I've heard that the 'pro mist' and 'black mist' series of filters have been used with some reported success for video, and would like to discuss the merits of these.
There are diffusion filters, which are typically used to remove small surface detail from the subjects ( often portraiture ). A side effect is also a slight glow effect, where bright details are caused to bloom out spatially, in a fog like manner.
Is this what we really want ? Remove details? Bloom?

I would think the main desired effect is to lower contrast.

In the world of still film cameras, the lens with the highest contrast is usually heralded as the best, and designing such lenses is an achievement. Since film can record 10 stops of image dynamic range, this is understandable.

Video is severely limited in it's dynamic range, so there lies the problem. Clipping. Blowout.

So if you want to lower contrast, how can this be done, without removing surface details, and causing misty fog effects?
You guys are not going to like this, but essentially a dirty filter on the lens does exactly this! It brings up the blacks, and without spacial ( sideways ) fogging lowers contrast without killing detail.
You don't see particulate dirt in the video image, it's out of focus. You see lower contrast. Like a lens with non-suppressed internal reflections.
The science of optics.
Does Tiffen make a dirty lens filter? :)
-Les

It sounds like you want to try a Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter. It brings up the blacks, dims the brights a little, thus reducing the overall contrast.

Basically, what we're talking about is dynamic range compression and expansion. You record a reduced dynamic range onto video, and expand it in post to get your contrast back, but with improved detail and lack of blown out highlights. I'm working on this technique at the moment and will have images to post as soon as I can get some good weather to go out and shoot...

Graeme

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?BI=155&O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=72854&is=REG

Looks like that might be just the ticket. I wonder if it's any better looking than a dirty clear cover glass! That would be hard to keep consistent, I admit!
I should get my hd10 on Friday, so I'll experiment.
-Les

Graeme

can you tell us more about your workflow? how are you increasing the contrast in post, and how does it look? And colors? would love to see your work.

Graeme ,
So are you experimenting with reduced contrast when taking video, and then using some luts to reshape the image contrast?
I hope there are enough bits left so banding does not become evident.
Good luck, and post some examples if you can,
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : It sounds like you want to try a Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter. It brings up the blacks, dims the brights a little, thus reducing the overall contrast.

Basically, what we're talking about is dynamic range compression and expansion. You record a reduced dynamic range onto video, and expand it in post to get your contrast back, but with improved detail and lack of blown out highlights. I'm working on this technique at the moment and will have images to post as soon as I can get some good weather to go out and shoot...

Graeme -->>>

Very interesting idea, I'm going to give that a try as well. What editing system are you using to improve contrast in post?

I have been testing out a Black Pro Mist 1 on my HD10 and have had some fairly decent results. The Pro Mist 1 though is a little too strong so you get alot of halo around bright whites. I am going to be purchasing a DV Film look kit from Tiffen soon that includes Black Pro Mist .5, Black Diffusion FX .5, Warm Diffusion FX .5, Soft FX and Soft Pouch. I might also try the ultra contrast filter to see what happens with that. I'll keep you posted on my results. As for post correction I am currently using After Effects and adjusting the gamma curves by dropping the blacks down and it looks pretty good. I have yet to try to replace blacks in Premiere with AspectHD but that is the obvious next step. Again, I'll keep you posted as to what happens.

I'm using some custom code I've written for Final Cut Pro, but you could use curves in any app that supports them.

I'm not using a HDV cam, just DV, but I'm thinking the same principles apply. Results so far are looking good, and I hope to get the chance to shoot enough footage at the weekend so that I can try out some of the ideas. I'll post back when I do.

Graeme

>>>Mark Jervis: I might also try the ultra contrast filter to see what happens with that. I'll keep you posted on my results.>>>

Mark,

Can you also test these filters in black and white mode?

Brian

No problem. The filters should be here on Wed. and I'll go out that day or Thursday and start getting footage and testing filters and post results of each filter.

As I 've posted here quite a few times before, the best results I've had are from simply using ND filters to cut down incoming light and give you a lower contrast picture (and avoid the white blowouts), then using FCP's 3-way color corrector, stretch the whites and mids back up again to restore and improve contrast. It works a treat. My personal feeling is that using such filters as pro-mists will excessively soften an image that is already quite soft for an HD image, compared to something like a Varicam or CineAlta.

Paul,

Specifically which brand of ND filters do you use, and where online would you recommend purchasing them?

Are these 52mm or do you use a step up ring?

Thanks,

Brian

Tiffen filters from B&H, standard 52mm, no step up ring.

Any kind of filter or lens which is 52mm can be used with the JVC HD10U camera ??? Is it better to put filters when you making recordings or you can do similar effects in post production?
Thanks

If at all possible, using filters during production is usually the best course of action. Certain filters can be achieved in post without much difference, ie. warming filters but other fiters can make a large difference in shooting. With this camera I have been experimenting with some softening filters and diffusion filters and have been able to reduce some hilight problems caused by the lower latitude. Trying to achieve that in post would be impossible as once it is recorded to the tape the section is already blown out. Your best bet is to figure out what filters you would use and then experiment with them on this camera in various situations and also try to achieve them in post with raw footage. You may find certain filters work better in different situtations. But as a I stated, filters in production are always better than post filters.

Mark Jervis

Thanks for the quick answer....it is the 52mm filters which are to be used for this camera right ??

Right, 52mm. If you need any advice on what filters to use or what certain ones do please let me know.

Mark Jervis

I have been shooting with my hd10 since January. I still haven't picked up any filters for it. I know I should use an ND filter, but which one is best for this camera. Brand / Stops/ Type. Any help would be great.
Cheers
Darrin

A variety is best. That way you can adapt to differant conditions. Check what a good on line retailer has to offer as far as a multi pack, maybe .3 .6 .9 at a price that works for you.
Also do a search in this HD1/10 forum for ND/ND filter or variable ND. You should get some good ideas.

Thanks Ken :)

Get 2 circular polarizers and when you rotate them you'll get a variable ND filter from no effect to almost full black- give it a try!

Try to ND down to F8 or F5.6 but try not to go lower if possible. This cam loves light!

I've used the 2-polarizer trick. It's convenient, but I like the result from using a polarizer alone or in combination with a .3 or .6 ND filter better.

If it's very bright, I use the .6 ND and polarizer, or if medium bright .3 ND and polarizer, and so on. Basically what I try for, is to get the combination of partial polarization and ND that gets me near 1/60 shutter speed at the preferred aperture.

I find I can overdo it with the polarizer though. Rather than turn it down to the darkest, I try for something halfway between its maximum and minimum effect.

It helps to turn on exposure lock before adjusting the polarizer ring.

With practice, you can achieve a 100% improvement in exposure latitude.

Interesting Tom. I have never tried to E lock befor adjusting variable polarizer. Whats the therory behind that? I guess it keeps the cam from trying to compensate while adjusting? I can't believe I never tried it that way befor.
I have found that with shutter locked a 1/60 then adjusting ND/pola's down, that exposure doesn't fluxuate, but it can be tricky if the light levels change too much. Are you managing to get steady 1/60th with E locked and adjustable pola?

As you noted, E-locking the exposure before rotating the polarizer ring keeps the cam from trying to compensate, making it easier to judge the result.

And no, I'm not managing to get total assurance of 1/60th unless I lock in shutter priority.

After adjusting the polarizer ring with exposure locked, I unlock the exposure and may choose aperture priority along with ND and polarizer, toggling exposure modes to get an estimate of what the final shutter speed would be arrived at, and hopefully as close to 1/60th as possible. If the shutter speed deviates after that while panning or the light level changes, so be it.