Polarpro

[Ldjuk]

Hi all

I’m trying to make my vids that little bit better so I am thinking of polarpro filters. The cinema range has ND and also ND/PL. The neutral density and neutral density polarised. Now I’m thinking why don’t I just get the polarised version as these will sort out shutter speed and also glare. But then why would they make the standard ND. Why would t you just use the ND/PL all the time instead of the ND.

Thanks

 

[Thomas B]

I have and for particular situations use the great PP filters, both ND and polarized. I love them, but they can be inconvenient.
A few months ago I purchased the Freewell variable ND filter set. 99.9% of my flying is with that one now, unless I need to eliminate re-election from water surface to see the bottom.
The filter has the stops marked, but is infinitely adjustable, so you can dial in settings between the standard filters too... here’s a link to evaluate... $49 USD

Freewell Variable ND Neutral Density (VND) 2-5 Stops, 6-9 Stops for DJI Mavic 2 Pro Drone

Razor Sharp optical glass used to ensure optimal quality aerial images 16Layers multicoated optical glass lens filters ensure crystal clarity in captured footage Super lightweight CNC ring used in construction prevents adverse effect on gimbal Freewell Gear Variable ND Kit includes –2-5...

www.freewellgear.com

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

You don't always want to cut glare. Or sometimes you want to cut some, but not all. Or sometimes, you just don't HAVE any glare, so the PL is not necessary.

I'll never forget one of my favorite shots from a European trip where I had on the PL and had it on full (circular, turned exactly 90 degrees from the sun for full effect), but since I was pointed north (with the sun, nor glare in the image at all), the ocean in the foreground was black. When I got home, no amount of post-processing give me back any blues or greens to make the water look natural. It was not a good time to use a PL.

Also, it cuts light (more than the ND part of the filter). If you are not shooting in a condition where you NEED glare reduction, you might be cutting out too much light (slowing down the shutter speed to the point of getting unwanted motion blur).

I suppose if you are always shooting on a full sunny day, and you always have your craft oriented towards the sun (and therefore have glare), then you might just leave the PL on.

First and foremost, you are using ND filters, which do not affect the quality of the light at all -- it just reduces the amount of light. And the ONLY reason to do that is to control shutter speed (to get it to the appropriate speed to match your frame rate, if you are going for that classic cinematic look).

Using a polarizer is for a completely different reason. Assuming that you will always have both needs at the same time is not going to pan out.

You can actually get PolarPro that is just PL (no ND). It doesn't come in any of the set packages. I bought it for $30 on Amazon by itself, thinking I might need glare reduction at a time where I don't need ND light reduction (lower shutter speed). So far, that has never happened.

Chris

 

[Thomas B]

You don't always want to cut glare. Or sometimes you want to cut some, but not all. Or sometimes, you just don't HAVE any glare, so the PL is not necessary.

I'll never forget one of my favorite shots from a European trip where I had on the PL and had it on full (circular, turned exactly 90 degrees from the sun for full effect), but since I was pointed north (with the sun, nor glare in the image at all), the ocean in the foreground was black. When I got home, no amount of post-processing give me back any blues or greens to make the water look natural. It was not a good time to use a PL.

Also, it cuts light (more than the ND part of the filter). If you are not shooting in a condition where you NEED glare reduction, you might be cutting out too much light (slowing down the shutter speed to the point of getting unwanted motion blur).

I suppose if you are always shooting on a full sunny day, and you always have your craft oriented towards the sun (and therefore have glare), then you might just leave the PL on.

First and foremost, you are using ND filters, which do not affect the quality of the light at all -- it just reduces the amount of light. And the ONLY reason to do that is to control shutter speed (to get it to the appropriate speed to match your frame rate, if you are going for that classic cinematic look).

Using a polarizer is for a completely different reason. Assuming that you will always have both needs at the same time is not going to pan out.

You can actually get PolarPro that is just PL (no ND). It doesn't come in any of the set packages. I bought it for $30 on Amazon by itself, thinking I might need glare reduction at a time where I don't need ND light reduction (lower shutter speed). So far, that has never happened.

Chris

Yes! Forgot to mention that with polarized filters you need to change when the camera orientation to the sun changes.

 

[Ldjuk]

So do you guys reckon for the majority of flying to go for the standard ND filters. I mainly fly inland so not a lot of ocean or lakes etc. Mainly countryside.

 

[Thomas B]

So do you guys reckon for the majority of flying to go for the standard ND filters. I mainly fly inland so not a lot of ocean or lakes etc. Mainly countryside.

Yes... then invest in polarized versions if the need arises over time.

 

[Ldjuk]

Well that was a quick decision made with great input. I nearly went for the wrong ones and thought I’d ask on here first just in case. I appreciate all your input guys. [emoji106]

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

So do you guys reckon for the majority of flying to go for the standard ND filters. I mainly fly inland so not a lot of ocean or lakes etc. Mainly countryside.

If there is a large gap in price, but I'm not sure the 6-pack is that much more.

Glare happens on lots of other stuff, like glass (buildings, car windows, etc. which you may or may not want to cut the glare from, depending on your shooting objectives) but also nature (broad leafs on foliage, tall grass, or anything with a flat surface that could produce any amount of glare).

For that latter reason (foliage), some people use polarizers perpetually because they feel that it enhances colors. And it probably does, at certain times, but not always (as some mistakenly believe).

We have had discussions here with people that sternly insist on always leaving the PL filter on and when confronted with examples where it's not necessary, the will say that "it doesn't hurt in my experience". My feeling is that they are using it as kind of a "vivid filter" kind of crutch, but they will not always get something more vivid than if they didn't use the filter.

Chris

 

[Ldjuk]

If there is a large gap in price, but I'm not sure the 6-pack is that much more.

Glare happens on lots of other stuff, like glass (buildings, car windows, etc. which you may or may not want to cut the glare from, depending on your shooting objectives) but also nature (broad leafs on foliage, tall grass, or anything with a flat surface that could produce any amount of glare).

For that latter reason (foliage), some people use polarizers perpetually because they feel that it enhances colors. And it probably does, at certain times, but not always (as some mistakenly believe).

We have had discussions here with people that sternly insist on always leaving the PL filter on and when confronted with examples where it's not necessary, the will say that "it doesn't hurt in my experience". My feeling is that they are using it as kind of a "vivid filter" kind of crutch, but they will not always get something more vivid than if they didn't use the filter.

Chris

With the vivid filters that polarpro produce, can’t this be done post production.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

With the vivid filters that polarpro produce, can’t this be done post production.

Yeah, but with video, it's not as easy as it is with still images (with a color saturation and dehaze slider). Also, "vivid" is just higher contrast and color saturation and such, not glare-reduction of a PL.

The best video production with these things is shooting in DLOG (h.265 10-bit) and applying a LUT in post (or going beyond LUTs to do your own color grading). But that's way over the head (or desire) of the average recreational video shooter that could just slap a vivid filter on (or always use the PL for 'deeper saturation') and be happy (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Chris

 

[Ldjuk]

Yeah, but with video, it's not as easy as it is with still images (with a color saturation and dehaze slider). Also, "vivid" is just higher contrast and color saturation and such, not glare-reduction of a PL.

The best video production with these things is shooting in DLOG (h.265 10-bit) and applying a LUT in post (or going beyond LUTs to do your own color grading). But that's way over the head (or desire) of the average recreational video shooter that could just slap a vivid filter on (or always use the PL for 'deeper saturation') and be happy (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Chris

Thanks Chris, you’ve been a big help pal. [emoji106]

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The M2P has much better control over shutter / aperture and thus shutter / frame rate matching, so not as much need for filters as with my M1P for example.
But there might be times you can use an ND to help with very bright days / snow / white beach sand etc.
Plus ND filters combined with your manual setting control can give some very cool long exposures for lights blur, water blur, and such.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

The M2P has much better control over shutter / aperture and thus shutter / frame rate matching, so not as much need for filters as with my M1P for example.
But there might be times you can use an ND to help with very bright days / snow / white beach sand etc.
Plus ND filters combined with your manual setting control can give some very cool long exposures for lights blur, water blur, and such.

The only problem with the M2P is that most of us have found the image to be soft at the smaller apertures. Many of us don't use it above f4, or f5.6 at most. The so-called "adjust aperture advantage" (compared to fixed aperture) turned out to not be so advantageous.

But yeah, an ND filter may not always be necessary to get slower shutter speeds.

Also, one not need to even follow that rule — some folk love the look of high frame rates.

Chris

 

[Thomas B]

The only problem with the M2P is that most of us have found the image to be soft at the smaller apertures. Many of us don't use it above f4, or f5.6 at most. The so-called "adjust aperture advantage" (compared to fixed aperture) turned out to not be so advantageous.

But yeah, an ND filter may not always be necessary to get slower shutter speeds.

Also, one not need to even follow that rule — some folk love the look of high frame rates.

Chris

Of note... f4-f5.6 does seem to be a sweet spot for the M2P camera...

 

[ZooCougar]

Hi all

I’m trying to make my vids that little bit better so I am thinking of polarpro filters. The cinema range has ND and also ND/PL. The neutral density and neutral density polarised. Now I’m thinking why don’t I just get the polarised version as these will sort out shutter speed and also glare. But then why would they make the standard ND. Why would t you just use the ND/PL all the time instead of the ND.

Thanks

First. I love the Polar Pro filters. Secondly, what do you mean by better?

I bought both ND and PL. Using the PL correctly will take practice. Sometimes it will make the video or picture look really unnatural.

If you’re really into this, then just get both! It’s worth it.

 

[MaxE1955!]

First. I love the Polar Pro filters. Secondly, what do you mean by better?

I bought both ND and PL. Using the PL correctly will take practice. Sometimes it will make the video or picture look really unnatural.

If you’re really into this, then just get both! It’s worth it.

Amen! I completely agree Zoo! It never hurts to have something available if the need arises and for the additional price it’s well worth the money to buy the PP PL/ND combo is the smartest choice. The PolarPro filters in my opinion are some of the best available and if you’re serious about creating the best possible imagery, they’re the way to go. I also agree not every situation needs filters, but knowing their proper use can turn an ordinary shot into an extraordinary shot. For their size, they don’t add anything in regards to weight in your kit.

 

[Checki]

I watched 2 YouTube videos and all of the ND / PL stuff was explained perfectly. You need to see the effect anyway.

 

[Dale D]

Hi all

I’m trying to make my vids that little bit better so I am thinking of polarpro filters. The cinema range has ND and also ND/PL. The neutral density and neutral density polarised. Now I’m thinking why don’t I just get the polarised version as these will sort out shutter speed and also glare. But then why would they make the standard ND. Why would t you just use the ND/PL all the time instead of the ND.

Thanks

I have the Freewell variable filter set also. With two interchangeable filters you can cover the whole range of light. I find myself using the 5 through 9 filter most of the time however in sunny days. This recent video, published here yesterday, was shot with the Freewell variable filter set at 8 for bright light and 5 for lower light. The time lapse sequences were shot with a DSLR and 6 stop ND filter.