Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
FORUMS:listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of famerecent posts

Linear vs Circular Polarizer

COW Forums : Cinematography

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Craig CockertonLinear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 21, 2002 at 8:09:16 am

I'm working on a project bound for CD-Rom where we are filming a lot from a car - drivers perspective. To cut down the glare from the windscreen I'm looking to use a polarizing filter - although after reading a lot about the polarising filter I'm now more confused than ever.

Some info said you can't use a linear polarizing filter on a camera with auto focus/auto exposure others have said you can't use a circular polarizing filter with the auto focus/auto exposure camera. Which is it? I'm going manual focus and manual exposure for the shoot - does this mean either linear or circular would be fine?

From samples that I have seen the circular polarizers seem to give better definition and colour reproduction that the linear filters - is this true across the board or specific to lighting, angle of reflection etc?

I've read that filming directly into glass with a polarizing filter means the filter wont have an effect - there needs to be an angle offset. True? If so, is the rake angle of a windscreen going to be sufficient?

If the rotation of the filter yields different results - it should follow then that as we drive around and the angle of the reflected light changes the filter may become less effective. True?

Cheers - Craig.


Return to posts index

Leo TicheliRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 21, 2002 at 1:22:02 pm

In manual mode, you can use either linear or circular. Auto-focus cameras need the circular polarizers. Some manufacturers offer "ultra" polarizers, which they claim produce a deeper effect; you may or may not want this. It is, after all, the glare that defines the glass or water, etc. and removing too much glare may not give you the look you're after.

There are so many variables affecting polarizers that the results are quite difficult to predict; you must simply test, test, test! As you drive around you are quite likely to change the angle of the light falling on the glass, and you will get different results.

When an effect beyond your control is achieved, the best way of dealing with it is to call it "art." Like the variability of hand-stitching on tailor-made clothing, these "defects" only serve to enhance.

These filters are quite expensive to buy, but relatively cheap to rent; I suggest you rent rather than purchase. You can then experiment and find what works best for you.

Good shooting!
Leo


Return to posts index

Craig CockertonRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 21, 2002 at 9:26:39 pm

Thanks for the clarification Leo.
We're trying to stay away from renting for this job as it is spread across a reasonable time period and is very weather dependant. We ran the math and it's about the same for us to rent or purchase.


Return to posts index


Tim KolbRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 21, 2002 at 4:24:46 pm

I think a couple of different things are getting confused. Having a circular filter that depends on a specific degree of rotation for its effect like a grad or a polarizer that screws on to the front of your lense (and is round) is a problem with auto focus cameras only if the front element of the lense moves when this focus shift is taking place.

If the filter is screwed on to an external focus lense and the front of the lense moves, it will move your filter with it. Internal Focus lenses are still round and can take a screw on filter, but the act of focusing doesn't affect the rotation of the front-most element.

I've used 4x4 polarizers and the round screw-on type and I'm not sure the form of the polarizer has much to do with it's quality or effectiveness...

I've used one to shoot through windshields as well and yes, the angle of the windshield is fine. You may want to do some test shots however, because depending on how wide you're going to be, it can be extremely hard to shoot "through" the junk that inevitably collects on a windshield without having it be 'in-focus' enough to cause a problem.

Your question about your angle to the sun affecting the effective position of your polarizer has a short and long answer, but the short answer is 'yes it will'. Ideally, if you are adjusting the polarizer to knock out the reflection of the dashboard in the windshield, you should be able to see what the proper angle is in the viewfinder, but if you are trying to get that more saturated blue sky or other effect, you would ideally use a properly adjusted shoting monitor.

*One sort of 'cheat' trick I use if I'm outside and I don't have the option of a shooting monitor and I'm trying to use the polarizer to get that 'blue sky', is to set the camera to auto iris (pro camera ideally, so you can see the ring on the lense...), then rotate the polarizer until you've determined in what position the polarizer causes the lense to 'open' the widest...you should be pretty close.

Tim Kolb


Return to posts index

Craig CockertonRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 21, 2002 at 9:20:59 pm

Thanks for the info Tim. We have to use the screw on filters as we don't have a matte box - the focus is going to be set to infinity for the segments anyway so we wont have the trouble of the filter moving with the focus (we don't have an internal focus lense).

We've already had to deal with the muck that sticks to the lens, we're fortunate that each segment we shoot will be less than 1 min so we have plently of opportunity to get out and clean the windscreen.

I like your "cheat" trick - as soon as the flter arrives I'll give it a go.

Cheers - Craig.


Return to posts index

Leo TicheliRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 22, 2002 at 2:14:09 am

Hi Tim,
"Circular polarizer" does not refer to it's shape, in which case the filter is commonly called, "round." A circular polarizer is constructed with an extra quarter-wave retarded on the side facing the camera. This is necessary on cameras which use polarization of light for auto-focus.

Most professional video cameras do not require circular polarizers; additionally, the linear polarizers are less costly.

Hope this helps...
Leo


Return to posts index


Tim KolbRe: Thanks Leo...Craig...read Leo's post above
by on Feb 22, 2002 at 2:43:41 am

I guess you learn something new everyday...thank you Leo.

I've never bought a polarizer for an auto focus camera of any type before...

I hope I didn't steer Craig to far off the mark.

How does the polarizer interact with the auto-focus? Or, perhaps the first question is "How does the auto-focus in such a case work that it can be helped by the extra effect?"

I might as well learn as much as I can here...

Tim Kolb


Return to posts index

Leo TicheliRe: Thanks Leo...Craig...read Leo's post above
by on Feb 22, 2002 at 7:23:33 pm

Hi Tim,
I must admit that I find the finer points of the physics of light daunting indeed; here's a quote from Ira Tiffen which may help, "Certain camera optical systems employ internal surfaces that themselves polarize light.  Using a standard (linear) polarizer will cause the light to be further absorbed by the internal optics, depending on the relative orientation.  A Circular Polarizer is a linear one to which has been added,on the side facing the camera, a quarter wave "retarder."  This "corkscrews" the plane of polarization, effectively depolarizing it, eliminating the problem.  The Circular Polarizer otherwise functions in the same manner."

I'm sorry that I can't explain how the cameras use the polarization of light to adjust the focus; perhaps someone else on the list can help us both! While I don't use auto-focus equipment, I have often wished for such a device when doing a moving shot with very long lenses.

Tiffen's entire article can be found at http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters.htm.
I think it's a must-read.

Good shooting!
Leo


Return to posts index

Tim KolbRe: Thanks Leo...Craig...read Leo's post above
by on Feb 23, 2002 at 2:31:05 pm

I had actually forgotten about Ira's article.

I revisited it and I agree with you completely.

Required reading.

Thanks again.

Tim K


Return to posts index


JOHN SHARAFRe: Linear vs Circular Polarizer
by on Feb 23, 2002 at 8:39:19 pm

Great discussion of the esoterics of pola filters, but the actual question involves the use in a car of a camera assuming "the driver's point of view". The problem with any pola, circular or otherwise is that the direction of the light (and the accompanying reflections) will change as the vehicles direction does as well! This will require "follow focusing" the rotateing pola in a predetermined way to hopefully accomplish the minimizing of the reflections, which is probably too much to ask.

I think a more certain method of eliminating the reflections would be to construct a solid "topper" or "eyebrow" over the windsheild itself to physically eliminate the reflections from above. Perhaps a roof rack would provide the mounting purchase and a few c-stand arms and a 72x24" solid "blade" would do the trick! Obviously it mwould have to be rigged really solid so it doesn't fly away in motion.


Return to posts index

Leo TicheliRe: To top or not to top...
by on Feb 24, 2002 at 4:39:45 pm

There is an esthetic danger in using a topper to eliminate flares and sky reflections from the windshield; those reflections and flares are what define the windshield, that make it look real and add visual interest. Without them, it could look as though you were shooting with the glass removed and you would lose much of the presence of the scene.

John is quite right that the effect of the polarizer will change dramatically as the direction and angle of the sun changes, but you might consider this an advantage rather than a problem; it all depends on what you want to say.

You have to make a decision of how you want the scene to look; if the flares and reflections interfere with the story-telling, use the topper or even a process trailer. Otherwise you can choose your time of day and direction of travel to control the flares and reflections; this is certainly easier than using a topper. If the action calls for the car turning in a direction that produces an objectionable flare, you have a great motivation for a cut!

Good shooting!
Leo





Return to posts index

Craig CockertonRe: not to top
by on Feb 25, 2002 at 8:12:31 am

We're fortunate in that each of the video segments from the drivers perspective is relatively short (20-30sec) and we can alter the direction of driving to get the most out of the polarizing filter.

As you say take out all the flares and reflections and we lose what defines the windscreen. I'll take the punt that we can control the flares and reflections with the filter and the way we script and set the shots - the topper isn't really an option for this phase, but something to consider for the next phase.

Thanks all for the advice.


Return to posts index


Tim KolbRe: not to top
by on Feb 25, 2002 at 6:51:29 pm

Ira Tiffen tells us that a 33 degree angle to the reflecting surface is best for glare removal and as I re-read his article (thanks again, Leo), I am reminded that the use of a polarizer to enhance the blue in the sky works optimally at a 90 degree angle to the sun and will have no effect (on the sky) if you are heading directly at or away from the sun...

...just some more data for you to sort through.

Tim Kolb


Return to posts index

Craig CockertonBut wait there's more...
by on Feb 25, 2002 at 11:50:33 pm

I had a read through some of the Ira Tiffen article last night and have now done so much reading I need to get out there and put some of it into action to cement what I've learned.

However, after contacting Tiffen support about using these Polarising filters with a wide angle adapter it seems that we need to get the filter with a wide angle ring. Here's what they wrote:

"The standard polarizer will cause mechanical vignetting seen as cutoff in the corners. The wide angle polarizer has a cut down, thinner ring which avoids this problem."

Sadly, (although not unexpectedly) the wide angle polarizer costs more.

-Craig.


Return to posts index

Leo TicheliRe: But wait there's more...
by on Feb 26, 2002 at 12:50:30 am

Hi Craig,
I'm glad you called Tiffen; they know their glass!

I would imagine the vignetting you mention has nothing to do with the type filter used, only with the physical size and the thickness of the mounting ring you are using. I don't believe a "wide-angle" polarizer is any different from a "normal" polarizer, other than size, of course.

Sadly, film making is often an expensive proposition; I do suggest you put a good matte box on your list, one that will cover your widest angle of view. Otherwise you'll just have to live with the vignetting or zoom in a bit to clear the corners.

I do have sympathy for you. When I went to the 4.8 MM lens and 16x9 shooting I had to replace my matte box and filters; those 4 x 5.65 Panavision filters aren't cheap!
Good shooting!
Leo


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSMAGAZINESTOCKYARDVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2013 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]