Polarizers...

[TA152]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 11:08 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[Mike Buckles]

I used to work at an ad agency, where I filmed backlit animation on an animation stand. We shot 16mm double perf neg., on a Mitchell double claw camera outfitted to a switch box to control the frames, exposure, etc. (Great camera...registration steady as a rock!)..anyhoo....we used to use a polarizing filter over the lens for some of the animation projects...the art director and I had done some experiments, and found that the colors were more pleasing with the filter on...funny how I forgot that until now...mike

[Alex]

Our neutral density topic post has spilled over onto the topic of Polarizers...

We had some interesting posts about polarizers on the Neutral Density topic, so here is a fresh polarizer topic post.

Please feel free to copy over your comments onto this thread, perhaps I can "edit" them over onto this topic, but I have never done it before.

[Mike Buckles]

Just got in the new issue of Popular Photography, and they have a whole article on Polarizers, and how to use them...the article was related to 35mm cameras, but could be used for any medium...(super 8...?)The way it talked, a circular polarizer is the way to go for 35mm slr..and I think for super 8 too. Found a not too expensive Tiffen polarizer at B and H photo for 35.00...my local camera store wanted 80.00. Mike

[TA 152]

I was just involved in a discussion on Polarizers on the Shoot8 board and thought some info there were relevant for this post as well so I post the link to that because it became quite long and it is too much to re-post but I add some of it:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">Nick??
Junior member
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 25
Location: Houston, Texas
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:24 pm?? ?
Post subject: Polarizing Filter Question
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should I get a regular polarizing filter or a circular polarizing filter? I have a Canon 1014 xls and I'm filming stuff in sunny Texas.

NickBack to top</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">
S8 Booster??

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn?t a foolproof advice but I do have some experience with both kind of filters with a 1014 XL-S.

Some 15 years ago I shot some K40 film with a standard polarizer and in bright light sunny or light overcast the images came out great, not to say exceptional and very grain free. A problem might arise when a very bright object appears like a white T-shirt in low light and a dark background. The bright parts goes easily to overexposure. I would recommend to step down the exposure some by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop but I recommend test in advance if possible.

Recently I bought a Hoya CIR Polarizer and I have an impression that this did not work as well as the standard with this setup. However, not being able to do a side by side test it is just an impression.

I think the Standard Polarizer with the 1014 turned the K40 into something totally different and the images when projected always reminds me of the impression I get from a Cinema movie in colour saturation etc. Very grain free.

The light certainly being different in Texas and Norway but I think it is worth a try.

I used the built in Auto Exposure during my tests.

R
_________________
Shoot And Project FILM!

</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">View previous topic :: View next topic ?
Author Message
jessh??
Senior member
Joined: 10 May 2002
Posts: 293
Location: Austin
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:23 am?? ?
Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S8 Booster wrote:

If found some info on the WEB that sort of confirms my impression that linear Polarizers do a better job than the CIR ones so go for a linear at least.

could you please point me towards this info?

~JessBack to top
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


S8 Booster??

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kelvin.net/Hasselblad/hasselbladV1n1685.txt

You have to scroll down the page to find this:

Quote:


Why's the circular polarizer the way to go? If you're using it on a
Hasselblad it doesn't make any difference what type of polarizer you get.
-- Unless the 205 uses some semi-transparent mirror for the spot meter.
Linear (top) polarizers are more effective than their circular counterparts so you get a more pronounced effect of the polarization. This effect is obviously adjustable by turning the filter ring.

You will need a circular polarizer in the following situations:
1) If you're using auto focus.
2) If the metering system in your camera requires it (typically only spot
meters require circ. pol., CW and partial meters are fine with the lin. pol.)
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some more about CIR vs POL;

http://www.pechorin.com/messages/95552.html

Scroll to find:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">
Quote:
Re: Circular True-Pol Polarizing OR True-Pol Polarizer- beaser - 25th Sep 2002 8:04
You'll have to retype your reply, I don't fully understand it.
I've been through this particular escapade before and I get angry with the lemming philosphy. I get the "safe" answers every day on a multitude of topics. I'm a tech and it's my job to solve problems and to sweep away the BS. The safe answers usually cost people a lot of money. No picture on your TV? We'll just change all the parts , just to be sure.
I had actually called tiffin and asked a tech support type the question. The answer was use circular. I asked to speak to someone senior. I asked why I had gotten that answer when the following is posted on the Tiffen site under polarizers
http://www.tiffen.com/ultrapol.htm
Some camera-related optics,like a video tap, employ a
partially silvered mirror, or beamsplitter. This may require the use of a Circular UltraPol, which places a clear, quarter-wave retarder on the camera side of the filter,effectively de-polarizing the light being recorded, after the image enhancement is done. Circular UltraPol filters are suitable for virtually all situations; Linear
UltraPol filters excel in traditional applications.
Since canon or Sony don't use a video tap or a beamsplitter the boss man figured it was OK. I asked him why they recomended the circular and the answer was it was easier to just recomend it accross the board in case you wanted to use your polarizer on yoyr SLR too. I personally consider that a technical cop out.
Instead of arguing, buy one and try it, it's half the price. I use a linear on both my cams and I'm a bloody purist. I won't own **** .
Try it, you can't loose. If it doesn't work , not only will I kiss your butt but I'll give you an hour to draw a crowd. You can return it and pay the extra and still have your circular.
Note: most of the people on the help desks shouldn't be there. They're reading safe answers out of a book.
Read more | Reply...
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

R

[Mike Buckles]

I was told also at a camera store that autofocus needed a circular polarizer...since I was buying one and step down rings to fit all my cameras, it was just easier to get a circular one..it works great on my mini-dv cam, autofocus slr and manual focus super 8 camera!

[vt220]

i've always got my tiffen polarizer on standby when shooting outside. i've found some cool situations to use it in the "wrong" direction too (using it to "enhance" glare")

i really like the combination of the pol with the red enhancer.