I'd go with a circular pola, not linear.
Here's what I have and would suggest as a basic set:
* Horizontal: ND Solid: .3, .6, .9, 1.2
* ND SEV (vertical grad) .3, .6, .9 (vertical so you have more room for moving the filter up and down to accommodate horizon lines)
POLA - 138 Round one-stop
I don't have but will probably get an optical flat...
HIGHLY recommend Schneider filters.
I have an MB 20 II two stage mattebox
You need Formatt's hot mirror/ND filters. They put the hot mirror (IR) and ND into the same filter in the center of the glass. Also another popular filter with ASC members is HD Soft Gold 2, circular polarizers (do not use linear), ND grads, Whisky and Tobacco filters, Coral grads are a fav. All Formatt filters use Shott-Desag B270 Crown Optical Glass in all the filters.
ND , ND Gradient and Circular polorizing filters are very useful.
ND to cut out light so we could use smaller aperture ( Bigger opening iris such as 1.8/ 2.8) especially in sunlight to achieve the better depth of filed.
ND Gradient will help to reduce the skyline light which is always 2 to 3 stops more than the rest of the area in the frame. So it is very helpful to retain all in good exposure.
Polarizer will cut down any reflection from Water and glass surface, not from any metal though.
Other than that we could use every thing else in post including soft focus.
It is not a good idea to shoot with the soft focus filter, once you shot with it, you can never go back. These effect can be applied while color grading very effectively and selectively.
You should not use a linear polarizer with this camera. My advice is to rent and see what you like.
ND, ND grads and a circular polarizer for sure. Try some diffusion filters. Formatt HD Clear Soft Effects. Schneider Frosts, Tiffen diffusion, Formatt Soft Gold.
Has anybody tried the redrock filters?
After lurking for a long time, I had to register to comment on this. As Pawel said, why? Why should you not use a linear polarizer?
First of all, let me clarify a common misconception about polarizers: both can be freely rotated to change the angle of polarization, and thus the effect of removing reflections or deepening the colour of a blue sky.
Both do the exact same thing to light entering them. To try and simplify, light "vibrates" in all directions when it leaves a light source, whether artificial or natural. When it is reflected by most surfaces (other than metal) it becomes polarized, only vibrating in one direction. Reflected light from a horizontal surface is horizontally polarized, and vice-versa for vertical surfaces.
A polarizer is simply a screen, it only transmits light that is polarized in one direction, and rotating the polarizer alters that direction. So, if you have a reflection from a horizontal surface, and you rotate the polarizer until it ony allows vertically polarized light to pass, it effectively blocks the reflected light, and therefore the image of the reflection.
The difference between the two types of polarizers is in how light leaves the filter. A linear polarizer simply lets the light, now polarized in one direction only, continue on it's way. A circular polarizer uses a "quarter-wave retarder" to essentially un-polarize the light, and get it vibrating in all directions again... still minus the reflection, of course.
With a linear polarizer, it doesn't matter which direction the filter is facing, the effect is the same either way through the filter. With a circular polarizer, it must be correctly oriented so that the quarter-wave retarder is facing the lens. Otherwise, no polarization. It's an easy way to make a visual check, by eye, if a pola is linear (works both ways) or circular (only works one way.)
The reason for this is that some Single-Lens Reflex still photography cameras use polarization in their autofocus and/or exposure systems. Light vibrating in a specific direction passes through the mirror reflecting light up the viewfinder, and hits a secondary mirror sending it down to a metering and/or autofocus sensor system. It's polarizing light.
The problem is that if your metering/AF system takes the vertically polarized light, and your polarizing filter is only letting through horizontally polarized light, the sensors receive no light at all, rendering them useless.
With a circular polarizer converting the light that is polarized in only one direction back into light polarized in all directions, the secondary mirror is able to do it's job, and has light it can direct to the sensors.
I hope you followed along with all of that. But here's the catch:
As far as I know, the RED ONE does not have anything in it's optical system that is affected by the polarization of light. There isn't a semi-polarized mirror in between the exit pupil of the lens and the sensor. A high-pass/infrared filter in front of the sensor won't be affected by polarized light.
Why spend more on the circular polarizer? Probably because the safe bet has seemed to be splurging on the circular just in case. I also find it common for people to believe that "circular" means it's the only one you can rotate to vary the effect. Misinformation, uncertainty, and doubt.
Put it all to rest now. If you're looking to buy a polarizer, get a linear if it'll save you money. In fact, why not, try and find a clean, scratch-free used one?
Granted, I don't own a RED ONE. So if anyone out there wants to actually test it in the real world, please do, and post your results here.
I thought RED One had a "native" ISO/ASA of 320, not 500?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|