So basically it’s just personal taste. There’s plenty of movies that go both ways it’s just about the look. I appreciate the viewpoint but not trying to be an ass, another TH-camr can make the same video and use examples to prove the exact opposite of what you just proved using their own movie clip examples. It is what it is 🤷🏽♂️. I encourage all to go for the look that you like and don’t be afraid to actually be different. Sometimes I like that crushed shadows/contrasty look depending on the vibe of the film, sometimes I hate it and prefer the more muted looks. I don’t think either one is “bad” or tacky.
Obviously it’s all about taste. But some have better taste than others and some even just copy the taste of others instead of thinking for themselves.......
I love lenses that have natural haze or diffusion to them. Namely Industar Russian lenses, Voigtlanders, some Takumars. I also love adding atmosphere into my shots (whether photography or video) but that definitely doesn't dissuade me from the merits of a BPM/Mist/Haze filter. They've got a look and if it suits the tone or mood of the piece, I'm all for it. Also, using Deakins as an example is a little unfair as he strictly likes a clean image out of his cameras. This is not at all a 'hate' comment or a disagreement but a "time and place" conclusion.
Yes exactly. Agreed. Which I stated in the video. “If you want a flash back or old era or softening of a female actress”. My beef is with how everyone thinks these filters are for everything and how you have to run out to buy one to make your shit cinematic... the filters dont have shit to do with cinematic haha. This is me trying to slap people out of the hype and to focus on actual cinematography and filmmaking and not silly yohtube hype.
@@cammackey Amen! TH-cam + the 5D MKii convinced people that shallow depth of field and "bokeh balls" are what makes a shot cinematic however I guarantee 99% of people's favourite shots in film have deep focus. People aren't say "My favourite shot in a movie is the one where i can't see anything in focus and there's no context."
Yeah tbh I think Deakins really clean digital work is much less interesting than his film work. BR 2049 is a great film with some truly great cinematography but in my opinion the cinematography does not even come close to the original movie because it has none of the grit or grime of that movie. It has no real imperfections and just feels kind of plasticy which makes the film feel less grounded. I think Deakins best work is his older stuff with the Coens when he was shooting on film.
The information you have is gold! I see so many channels talking about why you should but this filter ect, you just go right to the point and show real life examples. I saw your video on polar pro vnd. I thought it was only me with the 5stop issue and the skies looking terrible. You are the only creative pointing this kind of stuff out. This is the real stuff that makes your images way better! I am not professional by anymeans. I just make fishing videos but I want them to be as quality as possible, I mainly shoot on an r5. I have gotten a ton of valueable information from your channel recently. You deserve way more subs!!
Great points man! But one point that was left out was that one of the main reasons filters were (and still are) used for some productions has to do with softening the skin tones for certain actresses because they help hide wrinkles and “age”. There are actresses that even have it in their contracts. I think the “bloom” crap was discovered by accident cuz like you said haze and lenses that cost a small fortune creates the look that we see in Hollywood. Thanks for sharing man! Someone needed to say this
I actually did mention that quickly! “If you’re trying to soften a female actress face or get a flash back scene”. They use to filter the rear of the lens (sometimes the front) with special netting. Panty hoes pretty much got the same effect but I believe tiffen made a special one that had more control
This is, for the most part, the video I’ve been wanting to make ever since TH-cam discovered Pro Mist filters and everyone started using and overusing them. My biggest issue with the popular filters (Pro Mist, Cinebloom, DreamFX) is that they’re just soooo intense. There is hardly any subtlety to any of them, save maybe the 1/8th Pro Mist. For my taste at least, something like the Hollywood Black Magic you have, or my personal favorite, the Black Satin line, are much more subtle and ease their effect into the image. That and the Satins do some incredible things with skin texture. But pretty much 100% agree with this video. Filters in cinema are typically much more subtle unless there is a very obvious mood/tone/story shift they’re using the filter to indicate.
@@lovefirst6157 Try the Black Satin 1; even on the 3, at it's worst it blooms like a bmp 1/4, and even then is smoother about it. The 1 should give you enough to feel without it being remotely obvious.
So glad to have found this video. I've been seeing all the hype about Black Mist diffusers but it just seems to me that they strip out a heap of the contrast and while they do a great job of making skin look smoother, they destroy any sharpness and contrast in the eyes - almost as if just making everything look slightly out of focus. For me, that's completely the opposite of what I want to achieve with my subject.
I don"t care what other people saying... you are telling the truth. It's all about the marketing but at the end of the day, if you really want to see what a film looks like, just need to watch movies, and eventually, you will realize you don't need much but a very clear point of view and a good story to tell. We tend to rely on the gear we used to impress the viewer just because we lack the ability to tell a good story. My respects. I like your videos, keep the good job opening our eyes. thanks!
You broke this issue down brilliantly. The only credibility you needed with me is the look of this very video, which is brilliant itself. I'd love to see you break down how you achieved this look. Well done, man.
😂😂😂 sorry!!!! Like I said they’re still great to use. But people are just abusing them for EVERYTHING. This is me fighting against every video saying “this will make it look cinematic” cause it doesn’t. If you composed, blocked, lit, and told a story in a cinematic way... no one is going to give a fuck if has a diffusion filter. But look at all the hollywood films... how many of them actually have that look.....
It's ok to test it out, though. I ordered two of them and was not sure if it's for me at the end, but it's good to test it out by yourself - you can still sell them
Late to this, but I love this video! You saved me, as a beginner, from gettint sucked into the pro mist filter trend. I see so many TH-camrs and filmmakers on this platform trying to tell me how much I need one as a filmmakers because it’s the “key to cinematic footage”. I’m going to work on my skill of cinematography and telling a well written story with intention.
I partially agree but I shoot mirrorless for the most part so the most I will go is 1/8 BPM for run and gun. If it’s a controlled setting, then I will use a fogger or haze in a can.
Yeah I actually have my hollywood blackmagic filter on my R5 rn cause I has ever a bunch of vintage inspired shoots coming up. I think a lot of people took this video as a “never use diffusion” but like I states they’re great! But just trying to remind people what their purposes are and that it’s not actually the key to a “cinematic” look
Honestly, in the beginning I was feeling pro mist filters a great deal. However, I've been moving more and more away from diffusion filters. I find you can get similar quality with a nice vintage lens.
This video is education at it's finest. You are quickly becoming one of my favorite TH-camrs. Great value. And educational af. I don't feel misled at all.
🤯 Excellent vid man.. thanks for the insight. Sometimes I wonder how much people rely on filters and luts to get this 'cinematic' look and fall short of their vision because they didnt consider lighting and set dec first. Your vids are a great example of how to maintain a vibe and look even when doing tutorials.🤙
i personally just love the look of the diffusion filters. i don't use it to fake haze or a cinematic look. i just use it because i love the soft blooms, especially outdoors in daylight
You're making some great points here. I shoot a pretty good amount of 35mm film and looking at those shots from my library I do see a little halation in some cases. You're right that it can be the film stock itself - I see more in my fuji natura 1600 shots so might be film stock dependent. But I do think that most of the filters people are using to try to emulate cinema and/or film are way too strong most of the time. Subtle is better if you're going to ride or die with a filter on your digital camera IMO, lol. And you're 100% right, some DPs do use filters but usually to serve a specific story or theme, not for everything. Thanks for posting this rant video.
What I can appreciate about this video is that your didn't title is something like "STOP Using Diffusion Filters!" and then start the video with the comment of "I'm probably going to catch hate for this", it is such a gaslighting click-bait move that content creators pull all the time and I think viewers are getting really tired of it. I can sympathize when someone makes a case for why they choose not to do something a certain way or use a certain accessory based on their own perspectives. I dislike TF out of the narcissistic tone that I should STOP doing something because some complete rando on YT has a different opinion. The "hate" creators can sometimes catch can also be from the abrasive troll-like title. Which then they turn around and preemptively play the victim right from the start.
Lol have you watched my “I’m leaving canon videos”? I drop nothing but truths in them yet still get hated on. Some see it as clickbait, but it’s all truth for me. But agree. Lots of yohtubers who use titles like that and just say mindless opinions
@@cammackey lol I can imagine. People get so pissed when you decide to spend your own money on something that has zero impact on their own photography. I did my own videos (old channel) on when I started moving from Canon to Lumix. I pointed out what Canon did right but at the time I decided to switch to video and this is when Canon had zero mirrorless options and like 1 or 2 models supporting 4K. I was mostly coming from the angle that "my interests changed and the gear needs to change too" Caught some hate but others were all "yeah okay, Canon is ignoring video I'll give you that". I even admitted downgrading when it came to AF but some still felt the need to point out the AF issues on Lumix. I am guessing they had not even watched the full video, just read the title and rage commented.
Thoughts on Tiffen Glimmerglass? It is supposed to not elevate the blacks like Black Pro Mist, so retains more of the contrast, and softens the overall digital-ness, while not adding crazy highlights blooming.
The 1970's was a time in which popularized the heavy diffusion look in film the whole film not just to soften up the women. The first movie that I know to do this was from 1967 "Taming of the Shrew". Any Robert Altman film from that era, director John Boorman loved the mist filters all his films he used various degrees of mist filters or ultra sheer hosiery. His films such as "Deliverance", "Zardoz" and "Excalibur" for example. Also look at other films from the 1970's and early 1980's with films like "Superman the Movie", "1941", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" "Eyes of Laura Mars" also some TV shows "Kolchak the Night Stalker" and "The Blacksheep Squadron" for example. Back in the day director Ridley Scott used haze but in some scenes he would use gradient filters and diffusion filters. A ton of films used them back in the day way more than I can list here. I love the look when used to create a spooky, other worldly or vintage feel. Is it over done... sometimes yes but when done right it's just a nice different look. It doesn't bother me to much when they don't really need it.
Have to agree with you. I bought a couple black pro mists and wasn't feeling them. Others swear by them but I just don't get it. If you were shooting a dream sequence or something yeah, but I hear guys say they use them for everything! I just nod and smile politely and keep my opinion to myself.
After using them heavily for about two years, I'm starting to realize the downsides more and more. Another thing that annoys me other than what you already mentioned is the flaring even when there's small practicals in the shot. It's too hard to control and should be used only for the right scenarios, not meant to slap on the lens 24/7.
I added a black pro mist because when I was new a photog I admire greatly used it, but yeah, sure not a 24/7 thing like I was doing, please actual hazer changed the game.
wow thank you for this! Been having an internal battle of really not liking the footage from the pro mist, but everyone saying this is how to get the "cinematic look." Iv'e changed to the black satin line which I like alot more that keeps more of the original contrast, but still only use them for a very select instances and have been getting more comfortable with making the footage cinematic myself with no filters I.e. angles, light, subjects
I made my own diffusion filter for about $25.Ordered the cheapest clear filter from Amazon, and waved it in clouds of Montana Gold black spray paint. I cannot tell the difference between the DIY version and a Black Pro Mist filter. Fun to use in the right situation but I completely agree Cam, they aren't suited for every video! I feel like technology, gear and the pride in technique are overshadowing creativity for many folks (pros included). I dig your style; you march to the beat of your own drum.
great info on this, I has always thought it was funny when people buy expensive camera's and the most expensive lenses (because they are sharp) then slap on a diffusion filter to soften it up.
Yeah it’s very confusing. Like I got some 70 vibe shoots coming up soon so I’ll Prbly use the Prisim Lens Effects dream filter.. but that’s to get a stylized look. Ain’t trying to bloom out my freakin $10k body and lens for everything haha
@@cammackey yet in that comment you agree with the fact that these filters give a certain vibe.. what if that vibe,is what you are known of.. what I think its funny,is that no matter what people do,there will always be people who personal preference allows them to bash others
@@user-gu3ie no no. I state people can do whatever they want. All I was trying to show in this video is that diffusion filter don’t not make your work look more cinematic. All they are, are tools.
Wow, I just stumbled over this video. I’m a newbie getting into filmaking, trying to get the most professional Hollywood quality I can, for the lowest cost. All I can say to this video is…”YES! THANK YOU!!!” I’ve been trying to figure out why everything on the web seems to indicate that diffusion=cinematic. All I could see was (what you so accurately said) diffusion just makes a “dream-sequence” look. This gave me permission to not use diffusion if it’s not immediately required for the scene. Aaaaand now I “subscribe”.
This was a great articulation of what I’ve been feeling in response to all the “how to make your content look cinematic” TikTok vids where the answer is as diffusion mist filters. My question is what *IS* the answer for content creators who don’t have control over things like lighting in the environments that they are shooting?
Thanks for sharing this video and your opinion about it. So spot on!😎😎😎 There's a time and place for diffusion filters... IMHO, They get to be called "cinematic" because they actually can simulate the look of some (maybe many) films from the 70's specifically (80's too, go and look at some shots from Rambo II lol)... So they are literally cinematic in a very tight history space and number... But not cinematic in the art sense of the word, that should come from other factors such as color grading as you explained🙏🏻
I know what I want, just trying to figure out how to get there. I'm 70/retired woman and not a pro. This is just a hobby. I've been scouring through the blooming videos, enough so that I am convinced that your video has merit. I'm more of a back seat driver - just analyzing but not burning myself out trying different things. I do have a goal. When I was working I purchased a Hasselblad H4d-31 with an 80mm prime lens. It's so heaving so it'll be setup on a tripod. I purchased a few lighting accessories to light the subject. plus rim lighting My goal is to try to re-create Hollywood style black and white. I just am not sure if I need to get a Tiffen black pro mist mainly 1/4 for softening, or maybe the 80mm since it's an old lens already has that vintage look - it looks very sharp to me - but maybe with the b/w and lighting - that will change. I'll be finding out soon because I have the lighting, and just tested the transceiver and the lights work. I'll try without and if I need some softening, I might get the 67mm 1/8th -vs- the 1/4th BPM. So right now it's a wait and see. Your video has taught me that less is more.
So back in the day they would use diffusion on their lenses! They would actually use these net cloths material on the rear or front of their lens! I think some people even using like pantyliners or whatever theyre called haha. So instead of wasting money on filters, maybe try that first!
That separation between foreground and background with natural diffusion gets totally lost when you slap a filter over the whole scene - such great examples from those Deakins shots!
Wonderful video! I personally not a big fan of mist filters, although they can be good. Actually the Dehancer bloom effect is way more subtle in comparison yet you preserve the original video for different edits if needed.
Just stumbled upon this video while researching diffusion filters.... this is a great explanation! Watching this has definitely changed my opinion on diffusion filters and when to use them. Thanks for putting this out into the world!
The claim "diffusion filters will not give you the cinematic look" is completely right. A camera will not give you "the cinamatic look". Because there is no such thing as a "cinematic look". "Cinamatic look" is a word used by amateurs to describe things they see on or create for TH-cam that reminds them of things they have seen in movies. Shallow depth of field and so on. Cinema has been using diffusion filters for more than a hundred years to create emotional states for storytelling. If I list the ten best films I've seen in my life most of them use diffusion. If you go back to the Golden Age of Hollywood they used silk socks in front of the lens or a variety of diffusion glass. The wonderful era of the 70's with iconic movies like The Godfather and so on used heavy Fog filters. You cannot duplicate Gordon Willis cinematography on the Goodfather movies without using a fog filter. It's all up to us and what we like ao th statement that "diffusion filters is not cinematic" is correct. it is however a tool used on most of the Hollywood classics. None of them where "cinematic". They are cinema history. Legendary scene impossible to improve on. Heavy Fog. because sometimes - you know - a storyteller might actually WANT to subdue colors. th-cam.com/video/rMVAqU8fmio/w-d-xo.html&t
Great video and great points, stopped using diffusion filters a few projects ago (also everyone’s video starting to look the same) I now use Leica and Canon FD glasses and I am able to get a soft look without extreme baked in bloom effect.
Finally somebody is telling the truth. Well, not really "finally" since this clip is roughly two years old. But what I've learned as a former hobby musician and now hobby photographer is that the term "cinematic" is just added to push sales figures. Whether it's about "cinematic" synthesizers, "cinematic" instrument samples, "cinematic" filters, none of that stuff is really used on real cinema productions. But it sounds nice and gives the impression that now, the average Joe TH-cam video clip producer can create "cinematic" stuff just by slapping a filter onto his lens. Well, no.
I've watched a lot of videos on diffusion filters in last couple of days. This is by far the best video which makes total sense. They're to be used in certain scenarios only to achieve certain look. If I have to choose I'd chose something that does a little touch up only Thanks mackey.
this is a great video, lots to think about! I've also been trying to go for a cleaner look recently but I also think your final image (when using a diffusion filter) doesn't necessarily have to look severely faded and flat. I shot an acoustic cover for a local artist (I would link but I'm not trying to promote on your channel) using a diffusion filter and don't think it looks flat or overly faded at all. of course the blooming is a look that some people might not like, but in terms of contrast and color saturation/richness, I think it depends much more on your exposure and grade. btw that's a nice amp, rock on lol
Yeah when using diffusion filters the trick is to have a deeper gamma in the grade. Your highlights will have the bloom but it’s more subtle and natural. But most people don’t know how to do “cinematic” type grades aka deep exposures in post. But for an acoustic performance a diffusion filter seem fitting!
Finally, someone I agree with. Black or Diffusion/ Pro mist or Glimmer glass / dreamy look or whatever you want to call it is over rated! True, it works for specific shots of subjects in romantic scenes in movies and in portraits. Mostly to even skin texture on your subject / actors. Too much in every scene in films looks amateur to me. I prefer deep rich blacks in films. When you get the right client shoot with high end pro cine cameras, glass and filters.
Just stumbled across this - very interesting. I'm keen on NOT using filters when shooting BMPCC 4K with Sigma 18-35mm and I guess that if I really want diffusion later, it can be added as an effect in post?
Yes! I’ll do a video on that soon. But this a perfect example. The sigma 18-35mm is a great lens.. but it’s very sharp and so certain diffusion filters can help soften it. I’d personally would do the black promist cause that’s literally reversing all the micro contrast to the lens, I would use a different lens at that point specially if the filter is basically glued to the lens haha. But main point is people using diffusion filters cause they were told it make it “cinematic”
@@cammackey Thank you! Yeah, I think I'm going to try and shoot without filtration (apart from NDs) and concentrate on the lighting, atmosphere, etc. Great channel - will be watching out for your posts!
I actually love the diffusion look. In my opinion, one of the best modern uses of mist diffusion is on the Netflix show, "The Crown". There are other examples that I can think of but they use a combination of both physical diffusion (ie haze) and filter diffusion, and I think it looks fantastic. When I want a gritter look, like the look in Sicario (fuckin' awesome movie btw), then there's no way I'd use or diffusion filter. I also think diffusion filters look better at night sometimes than during the day or twilight hours because you can control the contrast more just from the absence or presence of light. Just my two cents.
Yes exactly! That is what diffusion filters are intended for. Somehow they’ve become another marketing gimmick tho for up and coming filmmakers. This is just my words to fight against people focusing on gear more than the craft.
@@cammackey I think one of the things filmmakers are scared of is to allow shadows to be blacks - just ink black, no lift, nothing. You look at Dawkins work and his strategic use of light, and it's just a painting in motion. That's because he allows natural shadows to remain shadows. You don't need to light every last thing to show that they're there. Yeah, if you're working with a set designer, they might be pissed because of the work that put into it and it's not even seen, but the purpose of a motion picture is that it moves and the texture created from the set design will be more visible when the camera pans or the scene shifts. (For the record, I've never worked with one but I can imagine how they'd feel about it, but the goal is to tell a great story, not to illuminate every bit of craftsmanship.) I love gear, but as I'm taking this deep dive into the world of filmmaking, it's the story, the lighting, the sound and the intentional camera movement that matters most, and if you can do that with an iPhone as your primary weapon of choice, that more power to ya. Zack Synder did a short on an iPhone and it was awesome because other more important elements were there.
thanks for this clear and revealing analysis ... I actually don't understand why there is so much hipe about the diffusion filters ... all the more so as this effect can be made in postproduction. You cannot add haze and depth in postproduction or anything that involves how light is diffused in the space .... but this kind of filtering from something in front of the lens can be achieved in post
Yeah davinci has their glow plug-in that works great, and Dehancer has a great glow tool too. But def there’s a difference between atmosphere within a shot and just putting a diffusion filter on your lens
I've been wanting to get a diffusion filter lately, as I shoot a lot of stuff live on stage, and harsh stage lights often need a little help with the highlights. But every video I watch I just end up liking the "before" image with no filter. My contender right now is the Nisi Blackmist 1/8.
All these filters lack anti glare coatings so you’ll most likely end up with glare issues with stage lights. Similar effect to how iPhone always have glaring orbs and reflections.
@@cammackeyI appreciate this reply. I'll be setting these inside lens hoods so glares shouldn't be too terrible (I hope?), but definitely worried the drawbacks will greatly outweigh the benefits. Would you have any recommendations on handling harsh stage lighting?
Canon R5 and RF 24-70. This look doesn’t rely on a LUT. It’s the way I lit it. My key light was set to around 4200k so it was a little warmer, I then cooled down the WB on my camera, the light behind me is ambient daylight coming through the window, which is naturally cooler because it’s light reflecting from the blue sky, so cooling my cameras WB made it even more cooler. You could slap any basic LUT on here and it would keep a similar look
Very much liked the video and another eye opener to realization. Before watching this, I had that feeling that there is a bit missing in regards to color balance and blooming effect, where filters gives you right away a sweeping effect and non selective in regards to what color needs to be saturated. Maybe post process can help but, to accept defeat by Marketing is where most of us fail. Thank you sir for this video.
Great vid! Just subscribed. Quick question. If you shoot with a diffusion filter and you find that the blacks look a little to lifted in post, is it possible to crush them back down with colour correction?
I might be late to this video but I’m glad I found somebody with the same mindset as me. I don’t use filters Hayes all day and vintage lenses. Awesome video dude.
Actually the lenses they use are much softer than the typical new affordable lenses, which tend to be extremely sharp…and therefore some folks use diffusion to counteract that…it’s not the best scenario, but it is in lieu of actually having real cinema glass.
@@cammackey when I use them they do help take the edge off. Lighting is key I agree, without it you can pack it in, but grading and diffusion does aid to a certain extent. Dan Laustsen, cinematographer from the movie the shape of water admitted himself during an interview that he used diffusion filters for his movie to take that digital edge off.
Yea but some cameras deal with highlights better than others so if you are using Ocf you will see concentrated white spots. I loveeeee the R5 but it tends to do that. While the A7r4 seems a like better at blending the highlights into the shadows. Using a black promist can help with this issue for the R5 and other cameras like it.
I disagree. The R5 does better in the lower range so you’d an expose for your highlights and lift crazy details out of the shadows. While Sony is on the opposite end on where you can push the exposure into the highlights more. They just work in the opposite ways. Diffusion filters do not give you milky highlights. They either soften the edge of contrast points or they diffuse your shadows and make them more muddy. If dynamic range is your main reason of using diffusion filters, there’s actual low contrast filters you can use that will do that without giving you a mooshy image.
@@cammackey I think I’m talking about the gradation of the highlights into the shadows how they blend. Some digital cameras are just a little better than others. I prefer the output of the R5 in every way especially with natural light however it’s common to see “highlight marks” on the cheeks and the middle forehead the nose as well that don’t blend that well with harder light. Not Sony in general! Specifically the R5 against the A7r4 every single cam is differt in digital. This can be for number of reasons including the type of filter placed over the sensor by the manufacturer.
@@cammackey with digital I always expose the highlights and raise it up later. I always felt it has more natural or film look when I do. I would always rather lift in post then go down. As far as promist yea man once you hit 1/4 the Halation is always pretty strong! So its “a look” in general 1/8th is good on promist I’ve been using it lately here and there and it’s nice. For example using a Beauty dish with the R5 it’s pretty cool effect. That spray you showed in the video is something ide like to try that I haven’t before.
How about blooming highlights in post? I love using a subtle glow in my videos and would like to know how a promist filter compares to it. Thanks for the info, keep it up!
Basically, you’re right. I am a stills photographer and use diffusion filters a low in small amounts to trigger vintage glass into halation, often using multiple exposures with varying apertures to give me enough material to composite in a way that is nuanced. Let’s read that again ‘nuanced’. My experience is that it is possible to emulate film with digital, but only if you really do understand what film is capable of. And yeh, cinematic is overused word that no longer means anything, not that it ever did.
it reminds how older video games and vfx were bloomy to cover mistakes like when im in a 3d program if the composition and the lighting are weak adding bloom makes it look alright but at same time unconfident and cheap the diiffuse be having no purpose
Nice work! Do you think a good digital cinema camera or an imager should have that type of highlight-halation "built-in" to its rendering, or maybe it's better to add it via an optical filter or in post?
I agree and disagree. The reality is that once something catches on most people take it to the extreme (slow motion, wide open, etc). Most movies use some sort of diffusion but just nowhere near the level that TH-camrs use. A large number of movies use anamorphic but unless you know what to look for, you can't tell because you don't see a lens flare every 30 seconds.
I wouldn’t say most movies use diffusion filters. Diffusion on set, yes. And yeah a regular viewer can’t point out anamorphic, but they can sense it. I think a lot of people don’t give viewers enough credit. I think it’s mostly kids learning about filmmaking through TH-cam are the ones who can’t tell because they’re too busy trying to analyze it instead of feeling it. I personally shoot anamorphic now which has made me ditch diffusion filters even more haha
I never shot with crystals, until I got one. I never shot with a diffusion filter, until I got one. I never shot with Lensbaby, until I got one. What can I say? It's fun to try new things.
Thanks for all the contents men you the best. How do you get consistent color in all your videos. Yesterday I was looking for color grading tutorial but non of them work for me. Im using a Sony A7III. Please can you do a tutorial on how to color grade a Sony a7III Footage? I can send you some footage if that's okay. Thanks so much.
Thank you! I def won’t be doing any Sony color grading videos. But my approach is the same for every camera.. in Davinci I use the Color Space Transformer to convert the cameras log to arri log.
The other thing that gets me is when guys think FF and shallow depth of field is necessary for a cinematic look. They obviously haven’t watched the classics.
Sicario is not very cinematic. Blade Runner 2049 is to much digital too. Because Roger Deakins love CLEAN image and he is against distortions and never uses anamorphic lens.
Great video. I just recently bought my first diffusion filter but shortly after starting to use it, I started to realize that I was using is too much lol. Kind of like when I got my first gimbal. I wanted to use it for every. single. shot. "Sit down interview? No problem, let me just ORBIT AROUND YOU THE WHOLE TIME, K?"
Interesting video and illustrated with good examples. Some great films to. Good for you for standing up to the heard mentality. Personally I can't say I've ever been a big fan of putting any more glass in front of my lenses than is needed (photo or video). My take is there's no short cuts, go find beautiful light, or learn how to create it (work in progress for me). Oh and buy better glass. The Canon L lenses I have are amazing but I have to admit some of the Zeiss lenses I've picked up in the last year are on another level. Quick question what monitors are you using for colour grading/photo editing now? I know you're still using Apple computers but it looked like you were using an external monitor/s in some of your videos, Eizo?
Yeah specially for photo work, don’t get why people spend thousands on high quality glass just to throw more glass on it haha. There’s a lot of creative uses for sure, but I think a lot of peeps are getting tricked into thinking diffusion filters are a necessity to “cinematic” looks when they really have nothing to do with it
Great video. I was wondering if it was just me, but diffusion filters for the most part make the look too manipulated. I’ll get one anyways and do my own test.
when i first saw them i thought it was perfect for my situation but it really is a bandaid to the problem when its not being used for a purpose
EXACTLY. Said it better than me. Pinning this.
Good discussion. I'm glad you went into detail about the aesthetics. People talk about "cinematic", but rarely, if ever, discuss specifics.
Thanks.
You managed to convince me. I love it when somebody makes me change my mind with good, solid arguments.
he does a great job here....fun presentation too...very sound argument
So basically it’s just personal taste. There’s plenty of movies that go both ways it’s just about the look.
I appreciate the viewpoint but not trying to be an ass, another TH-camr can make the same video and use examples to prove the exact opposite of what you just proved using their own movie clip examples. It is what it is 🤷🏽♂️. I encourage all to go for the look that you like and don’t be afraid to actually be different.
Sometimes I like that crushed shadows/contrasty look depending on the vibe of the film, sometimes I hate it and prefer the more muted looks. I don’t think either one is “bad” or tacky.
Obviously it’s all about taste. But some have better taste than others and some even just copy the taste of others instead of thinking for themselves.......
@@cammackey Who decides what's better taste? You?
@@theren8311 His taste decides others taste 😂
I love lenses that have natural haze or diffusion to them. Namely Industar Russian lenses, Voigtlanders, some Takumars. I also love adding atmosphere into my shots (whether photography or video) but that definitely doesn't dissuade me from the merits of a BPM/Mist/Haze filter. They've got a look and if it suits the tone or mood of the piece, I'm all for it.
Also, using Deakins as an example is a little unfair as he strictly likes a clean image out of his cameras.
This is not at all a 'hate' comment or a disagreement but a "time and place" conclusion.
Yes exactly. Agreed. Which I stated in the video. “If you want a flash back or old era or softening of a female actress”. My beef is with how everyone thinks these filters are for everything and how you have to run out to buy one to make your shit cinematic... the filters dont have shit to do with cinematic haha. This is me trying to slap people out of the hype and to focus on actual cinematography and filmmaking and not silly yohtube hype.
@@cammackey Amen! TH-cam + the 5D MKii convinced people that shallow depth of field and "bokeh balls" are what makes a shot cinematic however I guarantee 99% of people's favourite shots in film have deep focus. People aren't say "My favourite shot in a movie is the one where i can't see anything in focus and there's no context."
Yeah tbh I think Deakins really clean digital work is much less interesting than his film work. BR 2049 is a great film with some truly great cinematography but in my opinion the cinematography does not even come close to the original movie because it has none of the grit or grime of that movie. It has no real imperfections and just feels kind of plasticy which makes the film feel less grounded. I think Deakins best work is his older stuff with the Coens when he was shooting on film.
The information you have is gold! I see so many channels talking about why you should but this filter ect, you just go right to the point and show real life examples. I saw your video on polar pro vnd. I thought it was only me with the 5stop issue and the skies looking terrible. You are the only creative pointing this kind of stuff out. This is the real stuff that makes your images way better! I am not professional by anymeans. I just make fishing videos but I want them to be as quality as possible, I mainly shoot on an r5. I have gotten a ton of valueable information from your channel recently. You deserve way more subs!!
Great points man! But one point that was left out was that one of the main reasons filters were (and still are) used for some productions has to do with softening the skin tones for certain actresses because they help hide wrinkles and “age”. There are actresses that even have it in their contracts. I think the “bloom” crap was discovered by accident cuz like you said haze and lenses that cost a small fortune creates the look that we see in Hollywood. Thanks for sharing man! Someone needed to say this
you can achieve that in color grading aswell
@@maaxrenn I know this. Just sharing another reason WHY it’s used. Colorists weren’t trying to do that in the grading process.
I actually did mention that quickly! “If you’re trying to soften a female actress face or get a flash back scene”. They use to filter the rear of the lens (sometimes the front) with special netting. Panty hoes pretty much got the same effect but I believe tiffen made a special one that had more control
@@cammackey ahhhh yes sir!!! Well like I shared I’m glad u said it cuz most youtubers stick to the highlight blooming reason. Keep it coming bro!
@@MarcusRFilms yes yes!!! Really is a great trick. I still prefer to soften the skin in Davinci tho! I haven’t tried to
Combine the two methods tho
This is, for the most part, the video I’ve been wanting to make ever since TH-cam discovered Pro Mist filters and everyone started using and overusing them. My biggest issue with the popular filters (Pro Mist, Cinebloom, DreamFX) is that they’re just soooo intense. There is hardly any subtlety to any of them, save maybe the 1/8th Pro Mist. For my taste at least, something like the Hollywood Black Magic you have, or my personal favorite, the Black Satin line, are much more subtle and ease their effect into the image. That and the Satins do some incredible things with skin texture.
But pretty much 100% agree with this video. Filters in cinema are typically much more subtle unless there is a very obvious mood/tone/story shift they’re using the filter to indicate.
For the black satin which level is a good subtle look but not as strong as cinebloom or bmp 1/8
@@lovefirst6157 Try the Black Satin 1; even on the 3, at it's worst it blooms like a bmp 1/4, and even then is smoother about it. The 1 should give you enough to feel without it being remotely obvious.
@@ErrickJackson whats your opinion on the glimmer glass ones? I like your emphasis on being subtle, good thing to keep in mind.
So glad to have found this video. I've been seeing all the hype about Black Mist diffusers but it just seems to me that they strip out a heap of the contrast and while they do a great job of making skin look smoother, they destroy any sharpness and contrast in the eyes - almost as if just making everything look slightly out of focus. For me, that's completely the opposite of what I want to achieve with my subject.
I don"t care what other people saying... you are telling the truth. It's all about the marketing but at the end of the day, if you really want to see what a film looks like, just need to watch movies, and eventually, you will realize you don't need much but a very clear point of view and a good story to tell. We tend to rely on the gear we used to impress the viewer just because we lack the ability to tell a good story. My respects. I like your videos, keep the good job opening our eyes. thanks!
You broke this issue down brilliantly. The only credibility you needed with me is the look of this very video, which is brilliant itself. I'd love to see you break down how you achieved this look. Well done, man.
Me who just bought a $400 diffusion filter watching this video: "Oh..."
😂😂😂 sorry!!!! Like I said they’re still great to use. But people are just abusing them for EVERYTHING. This is me fighting against every video saying “this will make it look cinematic” cause it doesn’t. If you composed, blocked, lit, and told a story in a cinematic way... no one is going to give a fuck if has a diffusion filter. But look at all the hollywood films... how many of them actually have that look.....
😂 I literally just received my first diffusion filter a few days ago.
It's ok to test it out, though. I ordered two of them and was not sure if it's for me at the end, but it's good to test it out by yourself - you can still sell them
@@shishka3116 how u like it so far I’m planing to buy one but not sure
Bro, this got a real audible laugh outta me. Thank you.
Late to this, but I love this video! You saved me, as a beginner, from gettint sucked into the pro mist filter trend. I see so many TH-camrs and filmmakers on this platform trying to tell me how much I need one as a filmmakers because it’s the “key to cinematic footage”.
I’m going to work on my skill of cinematography and telling a well written story with intention.
I partially agree but I shoot mirrorless for the most part so the most I will go is 1/8 BPM for run and gun. If it’s a controlled setting, then I will use a fogger or haze in a can.
Yeah I actually have my hollywood blackmagic filter on my R5 rn cause I has ever a bunch of vintage inspired shoots coming up. I think a lot of people took this video as a “never use diffusion” but like I states they’re great! But just trying to remind people what their purposes are and that it’s not actually the key to a “cinematic” look
@@cammackey agreed it doesn’t instantly make things “cinematic”
Honestly, in the beginning I was feeling pro mist filters a great deal. However, I've been moving more and more away from diffusion filters. I find you can get similar quality with a nice vintage lens.
Or lens like TTartisans or 7artisans gives me a similar look
When a rant is priceless education. You hit the nail on the head.
This video is education at it's finest. You are quickly becoming one of my favorite TH-camrs. Great value. And educational af. I don't feel misled at all.
🤯 Excellent vid man.. thanks for the insight. Sometimes I wonder how much people rely on filters and luts to get this 'cinematic' look and fall short of their vision because they didnt consider lighting and set dec first. Your vids are a great example of how to maintain a vibe and look even when doing tutorials.🤙
i personally just love the look of the diffusion filters. i don't use it to fake haze or a cinematic look. i just use it because i love the soft blooms, especially outdoors in daylight
You're making some great points here. I shoot a pretty good amount of 35mm film and looking at those shots from my library I do see a little halation in some cases. You're right that it can be the film stock itself - I see more in my fuji natura 1600 shots so might be film stock dependent. But I do think that most of the filters people are using to try to emulate cinema and/or film are way too strong most of the time. Subtle is better if you're going to ride or die with a filter on your digital camera IMO, lol.
And you're 100% right, some DPs do use filters but usually to serve a specific story or theme, not for everything. Thanks for posting this rant video.
What I can appreciate about this video is that your didn't title is something like "STOP Using Diffusion Filters!" and then start the video with the comment of "I'm probably going to catch hate for this", it is such a gaslighting click-bait move that content creators pull all the time and I think viewers are getting really tired of it.
I can sympathize when someone makes a case for why they choose not to do something a certain way or use a certain accessory based on their own perspectives. I dislike TF out of the narcissistic tone that I should STOP doing something because some complete rando on YT has a different opinion.
The "hate" creators can sometimes catch can also be from the abrasive troll-like title. Which then they turn around and preemptively play the victim right from the start.
Lol have you watched my “I’m leaving canon videos”? I drop nothing but truths in them yet still get hated on. Some see it as clickbait, but it’s all truth for me. But agree. Lots of yohtubers who use titles like that and just say mindless opinions
@@cammackey lol I can imagine. People get so pissed when you decide to spend your own money on something that has zero impact on their own photography.
I did my own videos (old channel) on when I started moving from Canon to Lumix. I pointed out what Canon did right but at the time I decided to switch to video and this is when Canon had zero mirrorless options and like 1 or 2 models supporting 4K. I was mostly coming from the angle that "my interests changed and the gear needs to change too"
Caught some hate but others were all "yeah okay, Canon is ignoring video I'll give you that". I even admitted downgrading when it came to AF but some still felt the need to point out the AF issues on Lumix. I am guessing they had not even watched the full video, just read the title and rage commented.
i love your color, could you make a video how you make this video 😁😁
Thoughts on Tiffen Glimmerglass? It is supposed to not elevate the blacks like Black Pro Mist, so retains more of the contrast, and softens the overall digital-ness, while not adding crazy highlights blooming.
Thank you so much man! Im always impressed how your videos completely change my mind about my current filmmaking.
The 1970's was a time in which popularized the heavy diffusion look in film the whole film not just to soften up the women. The first movie that I know to do this was from 1967 "Taming of the Shrew". Any Robert Altman film from that era, director John Boorman loved the mist filters all his films he used various degrees of mist filters or ultra sheer hosiery. His films such as "Deliverance", "Zardoz" and "Excalibur" for example. Also look at other films from the 1970's and early 1980's with films like "Superman the Movie", "1941", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" "Eyes of Laura Mars" also some TV shows "Kolchak the Night Stalker" and "The Blacksheep Squadron" for example. Back in the day director Ridley Scott used haze but in some scenes he would use gradient filters and diffusion filters. A ton of films used them back in the day way more than I can list here. I love the look when used to create a spooky, other worldly or vintage feel. Is it over done... sometimes yes but when done right it's just a nice different look. It doesn't bother me to much when they don't really need it.
Have to agree with you. I bought a couple black pro mists and wasn't feeling them. Others swear by them but I just don't get it. If you were shooting a dream sequence or something yeah, but I hear guys say they use them for everything! I just nod and smile politely and keep my opinion to myself.
I’ve been doing the same. I once was one of those guys, till a client asked me to not use it again hahaha. It slapped me back to reality
@@cammackey We live and we learn. 😉
Kickass examples. Always been a fan of high contrast looks. Your fashion photos give off this vibe for sure.
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Both Bladerunner 2049 and Sicario were shot on the Arri XT, S35 sensors with less than 4K resolution.
After using them heavily for about two years, I'm starting to realize the downsides more and more. Another thing that annoys me other than what you already mentioned is the flaring even when there's small practicals in the shot. It's too hard to control and should be used only for the right scenarios, not meant to slap on the lens 24/7.
I added a black pro mist because when I was new a photog I admire greatly used it, but yeah, sure not a 24/7 thing like I was doing, please actual hazer changed the game.
wow thank you for this! Been having an internal battle of really not liking the footage from the pro mist, but everyone saying this is how to get the "cinematic look." Iv'e changed to the black satin line which I like alot more that keeps more of the original contrast, but still only use them for a very select instances and have been getting more comfortable with making the footage cinematic myself with no filters I.e. angles, light, subjects
TH-cam just served me up a DreamFX diffusion filter ad right before this video. Gotta love the “Algae-rhythm”
Hahaha I love the dream filter! Awesome for a retro vintage look.
Haha
I’m a fan of this one tho, I feel like it retains the blacks better than most.
Great video, gave me some good for thought! Just wondering what strength black magic filter you use?
Your color grading is EPIC GOOD
Deakins only likes to use Arri Masterprime lenses cause they give him a super clean image with minimal distortion and flaring
I made my own diffusion filter for about $25.Ordered the cheapest clear filter from Amazon, and waved it in clouds of Montana Gold black spray paint. I cannot tell the difference between the DIY version and a Black Pro Mist filter. Fun to use in the right situation but I completely agree Cam, they aren't suited for every video! I feel like technology, gear and the pride in technique are overshadowing creativity for many folks (pros included). I dig your style; you march to the beat of your own drum.
Damn, Cam. I recently found your channel but so far all your videos have so much value. And I’m talking in both production and information.
Excellent video, came back today to watch this for the third time. Thank you for putting this out there.
great info on this, I has always thought it was funny when people buy expensive camera's and the most expensive lenses (because they are sharp) then slap on a diffusion filter to soften it up.
Yeah it’s very confusing. Like I got some 70 vibe shoots coming up soon so I’ll Prbly use the Prisim Lens Effects dream filter.. but that’s to get a stylized look. Ain’t trying to bloom out my freakin $10k body and lens for everything haha
@@cammackey yet in that comment you agree with the fact that these filters give a certain vibe.. what if that vibe,is what you are known of.. what I think its funny,is that no matter what people do,there will always be people who personal preference allows them to bash others
@@user-gu3ie no no. I state people can do whatever they want. All I was trying to show in this video is that diffusion filter don’t not make your work look more cinematic. All they are, are tools.
@@cammackey ah okay, well my bad, I interpreted it the wrong way..
Wow, I just stumbled over this video. I’m a newbie getting into filmaking, trying to get the most professional Hollywood quality I can, for the lowest cost.
All I can say to this video is…”YES! THANK YOU!!!”
I’ve been trying to figure out why everything on the web seems to indicate that diffusion=cinematic. All I could see was (what you so accurately said) diffusion just makes a “dream-sequence” look.
This gave me permission to not use diffusion if it’s not immediately required for the scene.
Aaaaand now I “subscribe”.
This was a great articulation of what I’ve been feeling in response to all the “how to make your content look cinematic” TikTok vids where the answer is as diffusion mist filters.
My question is what *IS* the answer for content creators who don’t have control over things like lighting in the environments that they are shooting?
Everyone always has an opinion on someone's opinion.
Yes. Cause mine is obviously the correct opinion. Duh.
Super interesting vid bro! So good to finally see someone on youtube giving zero f*cks and just telling it how they see it!
Thanks for sharing this video and your opinion about it. So spot on!😎😎😎
There's a time and place for diffusion filters...
IMHO, They get to be called "cinematic" because they actually can simulate the look of some (maybe many) films from the 70's specifically (80's too, go and look at some shots from Rambo II lol)... So they are literally cinematic in a very tight history space and number... But not cinematic in the art sense of the word, that should come from other factors such as color grading as you explained🙏🏻
I know what I want, just trying to figure out how to get there. I'm 70/retired woman and not a pro. This is just a hobby. I've been scouring through the blooming videos, enough so that I am convinced that your video has merit. I'm more of a back seat driver - just analyzing but not burning myself out trying different things. I do have a goal. When I was working I purchased a Hasselblad H4d-31 with an 80mm prime lens. It's so heaving so it'll be setup on a tripod. I purchased a few lighting accessories to light the subject. plus rim lighting My goal is to try to re-create Hollywood style black and white. I just am not sure if I need to get a Tiffen black pro mist mainly 1/4 for softening, or maybe the 80mm since it's an old lens already has that vintage look - it looks very sharp to me - but maybe with the b/w and lighting - that will change. I'll be finding out soon because I have the lighting, and just tested the transceiver and the lights work. I'll try without and if I need some softening, I might get the 67mm 1/8th -vs- the 1/4th BPM. So right now it's a wait and see. Your video has taught me that less is more.
So back in the day they would use diffusion on their lenses! They would actually use these net cloths material on the rear or front of their lens! I think some people even using like pantyliners or whatever theyre called haha. So instead of wasting money on filters, maybe try that first!
That separation between foreground and background with natural diffusion gets totally lost when you slap a filter over the whole scene - such great examples from those Deakins shots!
Wonderful video! I personally not a big fan of mist filters, although they can be good. Actually the Dehancer bloom effect is way more subtle in comparison yet you preserve the original video for different edits if needed.
Here is the point ! Thanks a lot for this video, it helps a lot. I really prefer contrast and colour saturation, thanks.
Just stumbled upon this video while researching diffusion filters.... this is a great explanation! Watching this has definitely changed my opinion on diffusion filters and when to use them. Thanks for putting this out into the world!
The claim "diffusion filters will not give you the cinematic look" is completely right. A camera will not give you "the cinamatic look". Because there is no such thing as a "cinematic look". "Cinamatic look" is a word used by amateurs to describe things they see on or create for TH-cam that reminds them of things they have seen in movies. Shallow depth of field and so on.
Cinema has been using diffusion filters for more than a hundred years to create emotional states for storytelling. If I list the ten best films I've seen in my life most of them use diffusion. If you go back to the Golden Age of Hollywood they used silk socks in front of the lens or a variety of diffusion glass. The wonderful era of the 70's with iconic movies like The Godfather and so on used heavy Fog filters. You cannot duplicate Gordon Willis cinematography on the Goodfather movies without using a fog filter. It's all up to us and what we like ao th statement that "diffusion filters is not cinematic" is correct. it is however a tool used on most of the Hollywood classics. None of them where "cinematic". They are cinema history.
Legendary scene impossible to improve on. Heavy Fog. because sometimes - you know - a storyteller might actually WANT to subdue colors.
th-cam.com/video/rMVAqU8fmio/w-d-xo.html&t
Great video and great points, stopped using diffusion filters a few projects ago (also everyone’s video starting to look the same) I now use Leica and Canon FD glasses and I am able to get a soft look without extreme baked in bloom effect.
Yes exactly! They’re getting so burnt out.
So true! Investing in good glass is far more superior. Every lens manufacturer has its own character.
Finally somebody is telling the truth. Well, not really "finally" since this clip is roughly two years old. But what I've learned as a former hobby musician and now hobby photographer is that the term "cinematic" is just added to push sales figures. Whether it's about "cinematic" synthesizers, "cinematic" instrument samples, "cinematic" filters, none of that stuff is really used on real cinema productions. But it sounds nice and gives the impression that now, the average Joe TH-cam video clip producer can create "cinematic" stuff just by slapping a filter onto his lens. Well, no.
Thank You so much for this video !!! Absolutely gold and agree 1000%!
I've watched a lot of videos on diffusion filters in last couple of days. This is by far the best video which makes total sense. They're to be used in certain scenarios only to achieve certain look. If I have to choose I'd chose something that does a little touch up only Thanks mackey.
This is one of my most favorite rants on a topic. Well executed.
this is a great video, lots to think about! I've also been trying to go for a cleaner look recently but I also think your final image (when using a diffusion filter) doesn't necessarily have to look severely faded and flat. I shot an acoustic cover for a local artist (I would link but I'm not trying to promote on your channel) using a diffusion filter and don't think it looks flat or overly faded at all. of course the blooming is a look that some people might not like, but in terms of contrast and color saturation/richness, I think it depends much more on your exposure and grade. btw that's a nice amp, rock on lol
Yeah when using diffusion filters the trick is to have a deeper gamma in the grade. Your highlights will have the bloom but it’s more subtle and natural. But most people don’t know how to do “cinematic” type grades aka deep exposures in post. But for an acoustic performance a diffusion filter seem fitting!
Finally, someone I agree with. Black or Diffusion/ Pro mist or Glimmer glass / dreamy look or whatever you want to call it is over rated! True, it works for specific shots of subjects in romantic scenes in movies and in portraits. Mostly to even skin texture on your subject / actors. Too much in every scene in films looks amateur to me. I prefer deep rich blacks in films. When you get the right client shoot with high end pro cine cameras, glass and filters.
Just stumbled across this - very interesting. I'm keen on NOT using filters when shooting BMPCC 4K with Sigma 18-35mm and I guess that if I really want diffusion later, it can be added as an effect in post?
Yes! I’ll do a video on that soon. But this a perfect example. The sigma 18-35mm is a great lens.. but it’s very sharp and so certain diffusion filters can help soften it. I’d personally would do the black promist cause that’s literally reversing all the micro contrast to the lens, I would use a different lens at that point specially if the filter is basically glued to the lens haha. But main point is people using diffusion filters cause they were told it make it “cinematic”
@@cammackey Thank you! Yeah, I think I'm going to try and shoot without filtration (apart from NDs) and concentrate on the lighting, atmosphere, etc. Great channel - will be watching out for your posts!
Lots of wisdom here! Haze is key. Diffusion has to be very controlled, not thrown everywhere. And now I'm pretty convinced I need Shotdeck. :D
Hey man, which music library are you subscribed to? Liked the intro music, thnx
I actually love the diffusion look. In my opinion, one of the best modern uses of mist diffusion is on the Netflix show, "The Crown". There are other examples that I can think of but they use a combination of both physical diffusion (ie haze) and filter diffusion, and I think it looks fantastic. When I want a gritter look, like the look in Sicario (fuckin' awesome movie btw), then there's no way I'd use or diffusion filter. I also think diffusion filters look better at night sometimes than during the day or twilight hours because you can control the contrast more just from the absence or presence of light. Just my two cents.
Yes exactly! That is what diffusion filters are intended for. Somehow they’ve become another marketing gimmick tho for up and coming filmmakers. This is just my words to fight against people focusing on gear more than the craft.
@@cammackey I think one of the things filmmakers are scared of is to allow shadows to be blacks - just ink black, no lift, nothing. You look at Dawkins work and his strategic use of light, and it's just a painting in motion. That's because he allows natural shadows to remain shadows. You don't need to light every last thing to show that they're there. Yeah, if you're working with a set designer, they might be pissed because of the work that put into it and it's not even seen, but the purpose of a motion picture is that it moves and the texture created from the set design will be more visible when the camera pans or the scene shifts. (For the record, I've never worked with one but I can imagine how they'd feel about it, but the goal is to tell a great story, not to illuminate every bit of craftsmanship.)
I love gear, but as I'm taking this deep dive into the world of filmmaking, it's the story, the lighting, the sound and the intentional camera movement that matters most, and if you can do that with an iPhone as your primary weapon of choice, that more power to ya. Zack Synder did a short on an iPhone and it was awesome because other more important elements were there.
thanks for this clear and revealing analysis ... I actually don't understand why there is so much hipe about the diffusion filters ... all the more so as this effect can be made in postproduction. You cannot add haze and depth in postproduction or anything that involves how light is diffused in the space .... but this kind of filtering from something in front of the lens can be achieved in post
Yeah davinci has their glow plug-in that works great, and Dehancer has a great glow tool too. But def there’s a difference between atmosphere within a shot and just putting a diffusion filter on your lens
I've been wanting to get a diffusion filter lately, as I shoot a lot of stuff live on stage, and harsh stage lights often need a little help with the highlights. But every video I watch I just end up liking the "before" image with no filter. My contender right now is the Nisi Blackmist 1/8.
All these filters lack anti glare coatings so you’ll most likely end up with glare issues with stage lights. Similar effect to how iPhone always have glaring orbs and reflections.
@@cammackeyI appreciate this reply. I'll be setting these inside lens hoods so glares shouldn't be too terrible (I hope?), but definitely worried the drawbacks will greatly outweigh the benefits. Would you have any recommendations on handling harsh stage lighting?
That's why I picked the least amount of diffusion- 1/8. In case you use it- you gotta be subtle
That music at the intro though, western Witcher feels, love it
what camera and lens are you using for this youtube video? also are you using your own LUT's or is there any you recommend with this look?
Canon R5 and RF 24-70. This look doesn’t rely on a LUT. It’s the way I lit it. My key light was set to around 4200k so it was a little warmer, I then cooled down the WB on my camera, the light behind me is ambient daylight coming through the window, which is naturally cooler because it’s light reflecting from the blue sky, so cooling my cameras WB made it even more cooler. You could slap any basic LUT on here and it would keep a similar look
Very much liked the video and another eye opener to realization. Before watching this, I had that feeling that there is a bit missing in regards to color balance and blooming effect, where filters gives you right away a sweeping effect and non selective in regards to what color needs to be saturated. Maybe post process can help but, to accept defeat by Marketing is where most of us fail. Thank you sir for this video.
Great vid! Just subscribed. Quick question. If you shoot with a diffusion filter and you find that the blacks look a little to lifted in post, is it possible to crush them back down with colour correction?
That's what I thought as well.
I might be late to this video but I’m glad I found somebody with the same mindset as me. I don’t use filters Hayes all day and vintage lenses. Awesome video dude.
Nice overview and explanation! Thanks! 🙂
I think saying 'this technique cinematic' or 'this is not cinematic' (e.g. low contrast) is a bit reductive
Actually the lenses they use are much softer than the typical new affordable lenses, which tend to be extremely sharp…and therefore some folks use diffusion to counteract that…it’s not the best scenario, but it is in lieu of actually having real cinema glass.
But diffusion filters do not soften lenses.... they just kill the blacks and bloom the highlights.... that’s what I was saying.
@@cammackey when I use them they do help take the edge off. Lighting is key I agree, without it you can pack it in, but grading and diffusion does aid to a certain extent. Dan Laustsen, cinematographer from the movie the shape of water admitted himself during an interview that he used diffusion filters for his movie to take that digital edge off.
Can you elaborate on the difference between halation and diffusion?
Have you tried the tiffen glimmer glass one? And if so , your opinion?
Nice to see a TH-camr NOT trying to sell something. Thanks man, I agree!
I love the tones in your videos, how do you grade them?
I use davinci CST and their Kodak lut
Yea but some cameras deal with highlights better than others so if you are using Ocf you will see concentrated white spots. I loveeeee the R5 but it tends to do that. While the A7r4 seems a like better at blending the highlights into the shadows. Using a black promist can help with this issue for the R5 and other cameras like it.
I disagree. The R5 does better in the lower range so you’d an expose for your highlights and lift crazy details out of the shadows. While Sony is on the opposite end on where you can push the exposure into the highlights more. They just work in the opposite ways. Diffusion filters do not give you milky highlights. They either soften the edge of contrast points or they diffuse your shadows and make them more muddy. If dynamic range is your main reason of using diffusion filters, there’s actual low contrast filters you can use that will do that without giving you a mooshy image.
@@cammackey I think I’m talking about the gradation of the highlights into the shadows how they blend. Some digital cameras are just a little better than others. I prefer the output of the R5 in every way especially with natural light however it’s common to see “highlight marks” on the cheeks and the middle forehead the nose as well that don’t blend that well with harder light. Not Sony in general! Specifically the R5 against the A7r4 every single cam is differt in digital. This can be for number of reasons including the type of filter placed over the sensor by the manufacturer.
@@cammackey with digital I always expose the highlights and raise it up later. I always felt it has more natural or film look when I do. I would always rather lift in post then go down. As far as promist yea man once you hit 1/4 the Halation is always pretty strong! So its “a look” in general 1/8th is good on promist I’ve been using it lately here and there and it’s nice. For example using a Beauty dish with the R5 it’s pretty cool effect. That spray you showed in the video is something ide like to try that I haven’t before.
I solved the problem of diffusion filters on modern glass. I bought a set of Leica R lenses 🤭
Great video as alway mate!
Hahaha dude those are going to be my next investment!
@@cammackey Be fast my friend...they're almost gone from the market and the prices are only going up! These lenses are just wonderful!
How about blooming highlights in post? I love using a subtle glow in my videos and would like to know how a promist filter compares to it. Thanks for the info, keep it up!
There’s more and more software coming out for that too!!
Basically, you’re right. I am a stills photographer and use diffusion filters a low in small amounts to trigger vintage glass into halation, often using multiple exposures with varying apertures to give me enough material to composite in a way that is nuanced. Let’s read that again ‘nuanced’. My experience is that it is possible to emulate film with digital, but only if you really do understand what film is capable of. And yeh, cinematic is overused word that no longer means anything, not that it ever did.
I’m in love with what you throw on the entire internet ❤
Thank you for this educational video! I totally agree and I don't like the diffused look diffusion filters give.
100%agree i saw that blooming filters and i dont like effects in 90%of shots thx for that !!!
it reminds how older video games and vfx were bloomy to cover mistakes like when im in a 3d program if the composition and the lighting are weak adding bloom makes it look alright but at same time unconfident and cheap the diiffuse be having no purpose
Damn that’s a great comparison!
Nice work! Do you think a good digital cinema camera or an imager should have that type of highlight-halation "built-in" to its rendering, or maybe it's better to add it via an optical filter or in post?
No I would hate for a camera to have that built in cause then you’re stuck with it. Would be a very limiting tool
Finally someone said this
I do agree that the HBM is better than the BPM filter if you need to use it. I only use 1/8 strength when needed. Great video Cam.
Good info. You can definitely spot the difference. Diffusion filters give me that “flash back” or “dreaming” type of scene.
I agree and disagree. The reality is that once something catches on most people take it to the extreme (slow motion, wide open, etc). Most movies use some sort of diffusion but just nowhere near the level that TH-camrs use. A large number of movies use anamorphic but unless you know what to look for, you can't tell because you don't see a lens flare every 30 seconds.
I wouldn’t say most movies use diffusion filters. Diffusion on set, yes. And yeah a regular viewer can’t point out anamorphic, but they can sense it. I think a lot of people don’t give viewers enough credit. I think it’s mostly kids learning about filmmaking through TH-cam are the ones who can’t tell because they’re too busy trying to analyze it instead of feeling it. I personally shoot anamorphic now which has made me ditch diffusion filters even more haha
I never shot with crystals, until I got one. I never shot with a diffusion filter, until I got one. I never shot with Lensbaby, until I got one. What can I say? It's fun to try new things.
For sure! But obviously they’re meant for their own situations
Thanks for all the contents men you the best. How do you get consistent color in all your videos. Yesterday I was looking for color grading tutorial but non of them work for me. Im using a Sony A7III. Please can you do a tutorial on how to color grade a Sony a7III Footage? I can send you some footage if that's okay. Thanks so much.
th-cam.com/channels/Z_4tLOd-iu4zBDApQsZZTw.html is the TH-cam master. There is even a tutorial on Sony cameras.
Thank you! I def won’t be doing any Sony color grading videos. But my approach is the same for every camera.. in Davinci I use the Color Space Transformer to convert the cameras log to arri log.
Thanks so much for replying. I appreciate you.
Thanks @Vincent Rice
The other thing that gets me is when guys think FF and shallow depth of field is necessary for a cinematic look. They obviously haven’t watched the classics.
Dude! The whole FF thing is so weird. Like we can even get a real hollywood look as it is… FF isn’t going to help that lol
Link to that smoke?
Just use an UV filter with a tiny coat of hairspray... no watered down contrast,and just enough haze to be noticeable
I’m not about to use that on a paid gig
Sicario is not very cinematic. Blade Runner 2049 is to much digital too. Because Roger Deakins love CLEAN image and he is against distortions and never uses anamorphic lens.
Great video. I just recently bought my first diffusion filter but shortly after starting to use it, I started to realize that I was using is too much lol. Kind of like when I got my first gimbal. I wanted to use it for every. single. shot. "Sit down interview? No problem, let me just ORBIT AROUND YOU THE WHOLE TIME, K?"
Good points. I have a Pro Mist filter, and don't like it. I find it ruins shots more than improves them.
Interesting video and illustrated with good examples. Some great films to. Good for you for standing up to the heard mentality.
Personally I can't say I've ever been a big fan of putting any more glass in front of my lenses than is needed (photo or video).
My take is there's no short cuts, go find beautiful light, or learn how to create it (work in progress for me). Oh and buy better glass. The Canon L lenses I have are amazing but I have to admit some of the Zeiss lenses I've picked up in the last year are on another level.
Quick question what monitors are you using for colour grading/photo editing now? I know you're still using Apple computers but it looked like you were using an external monitor/s in some of your videos, Eizo?
Yeah specially for photo work, don’t get why people spend thousands on high quality glass just to throw more glass on it haha. There’s a lot of creative uses for sure, but I think a lot of peeps are getting tricked into thinking diffusion filters are a necessity to “cinematic” looks when they really have nothing to do with it
Also yes! I’m using a Benro monitor. One of their middle quality ones. Whenever we get new pro iMacs I’ll prbly switch to that
thin blue line fan ?
Great video. I was wondering if it was just me, but diffusion filters for the most part make the look too manipulated. I’ll get one anyways and do my own test.