Side by Side comparison - filming at night with and without the Freewell Clear-Night filter

[Coskier]

Still very new to video, but I decided to do a side by side comparison of the Freewell Clear-Night Filter ($20 on Amazon). Mind you, I have not used a lot of filters in my photography - mostly circular polarizers and one special one that allowed me to take pictures of the glassblowing process. Certainly not ND filters (though I have a set and need to learn how to use them). On top of that, I am still learning how to edit video (LumaFusion on an iPad Pro). But in case anyone had been considering the Freewell Clear-Night filter, I thought I would post this comparison. No audio, just 20 seconds or so of side by side footage to see what the difference is. These are straight out of the drone, no LUT has been applied. I shot on Auto, and I haven't figured out how to retrieve what the settings were that it chose. Maybe next time I'll do a screen capture or record on the SC while I am trying this.

Anyhow, here you go:

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Coskier, if your shooting on full-auto included AWB (auto white-balance), the test is not valid. Color correction is part of what a night filter does, so the two runs should be done with the same manually-set WB to see the difference.

Also, what are you hoping to achieve? Because light pollution filters are generally designed to help see stars better when there is light pollution of the frequencies common in urban environments. But if you're pointing your camera down at the city, you're just messing around with the city light a bit without really affecting it much except changing the color temp of the lights (that you will still see).

Also in general, the goal is to shoot outside the city, but use such a filter to reduce the light polluted horizon of a far off source of light.

A better test would be with the black sky filling up at least the top half of the frame. One side (without filter) should show a yellow/orange light pollution filled horizon, the other half showing the filter making the sky darker (less light pollution) with hopefully more stars poking through.

Otherwise, what's the goal you have in mind? The Amazon page description is very vague about all of this. I'm very dubious that many people use a moving / hovering drone for astrophotography. (a terrestrial camera on a tripod is a much better choice.)

See this google search for more.

Chris

 

[Coskier]

Good to know, on all counts. I was just trying to demonstrate what the difference is with the filter off vs on. Agreed on the Amazon description. The description and sample images for the Osmo version from the Freewell site ( DJI OSMO POCKET FILTER – LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION ) show it being used to not only provide clarity to the sky, but also with various lighting you come across on the ground. In that respect, the demo shots show that it improves clarity and reducing the scene being blown out, regardless of temp. That is why I purchased the filter. Planning to run some more tests in the neighborhood looking at people's Xmas lights from above. I'll make manual settings and go from there.

Thank you for the feedback, always good to know when I am off base.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Cool. Just note that "blown out" is purely a matter of exposure. A increased shutter speed, or reduced-aperture size will do the same thing (or ND filter, which you probably will not need at night). If this filter is reducing the light that otherwise gets blown out, it's also reducing the power of other light sources.

Though if you're seeing clarity when using the filter, that's certainly a benefit.

 

[Fred Garvin]

.....light pollution filters are generally designed to help see stars better when there is light pollution of the frequencies common in urban environments.......

Yes, to help cut through the light dome.....I’ve got one for my scope (NexStar 8SE) but I cant see the benefit of using one on the drone.....maybe help cut glare from certain lights?

As a Photographer I’m in the “no filter” camp....it’s yet another piece of glass between the subject and sensor, plus it applies a global effect to the image.....in post you can always adjust, but if the image is made with the filter then it’s there no matter what. I’d rather selectively apply in post only where needed. I only use filters when absolutely forced to do so because I can’t make the image any other way.

This said, I do tend to favor polarizers when water and glare are in the shot.

 

[Dave Maine]

Agreed. Less glass and post processing is always better except for polarizers which cannot be exactly duplicated in post. I have yet to see any drone footage benefiting from the motion blur effect from using the vaulted cinema effect of a slow shutter speed via Nd filters. There is not that much movement To blur.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

On the right side, the footage looks like soap, details are gone, the camera probably bumped ISO. On the left side, the detail is still there.

As to color, color does not exist, it is all about greyscale value, color can be processed in post. manual WB has to be adjusted as well try to identify the white object and adjust accordingly to your needs, talking about proper while balance with different light temperature sources is impossible, filter or no filter.
Footage on the left is far more superior and useful. Anything in front of that small lens will make the footage less superior. There is no such a thing as high-end optical glass for 19$ Any filter for a drone small size camera considering pixel density and glass clarity will degrade quality, even 1000$ Schneider Polarizing filter.

"In that respect, the demo shots show that it improves clarity and reducing the scene being blown out, regardless of temp. That is why I purchased the filter."

In this case, your shadows are all gone, and subtle shadows are what makes the photo interesting. You will get better results experimenting with EV compensation and setting WB in post.


Here is a great video about color