Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Low Contrast #1 Filter

Daniel Soderberg

Daniel Soderberg

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,889
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco
Anyone use, or have used a Low Contrast filter before?

Can't help but wonder if it can actually help with dynamic range...
 
Didn't know Alexa had one permanently in place... Now I'm very curious. Anyone?

Rob Castiglione said:
I would be interested in this as well. The Arri Alexa supposedly has a low con filter permanently in place.
Click to expand...
 
Daniel Soderberg said:
Didn't know Alexa had one permanently in place... Now I'm very curious. Anyone?
Click to expand...

It's OLPF is supposedly a low-con filter as well, I think. Or something.

Someone already did tests I think...When you consider the extra noise (when you add a low-con it prevents the blacks from crushing as fast, which essentially lets you stop down a bit more to gain a little high-light info), apparently it only gives you an extra 1/3 a stop or something miniscule. Furthermore, because you're adding an additional filter/layer of glass the additional pollution and slight light reduction isn't really worth it... or at least that's the general consensus.
 
I wouldn't use a no 1 as that is pretty obvious, but i regularly use an 1/8th or a 1/4 all of the time.
I have a set of CP2'2 and a Zeiss Light weight zoom 14.5-45mm lenses and they are too sharp.

I use an ultra con pretty much all of the time.
 
Adam Eden said:
I wouldn't use a no 1 as that is pretty obvious, but i regularly use an 1/8th or a 1/4 all of the time.
I have a set of CP2'2 and a Zeiss Light weight zoom 14.5-45mm lenses and they are too sharp.

I use an ultra con pretty much all of the time.
Click to expand...

Would you happen to have any samples (pics or vid) with the ultra con? ... And can you purchase just the ultra or do you have to buy as a set? Do you notice improved DR?
 
An Ultra Contrast filter? How does that affect the image differently form the Low Con filter?

Adam Eden said:
I wouldn't use a no 1 as that is pretty obvious, but i regularly use an 1/8th or a 1/4 all of the time.
I have a set of CP2'2 and a Zeiss Light weight zoom 14.5-45mm lenses and they are too sharp.

I use an ultra con pretty much all of the time.
Click to expand...
 
We don't use these to increase dynamic range, as most film stocks have about 7 stops of measured range before DI--at almost twice that, Red is plenty.

We use them for subtle adjustments to overall tone and feel, as David Mullen outlines below.

David Mullen ASC said:
The Tiffen Low Con filter does not cut down on highlights unless you compensate by underexposing, it's like any other "mist" filter, it allows highlights to fog the filter and lift the shadows. The way those mist particles are made, their size and dispersion, create different looks and amounts of softening.

The Low Con is closer to a Fog and Double Fog in effect in terms of blooming (halation) but then Tiffen created the Ultra Con, which has almost no halation artifacts, just the lifting of the blacks.

Schneider added black specks to what is essentially an Ultra Con (and I think what they call a Low Con is closer to Tiffen's Ultra Con) to create something they call a Digi Con, which does darken the highlights a bit. I think Tiffen may have an older Low Con design that does this too called a Soft Con.

Technically, low-contrast filters are not diffusion filters, though they do cause some softening and it's not a big leap to calling them diffusion with things like Fogs and Double Fogs.

Just remember that anything viewed on a computer screen is not going to emulate the effect of seeing that filter on the big screen. If I posted an example of a 1/8 ProMist, for example, you'd think that it wasn't doing anything yet on a big screen, you can still see the effect. For this reason, when testing filters and showing them on a computer screen or printed in a book, you often have to go quite heavy just to see the effect.

Personally, after testing both flashing and low contrast filters on film over the years, there is never more than a true 1/3-stop increase in dynamic range information at best, after which, most impressions of increased shadow detail and dynamic range are just due to the lifted blacks.
Click to expand...
 
I always used a low-con on my Canon XLH1 recording to KiPro in Pro-Res. It made beautiful images, and I think it got the best out of the old workhorse. I've not tested low-cons on my Reds yet, but are pretty sure I'll use one 90% of the time, at least my gut tells me... BUT remember the Ultimatte manual states never use low-con on blue/green-screen - i did this mistake on a "white-screen" once, with horrible results...

Thanks to Mr. Mullen for the information, he is really the living encyclopedia of cinematography! :)
 
1/8 and 1.4 Digicon filters are an excellent way to match Red on footage to Alexa footage...almost indistinguishable

Digicons also do wonders to skin tones on all digital camera and help remove the plastic-y skin look

that said. a 1 is a but much. 1/8 and 1/4 provide sublety that is very filmic imho
 
I thought this is why they made color grading software... Capture the sharpest, cleanest image possible, then degrade it from there. Of course the ND's and polarizing filters capture things you can't with naked glass.
 
Thanks for the tip Tim! Do you have any samples to show, using the Digicon filters?

Tim Whitcomb said:
1/8 and 1.4 Digicon filters are an excellent way to match Red on footage to Alexa footage...almost indistinguishable

Digicons also do wonders to skin tones on all digital camera and help remove the plastic-y skin look

that said. a 1 is a but much. 1/8 and 1/4 provide sublety that is very filmic imho
Click to expand...
 
Andrew PC Smith said:
I thought this is why they made color grading software... Capture the sharpest, cleanest image possible, then degrade it from there. Of course the ND's and polarizing filters capture things you can't with naked glass.
Click to expand...

Yes, but some things look better captured in camera. I've been reading American Cinematographer for years now, and I'm always shocked and reminded of how much filtration is frequently used. On both film and digital shoots. Even on huge blockbuster movies. There's a science, and an art to it. I'm just a producer and hack director, but I DO know that "clean" isn't always "good". Every seen how bad women's faces can look in HD? In Close Ups? They can look pretty terrible clean and it can take a lot of work in post to fix that. Whereas that could have all been taken care of in camera from the start.

Anyway. Just a thought. But there is also a philosophy that you SHOULD shoot clean, so I hear you on that end too. I guess it depends on the project.
 
I use Ultra Con 2 when using DSLR, and it works great, you get a really quite filmic image, with smoother roll offs.. it gives my footage a softer organic look you really cant quite recreate in post.. the last thing i shot, people saw the footage and thought we had shot with Alexa.. but I don't personally think theres much gain in using it with Reds RAW footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top