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.......
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
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.
😂😂😂 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
Mannn you look soooo much like Mateus Asato... it's uncanny! 😂 If you don't know him, he's amongst the best modern guitar players out there.. check him out! BTW, I agree 100% with you about diffusion filters, especially the way everybody uses them for the wrong reasons, not even realizing that not only they kill the contrast and color seperation, but they introduce awful speckles in bokeh. One of my favorite diffusion filter that I used for years was the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX1, which is so discreet that it's almost invisible. What it does is tickening details, softening just a bit skin blemishes and making blurry background even creamier (enhances focus separation, but doesn't affect highlights, contrast and colors whatsoever). This is the closest thing to emulate what the ARRI Alexa OLPF does on the image (except the moire control). BUT.. even that one is made of tiny particules, and bokeh balls gets filled with extremely distracting horseshoe pattern that IMO ruins everything. That's why I don't use ANY diffusion filters on my lens anymore, and replicate the desired effect in post instead. Diffusion filters also ruins your lens flaring/ghosting control, which is never a good thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When TH-cam recommended this video to me I decided to watch it just to see how wrong you are. It turns out that you are not wrong at all. I was about to buy a diffusion filter to try to pursue a look that doesn't come from diffusion filters. Anyway, thanks for making this video. You helped me not only save some money but also realize I need to be more open-minded. Thanks again.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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🙏🏻
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.
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
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!!
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?
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.
Lol I personally like preserving my shadows while letting my blacks roll off now. That’s the importance to having a proper cinema camera with good dynamic range. Don’t have to cheat it as much to get a natural look
@@cammackey Lol I was joking, that faded blacks look is horrid. Totally agree with your points here, I switched to the HBM filters recently and love them, so much nicer. I do overuse them, I'd admit but I don't always have time to bust out the hazer so that's where a HBM filter comes in handy.
@@JoshBenBernales oh hahaha, well glad we agree 😂😂😂 I’ve been running the HBM again since I’m starting to go a little retro with some projects I’m working on!
Like everything, once they get on the Tube they become the latest fad and get used to death. Used for what they are intended for they certainly have their purpose.
Another "overrated" analysis you could do is about the "tile and orange" look that is used and abused in the youtube realm, and I don't think it looks truly cinematic.
Def. orange teal is def cinematic, because teal is the complimentary color to our skin tones “orange” range. But it originally wasn’t about painting in teals in the blacks... it was about set design and color ambiance.
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 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!
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.
lol this video is great. 100% agree with you. You want to know why TH-cams call mist filters, or lights or even lenses "cinematic"? It's because it's a keyword that generates good search results. Just put the word "cinematic" in your title and it will get more views. Sad but true.
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.
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
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.
It’s better to use lenses which have artefacts that give a natural characteristic to the image. I think now a days the bloom filters are being over done. It’s become a fad and everyone is using it on everything. Takes away from the uniqueness of the look. It should be used at the right time and on the right content.
@@cammackey there is this growing trend on TH-cam of overtly soft lighting, muted highlights and pro mist. I personally don’t like that look. An image needs contrast to really create impact. What’s the point of having everything at almost the same level. Its like people are afraid of strong highlights….what’s the point of even lighting then in that case.
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 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.
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!
The examples Keeping up with the joneses and Sicario are kinda bad examples, because the shots in keeping up... are not well composed, flat lid and the backround is very over fitted with stuff, while the shots of sicario are dramatically lid, have depth and are much more well composed. Of course the weird softness in Keeping up... comes on top of that, but this isn´t a well executed argument against diffusion filters. But of course there is a time and purpose for every filter, while it will be too much, or an distraction, or even look flat out wrong, when used falsely.
At first I couldn’t see it but now I totally do. The filters look like a dream sequence haha which actually is a style I like for my brand, but yeah I totally get it. cool video!
Of course gritty films like Sicario don't sue diffusion but many (I's say more than half) do. It really depends on what you are aiming for as a look and feel. Sicario is not exactly a romantic comedy.
**don't use not sue diffusion. You have your own style which is closer to "cinematic documentary" than "glossy" (and you're great at it) but that is not the only valid style out there. I personally loved the looks of "Keeping up with the Jones" and of "Gossip Girl" and so does a big portion of the audience out there, especially women (I've seen some fascinating audience surveys). You mention Deakins, but many cinematographers at or even above his level use diffusion filtration all the time. There is not just one right way to do anything in the artistic field, and "cinematic" has no meaning because there are all kinds of looks that work, and all kinds of looks even in current high budget studio releases and classic films. What cinematic really means is the right look for the tone of a scene "and realistic and gritty" is not always the correct tone.
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.
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.
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?
Love these types of videos where you touch on things that other channels don't! What's the strength on your Hollywood black magic and what hazer did you pick up?
Great vids. Diffusion is just another tool but def not something to use in everything to “fix” the digital camcorder look. I use personally use glimmer glass 1 for those misty highlights. I have a 1/2 black pro mist that I only every use for close up portraits, too blooms for anything else.
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.
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 agree, diffusion filters are pretty played out much like the insane bokeh thing. They have their place but it’s usually best used selectively... people catch on and end up using a overly heavy filter because they think its cool.
We’ve all been there sadly haha. I usually get obsessed with something for a week or two and then move on but keep it in my tool bag of tricks. As it should be.
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.
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.
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?"
The problem is mirrorless cameras have TERRIBLE image quality. They are way too sharp, even with the highest end cinema lenses, and it looks ugly af unless you're filming sports or a reality tv show. Only thing that gets rid of the sharpness seems to be diffusion, and anamorphic helps. I'm really disappointed in my mirrorless cameras, even with f0.7 lenses they are too sharp, I don't know what sharpening the camera is baking into the image but I wish these companies would stop doing it, they market their cameras as making cinematic image quality accessible to everyone, but they make as sharp as possible and they get used by wedding videographers and that's what they're really for because the image quality isn't good enough for actual film making. You can shape them into a movie look with enough diffusion, color grading, etc if done to the highest professional standard, but most people don't have all the skills required to do all of it. And I'm talking about getting to the basic level that of quality that comes straight out of a cinema camera with no grading or professional anything, just pressing record. I think they could easily make them look less sharp and more like a cinema camera, so why don't they? The golden age of indie filmmaking was when DSLRs got video recording and 4k wasn't a thing yet. Many films used DSLRs and looked amazing, and their cinematic IQ was an accident not a design. I don't think that's happening with mirrorless because there is such a big difference between a black magic or sony alpha or lumix and a RED or arri. People love to say you can't tell the difference, it's all about lighting and color grading, professionals could make them look the same. But that's just not true. Recording internally a mirrorless camera has bad image quality. They're designed to impress you with a high res look, they are the complete opposite of what cinema cameras are designed for.
I highlight disagree. Seems like you might want to explore more glass. Some people like sharp and clean. I personally don’t. So I use glass with more character. Some of the glass I use is so soft that I have to add sharping in post regardless of the camera. The Arri LF is sharp.. the red Raptor VV is sharp… IF YOU USE SHARP GLASS.
@@cammackey Idk I hope you're right but when people do those camera tests with the same lenses on mirrorless vs arri or red, the sharpness is what I notice. Arri can definitely be too sharp as well but I do think it's rendered in a different way, just somehow looks less high res and more filmic. But I know you can shape mirrorless cameras to look more like that, but to me it seems to be harder.
Sharpness is NOT an attribute of terrible image quality. The opposite is true. But if you like it or not is a matter of aesthetics, not of quality. Which is a whole other story.
@@xtra9996 Depends what you're talking about, for me resolution is the good part, like being able to distinguish tiny details, which comes from the lens and sensor, but sharpness is about contrast between fine lines I guess. The codecs in these cameras probably add some fake sharpness into the file, and recording externally isn't implemented that well and I'm pretty sure you get some noise reduction and digital sharpness baked in with a lot of cameras, even with braw and stuff like that. I don't really know what I'm talking about honestly but I can see a big difference, still the image is amazing for what a mirrorless camera is, but I think it's miles away from the quality of cinema cameras, unless you're an expert at production and you can emulate the look of a cinema camera, even though it's not authentically rendering that type of image it's more like an after effect.
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 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.
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!
You re gonna get haters? No way, i loved this man! Blunt true knowledge thrown at your face......don´t waste your time with snowflakes out there Mckey, keep up with this great content!!
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.
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.
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.......
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
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
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.
Good discussion. I'm glad you went into detail about the aesthetics. People talk about "cinematic", but rarely, if ever, discuss specifics.
Thanks.
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.
Mannn you look soooo much like Mateus Asato... it's uncanny! 😂 If you don't know him, he's amongst the best modern guitar players out there.. check him out!
BTW, I agree 100% with you about diffusion filters, especially the way everybody uses them for the wrong reasons, not even realizing that not only they kill the contrast and color seperation, but they introduce awful speckles in bokeh. One of my favorite diffusion filter that I used for years was the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX1, which is so discreet that it's almost invisible. What it does is tickening details, softening just a bit skin blemishes and making blurry background even creamier (enhances focus separation, but doesn't affect highlights, contrast and colors whatsoever). This is the closest thing to emulate what the ARRI Alexa OLPF does on the image (except the moire control). BUT.. even that one is made of tiny particules, and bokeh balls gets filled with extremely distracting horseshoe pattern that IMO ruins everything. That's why I don't use ANY diffusion filters on my lens anymore, and replicate the desired effect in post instead. Diffusion filters also ruins your lens flaring/ghosting control, which is never a good thing.
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.
Your color grading is EPIC GOOD
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.
Deakins only likes to use Arri Masterprime lenses cause they give him a super clean image with minimal distortion and flaring
Both Bladerunner 2049 and Sicario were shot on the Arri XT, S35 sensors with less than 4K resolution.
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.
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.
Manual focus, dude. :D (no dissrespect)
When TH-cam recommended this video to me I decided to watch it just to see how wrong you are. It turns out that you are not wrong at all. I was about to buy a diffusion filter to try to pursue a look that doesn't come from diffusion filters. Anyway, thanks for making this video. You helped me not only save some money but also realize I need to be more open-minded. Thanks again.
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.
That's why I picked the least amount of diffusion- 1/8. In case you use it- you gotta be subtle
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
Everyone always has an opinion on someone's opinion.
Yes. Cause mine is obviously the correct opinion. Duh.
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..
I watched this video through a diffusion filter so that it would feel more cinematic
Hahahahah
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
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.
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”
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. 😉
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🙏🏻
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.
Difusion filter, el-cheapo, go to your drug cabinet and get the vasoline! Now Now on the lens i mean! Lol
Super interesting vid bro! So good to finally see someone on youtube giving zero f*cks and just telling it how they see it!
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!
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
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!!
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.
Thank you so much man! Im always impressed how your videos completely change my mind about my current filmmaking.
Nice overview and explanation! Thanks! 🙂
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?
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.
I love lifting my blacks to look like film... LOL
Lol I personally like preserving my shadows while letting my blacks roll off now. That’s the importance to having a proper cinema camera with good dynamic range. Don’t have to cheat it as much to get a natural look
@@cammackey Lol I was joking, that faded blacks look is horrid. Totally agree with your points here, I switched to the HBM filters recently and love them, so much nicer. I do overuse them, I'd admit but I don't always have time to bust out the hazer so that's where a HBM filter comes in handy.
@@JoshBenBernales oh hahaha, well glad we agree 😂😂😂 I’ve been running the HBM again since I’m starting to go a little retro with some projects I’m working on!
Here is the point ! Thanks a lot for this video, it helps a lot. I really prefer contrast and colour saturation, thanks.
I think saying 'this technique cinematic' or 'this is not cinematic' (e.g. low contrast) is a bit reductive
100%agree i saw that blooming filters and i dont like effects in 90%of shots thx for that !!!
Like everything, once they get on the Tube they become the latest fad and get used to death. Used for what they are intended for they certainly have their purpose.
i love your color, could you make a video how you make this video 😁😁
Another "overrated" analysis you could do is about the "tile and orange" look that is used and abused in the youtube realm, and I don't think it looks truly cinematic.
Def. orange teal is def cinematic, because teal is the complimentary color to our skin tones “orange” range. But it originally wasn’t about painting in teals in the blacks... it was about set design and color ambiance.
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 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!
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.
Thank You so much for this video !!! Absolutely gold and agree 1000%!
lol this video is great. 100% agree with you. You want to know why TH-cams call mist filters, or lights or even lenses "cinematic"? It's because it's a keyword that generates good search results. Just put the word "cinematic" in your title and it will get more views. Sad but true.
The video is so dark. Bro, turn up the exposure just a little bit??
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.
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!
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
It’s better to use lenses which have artefacts that give a natural characteristic to the image. I think now a days the bloom filters are being over done. It’s become a fad and everyone is using it on everything. Takes away from the uniqueness of the look. It should be used at the right time and on the right content.
Exactly.
@@cammackey there is this growing trend on TH-cam of overtly soft lighting, muted highlights and pro mist. I personally don’t like that look. An image needs contrast to really create impact. What’s the point of having everything at almost the same level. Its like people are afraid of strong highlights….what’s the point of even lighting then in that case.
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 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.
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!
Kickass examples. Always been a fan of high contrast looks. Your fashion photos give off this vibe for sure.
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Finally someone said this
The examples Keeping up with the joneses and Sicario are kinda bad examples, because the shots in keeping up... are not well composed, flat lid and the backround is very over fitted with stuff, while the shots of sicario are dramatically lid, have depth and are much more well composed. Of course the weird softness in Keeping up... comes on top of that, but this isn´t a well executed argument against diffusion filters.
But of course there is a time and purpose for every filter, while it will be too much, or an distraction, or even look flat out wrong, when used falsely.
Cool
great take, thanks man...love your stuff
At first I couldn’t see it but now I totally do. The filters look like a dream sequence haha which actually is a style I like for my brand, but yeah I totally get it. cool video!
Of course gritty films like Sicario don't sue diffusion but many (I's say more than half) do. It really depends on what you are aiming for as a look and feel. Sicario is not exactly a romantic comedy.
**don't use not sue diffusion. You have your own style which is closer to "cinematic documentary" than "glossy" (and you're great at it) but that is not the only valid style out there. I personally loved the looks of "Keeping up with the Jones" and of "Gossip Girl" and so does a big portion of the audience out there, especially women (I've seen some fascinating audience surveys). You mention Deakins, but many cinematographers at or even above his level use diffusion filtration all the time. There is not just one right way to do anything in the artistic field, and "cinematic" has no meaning because there are all kinds of looks that work, and all kinds of looks even in current high budget studio releases and classic films. What cinematic really means is the right look for the tone of a scene "and realistic and gritty" is not always the correct tone.
A thoughtful, insightful and f...ing intelligent video on filters. 🙏🥰❤️
8:12 now teach us how to get that look 👀 😂❤❤❤pleaseeeeee
Maybe just use manual focus while filming yourself at a fixed distance, duh!
Or just switch to Sony. Which I did.
lol did he just ask if sicario was shot on LF?! XD
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.
No hate here... I agree with you 100% on this!
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
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
Couldn't agree more. You're spot on....and thanks for the ShotDeck rec. Great site.
Such a valuable site
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?
Awesome video !! 🌺
I love you cam but fuck man, you ripped my heart out with overrated filters hahah
Hahahaha sorry brother.
When a rant is priceless education. You hit the nail on the head.
That music at the intro though, western Witcher feels, love it
Love these types of videos where you touch on things that other channels don't! What's the strength on your Hollywood black magic and what hazer did you pick up?
Just 1/8th I think! And I think it’s a Hurricane something? I’ll have to look. My memory is trash haha
Great vids. Diffusion is just another tool but def not something to use in everything to “fix” the digital camcorder look. I use personally use glimmer glass 1 for those misty highlights. I have a 1/2 black pro mist that I only every use for close up portraits, too blooms for anything else.
Yeah glimmerglass is another good one that doesn’t destroy or muddy your contrast! But yeah for portraits the BPM is dope!
More relevant than ever right now. 😅
You just saved me money. Legend
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.
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 agree, diffusion filters are pretty played out much like the insane bokeh thing. They have their place but it’s usually best used selectively... people catch on and end up using a overly heavy filter because they think its cool.
We’ve all been there sadly haha. I usually get obsessed with something for a week or two and then move on but keep it in my tool bag of tricks. As it should be.
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.
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.
Appreciate the realness of your personal breakdown. Thx bro.
🙏🏽 my opinion and the truth of it behind me comes off arrogant for some. But I guess my words aren’t for them!
@@cammackey lol From my experience it's often because they themselves aren't actually doing commercial work and really thinking about it.
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?"
The problem is mirrorless cameras have TERRIBLE image quality. They are way too sharp, even with the highest end cinema lenses, and it looks ugly af unless you're filming sports or a reality tv show. Only thing that gets rid of the sharpness seems to be diffusion, and anamorphic helps. I'm really disappointed in my mirrorless cameras, even with f0.7 lenses they are too sharp, I don't know what sharpening the camera is baking into the image but I wish these companies would stop doing it, they market their cameras as making cinematic image quality accessible to everyone, but they make as sharp as possible and they get used by wedding videographers and that's what they're really for because the image quality isn't good enough for actual film making. You can shape them into a movie look with enough diffusion, color grading, etc if done to the highest professional standard, but most people don't have all the skills required to do all of it. And I'm talking about getting to the basic level that of quality that comes straight out of a cinema camera with no grading or professional anything, just pressing record. I think they could easily make them look less sharp and more like a cinema camera, so why don't they? The golden age of indie filmmaking was when DSLRs got video recording and 4k wasn't a thing yet. Many films used DSLRs and looked amazing, and their cinematic IQ was an accident not a design. I don't think that's happening with mirrorless because there is such a big difference between a black magic or sony alpha or lumix and a RED or arri. People love to say you can't tell the difference, it's all about lighting and color grading, professionals could make them look the same. But that's just not true. Recording internally a mirrorless camera has bad image quality. They're designed to impress you with a high res look, they are the complete opposite of what cinema cameras are designed for.
I highlight disagree. Seems like you might want to explore more glass. Some people like sharp and clean. I personally don’t. So I use glass with more character. Some of the glass I use is so soft that I have to add sharping in post regardless of the camera. The Arri LF is sharp.. the red Raptor VV is sharp… IF YOU USE SHARP GLASS.
@@cammackey Idk I hope you're right but when people do those camera tests with the same lenses on mirrorless vs arri or red, the sharpness is what I notice. Arri can definitely be too sharp as well but I do think it's rendered in a different way, just somehow looks less high res and more filmic. But I know you can shape mirrorless cameras to look more like that, but to me it seems to be harder.
Sharpness is NOT an attribute of terrible image quality. The opposite is true. But if you like it or not is a matter of aesthetics, not of quality. Which is a whole other story.
@@xtra9996 Depends what you're talking about, for me resolution is the good part, like being able to distinguish tiny details, which comes from the lens and sensor, but sharpness is about contrast between fine lines I guess. The codecs in these cameras probably add some fake sharpness into the file, and recording externally isn't implemented that well and I'm pretty sure you get some noise reduction and digital sharpness baked in with a lot of cameras, even with braw and stuff like that. I don't really know what I'm talking about honestly but I can see a big difference, still the image is amazing for what a mirrorless camera is, but I think it's miles away from the quality of cinema cameras, unless you're an expert at production and you can emulate the look of a cinema camera, even though it's not authentically rendering that type of image it's more like an after effect.
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”.
Great video, gave me some good for thought! Just wondering what strength black magic filter you use?
Finally, I thought my eyes were different than other until watched this video~
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.
Maybe just do this in the post? Gives you much more control, especially with the masks and motion tracking.
thanks for that! : )
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!
You re gonna get haters? No way, i loved this man! Blunt true knowledge thrown at your face......don´t waste your time with snowflakes out there Mckey, keep up with this great content!!
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.