Just did a recent job with a F900,on which I used a Tiffen 1/4 black promist ,only had a Panasonic plasma monitor,be it a very expensive one!
I,ve used this filter before and with digibeta .Anyway the producer has commented that the image lacks definition and in that vain ,that softlight is not the way to go for HD.We were shooting 23.98p.And that previous rushes shot without a filter were looking much better.
But he is viewing on an LCD screen,but I would think a pretty good one.I cant get to see them myself unless i travel halfway around the globe.
I,d always been under the impression the everyone and their dog was trying to avoid the dreaded very sharp electronic video -ish image of HD,and I,d never shot digibeta let alone HD without a filter.1/8 or 1/4 black promist usually.
Does anyone have any experience with similar reports,or their own comments
You've probably gotten the reply you needed by now, but if not . . .
My own personal experience is that a promist filter on an F900 makes the image way too mushy. Having said that, this is probably because I've only used an F900 to shoot 29.97PsF or 23.98PsF. There is already so much softening due to motion blur (even with a 180 degree filter engaged) that front glass never seems necessary. I also tend to run my detail in the -75 to -50 range, so that probably contributes to this as well?
I've only used a promist at 23.98PsF once, and that was for a "flashback" shot - intentionally mushy with slight blooming to the highlights.
The "sharpness" of HD that you have heard about may be in reference to either 59.94i HD, which has a very sharp "video" look - or it may be in reference to the depth of field issue and the difficulties in throwing backgrounds out of focus (compared to SD video). But it probably wasn't refering to sharpness problems when in 29.97PsF or 23.98PsF.
Hope this helps,
San Francisco Bay Area
I hate promist filters in general. They make everything look very 70's. But that's personal taste I guess.
Regarding HD and Promist. Using a Promist kills the advatages of HD. You mush your image forever. If I were you I would shoot everything clean and then degrade the image during a professional colour correction with real HD monitors or a projected image just to a degree that you like. With a promist you have changed your image for good without a chance to really tweak it to where you want it anymore.
Re. sharpness. I see that HD looks extremely sharp and don't like it mayself. Of course you should always shoot 24p and not interlaced. That's one thing. The second is that when you do an extreme close up of a person you will see so much detail that it will actually not be very flattering. That's when you degrade in post to clean up those pimpels a bit:)
That's the extreme sharpness people talk about. You see too much detail especially on a cineam screen. Detail that's more than reallity sometimes. That's when things start looking elcetronic and unreal.
Filters in general:
I only us ND's ND grads and the occasional POLE Filter. That's it. I only use them to control contrast. Everything else happens in post when you tweak your image. Most impoartant is that you have all your info in the "negative" so you can then play nicely.