I can see from the Schneider examples where one would want to use the weaker filters to soften the digital curse. But the stronger ones just look dated and bad to me.
I can see from the Schneider examples where one would want to use the weaker filters to soften the digital curse. But the stronger ones just look dated and bad to me.
Yes, there are a number of brands, and lines within brands that have different effects. Schneider's Digicon is not the only filter series of this kind that it makes. Note that the Digicon filters, available in five different weights, are made only in rectangular form for matte boxes. These classes of filters are not consumer toys. They're professional tools, and matte box versions especially are very expensive. B&H sells Digicons in a common matte box size of 4" x 5.65" for $416 for each weight. They aren't a relic of the last century.Originally Posted by Michael R
There are a good number of discussions on the internet about why this filtration is applied in-camera rather than at the post-production stage in video editing software.
I personally appreciate a more nuanced approach. Lately I've been so absorbed into how some of the BBC whodunnit crime dramas are shot, with even costumes picked for color compatibiity or accent with the landscapes and interiors - all superbly exposed or underexposed or overexposed - that I often lost track of the plot line. Back to the basics, which were never simple, but revolved around real professionalism instead of cheap gimmicks. Of course there are tour de force movies like Barry Lyndon too, which exhibit remarkable photographic as well as acting skill. Oh, but if only Technicolor was still around!
Of course, we still photographers can't just go out and repaint or redecorate the world like a movie set. Some try; but I think they miss the whole point of discovery itself. I'll no doubt offend some studio type for merely stating that. But it's not about right versus wrong photographically, but about two totally different approaches philosophically, which should never be confused with one another. ... Now that I've opened that can of worms ....
I have a couple of the Polar Pro filters, a 3 stop ND polarizer and a 6-stop. Both are very high quality. I use one of Tiffen's softFX filters when I make 1080p videos for class, a number 1 if I remember rightly.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
The goldmorphic streak reminds me of the smear/bloom from old analog camcorders or cheap cell phones at night. Or cheap cell phones with dirty lenses in the rain.
Lots of unique ways to get away from the perfection of digital.. That's one.. LF is another.
I just had a look at YouTube videos on these "anamorphic look" filters. PolarPro isn't the only company making them. Nisi is selling what it calls the Nisi Allure Streak.
As far as I can tell, none of the major YouTubers who weigh in on video gear are reviewing these, let alone endorsing them. The videos on these filters have also had fairly small numbers of viewers.
I suspect that if someone wants an anamorphic look, they're much more likely to get an anamorphic lens than to try to fake it with one of these filters, which are not cheap. PolarPro's two streak filters are US$120 each. These filters also won't deliver an anamorphic aspect ratio, which is a good part of what anamorphic fans are after, so people who want a true anamorphic look would have to address that too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks