Topics

ND Filters for film recommendation

 

Hi all, would like recommendations for individual 4 x 5.65” or 4 x 4” ND filters for use with film camera mainly (Aaton XTR 16mm (standard gate) with a Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm on it)

Price range: maximum 350 dollars / £300….looking to cut 4-5-6 stops…..

Haven’t got a clue whether IR or FS ND filters would suit me better cos all the marketing is now about 4k, 6k bla bla bla high end cameras

Being old school, Schneider appeals to me as a brand…..just cos I have their lenses on my 4x5 Sinar camera and darkroom enlarger but nothing more…..could not argue the case for any brand…..have been using variable ND filters until now…...

Thanks in advance…..

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
+34667661936

Steve Gal
 

No need for IR-ND since that is only for digital sensors an not film. I would go with standard tiffen 4x4 ND's since you are trying to save money and the Cooke 9-50mm is not a super 16mm lens. You should go with 4x5 so you can be future proof but they will cost you double. You will need a matte-box and that lens has an 83mm front diameter so it is not a common size.

Regards,
Steve Gal
Du-All Camera
(212) 643-1042
www.duallcamera.com 


From: Stephen Perera <anthonystephenperera@...>
To: cml-film <cml-film@...>
Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2018 5:16 am
Subject: [cml-film] ND Filters for film recommendation

Hi all, would like recommendations for individual 4 x 5.65” or 4 x 4” ND filters for use with film camera mainly (Aaton XTR 16mm (standard gate) with a Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm on it)

Price range: maximum 350 dollars / £300….looking to cut 4-5-6 stops…..

Haven’t got a clue whether IR or FS ND filters would suit me better cos all the marketing is now about 4k, 6k bla bla bla high end cameras

Being old school, Schneider appeals to me as a brand…..just cos I have their lenses on my 4x5 Sinar camera and darkroom enlarger but nothing more…..could not argue the case for any brand…..have been using variable ND filters until now…...

Thanks in advance…..

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
+34667661936

 

Thanks for the advice Steve…appreciate it!

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
T: +34667661936

On 3 Aug 2018, at 15:19, Steve Gal via Cml.News <s816mm35mm=aol.com@...> wrote:

No need for IR-ND since that is only for digital sensors an not film. I would go with standard tiffen 4x4 ND's since you are trying to save money and the Cooke 9-50mm is not a super 16mm lens. You should go with 4x5 so you can be future proof but they will cost you double. You will need a matte-box and that lens has an 83mm front diameter so it is not a common size.

Regards,
Steve Gal
Du-All Camera
(212) 643-1042
www.duallcamera.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Perera <anthonystephenperera@...>
To: cml-film <cml-film@...>
Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2018 5:16 am
Subject: [cml-film] ND Filters for film recommendation

Hi all, would like recommendations for individual 4 x 5.65” or 4 x 4” ND filters for use with film camera mainly (Aaton XTR 16mm (standard gate) with a Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm on it)

Price range: maximum 350 dollars / £300….looking to cut 4-5-6 stops…..

Haven’t got a clue whether IR or FS ND filters would suit me better cos all the marketing is now about 4k, 6k bla bla bla high end cameras

Being old school, Schneider appeals to me as a brand…..just cos I have their lenses on my 4x5 Sinar camera and darkroom enlarger but nothing more…..could not argue the case for any brand…..have been using variable ND filters until now…...

Thanks in advance…..

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
+34667661936

John Adderley
 

Don't forget if you stack NDs ypu don't get the sum of the values. 
Eg... and ND 6 and an ND 3 will not get you ND9.  I would use a spot meyer through them if you want a really heavy ND stack.



John Adderley                  *
Kinematographer   *
www.adderley.net             *
+44 7973730042         '
+44 20 85424947  *
London UK
Www.theracetocinema.com

 

Thanks John
yes no matter what I always test with the light metre….i use ambient with the dome in though….

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
T: +34667661936

On 3 Aug 2018, at 16:46, John Adderley <john@...> wrote:

Don't forget if you stack NDs ypu don't get the sum of the values. 
Eg... and ND 6 and an ND 3 will not get you ND9.  I would use a spot meyer through them if you want a really heavy ND stack.



John Adderley                  *
Kinematographer   *
www.adderley.net             *
+44 7973730042         '
+44 20 85424947  *
London UK

John Adderley
 

I was asked to explain why adding (stacking) NDs do not give the sum of individual values. I was told this by an old camera engineer and have have found in some instances to be true. It depends on the type of ND eg. glass, resin, thickness etc. there is vignetting produced and softening of the image and internal reflections between the filter surfaces. The composition of the image that is being shot can The more glass or resin etc that you are putting your image through gives more problems and degrades image quality. So it's not an entirely good idea to stack ND filters, or any filters. So it's best to test first as Stephen Perera says


John Adderley                  *
Kinematographer   *
www.adderley.net             *
+44 7973730042         '
+44 20 85424947  *
London UK
Www.theracetocinema.com

 

Hey John
(As an aside….I love the ADAPT BBC footage of you guys on youtube showing us how you guys did things back in the day…..highly entertaining! esp your cool moustache!)

John, what, in your experience is your thickness limit for ND stacks if you’re really stuck…..ie i will stack 2 but 3 no way for example and only if they dont go pact 5mm for arguments sake…..and what ‘material’ do you think works best albeit we will never be fully up today with ongoing technology

Im in the process of choosing what to buy you see hence me boring you all with this

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
T: +34667661936


On 4 Aug 2018, at 14:03, John Adderley <john@...> wrote:

I was asked to explain why adding (stacking) NDs do not give the sum of individual values. I was told this by an old camera engineer and have have found in some instances to be true. It depends on the type of ND eg. glass, resin, thickness etc. there is vignetting produced and softening of the image and internal reflections between the filter surfaces. The composition of the image that is being shot can The more glass or resin etc that you are putting your image through gives more problems and degrades image quality. So it's not an entirely good idea to stack ND filters, or any filters. So it's best to test first as Stephen Perera says


John Adderley                  *
Kinematographer   *
www.adderley.net             *
+44 7973730042         '
+44 20 85424947  *
London UK

Justin Lovell
 

Side question, sorry if I'm jumping in, has anyone shot on film with an IRND filter? 

What would be the result of doing so? 
(I have a set of IRND, and would be great not to have to get another set of ND glass). 

Thanks! 

Justin Lovell 
Cinematographer || Storyteller

Associate Member, Canadian Society of Cinematographers 

Talk: M. 416.803.1101 / O. 416.901.5332 
Reel: www.justinlovell.com
Social: @justin_lovell

°sent with tpyos from my moible

Ira Tiffen
 

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts...

First, as Steve mentioned, film does not have the "IR pollution" problem since the film manufacturers eliminated the IR sensitivity a long time ago. Digital sensors are inherently IR sensitive, and it took a while before this was addressed by the camera companies. Using IRND filters, either the organically dyed filters like Schneider Platinum or the newer FSND versions (Full Spectrum ND) using interference coatings for the ND absorbing layer like the Tiffen NATural and Schneider RHOdium, will all work well with film. You don't need to buy a new ND set. These IRND or FSND filters will also work well with the newer cameras that do a good job of managing IR on their own. These latter cameras can often use even the original, non-IR absorbing ND filters of old.

Second, as for stacking filters, it is always best to use as few as you can. Every air-to-glass interface creates a reflection which is a loss of some light and a source of potentially unwanted internal reflections. Of course, anti-reflection coatings on filters will help, but these are not the norm. Further, a stack of filters is only as good as the individual filters that are in the stack. In that regard, alongside having greater durability and resistance to abrasion damage, glass is better than resin for both optical flatness and the ability to resolve fine detail. That said, a stack of well-made (they are not all equal) glass filters will outperform a stack of resin filters given the same number of filters in each stack. You will find that you can use, when necessary, more filters in a glass filter stack than with resin. Finally, if your filters are of known optical pedigree, you should readily be able to use two or three, and in some cases four, assuming you have a good way to mount them on the lens to minimize internal reflection and unwanted light entering from the sides (that can cause flare).

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

Ira Tiffen
 

A bit more...

When you add one ND filter to another, you SHOULD get the sum of both, assuming you use the right numbers to add...So adding a 0.3 to a 0.6, or even three 0.3 ND filters, should result in a 0.9. Each 0.3 should transmit 50% of the light. Each 0.6 should transmit 25%. Add a 0.3 to a 06 and you get 50% of 25%, or 12.5%, which is the amount that a 0.9 should transmit. Three 0.3's yields 50% of (50% of 50%) = 12.5%, again.

John is right in that if there are any inconsistencies in the filter quality, or if there is vignetting due to too deep a stack for the size of the filters and the angle-of-view of the lens, you may get something different. But ideally, what you stack should be additive numerically.

Finally, when stacking, if you get more internal reflections than you want, try tilting the stack a few degrees so that the reflections are directed out of the view of the camera. There are matte boxes with tilting stages, or, if those are not available, try using gaffer tape to rig the filters on a small angle for the shot...

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

Adam Wilt
 

Second, as for stacking filters, it is always best to use as few as you can.

There is an amusing Lensrentals test wherein Roger Cicala stacks multiple filters:

Adam Wilt
technical services: consulting / coding / camerawork
Vancouver WA USA (no, not that Vancouver, the other one)

 

Ira, thank you so much for coming in on this thread with your expert knowledge……needless to say after this help it’s gotta be Tiffen I buy (I dont have any filters other than threaded variables for lenses) so would appreciate you literally telling me ‘you cant go wrong with this model’ from you know as both affordable and perfect for the job…….yes I know….the same old question u get

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
T: +34667661936

On 4 Aug 2018, at 22:30, Ira Tiffen <ira.tiffen@...> wrote:

A bit more...

When you add one ND filter to another, you SHOULD get the sum of both, assuming you use the right numbers to add...So adding a 0.3 to a 0.6, or even three 0.3 ND filters, should result in a 0.9. Each 0.3 should transmit 50% of the light. Each 0.6 should transmit 25%. Add a 0.3 to a 06 and you get 50% of 25%, or 12.5%, which is the amount that a 0.9 should transmit. Three 0.3's yields 50% of (50% of 50%) = 12.5%, again.

John is right in that if there are any inconsistencies in the filter quality, or if there is vignetting due to too deep a stack for the size of the filters and the angle-of-view of the lens, you may get something different. But ideally, what you stack should be additive numerically.

Finally, when stacking, if you get more internal reflections than you want, try tilting the stack a few degrees so that the reflections are directed out of the view of the camera. There are matte boxes with tilting stages, or, if those are not available, try using gaffer tape to rig the filters on a small angle for the shot...

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

 

Hey Ira just read your bio…..incredible experience and knowledge….ok its either Tiffen or Schneider i buy hahaha

Stephen Perera
Design + Photography
Gibraltar
T: +34667661936

On 4 Aug 2018, at 22:07, Ira Tiffen <ira.tiffen@...> wrote:

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts...

First, as Steve mentioned, film does not have the "IR pollution" problem since the film manufacturers eliminated the IR sensitivity a long time ago. Digital sensors are inherently IR sensitive, and it took a while before this was addressed by the camera companies. Using IRND filters, either the organically dyed filters like Schneider Platinum or the newer FSND versions (Full Spectrum ND) using interference coatings for the ND absorbing layer like the Tiffen NATural and Schneider RHOdium, will all work well with film. You don't need to buy a new ND set. These IRND or FSND filters will also work well with the newer cameras that do a good job of managing IR on their own. These latter cameras can often use even the original, non-IR absorbing ND filters of old.

Second, as for stacking filters, it is always best to use as few as you can. Every air-to-glass interface creates a reflection which is a loss of some light and a source of potentially unwanted internal reflections. Of course, anti-reflection coatings on filters will help, but these are not the norm. Further, a stack of filters is only as good as the individual filters that are in the stack. In that regard, alongside having greater durability and resistance to abrasion damage, glass is better than resin for both optical flatness and the ability to resolve fine detail. That said, a stack of well-made (they are not all equal) glass filters will outperform a stack of resin filters given the same number of filters in each stack. You will find that you can use, when necessary, more filters in a glass filter stack than with resin. Finally, if your filters are of known optical pedigree, you should readily be able to use two or three, and in some cases four, assuming you have a good way to mount them on the lens to minimize internal reflection and unwanted light entering from the sides (that can cause flare).

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

Ecamiel@...
 

Hi
i have many ND and many other Tiffen filters 4 1/2 round and series 9 with mounting rings and Sunshade which will fit your Cannon. Cheap 
contact me off list if you are interested.
Eric Camiel 
NY DP

203 792 0382

Ira Tiffen
 

Thank you for your kind words, Stephen!

Either Tiffen or Schneider would provide excellent quality traditional ND filters in your price range, although their IRND and FSND are more costly. However, there is one new alternative offering a high level of optical quality that is within your price range and which provides FSND capabilities for managing IR and that uniquely come with anti-reflection coatings to minimize internal reflection issues when you stack them. Having FSND filter capability will help in case in the future you want your new filters to function even when IR is an issue, as is still the case with certain digital cameras. And they will function perfectly well with film...

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA


 

Remco Hekker
 

Hi Ira,

I was hoping you would join in when I read the original post.
Thanks a lot for your insights.

I really enjoy working with the FullSpectrum NDs. I'm not worried about IR pollution anymore,
and they are neutral enough that I'm not worried in situations where IR isn't an issue.
No experience on celluloid though. 

Kind regards,


Remco Hekker

Lighting Cameraman & Colorist

The Netherlands.



2018-08-05 20:38 GMT+02:00 Ira Tiffen <ira.tiffen@...>:

Thank you for your kind words, Stephen!

Either Tiffen or Schneider would provide excellent quality traditional ND filters in your price range, although their IRND and FSND are more costly. However, there is one new alternative offering a high level of optical quality that is within your price range and which provides FSND capabilities for managing IR and that uniquely come with anti-reflection coatings to minimize internal reflection issues when you stack them. Having FSND filter capability will help in case in the future you want your new filters to function even when IR is an issue, as is still the case with certain digital cameras. And they will function perfectly well with film...

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA


 

Ira Tiffen
 

Stephen, I should add that the ND filter alternative I was referring in my previous post having FSND capability, anti-reflection coating, and that fits into your price range is Lindsey Optics...

Remco, it is great to hear from you! And yes, while the need for IR is minimal today, one of the other benefits of FSND filters over the traditional ND filters that don't manage IR is that they tend to be much more color-neutral which helps to minimize grading time, especially when using multiple cameras and when shooting in different types of light.

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

Mako Koiwai
 


I was asked to explain why adding (stacking) NDs do not give the sum of individual values. I was told this by an old camera engineer and have have found in some instances to be true. It depends on the type of ND eg. glass, resin, thickness etc. there is vignetting produced and softening of the image and internal reflections between the filter surfaces. The composition of the image that is being shot can The more glass or resin etc that you are putting your image through gives more problems and degrades image quality. So it's not an entirely good idea to stack ND filters, or any filters. So it's best to test first as Stephen Perera says

*******

We use to use a LOT of filters shooting commercials. Oddly enough our professional motion picture filters aren’t coated and thus lose up to 1/6th of a stop in reflection. So using 6 filters we could be losing a stop. Since we were using film, we would typically pull the matte box and spot meter through it.

Typically only Diopters and some optical flats are coated.

The filter manufacturers say that they don’t coat because the rental houses don’t like the added sensitivity to scratches and mar marks, which will cause the filter to be rejected.

By sandwiching the filters together one can reduce light lose by reflection, but they you have to worry about Newton Rings.

Piling on the filters reduces resolution. We were using to only shooting commercials when we were asked to shoot a title sequence for a movie. We were using up to 6 filters: ND’s, Pola, Grads, Attenuators, Color. We were having some weather issues so they brought us back after a couple of days, which gave us a chance to see our dailies PROJECTED. We were only use to seeing our footage on monitors. We were horrified by the loss of resolution on the big screen! When we went back we reduced the amount of filters.


makofoto, s. pasadena, ca

Steven Holloway
 

Sorry to get off topic a bit, but does anyone make .1 or .2 NDs.  

Steven Holloway

STEVEN HOLLOWAY FILMS, INC
301-332-1148 (c)
www.shfilmsdp.com




On Aug 6, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Ira Tiffen <ira.tiffen@...> wrote:

Stephen, I should add that the ND filter alternative I was referring in my previous post having FSND capability, anti-reflection coating, and that fits into your price range is Lindsey Optics...

Remco, it is great to hear from you! And yes, while the need for IR is minimal today, one of the other benefits of FSND filters over the traditional ND filters that don't manage IR is that they tend to be much more color-neutral which helps to minimize grading time, especially when using multiple cameras and when shooting in different types of light.

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA

Ira Tiffen
 

Steven, Schneider Optics' catalog lists ND 0.15 in key sizes like their 4 x 5.65 and 6.6 x 6.6. It has about 70% transmission.

Ira Tiffen
PA, USA