ND filters are amazing!!!

[Theheightman]

i just saw the price of those filters.. woaw! seems expensive to me ! anyone of you has got a video with 2 footage one with nd filter and one without?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sneakypete]

is there an easy way to figure how many stops back you need? other than putting the mavic up and looking at the video?

I will be shooting while skiing for the first time and want to minimize the amount of time I'm messing with the filters.

I bought the polar pro cinema series so there are so many options! I think I will stick to the PL set due to the snow and all.

 

[SrMi]

You set your frame rate to 30, your ISO to 100, then set your shutter speed to 60. If your video is too light you add the appropriate ND filter to get the right lighting for those settings. you can adjust the shutter speed a little to get the perfect lighting.

That is manual mode, isn't it? It would be nice to have an automatic mode where the ISO changes according to the lighting of the scene while the shutter speed is fixed.

 

[SrMi]

is there an easy way to figure how many stops back you need? other than putting the mavic up and looking at the video?

I will be shooting while skiing for the first time and want to minimize the amount of time I'm messing with the filters.

I bought the polar pro cinema series so there are so many options! I think I will stick to the PL set due to the snow and all.

PolarPro has an app for iOS/Androd that lets you compute the required ND filter, but you need to look at exposure before taking off.

 

[wombat]

Yes ND filters are amazing. Check out my video using polarpro filters giving it the film look.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Hi flumpet, at 0.40 the clouds are moving real fast, how can I do that ?

 

[gumpybsc]

Yes ND filters are amazing. Check out my video using polarpro filters giving it the film look.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Fantastic clip, well done.

 

[Yeastinfection]

I shot this this weekend, it is a mixture of Mavic and P4P, the opening shot is Mavic as well as the waterfall. I feel like they look pretty good, maybe a bit dark but that's just style preference.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What did you use for video editing?

 

[Wombat55]

. So I ordered ND filters from Taco RC and BAM! Everything looks so crisp and clear now. It's solved all those issues ....

Everything looks so "crisp and clear" now? Really? Excuse me, but I thought that the whole point of these ND filters was to slow the shutter speed so as to intentionally introduce some motion blur into the frame images to make the video appear smoother. So how does blurring the individual images make them "crisper"?

Hey, guys, I get the fact that ND filters may help improve video clips in some lighting situations, but sometimes I get the feeling that some people are getting way, way too carried away with the "magical powers" of these ND filters as if they're the greatest invention since indoor plumbing.

 

[grizzard]

I agree with Wombat55. If you can fly without filters, do it. You might be surprised at how good it looks. I have the Taco RC filters and they were really good when the earth was covered with snow. It is now Spring here where much of the ground is green. Filter help under current circumstances is only marginal ... in my opinion.

 

[sosmaverick]

I've recently purchased and just received the polar pro cinema series.. the difference they make is unbelievable! Honestly they're worth every penny, I wish I bought them sooner..

 

[AF1]

I, like many of you on the forums have seen the numerous posts about poor video quality, (watercolor like video, soft or mushy video. noise). And was starting to think I my have a lemon as well. I was getting bad moire, as well as mushy footage especially with lots of trees. I was also getting grain/noise even in good light. I learned about shooting manually and doubling the shutter speed of my frame rate, I noticed a big difference when I did that but everything was super overexposed. So I ordered ND filters from Taco RC and BAM! Everything looks so crisp and clear now. It's solved all those issues and now I know that it wasn't a bad Mavic but me needing to learn to be a better videographer. Hopefully some of this information can help any of you that might be struggling with similar issues.

Having just ordered my filters on Saturday I am really pleased to read this... just need them to arrive now

 

[dwallersv]

Hey, guys, I get the fact that ND filters may help improve video clips in some lighting situations, but sometimes I get the feeling that some people are getting way, way too carried away with the "magical powers" of these ND filters as if they're the greatest invention since indoor plumbing.

Well, they are!

The bottom line is this: The Dynamic Range of current imaging sensors is still well short of that of the human retina. To make matters worse on the Mavic, there is no adjustable aperture, so it's further crippled compared to the eye (which has an iris) in terms of handling the real-world dynamic range we are visually presented with.

Therefore, the Mavic, as shipped, is incapable of handling the range of lighting conditions we experience without drastic methods to cut down the exposure, and with its limitations fast shutter speeds is the only solution.

It shouldn't be the only solution. The product should be shipped standard with a set of basic ND filters. Every (high end) camera UAV lacking an adjustable aperture should be. It truly is essential.

I'd rather they put an aperture on the camera, but I understand that, given the size, that was probably too hard on v1. I'll bet a v2 Mavic will have a better camera with a larger sensor and aperture. Like P4->P4P evolution.

 

[dwallersv]

I agree with Wombat55. If you can fly without filters, do it. You might be surprised at how good it looks. I have the Taco RC filters and they were really good when the earth was covered with snow. It is now Spring here where much of the ground is green. Filter help under current circumstances is only marginal ... in my opinion.

Odd... I, and pretty much everyone else find that ND filters improve and deepen saturation, making colors -- especially bright greens -- really pop out.

 

[Wombat55]

Well, they are!

The bottom line is this: The Dynamic Range of current imaging sensors is still well short of that of the human retina. To make matters worse on the Mavic, there is no adjustable aperture, so it's further crippled compared to the eye (which has an iris) in terms of handling the real-world dynamic range we are visually presented with.

Therefore, the Mavic, as shipped, is incapable of handling the range of lighting conditions we experience without drastic methods to cut down the exposure, and with its limitations fast shutter speeds is the only solution.

It shouldn't be the only solution. The product should be shipped standard with a set of basic ND filters. Every (high end) camera UAV lacking an adjustable aperture should be. It truly is essential.

I'd rather they put an aperture on the camera, but I understand that, given the size, that was probably too hard on v1. I'll bet a v2 Mavic will have a better camera with a larger sensor and aperture. Like P4->P4P evolution.

OK, don't want to sound cranky, but I have to call baloney on this. ND filters do not increase the dynamic range. They shift the range but don't increase it. Also, your sentence "Therefore, the Mavic, as shipped, is incapable of handling the range of lighting conditions we experience without drastic methods to cut down the exposure, and with its limitations fast shutter speeds is the only solution" doesn't make a lot of sense. There is nothing "drastic" about varying the shutter speed to adjust for various lighting conditions. It's done all the time. What is more "drastic" is putting a piece of darkened glass or plastic in front of the lens to cut down on the amount of incoming light. If lighting conditions change, you then have to remove that piece of darkened glass or plastic and put some other piece on or remove it entirely. On the other hand, if you rely on shutter speed, all you have to do is to change the shutter speed to deal with changing lighting conditions.

The one and only valid argument that I've heard for ND filters is that they introduce a little motion blur which makes some videos appear smoother. Frankly, my personal opinion is that this apparent advantage is overblown and really not an issue with most drone videos because the drones are up high and taking images of landscapes and so the image change from frame-to-frame is very small and so motion blur is not apparent regardless of whether or not an ND filter is used. The only drone video where I thought that the operator made a decent case for using an ND filter was a video clip in which the drone was flying down between some branches of a large tree with the leaves of the branches passing close by the drone. In that case the positions of the leaves in the image frame were rapidly changing, and so a plausible case for smoothening the video by using an ND filter could be made. Of course, most drone videos don't have any close by objects rapidly whizzing by the drone. Quite the opposite: Most drone videos show slowly moving distant landscapes.

Finally, other claims for ND filters such as ND filters "improving and deepening (color) saturation", improving your love life, decreasing CO2 emissions, making your omelets fluffier, etc., etc., IMHO are pure bunk.

 

[dwallersv]

OK, don't want to sound cranky, but I have to call baloney on this. ND filters do not increase the dynamic range. They shift the range but don't increase it.

I agree that it would be baloney to assert that ND filters increase dynamic range, when the filter is on. I also agree that they shift the usable DR to a different range of exposures.

This is a classic case of misunderstanding, as what I meant by ND filters expanding DR was that having a set of them increases the DR you can handle with the Mavic's camera -- by putting the correct strength of filter on for the conditions.

So, with ND filters, your usable DR now ranges from whatever minimum usable exposure can be had with no filter, ranging all the way to intense brightness that doesn't overexpose any part of the image with your darkest filter on.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I worded it poorly.

As for the rest of your response, if you'd like to have a civil conversation, please try again.

Otherwise, the only conclusion I can draw is you are just another one of the millions of internet jerks, a dime a dozen, not worth my limited and precious time to try and engage as a fellow friend in this hobby.

 

[Wombat55]

I agree that it would be baloney to assert that ND filters increase dynamic range, when the filter is on. I also agree that they shift the usable DR to a different range of exposures.

This is a classic case of misunderstanding, as what I meant by ND filters expanding DR was that having a set of them increases the DR you can handle with the Mavic's camera -- by putting the correct strength of filter on for the conditions.

So, with ND filters, your usable DR now ranges from whatever minimum usable exposure can be had with no filter, ranging all the way to intense brightness that doesn't overexpose any part of the image with your darkest filter on.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I worded it poorly.

As for the rest of your response, if you'd like to have a civil conversation, please try again.

Otherwise, the only conclusion I can draw is you are just another one of the millions of internet jerks, a dime a dozen, not worth my limited and precious time to try and engage as a fellow friend in this hobby.

Don't take it personally, dwallersv. I sometimes adopt my "cranky curmudgeon" persona for impact when I want to make a final strong point before abandoning a topic. Just wanted to get out my two cents. Sorry, no offense intended.

 

[kona]

Sorry I just realized it's called Videograde

You use both this and iMovie on the same recording, or sometimes one other times the other?

 

[kona]

I thought the only thing ND filters improve theoretically is making the transitions between frames be less abrupt, assuming one can in practice notice things that happen on such a short time scale.

Are you guys saying there are other improvements as well?

I have not seen one side by side comparison video where I noticed any difference.

 

[GadgetGuy]

OK, don't want to sound cranky, but I have to call baloney on this. ND filters do not increase the dynamic range. They shift the range but don't increase it. Also, your sentence "Therefore, the Mavic, as shipped, is incapable of handling the range of lighting conditions we experience without drastic methods to cut down the exposure, and with its limitations fast shutter speeds is the only solution" doesn't make a lot of sense. There is nothing "drastic" about varying the shutter speed to adjust for various lighting conditions. It's done all the time. What is more "drastic" is putting a piece of darkened glass or plastic in front of the lens to cut down on the amount of incoming light. If lighting conditions change, you then have to remove that piece of darkened glass or plastic and put some other piece on or remove it entirely. On the other hand, if you rely on shutter speed, all you have to do is to change the shutter speed to deal with changing lighting conditions.

The one and only valid argument that I've heard for ND filters is that they introduce a little motion blur which makes some videos appear smoother. Frankly, my personal opinion is that this apparent advantage is overblown and really not an issue with most drone videos because the drones are up high and taking images of landscapes and so the image change from frame-to-frame is very small and so motion blur is not apparent regardless of whether or not an ND filter is used. The only drone video where I thought that the operator made a decent case for using an ND filter was a video clip in which the drone was flying down between some branches of a large tree with the leaves of the branches passing close by the drone. In that case the positions of the leaves in the image frame were rapidly changing, and so a plausible case for smoothening the video by using an ND filter could be made. Of course, most drone videos don't have any close by objects rapidly whizzing by the drone. Quite the opposite: Most drone videos show slowly moving distant landscapes.

Finally, other claims for ND filters such as ND filters "improving and deepening (color) saturation", improving your love life, decreasing CO2 emissions, making your omelets fluffier, etc., etc., IMHO are pure bunk.

Agree completely! If you want smoother frame to frame images, shoot at 60fps and slow it to 30fps in post. Unless you need motion blur for a waterfall or waves, a much better tool for truly improving the dynamic range of the scene is to shoot with a Graduated ND filter which has 2 stops at the top to no stops in the middle, such as the gray Freewell GND filter, to reduce the dynamic range of the scene to within the sensor's capabilities, by darkening the sky. It also helps reduce lens flare by acting as a lens hood, since it protrudes slightly beyond the end of the stock UV filter.