Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Best Filter to Simulate Film Halation (Highlight Blooming)

M

Medavoym

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
605
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hi!

I am still a big fan of film emulsion. That being said, I am a big fan of digital, too. No need to get into that discussion please.
My question is pretty straightforward.

What would be the best filter to use on digital (Red Epic Dragon in my case - but it can apply to other cameras, too) to simulate the film halation? (blooming highlights)

I have recently shot some 16mm in Times Square and I fell in love all over again with halation and the way film reacts to highlights. Granted, this is 16mm (quickly shot - don't judge) and it halates more than I want. I have shot 35mm and I know halation is less (better controlled) with that format. So, not as much blooming/halation as in these examples, but definitely more than digital, which has none.

I know there are several options - satin filter, perleascent, classic soft, and the trusted low contrast and promist/black promist filter versions etc

In your experience, what is the best filter to bloom the highlights but leave the rest untouched by a diffusion-like effect? (or only add the slightest touch of overall diffusion, helping perhaps with the film-like effect)

Thank you!




 
The level of halation with film is lighter than the lightest filter, but you may be happy with just using something like a 1/8 Schneider Black Frost, it's probably the lightest diffusion filter I've used. Also there is the 1/2 Tiffen Black Diffusion-FX, which hardly halates at all, but that may be too subtle. Also, the 1/2 Tiffen Soft-FX is fairly subtle. I actually think the lightest Pearlescent and Satin filters are heavier than the 1/8 Black Frost -- I've actually thought about having Tiffen make me a 1/16 Pearlescent because right now, I use the 1/8 Schneider Black Frost on wide shots and then switch to my 1/8 Tiffen Pearlescent when I want the next bump up in halation.

Otherwise, I think you're better off finding some older lenses that have a bit more flare to them, which I think is actually more the reason you have halation in your 16mm footage, it's the lens more than the film stock.
 
Hi Ryan,

What kind of filter do the Kippertie OLPFs incorporate in their design?
Promist, low contrast, fog, etc...
Does the company specify?

Thanks!
 
Are you sure that's the filmstock and not the lenses used? A lot of popular/readily available 16mm lenses are from the era when they bloomed like crazy.

Also, try using nylon at the rear; It's hard to get them consistent, but it'll bloom highlights like crazy.
 
Ryan Purcell said:
Kippertie doesn't specify but in general they are low con with varying degrees of hallation. Check their website for examples.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I did check the website and I liked the results. I liked the "Pearl" version the most (but that's just me). I wonder if they use a Tiffen Pearlescent filter in those (as the name might suggest), and if yes, what strength.

I wish Kippertie will specify what kind of filter is used in their design - I assume most cinematographers would want to know that!

Also, the cost is pretty high... But that's another story.
 
Medavoym said:
Thanks!

I did check the website and I liked the results. I liked the "Pearl" version the most (but that's just me). I wonder if they use a Tiffen Pearlescent filter in those (as the name might suggest), and if yes, what strength.

I wish Kippertie will specify what kind of filter is used in their design - I assume most cinematographers would want to know that!

Also, the cost is pretty high... But that's another story.
Click to expand...


Kippertie are not using anything off the shelf. They are all custom designs and take a lot of work to pull off. I had the carbon 1 for my Epic and will be getting the same for Weapon.
 
1/4 back soft can work well and light schnieder locon's

Just to throw the Schnieder 1/8 digicon into the mix. I like the digion best because it doesn't flare out like the locons
I've used it in alot of situtations just to get that bloom Here is one example on EPIC MX

LeicaR19.jpg


luce.jpg



and a couple on Dragon.

evangel_2015_03.jpg


evangel_2015_01.jpg
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I actually think the lightest Pearlescent and Satin filters are heavier than the 1/8 Black Frost -- I've actually thought about having Tiffen make me a 1/16 Pearlescent because right now, I use the 1/8 Schneider Black Frost on wide shots and then switch to my 1/8 Tiffen Pearlescent when I want the next bump up in halation.
Click to expand...

Hi David!

If the Black Frost 1/8 and the Promist 1/8 are pretty close as you said, then judging from those screenshots from the Tiffen tests, the Pearlescent 1/8 is not stronger then the PM 1/8.

PM 1:8 Wide.jpg Pearl 1:8 wide.jpg
 
Anyone know how the Firecrest blackmist filters compare to the Tiffen?
 
After playing with the R3Ds they suply, the Kippertie OLPFs seem very, very interesting.

The one that does the most of what we describe in this thread is the Pearl 1 one (also, it has no artifacts in the bokeh), but unfortunately, it is too strong on the halation., I wonder if they can do one with Pearl 1/2 or Pearl 1/4 (going down from their current strength of 1)

http://kippertie.com/?product=lowcon-olpf-pearl

P.S. Thank you David for your continuing comments!
 
Medavoym said:
After playing with the R3Ds they suply, the Kippertie OLPFs seem very, very interesting.

The one that does the most of what we describe in this thread is the Pearl 1 one (also, it has no artifacts in the bokeh), but unfortunately, it is too strong on the halation., I wonder if they can do one with Pearl 1/2 or Pearl 1/4 (going down from their current strength of 1)

http://kippertie.com/?product=lowcon-olpf-pearl

P.S. Thank you David for your continuing comments!
Click to expand...

Only one way to find out :-) Just speak to John, he´s extremely helpful and may be he´s going to brew some extra sauce for you...
 
I think your looking in the wrong place . from the stills you showed . its more the lens then film . I would be looking into lenses and not filters i think you won't get the same effect at all. your stills has a lot more character in them then the blooming highlights like the lifted blacks which is helping your effect. its all about the lens
 
To be fair (I originally suggested it was the glass too), it's super easy to raise blacks in post... You can do halation in post too, but I find there's a lot more nuance to blooms looking good/real compared to raised blacks (which generally look the same when done in the grade).

Truth be told, if there was a lens filter that made things look like the original pics, I'd definitely prefer to use it than having to source vintage glass. Also, nylon on the lens does a very similar thing -- raises black and blooms/halates the highs really nicely -- but it's inconsistent.

So, I guess a secondary question would be, does anyone know what filters were designed to mimic netting a lens? (preferably without the softening.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top