ND filters for drones photography, timelapses and videography (contains video)

[gnirtS]

A neutral density filter shouldn't make any difference to the colour rendition.
Are you sure you aren't just comparing different exposure levels?

Correct, a true neutral density filter the clue is in the name - no effect on colour.
However, most drone ones are cheap and DO have a slight colour cast. However the difference people claim are nearly always just due to the fact its underexposed slightly.
There is absolutely no technical reason why a true neutral filter would have any effect on colours at all.

 

[brett8883]

I cant see any need for ND filters for still photography and many reasons why they're a really bad idea.
The drone isnt stable enough for a good, long exposure shot of acceptable quality and other than those, you want your shutter as high as possible/iso as low as possible.
Timelapse yes, you'll want them to create motion blur (it is after all a video...).

Polarisers on the other hand ARE extremely useful for still photography.

8 second exposure Mavic Pro. So it is actually possible with a drone. No filter needed for this one, however.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Using lens filters will make you a believer. Anyone who says they aren't needed probably a) doesn't get good shots, b) doesn't use their camera in very many different situations, or c) they haven't actually used lens filters to see how they expand your capabilities to capture light and focus on detail in very specific ways.

I purchased the six-pack, and they went to the top of my 'essentials' list as a professional photographer.

If you're just flying for fun, or don't have expansive needs, then maybe they wouldn't be as important for you.

Or they might be an accomplished photographer who can get great results with the equipment at hand.

Your position here is arguably fallacious for several reasons. Filters cannot improve focus or capture more light. To the extent a particular filter may have provide for a specific benefit it will be available to non-professional and self professed professional photographers equally.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

A neutral density filter shouldn't make any difference to the colour rendition.
Are you sure you aren't just comparing different exposure levels?

I think you are right, it is not the ND filter that is making the difference. It is the long exposure which the ND filter is enabling that brings out this finer details and colours.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I think you are right, it is not the ND filter that is making the difference. It is the long exposure which the ND filter is enabling that brings out this finer details and colours.

No. Unless the camera is defective increasing the exposure time by adding ND filters should have no impact on colour rendition or ability to resolve detail.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

No. Unless the camera is defective increasing the exposure time by adding ND filters should have no impact on colour rendition or ability to resolve detail.

I know my camera is not defective. So that leaves what ... me being wrong; which is a very strong possibility. And with that I bow out of this thread.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I know my camera is not defective. So that leaves what ... me being wrong; which is a very strong possibility. And with that I bow out of this thread.

No, not necessarily. It could be a poor quality ND adding a cast to the colour and/or the longer exposure does cause the camera to produce a different image than a shorter exposure. I think you mentioned a 10 stop filter- that is a significant increase in exposure.

 

[gnirtS]

I think you are right, it is not the ND filter that is making the difference. It is the long exposure which the ND filter is enabling that brings out this finer details and colours.

Long exposure if anything will do the opposite, smear details and colours.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

There is a balance between the smeary and the 'pop' details and colors that can be highlighted with proper settings and ND/Polar filters, along with others. Post-processing is often helped amazingly by taking the same shots over and over, with slightly adjusted settings, moving from one side of the exposure spectrum to the other.

 

[WithTheBirds]

There is a balance between the smeary and the 'pop' details and colors that can be highlighted with proper settings and ND/Polar filters, along with others. Post-processing is often helped amazingly by taking the same shots over and over, with slightly adjusted settings, moving from one side of the exposure spectrum to the other.

Your claim, to the extent I have correctly interpreted it, seems to be that by employing well known methods in post processing exposures taken at different EV can be blended to capture a wider dynamic range than that natively available from the camera- often with reduced noise in the resultant image.

This can be done without ND filters. Actually I’d be interested to learn how you might hope to achieve any benefit with ND’s. It isn’t even a consideration with a drone for obvious practical reasons.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Your claim, to the extent I have correctly interpreted it, seems to be that by employing well known methods in post processing exposures taken at different EV can be blended to capture a wider dynamic range than that natively available from the camera- often with reduced noise in the resultant image.

This can be done without ND filters. Actually I’d be interested to learn how you might hope to achieve any benefit with ND’s. It isn’t even a consideration with a drone for obvious practical reasons.

exactly. I do it with my MP2.

 

[WithTheBirds]

exactly. I do it with my MP2.

Exactly what?

 

[gnirtS]

Your claim, to the extent I have correctly interpreted it, seems to be that by employing well known methods in post processing exposures taken at different EV can be blended to capture a wider dynamic range than that natively available from the camera- often with reduced noise in the resultant image.

This can be done without ND filters. Actually I’d be interested to learn how you might hope to achieve any benefit with ND’s. It isn’t even a consideration with a drone for obvious practical reasons.

Exactly, the post processing techniques to extract more DR or details by exposure bracketing or taking and blending multiple shots to produce an effectively lower ISO image have nothing to do with filters.
In fact filters will reduce the efficiency of these in the second case by forcing a higher ISO to start with!

Mavic 2 you have to exposure bracket for some scenes - the sensor just isnt capable of a large range. And manual bracket as the inbuilt 2/3 stop variations are often too small for a scene.

No doubt NDs are extremely useful for video but i cant see a single useful application for still imagery - the requirements are total opposites (slow shutter vs as fast as possible).

 

[WithTheBirds]

Exactly, the post processing techniques to extract more DR or details by exposure bracketing or taking and blending multiple shots to produce an effectively lower ISO image have nothing to do with filters.
In fact filters will reduce the efficiency of these in the second case by forcing a higher ISO to start with!

Mavic 2 you have to exposure bracket for some scenes - the sensor just isnt capable of a large range. And manual bracket as the inbuilt 2/3 stop variations are often too small for a scene.

No doubt NDs are extremely useful for video but i cant see a single useful application for still imagery - the requirements are total opposites (slow shutter vs as fast as possible).

Nothing new there- my question to @Pilgrim Pilot remains unanswered. How is he using ND’s with the M2P for exposure blending?

 

[brett8883]

I know my camera is not defective. So that leaves what ... me being wrong; which is a very strong possibility. And with that I bow out of this thread.

Polarized ND filters can change color cast but it’s the polarizer that is doing that not the ND filter. You can get polarized filters without the ND part for the same effect without reducing shutter speed.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Polarized ND filters can change color cast but it’s the polarizer that is doing that not the ND filter. You can get polarized filters without the ND part for the same effect without reducing shutter speed.

I think you might be wrong on two counts here.

A quality polarising filter wont add a colour cast any more than a good ND filter might.

It is also not possible to get a polarising filter that actually works as intended that doesn't reduce the light entering the lens (reducing shutter speed as you put it). They don't exist. Most increase exposure by 2 to 2 and 1/2 stops).

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

I think there is a question of what is meant when people keep trying to tell people in essence "what you're enjoying isn't true" and attach some sort of "the colors don't change" comment with it.. and a question of what is meant when people keep saying they are enjoying the benefits of using x y or z filter.

First, if people weren't noticing a difference in their photos and output, we probably wouldn't have responded to the opening post to say that yes, for us, we are using them and finding great benefit.

Secondly, if a pixel color value changes, then that photo's color is, indeed, affected by said filter, no matter how eloquently or forcefully you can say it isn't.

There are plenty of people who really appreciate the range of effects possible by using various filters, from ND to Polarized and others, and lenses that have multiple properties. It seems funny to me that people would argue against that.

For what it's worth, I'm a fairly non-versed photographer, and the camera on my Mavic Pro 2 is the most amazing camera I've ever used, and I've found this community to be mostly helpful, though there are some who insist that others see things their way about this or that.. just ignore them, they'll eventually give up.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I think there is a question of what is meant when people keep trying to tell people in essence "what you're enjoying isn't true" and attach some sort of "the colors don't change" comment with it.. and a question of what is meant when people keep saying they are enjoying the benefits of using x y or z filter.

First, if people weren't noticing a difference in their photos and output, we probably wouldn't have responded to the opening post to say that yes, for us, we are using them and finding great benefit.

Secondly, if a pixel color value changes, then that photo's color is, indeed, affected by said filter, no matter how eloquently or forcefully you can say it isn't.

There are plenty of people who really appreciate the range of effects possible by using various filters, from ND to Polarized and others, and lenses that have multiple properties. It seems funny to me that people would argue against that.

For what it's worth, I'm a fairly non-versed photographer, and the camera on my Mavic Pro 2 is the most amazing camera I've ever used, and I've found this community to be mostly helpful, though there are some who insist that others see things their way about this or that.. just ignore them, they'll eventually give up.

When a claim is made that a particular effect occurs that is contrary to what is expected and can be demonstrated it is reasonable to question it. How might people improve their knowledge absent scepticism and enquiry?

 

[brett8883]

I think you might be wrong on two counts here.

A quality polarising filter wont add a colour cast any more than a good ND filter might.

It is also not possible to get a polarising filter that actually works as intended that doesn't reduce the light entering the lens (reducing shutter speed as you put it). They don't exist. Most increase exposure by 2 to 2 and 1/2 stops).

A polarized filter will cut out specific wavelengths of light so I suppose you are correct that it will cut down the amount of light reaching the sensor. However, It’s cutting out “unwanted” light rather than light at all frequencies, what an ND filter is suppose to do. That doesn’t mean you need to decrease shutter speed to still get a proper exposure necessarily though. I personally think of averaged metering as a “ball park” figure. It would require a histogram to know if you really need to add more shutter, in most cases people probably shouldn’t.

Maybe color cast isn’t the correct term, I actually took that from what you said, but it does affect color particularly greens and blues. we all know that colors are a mixture of certain wavelengths so by removing a certain wavelength, for instance with a polarized filter, we would expect a change. Clearly there is a change when using a polarized filter whether that’s suppose to be just a luminance change and not a hue change I am sure.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

well put @brett8883