story - there are others on this forum with more experience on those than I have.

Jaser Stockert · February 20th, 2006, 10:29 PM

thanks matt and robert.

right now i have a b+w uv filter and circular polarizer. looking to get nd's as well. would you recommend regular or graduated nd's or both? i see each of them come in 1-4 stops. thinking of getting 3 grads and 1-2 reg. nd's. what do you think? thanks again.

Robert Lane · February 20th, 2006, 11:53 PM

Jaser,

I would probably only get one more ND filter. Remember, the Cir-Pol is also an ND filter with approximately 2-3 stops effective value depending on which series polarizer you have.

One problem I've had with B+W Cir-Pols is they sometimes get foggy between the two elements. Keep an eye on that from time to time as you use it. I don't know why but the Heliopans haven't ever done that.

I would not get a graduated filter of any kind - create that instead in post. You'll have more control and as mentioned before you won't be stuck with the modified effect if you decide later it's not what you wanted or doesn't look right.

ND filters should be used to control exposure values or, to preserve an aperture/shutter combination. For example, if you're trying to get the narrowest DOF possible using a wide open aperture but the available light is too bright to allow that then you'd need to knock down the light with ND filtration in order to prevent using a faster shutter to compensate.

Kris Belchevski · February 21st, 2006, 03:02 AM

If you're dealing with a mattbox with movable filter (4x4, 6x6... etc) I find that ND grads can be very helpful.

For example, if you're shooting sky and ground and you want to even out the exposure between the two, a movable grad will allow you too bring down the amount of light coming off the sky. I find movable mattboxes to be better than a fixed filter because it allows for more control of the camera. This is because the filter is moved and not the actual camera itself.

As previously posted, you can bring down the exposure in post, thus creating the effect of a grad filter. However, it is important to note that this is not the same the same thing. Once something is blown out or overexposed there is already a lot of missing info. So no matter how much you try to bring it down in post, it will never look as good as using a grad filter.

ND grads can be great little tools. However, they are not for suitable for every situation. For example they are great on static shots, less so on a shot with a lot of camera movment. It takes some experimentation and experiance to figure when and how to use them best. I always rent them when shooting outdoors during the day.

Jaser Stockert · February 22nd, 2006, 08:43 PM

kris,

i don't plan on having a mattebox, just 82mm screw in filters. wondering now if i should get some nd grads or do as robert suggests and do it in post w/ software such as digital film tools 55mm.

Jeff Kilgroe · February 22nd, 2006, 11:24 PM

All this will depend on what and how you shoot, as others have said. But I'd definitely do a UV filter (as everyone else already suggested), if nothing else just for general lens protection. A circular polarizer is a very good idea if you shoot near a lot of reflective surfaces like water, glass, etc.. Some people like a warm filter to cut down on blue-cast and enhance skin tones when shooting in intense sunlight or near/on water. But this is one of those things that can be dealt with in post. ND filters can be handy if you do lots of outdoor shoots. But as Robert pointed out, they can create their own issues. Don't over-use and do reset your white balance when you change filters. Which sort of NDs you need in which situations you'll have to determine for yourself. Perhaps some of us here can offer more guidance as we get more familiar with the HVX... I haven't had much time to play with mine and I won't get my P2 cards for a few more days anyway.

For filter brands I've had good luck with Heliopan, Schneider and B+W. Tiffen is cheap, but not bad and I prefer their filters over Hoya and some of the other budget ones. Although, I've found Tiffen's Polarizing filters completely suck, but their UV haze filters are as good as the Schneider costing $50 more.
But then again, most cameras anymore have good enough UV coatings on their own optics so the UV filter really just serves the purpose of protecting your lens.

Kris Belchevski · February 23rd, 2006, 02:49 AM

Well, it is more difficult to work with screw on ND grads. Adjusting where the gradation sits must be made by moving the camera. Thus you may not get the shot you want. I think that screw on grads are great for still photography. However, I personally would not use fixed grad ND's on moving pictures.

Robert M Wright · February 23rd, 2006, 03:42 AM

I'd suggest going with at least a Hoya Super Multi-Coated UV filter for lens protection purposes. Personally, I wouldn't put anything lesser than that in front of a high def lens (or the lens of any professional level SD camera either). Uncoated, bare glass UV filters, have only about a 90% light transmission efficiency and reflections from the uncoated glass can throw autofocus a bit also. The Hoya SMCs claim a 99.7% light transmission efficiency. Going to B+W Multi-Resistant Coated (MRC), the claim is a 99.5% light transmission efficency (and hopefully flatter, optical lens grade glass). My guess is the B+W claim might be a little more conservative, while the Hoya claim, perhaps a little more optimistic. I have Hoya SMCs on my HD10U and DV300U (and Olympus C-8080 still camera) and am very happy with them. I'll probably order a B+W MRC to put on my FX1 when it gets here. Of course, if you want the good-ole shooting through your living room window effect, the only choice is the lowest cost generic you can find, and give it a nice wipe with some Windex with Ammonia D on a Brawny paper towel (just kidding).

February 20th, 2006, 04:39 PM	#1
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	must have filters other than a uv filter, what are other essential filters for the hvx? what is in your filter kit?

February 20th, 2006, 07:04 PM	#2
Matt Irwin Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 327	I tend to only carry a POLA and some ND's. I personally hate using grads and diffusion filters, so my filter kit is pretty minimal. If you only buy one filter other than the UV, get a good POLA. __________________ Matt Irwin DP / matt.irwincine.com

February 22nd, 2006, 11:24 PM	#8
Jeff Kilgroe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Golden, CO Posts: 681	All this will depend on what and how you shoot, as others have said. But I'd definitely do a UV filter (as everyone else already suggested), if nothing else just for general lens protection. A circular polarizer is a very good idea if you shoot near a lot of reflective surfaces like water, glass, etc.. Some people like a warm filter to cut down on blue-cast and enhance skin tones when shooting in intense sunlight or near/on water. But this is one of those things that can be dealt with in post. ND filters can be handy if you do lots of outdoor shoots. But as Robert pointed out, they can create their own issues. Don't over-use and do reset your white balance when you change filters. Which sort of NDs you need in which situations you'll have to determine for yourself. Perhaps some of us here can offer more guidance as we get more familiar with the HVX... I haven't had much time to play with mine and I won't get my P2 cards for a few more days anyway. For filter brands I've had good luck with Heliopan, Schneider and B+W. Tiffen is cheap, but not bad and I prefer their filters over Hoya and some of the other budget ones. Although, I've found Tiffen's Polarizing filters completely suck, but their UV haze filters are as good as the Schneider costing $50 more. But then again, most cameras anymore have good enough UV coatings on their own optics so the UV filter really just serves the purpose of protecting your lens. __________________ - Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies \| DarkScience - www.darkscience.com

February 20th, 2006, 09:20 PM	#3
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Jaser, "Essential" would depend mostly on your personal needs and what creativity you make in-camera. Two good rules of thumb about filter usage: - Never use the any camera without a protective UV filter in place. Even a cheap Tiffen or Hoya is easier to replace and less costly than scratching or damaging the objective on the camera. - If you modify the light going into the camera, you're stuck with that modifier. Whereas, you can create almost anything in post that you can with lens-mounted filters and obviously do even more than with just filters alone. Especially when it comes to color correction you're better off not using anything in front of the lens other than UV, ND or Circular Polarizers. Be very careful about using ND filters, even the ones built into the camera. They almost always will cause a white balance shift off from "normal" and you should always re-balance white after installing an external ND or selecting an internal one. Although the topic is one that has always been hotly debated especially with the advent of HD bodies, you want to make sure you put quality glass in front of your lens regardless what filter is being used. I've been partial to Heliopan filters ever since being introduced to them in the 80's. B+W is another good schott-glass type of filter (not to be confused with B&W studio monitors - speakers, that is.) From my experience with DSLR's, the Heliopan ND's are as close to absolutely neutral than all others. Even the best B+W's often have cause a white-balance shift. You can readily see this difference with the naked eye: (if you have the ability to do this) take a plain-white peice of paper and light it with a bright constant light. With the two filters side by side look at the paper with one eye closed through the filters. You'll notice that the Heliopan appears mostly neutral whereas the B+W looks warmer. I've often considered shooting a demo of this white-balance shift in ND's and giving it to Chris to host but I'm not sure enough people on the forum would be interested in such a comparison. After all, all you need to do is rebalance white once you've selected any ND filter. Tiffen and others do make their versions of high-quality glass filters but they often don't have the same level of quality control and are known for color shift. Matte-box type filters are a whole other story - there are others on this forum with more experience on those than I have.

February 20th, 2006, 10:29 PM	#4
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	thanks matt and robert. right now i have a b+w uv filter and circular polarizer. looking to get nd's as well. would you recommend regular or graduated nd's or both? i see each of them come in 1-4 stops. thinking of getting 3 grads and 1-2 reg. nd's. what do you think? thanks again.

February 20th, 2006, 11:53 PM	#5
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Jaser, I would probably only get one more ND filter. Remember, the Cir-Pol is also an ND filter with approximately 2-3 stops effective value depending on which series polarizer you have. One problem I've had with B+W Cir-Pols is they sometimes get foggy between the two elements. Keep an eye on that from time to time as you use it. I don't know why but the Heliopans haven't ever done that. I would not get a graduated filter of any kind - create that instead in post. You'll have more control and as mentioned before you won't be stuck with the modified effect if you decide later it's not what you wanted or doesn't look right. ND filters should be used to control exposure values or, to preserve an aperture/shutter combination. For example, if you're trying to get the narrowest DOF possible using a wide open aperture but the available light is too bright to allow that then you'd need to knock down the light with ND filtration in order to prevent using a faster shutter to compensate.

February 21st, 2006, 03:02 AM	#6
Kris Belchevski New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Posts: 11	If you're dealing with a mattbox with movable filter (4x4, 6x6... etc) I find that ND grads can be very helpful. For example, if you're shooting sky and ground and you want to even out the exposure between the two, a movable grad will allow you too bring down the amount of light coming off the sky. I find movable mattboxes to be better than a fixed filter because it allows for more control of the camera. This is because the filter is moved and not the actual camera itself. As previously posted, you can bring down the exposure in post, thus creating the effect of a grad filter. However, it is important to note that this is not the same the same thing. Once something is blown out or overexposed there is already a lot of missing info. So no matter how much you try to bring it down in post, it will never look as good as using a grad filter. ND grads can be great little tools. However, they are not for suitable for every situation. For example they are great on static shots, less so on a shot with a lot of camera movment. It takes some experimentation and experiance to figure when and how to use them best. I always rent them when shooting outdoors during the day.

February 22nd, 2006, 08:43 PM	#7
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	kris, i don't plan on having a mattebox, just 82mm screw in filters. wondering now if i should get some nd grads or do as robert suggests and do it in post w/ software such as digital film tools 55mm.

February 23rd, 2006, 02:49 AM	#9
Kris Belchevski New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Posts: 11	Well, it is more difficult to work with screw on ND grads. Adjusting where the gradation sits must be made by moving the camera. Thus you may not get the shot you want. I think that screw on grads are great for still photography. However, I personally would not use fixed grad ND's on moving pictures.

February 23rd, 2006, 03:42 AM	#10
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	I'd suggest going with at least a Hoya Super Multi-Coated UV filter for lens protection purposes. Personally, I wouldn't put anything lesser than that in front of a high def lens (or the lens of any professional level SD camera either). Uncoated, bare glass UV filters, have only about a 90% light transmission efficiency and reflections from the uncoated glass can throw autofocus a bit also. The Hoya SMCs claim a 99.7% light transmission efficiency. Going to B+W Multi-Resistant Coated (MRC), the claim is a 99.5% light transmission efficency (and hopefully flatter, optical lens grade glass). My guess is the B+W claim might be a little more conservative, while the Hoya claim, perhaps a little more optimistic. I have Hoya SMCs on my HD10U and DV300U (and Olympus C-8080 still camera) and am very happy with them. I'll probably order a B+W MRC to put on my FX1 when it gets here. Of course, if you want the good-ole shooting through your living room window effect, the only choice is the lowest cost generic you can find, and give it a nice wipe with some Windex with Ammonia D on a Brawny paper towel (just kidding).