Cavision LH77 and Hoya Filter for A1?

Jessica Gallant · May 12th, 2006, 09:05 PM

Both low contrast and ultra contrast filters reduce contrast in the image. The ultra contrast reduces it throughout the image while the low contrast does this just by lifting the shadows. The drawback of the low contrast filter is that it flares if hit by a light source. Under controlled conditions (like a film set), that's fairly easy, but in run and gun situations, documentaries, ultra low budget projects relying on available light, etc. a strong light source in the frame will produce flairing with a low contrast filter. That won't happen with an ultra con.

Jessica

Paul Kepen · May 13th, 2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessica Gallant

You can read more about Tiffen's ultra contrast filters here:

http://www.2filter.com/tiffen/tiffen...stfilters.html

But those JPEGs aren't the greatest examples of what ultra cons can do.

On my Sony HVR-A1U I've put my 37mm 1/8 promist filter on the camera then attached the wide angle adapter onto it; if I used a 62mm promist on the front of the wide angle adapter, then the grain of the filter would show up in the image when the camera is stopped down under bright light. Since there's no grain, etching, design, dimples, etc. on the ultra con, you should be able to screw it onto your wide angle adapter if you like instead of onto the camera before the wide angle adapter like I do.

(I'll eventually get a mattebox to attach onto the wide angle adatper so I can use ND filters, ultracons or grads.)

Jessica

Jessica, do you have any problem with vignetting, puttting a filter ahead of the Sony Wide Angle lens? I shot with a Raynox wide angle lense attached to a 37-43-52mm adapter and got substantial vignetting! These filters are something I've never heard of(ultracon), but I like what they do, at least as far as I can tell from the photo's you've posted:-)

Floris van Eck · May 13th, 2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Kepen

B&H does not list a Cavision LH77. The closest I see is a Cavision LH80. I assume the numerical part of the model is the diameter? If so, is that what I need with the Sony wide angle lens, a 77mm hood? Does anyone know where I can get the Cavision LH77, or another hood that will work with the sony wide anlge and allow the use of filters. 16x9 shape would be even better. Thanks, PK

I am not sure if you read the BH e-mail I quoted. I e-mailed BH about the Cavision LH77 lenshood and this is their answer:

Quote:

We can get the lh77 (39.95) it is now in our system(skew # CALH77) for phone order only . It will take a while to get it on the web.

So, you just have to place a phone order. It is not listed on the web. There are no other lenshoods that will work with the Sony lens as far as I know. The only other option would be a Matt box, which is complicated and big.

Tom Hardwick · May 13th, 2006, 07:45 AM

There is a one-liner that it's best to remember: filters add nothing, they only take away.

Any filter that 'spreads light into the shadows' is increasing the flare. A neutral density is never neutral, though if you pay lots of money it can get pretty close. Grads are fun, but require different cross fades depending on focal length. Polarisers bring huge continuity problems.

When did you last scratch your front element? Use a protective filter when you absolutely must, and realise that with a lot of cameras (TRV900, VX/PD, DVX, GL - I could go on) adding a filter reduces the efficiency of the lens hood.

Now that's a crime that should be avoided at all costs. The lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, very best accessory you can buy. It improves your image quality out of all proportion to it's size, weight and technology.

Remember that a hood is only efficient at the wide-angle end of your zoom. At all other focal lengths it's vastly inefficient, yet folk want to add a 'protective filter' and compromise its efficiency even at the wide end? I'm not amongst them.

Remember - filters are fine when they're hooded well, and fine when they're used at long focal lengths onto big gates. Here on this forum we're talking minute focal lengths and tiny chips, and anything that you add in front of your zoom is more likely to degrade than improve.

Of course this all ignores the artistic aspect of filter use - it's just that I want you all to get the best pictures possible - then you can hack the lot to death in post but always return to your starting point.

tom.

Paul Kepen · May 13th, 2006, 11:42 AM

Thanks for the reply, guess I'll have to call B&H for the Cavision L77. I received an email from B&H that the Sony Wide Angle lens (Y) was in stock , but a day after they sent me the email, I went on their web site and it was out of stock again. I found it on Amazon at a better price, so I ordered it there. I have the Raynox HD-5000 PRO, which is for the HC-1. I like the .5 wide angle, and at full wide the image is sharp, but while your suppose to be able to use full zoom with this lens, it becomes quite fuzzy as soon as you start zooming with it. Everyone seems impressed with the sony "Y" lens, so I'm giving it a try. Thanks again - PK

Floris van Eck · May 13th, 2006, 12:02 PM

I own the Sony Y wide-angle lens and I must say that it is fantastic piece of glass. You will find that you will practically leave it on, always. There is no truly good reason to take it off. The only reason I would take it off is when I need more reach at the telephoto end. Have fun with your lens!

May 12th, 2006, 09:05 PM	#16
Jessica Gallant Film Gal Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Salem OH Posts: 28	Both low contrast and ultra contrast filters reduce contrast in the image. The ultra contrast reduces it throughout the image while the low contrast does this just by lifting the shadows. The drawback of the low contrast filter is that it flares if hit by a light source. Under controlled conditions (like a film set), that's fairly easy, but in run and gun situations, documentaries, ultra low budget projects relying on available light, etc. a strong light source in the frame will produce flairing with a low contrast filter. That won't happen with an ultra con. Jessica __________________ Los Angeles based Director of Photography

May 13th, 2006, 11:42 AM	#20
Paul Kepen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis Minnesota Posts: 347	Thanks Floris Thanks for the reply, guess I'll have to call B&H for the Cavision L77. I received an email from B&H that the Sony Wide Angle lens (Y) was in stock , but a day after they sent me the email, I went on their web site and it was out of stock again. I found it on Amazon at a better price, so I ordered it there. I have the Raynox HD-5000 PRO, which is for the HC-1. I like the .5 wide angle, and at full wide the image is sharp, but while your suppose to be able to use full zoom with this lens, it becomes quite fuzzy as soon as you start zooming with it. Everyone seems impressed with the sony "Y" lens, so I'm giving it a try. Thanks again - PK

May 13th, 2006, 07:45 AM	#19
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	There is a one-liner that it's best to remember: filters add nothing, they only take away. Any filter that 'spreads light into the shadows' is increasing the flare. A neutral density is never neutral, though if you pay lots of money it can get pretty close. Grads are fun, but require different cross fades depending on focal length. Polarisers bring huge continuity problems. When did you last scratch your front element? Use a protective filter when you absolutely must, and realise that with a lot of cameras (TRV900, VX/PD, DVX, GL - I could go on) adding a filter reduces the efficiency of the lens hood. Now that's a crime that should be avoided at all costs. The lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, very best accessory you can buy. It improves your image quality out of all proportion to it's size, weight and technology. Remember that a hood is only efficient at the wide-angle end of your zoom. At all other focal lengths it's vastly inefficient, yet folk want to add a 'protective filter' and compromise its efficiency even at the wide end? I'm not amongst them. Remember - filters are fine when they're hooded well, and fine when they're used at long focal lengths onto big gates. Here on this forum we're talking minute focal lengths and tiny chips, and anything that you add in front of your zoom is more likely to degrade than improve. Of course this all ignores the artistic aspect of filter use - it's just that I want you all to get the best pictures possible - then you can hack the lot to death in post but always return to your starting point. tom.

May 13th, 2006, 12:02 PM	#21
Floris van Eck Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 993	I own the Sony Y wide-angle lens and I must say that it is fantastic piece of glass. You will find that you will practically leave it on, always. There is no truly good reason to take it off. The only reason I would take it off is when I need more reach at the telephoto end. Have fun with your lens!