Thanks Bob. - G

For a while now, I have been using a "warming" filter and a circular polarizer as a standard part of my kit. The first is great for "talking head" interviews -- it's very flattering for skin tones. Just remember to white balance BEFORE putting the filter on!

I use the polarizer whenever I'm shooting in full sunlight. Helps keep colors from getting washed out.

I've got a buddy who always shoots with a piece of pantyhose behind the lens of his DXC-35. It gives a great film-like look to his work. I've been able to simulate it using Color Curves in Vegas, but I'd love to find a lens filter that would do the same thing, and save the processing time. Any ideas?

Not quite an optical filter, but I came across a description of Warm Cards somewhere, and bought a set. I really like them. Basically, they are plastic bluish tinged cards that are graded carefully to allow one to achieve a warmer look to video or photographic images by offsetting the digital white balance of the camera. One sets the white balance to the appropriate density card, and a much warmer image is achieved by taking advantage of the white balancing offset. They're simple to use and are inexpensive. More importantly, I've been impressed with the results. I see a more rich, warmer skin tone to my foootage. I think the site is warmcards.com

Obviously you can't use these to shoot caverns in the desert like the above referenced professionals.

If anybody else has got some further web links for filter use . . I'm listening ..

Grazie;
I'm talking so pay attention because there''s a test at the end :-)

Seriously, as you've discovered, most filter manufacturers have pretty comprehensive web sites. In addition to Lee Filters, Schneider Optics and Tiffen have very good reputations.
There's a decent filter FAQ here.
Finally, something to be very aware of is that a particular filter will act differently from camera to camera. The recording medium will also make a difference. For example, I used to shoot with 3/4" SP and a friend with the exact same camera & lens was shooting with Beta SP. Put a pro mist of any kind on both cameras, shoot the identical scene and view the results. There was a noticeable difference. Same thing in the miniDV world. The size & number of imaging chips as well as the size/quality of lens you're using will make a difference in the end product.
There's a great article titled The Curse of Digital Video that goes in to this in a lot more depth.

And now the test. With all this new-found filter knowledge, your assignment is to shoot Queen Elizabeth II and make her look like Sophia Loren :-)

Mike

" . .. your assignment is to shoot Queen Elizabeth II . . . " this is a treasonable act and would result in being captured and incarcerated in the Tower of London awaiting summery beheading. If you are really lucky you get fed to the ravens prior to loosing your head. Hmmm... nice!

Oh, got to run! There appears to be some very burly gentlemen dressed in camo, knocking down our front door and storming the hous . .. . .. . .

I'm back! Had to release me . .something to do with sanity . . whatever . .

rs170a - THANK YOU! . . .Now that's a great wealth of info . . I do like the before and after examples . . .

rs170a ? What's your email and I can send you - if you wish - some of my first attempts with my pola and .3 ND soft grad . . Rural Britian with a dusting of snow? Interested?

Grazie

Brian;
There are a number of different filters that will accomplish the effect you're looking for. I'd try a fog filter for a start. Go with the lowest number possible. For example, I have a fog 1 that I've used a lot in indoor situations. What it does is soften the edges of any extraneious light sources (flourescents, windows, etc.) and gives them a slight halo, much like you see in the movies. It also works quite well outdoors as well. I shot a scene a number of years ago where a teenage girl was at the gravesite of a fellow student (anti drinking & driving video). It was a sunny day but the fog filter helped soften everything very nicely without affecting overall focus.
You can also check out the various pro mist, warm pro mist and soft FX filters as well.

Mike

Ahh, poor Grazie, I did not know him well. May he rest in peace (or pieces if the ravens got him).

Rural Britian with a dusting of snow?

Sure Grazie. Why not.
We (Windsor in southwestern Ontario) just got rid of the 20 cm. pre-Christmas dump thanks to a warming trend (+ 12 C. on New Year's Eve) over the weekend - although I was up at the in-laws for Christmas (250 km. due north of Toronto, Ontario) and they had more than a metre or more of the white stuff on the ground. My wife and kids enjoyed it.

Work email is mkujbida at stclaircollege dot ca
Glad you found the sites useful.

Mike

Keep in mind that if you don't mind the additional render time, you can accomplish a lot of the same effects without glass, and you'll have more flexibility.
Vic Milt teaches a class on this for VASST, we'll have him at NAB on this very subject.

Done! - G

As Spot mentioned above, there are things that look really great when done in post. Stonefield did a neet little tutorial a while back. Maybe he can weigh in an remind us with a link to that vid. It's in Cheinworks site, as I recall.

I'm going to Ottawa for a ski trip next month. Assuming my fingers or camera do not freeze solid and drop, can anyone recommend a filter that is indicated for shooting in the snow...ie. with all the blue reflectivity off the snow? Skiers wear yellow goggles, so is this a color of filter that would make sense?
- MarcS

Assuming you can manually white ballance your camera, bring some "WarmCards." I haven't shot in the snow with them, but I've seen results from those who have and the "warmth" in the flesh tones are great! I shooot a lot of cable commercials and use the WarmCards on almost every shoot. I tend to like a warm look; others like a more true look.
I read some of the links above and it also seems that a "Warm Neutral Density" would be a good thing for your adventure.

I'm with DSE on this topic. I'm not anti-filter, I've used them many times. But these days I'm from the school of shoot it clean and tweak it in post. Render time be damned, I'm in full control. When shooting with filters you're stuck with it - I like to keep my options open.

Your milage may vary...

"Your milage may vary... " and yes I'm keeping my options open too - the title is "Discovering Filters!" not instead of - Grazie

Filters aren't the only thing that you can put in front of your glued in lens. I'm sorry if I;ve forgotten the correct name for these lenses, something like Split Field. Basically they're used for forced perspective shots, now what was the name of that movie, 'Elf'?
So what they do is let you keep something very close to the lens in one part of the frame in focus as well as something far away in another part of the frame hence exaggerating their relative size. Rather specialised and no doubt expensive but worth keeping in mind. I do notice a lot more stuff going back to optical effects rather than CGI or mattes lately, perhaps becuase it's quicker (read cheaper) and look real.

Bob.

Yes Bob, I'm starting to realise a kinda "real" feel using filters. Yes Vegas can do some amazing things. However the "optical", and dare I say "analogue" subtleties, is where I'm experiencing some "other" value not present in my post work - does this make sense to anybody? It does to me.

Grazie

Absolutely, while you can do a lot (some?) of what filters can achieve in post there is a lot that you cannot. Sometime ago I saw some stuff shot on a pretty standard DV camera but with a Promist filter and it was the most unDV like stuff I'd seen. I'm suspecting given the low res of DV25 the subtleties of what a lot of filters do is lost, HDV may be a very different story.
One thing you could try in post for some interesting results is fiddling with color curves very subtly on each channel. Another trick that might yield interesting results, apply FXs to only one color channel, or possibly things like blur or lens flair in different directions for each color?
Bob.

Bob, yes.

I can fiddle about with lots of stuff in Vegas. I sent you my first attempts. I don't see how I could achieve this in Vegas. But it is more than this. It is about having that subject "immeadiate" reaction to that which is passing in friont of one AT THAT precious moment. It is a feeling and having a piece of glass that I can physically slide or rotate brings into play another level of reality that back at base would be . .well . . at best, contrived and at worse, NOT of the moment.

Look, in trying to get stuff into the camera I might use a change in iris OR ND or focus OR DoF . . . these are all Pre-edit/production. What's the difference? What's the difference in using filters too?

If I find a tool that will "open" up new options and get closer to that "sweet" moment in my videography - I'll experiment and then employ it.

Grazie

Grazie,
I'm with you. Once you get past all the necessary technobabble this is still an art and art is made by humans USING technology. So if that's how YOU felt on the day and you wanted it to look that way, you're dead right. Even if you could make it look eaxactly the same in post it isn't the same because it WAS done in post. Hope that makes some sort of sense.
I seem to recall a painter (Klee?) once said something along the lines that the least accurate representation of a scene was a photograph because it failed to capture the emotion of the scene. Now I think that's a bit extreme but it does go towards what you're saying.
Bob.

Yup!

And it is more than "wanting" something in a particular way. I'll twist the pola .. or move the .3 ND grad and some part of the scene will suddenly just "jump" into a view .. it will be de-shrouded from my eyes .. it becomes, well naked to what I am feeling about the scene.

These are glorious "happenstances" - there is an immeadiacy that, for me anyway, provide me with that "special" experience. I get hairs sticking up from skin; my eyes pop out and normally my mouth opens in just sheer delight and kinda child-like awe at what I'm looking at.

I guess I'm a bit weird when it comes to this media. I can spend days playing with a corner of a shot piece and find something "new" within it. Ok, I get on with my "work" to earn the chicken soup . .but if I don't have the opportunity to express myself throught this other stuff:

1/- I'll get stale and very bored by my own work

2/- I can then no longer - which up to now I think/know I've done with my clients - inspire them!

You will remember when I got my Graphics tablet, I was able to make the totally digital piece, which is over on the Chienworks site, . . . it has become another tool in my "bag".

At the moment I'm waiting for the 3 Screen veg so that I can make up a section of a piece that I'm doing - VEgas is THE platform for me. I couldn't do what I do without it.

Oh yes Paul Klee - Swiss Expressionist Painter - one of my faves. This from artcyclopaedia, " Expressionism is a style of art in which the intention is not to reproduce a subject accurately, but instead to portray it in such a way as to express the inner state of the artist."

Yeah . . you got it! - Some people spend time and money on getting that "film-look" I guess I'm trying by amassing as many process from analogue-type/like processes: Scanning; scribbling; filters; chromakeying; ACID Pro; yes FXs and then filming directly into the VidCap when I a certain texture or quality or . . just read your bit on audio . . sound! Pick up that camera and capture . .anything! It's all out there . .

Ironic: In started ioff talking about a process that"filters" when in actual fact this process "lets-in" - hopefully more awareness - more than it filters out .. interesting . . .

Grazie