Diffusion filter to emulate Alexa on Scarlet or C300

[Matt W.]

Cool. As mentioned, if you have time (and choose Scarlet over C300) post your findings.

This is mostly hypothetical still. But if I get my hands on the Alexa I'll likely bring both a Canon and Scarlet and hopefully a decent set of filters to try.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Tiffen Glimmerglass is a good example. For that effect, you gotta do it in the lens.

https://vimeo.com/43520568

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks! Just found this:

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/...-the-digital-age-the-use-of-glass-filtration/

1/8 promist, digital diffusion, and glimmerglass all seem to improve the image

The C300 does have kind of nasty highlight rendering, slightly worse than the F3 I would wager. Over-saturated, unlike the Alexa, Epic, and F3 in log mode. It's sharp and seems to take well to diffusion, though.

 

[Mike P.]

There's also this -- R1mx:

https://vimeo.com/51809092

 

[Matt W.]

I really like the ultracon 1 and black promist 1/8, curious to combine them or if any filters mimic the combination.

Do black promist and glimmerglass show up in your bokeh (as do a lot of diffusion filters with specs)? To me that is undesirable for this purpose.

Does anyone have experience with Tiffen's soft con? It seems to work like an ultracon and a slight nd or somesuch to reduce highlights but leave shadows only slightly elevated...

 

[Matt Ryan]

I really like the ultracon 1 and black promist 1/8, curious to combine them or if any filters mimic the combination.

Like I asked earlier, the Hollywood Black Magic might be your best option if you want those two attributes combined, only thing is it won't really give you more latitude like the ultracon:
http://www.filmtools.com/schneider-optics-4x5-65-hollywood-black-magic-1-8-68-091056.html

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

I somehow remembered you talking about varying diffusion filter strengths to match wide and tighter shots but I can't really recalled which is which. Do you use heavier filter strength with longer lenses or with shorter lenses?

Bests,
Derrick

No I vary diffusion visually, by eye, based on the amount of detail I want... generally that means more for wide shots and less for close-ups, adjusting for the look of the lens, the stop, etc. Shots with more contrast and edge lighting look sharper than shots in flatter soft light and thus can take more diffusion while looking as sharp as the soft-lit shot with less diffusion, so you have to base it more on the image.

 

[Marc Wielage]

https://vimeo.com/43520568

O-kay... but it doesn't show that the effect of a physical filter can be digitally duplicated in post, which was my point. Glimmerglass also does more with highlights than skintones; try it in a room of candles or open daylight windows and see what happens.

 

[Guillermo Garza]

I once used a set of old leica m´s that had some of the optical elements covered in fungus because I loved that look (for that specific project). I dont think you can emulate fungus in post though. :blush:

 

[Max Nguyen]

I was really enjoying the discussion on this thread. Guillermo, you made a statement about something strange and only linked it to your site. Is this self promotion? Is this an accident? Either way, I don't think it is a good way to get people to look at your work.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I was really enjoying the discussion on this thread. Guillermo, you made a statement about something strange and only linked it to your site. Is this self promotion? Is this an accident? Either way, I don't think it is a good way to get people to look at your work.

Huh?

 

[Matt Ryan]

I was really enjoying the discussion on this thread. Guillermo, you made a statement about something strange and only linked it to your site. Is this self promotion? Is this an accident? Either way, I don't think it is a good way to get people to look at your work.

He linked to a video he shot with the lenses that had fungus. Not sure what your talking about...

It has a low con, flare/glow to it that's neat.

 

[Mike S. M.]

Since the UltraCons will soften a little, compensate by using a lighter grade of diffusion than what you were planning, and keep in mind that both may be lowering contrast.

David, I always thought that the whole point of the Ultracons when compared to the older Lowcons was that the Ultracons did not impact resolution and sharpness and would not soften the image?

 

[Guillermo Garza]

I was really enjoying the discussion on this thread. Guillermo, you made a statement about something strange and only linked it to your site. Is this self promotion? Is this an accident? Either way, I don't think it is a good way to get people to look at your work.

Max, I was merely pointing out that in my personal experience there are certain kinds of optical difusion effects that can not be achieved in post. And precisely to illustrate that point I posted a video example taken from my own experiece where I made the decision to chose the optical diff over the post. I thought maybe someone would apreciate having a visual example of the kind of diffusion created by fungus in the front optical element of old neglected leica glass and having it work for a sepecific project. . . (fungus in lenses, rather than strange, is a very common phenomenon if you are familiar with old glass) I should have been more specific. i´ll take the link down to avoid this kind of confusion.

if anyone was not offended by my posting of an example from my own work to ilustrate the thread´s topic, here is a little more info on it: the video was shot using a can.. 5D camera and the director requested an organic look. so I gave some old leica m´s covered in fungus a try and tested them against clean zeiss zf stills lenses with post generated difusion. we went for the leica m´s covered in fungus. for the underwater stuff we shot with a go pro 2 and used digital diffusion to soften the crispy edges.. everybody was happy.

 

[Mike P.]

David, I always thought that the whole point of the Ultracons when compared to the older Lowcons was that the Ultracons did not impact resolution and sharpness and would not soften the image?

They soften a lot less but I don't think you can put a piece of glass (used to disperse light into the darker part of the frame) in front of the lens and not expect a little softening... Or at least that's what I gather David meant.

As for diffusion, it may be wiser to do that digitally since it can be replicated quite well and can be done to taste (or reversed completely)... Even RCXp has clarity, which when pushed into the negatives gives a more diffused look... Alas, C300 won't have that, but AE should suffice.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Amazing, thank you! You should consider writing a history of cinematography textbook (granted, there is probably no market). Your insight into the process is even more valuable for your vast knowledge of cinematic history and understanding of both form and commerce.

It's a GREAT book, but a refresh would be nice.

http://www.amazon.com/Cinematography-Third-Edition-Kris-Malkiewicz/dp/074326438X