ND filter or fast shutter speed?

L

Luuc

New member
Hi guys,

So I am about to shoot my first ski movie with my canon 60D, I was wondering wether you guys would recommend using a ND filter or a very fast shutter speed to not get my shot over exposed. Also what picture style would you recommend?

Thanks a lot!

Luuc
 
There is a rule in dslr filmaking that is pretty difficult to break. Your shutter speed needs to be 2x ur frames. Do if you shoot at 60fps then your shutter speed should always be 125 and if you shoot 30 fps your shutter should always be 60... soo I guess nd? But you certainly don't need it
 
ALWAYS go with an ND filter to cut down light. Jacking up your shutter speed ruins your footage by making it look jittery and robotic. You can probably get away with 1/250 if you're filming 60fps but that is the absolute limit to have usable footage IMO. The rule of the thumb is to use a shutter speed double your frame rate to simulate the 180 degree shutter used on 35mm cinema cameras, but for slow motion and fast action you can deviate from that a little bit.
 
I mean, sometimes you just have to make do with whats available to you. I've filmed skiing at 1/500 and f16 on sunny days, because I used to have a wide angle with no filter thread. I ended up selling that lens though because I really hate the look of footage with no motion blur. IMO its just as bad as seeing moire or aliasing or color banding in footage. It totally ruins the "illusion" of a filmic image, which is the whole point of filming with a DSLR in the first place.
 
Dude you are clueless, stop giving advice.

OP if you can't afford a nice ND go ahead and shoot high shutter. After 1/250 you can't tell the difference I've shot 1/2000 before and honestly it doesn't look bad. What some people like to see is a "filmmatic" motion blur and to achieve that you shoot your shutter 2x your frame rate but this is NOT necessary and is just a guideline for a certain look. I often shoot 1/180 and 1/250 and I know alot of guys who shoot high shutter vs nd filters that would probably surprise you.
 
Well I had no idea. Sorry op for misinforming you. I was under the impression it was just a rule of thumb you shoot 2x the framerate but apparently I was wrong. Sorry man
 
I use a dslr because it's cheap and easy, not to get a filmic image. I understand what you're saying I'm just being difficult haha. If OP is asking the question that he is then he probably isn't too concerned about the image looking filmic was all I was getting at
 
So what kind of ND filter would you recommend? Is the 0.9 (tiffen) to dark to shoot follow cam shots with an aparture of about 8.0 and a shutterspeed of about 120 or 60 without having to raise the ISO to high?
 
I have a Light Craft Workshop Rapid ND. Its variable density, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than a regular ND, and people seem to think it has more of an effect on image quality, but its not anything I can notice in video files. It's SUPER convenient though. You can actually choose the exact shutter speed and aperture you want, then just dial in exposure by turning the filter. On wide lenses it has a weird x effect if you use it towards its darkest setting, but I rarely want to shoot my tokina past 5.6 anyway, so thats hardly ever a problem. If you can spend the extra money I would definitely recommend one. They also have an older model called the Fader ND MkII, which I used to have. They're a little cheaper, but I found it gave me really weird ghosting effects with back lighting. The newer version is multi coated and doesn't have that problem.
 
Thanks! Could you tell me around what ISO you shoot with the ND-filter. Sorry for all the questions but I'm planning on shooting a little ski movie but I can't test my settings overhere because we don't have mountains neither snow...
 
ISO500 (lowest on my fs100) usually shutter 1/125 or 1/180 and then my aperture changes based on if its sunny or cloudy, usually range from f4 to f11
 
Any negative impacts to over cranking to shoot at a low aperture..I've been shooting a 1/5000 and can't really tell a difference between shooting at say for example 1/800.
 
14113440:isaacwrong said:
Any negative impacts to over cranking to shoot at a low aperture..I've been shooting a 1/5000 and can't really tell a difference between shooting at say for example 1/800.
Click to expand...

Sort of depends on your content, but 1/800 is quite high, as i said before after a certain shutter speed motion blur is completely gone. I'd recommend an ND still if you want to shoot wide open with a lens, say 1.8 or 2.8 and keeping your shutter under 1/250. With skiing/action you will still get motion blur at a higher shutter, but if you're just shooting a static shot you might need to get down to 1/125 at 60fps to achieve any sort of motion blur.

Maybe you don't care about having any motion blur, which then go ahead and crank that shutter, but you'll eventualy learn why so many people strive to achieve at least some natural looking motion, tbh the right amount is very pleasing to the eye, with skiing its very easy to get too much if you've got alot of action, but as of recent ive been shooting 1/125 only.
 
i dont like motion blur cus it fucks up the shot so i film in a pretty high shutter speed but if it is really bright u can us a nd filter to make sure that u are able to film with the same shutter speed no matter the condtions
 
14141792:m_moriarty33 said:
but if it is really bright u can us a nd filter to make sure that u are able to film with the same shutter speed no matter the condtions
Click to expand...

Shooting the same shutter speed doesn't matter if you're shooting above 1/250, this technique only applies if you're using the 180 degree rule.
 
14141801:eheath said:
Shooting the same shutter speed doesn't matter if you're shooting above 1/250, this technique only applies if you're using the 180 degree rule.
Click to expand...

yeah i was just talking about how u don't have to go into the camera settings and instead all u have to do is put a ND filter on which i think is easier cus u know that the video quality will be the same.

thanks for clearing it up for them.?
 
14141809:m_moriarty33 said:
yeah i was just talking about how u don't have to go into the camera settings and instead all u have to do is put a ND filter on which i think is easier cus u know that the video quality will be the same.

thanks for clearing it up for them.?
Click to expand...

Using an ND doesn't necessarily have the same video quality. Most NDs have a color cast and the cheaper the ND the worse the results, a good ND looks great with a slight color change, but going your camera settings isnt that big of a deal dude haha
 
14141815:eheath said:
Using an ND doesn't necessarily have the same video quality. Most NDs have a color cast and the cheaper the ND the worse the results, a good ND looks great with a slight color change, but going your camera settings isnt that big of a deal dude haha
Click to expand...

ik i never that it was a big deal, here u tell me what is easier turning a variable nd filter until the vid looks good or taking the camera off the gimbal and changing the settings and then putting it back on the gimbal(which i am fine doing). and ik about how the nd isnt always perfect but i have a really nice one that i like and i cant see a difference
 
14141827:m_moriarty33 said:
ik i never that it was a big deal, here u tell me what is easier turning a variable nd filter until the vid looks good or taking the camera off the gimbal and changing the settings and then putting it back on the gimbal(which i am fine doing). and ik about how the nd isnt always perfect but i have a really nice one that i like and i cant see a difference
Click to expand...

ive never used a gimbal, never wanted to deal with the pain of using one. variable NDs are good, but unless you spent $200+ on it, its probably not that good. You are right that adjusting your variable nd is "easier" but being lazy doesnt really get you that far in filming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top