FORUMS: list search recent posts

filters: on camera or in post?

COW Forums : Cinematography

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bob Cole
filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 12, 2011 at 2:18:14 pm

Given the many electronic filters available in post, what do you think of the merits of shooting a "clean" image, without any "effect" filtration (e.g. Pro-mist), and adding those effects in the editing room?

Bob C


Return to posts index

Todd Terry
Re: filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 12, 2011 at 4:26:46 pm

Well, there are two schools of thought on that, of course. And the really great photographers or cinematographers probably prefer using filters.

As for me, though, I almost always shoot as clean an image as possible. In fact, there are rarely any filters in my matte box at all. Maybe the occasional ND filter as needed, but that's about all. I don't always know what I want a final image to look like, so I prefer to defer those decisions to the post stage... where, yes, you can do just about any kind of image manipulation that you want.

One exception would be an image that appears to have bad electronic "jaggies" in it... usually minor jagged edges seen on bright sharp angled lines, such as a metallic object. Sometimes it's better to do a bit of camera filtration on these to get rid of them before the post stage for better results.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Rick Wise
Re: filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 12, 2011 at 5:21:34 pm

Ancients, such as myself, have always preferred to set the look in camera. When I was a young pup I was ga-ga over filters and couldn't use them enough. Over time I came to the opposite view: other than color-correcting filters, use sparingly if at all. HD reinforces that as it's very easy to muck up the image with some filter in front of the lens. Whether film or video, I now stick to a light (1/4 or maybe 1/2) classic soft, and only when skin issues call for it.

If the scene calls for fog, then a light fog filter might be appropriate.

Leaving it to post has never been my preference. Maybe it's because I want to control the image.... And that's why I always go to film-to-tape transfers. Alas, haven't been to one of those in many years. Video now rules. At least we've now got the Alexa.


Rick Wise
director of photography
San Francisco Bay Area
part-time instructor lighting/camera
Academy of Art University/Film and Video (grad school)
http://www.RickWiseDP.com


Return to posts index


Nick Griffin
Re: filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 12, 2011 at 9:39:30 pm

While I'm certainly nowhere near as sophisticated a shooter as Rick or Todd, and probably Bob Cole, for that matter, I thought I'd chime in on this one.

I use the matte box primarily to hold 1 of 3 things. 1) ND & ND grads as needed. 2) A Polarizer because blown highlights from bad reflections are something which really can't be changed or fixed too much in post, and 3) when not using either of the above, a skylight filter as protection for the lens because often we are shooting industrial things which can throw off particles, moisture, etc. I'd much rather replace a filter than a front element.

Given the capabilities of programs, especially color grading ones like Apple's color, it makes little sense to me to warm or cool or diffuse an image in camera when we (or the client) may later decide to go down a different path.

My two one-hundredths of a dollar.


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 13, 2011 at 2:09:41 am

Thanks - great ideas. Nick's (overly modest) post, particularly his mention of split NDs, reminds me of the split focus filter. I've always been intrigued when I've seen that in features.

I like the general principles expressed by Todd, Terry, and Nick, which I'd summarize as "do it in-camera when it gives you something you can't get in post."

A related question: Where can I find information or a tutorial on electronic manipulation inside the camera? Decrease skin detail? (in post I can use something like "Beauty Box.") Crush the whites or leave that alone? (in post I can legalize the image.) Again, I don't want to paint myself into a corner in post - I prefer as clean an image as possible myself. To what extent do you use the incredible range of choices inside the camera? Where does going that route give you something that you just can't get in post?

Thanks.

Bob C


Return to posts index

grinner hester
Re: filters: on camera or in post?
on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:19:44 pm

I like having the handles to do it. I don't like being married to a look.
I once worked for a DP who would not only forget to WB before an interview, he'd remember int he middle of it THEN do it. Never did he grasp the fact that it's easier to fix it and rock on than to then have to match it. I begged him for years to just throw the thing in preset and aim it and finally had to gaff tape his switches in one spot for him.
I, uhm, don't work for him anymore. lol

I do like lens effects though. There are depth of field and perspective coolnesses that we just can't nail the same way in post. As far as filters though, man, as an editor, you'll never see me using them in camera.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]