Re: [Leica] Re: UVa Filter unwanted effects.

["Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>]

Speaking of video, the latest Angenieux zoom lenses for broadcast video come
with a piece of glass in the lens shade.  They are very fine lenses.  I
assume this lens was designed with this in mind.  The shade with its glass
is however removable.

Since we shoot with a full crew if there is a light shining on a lens a grip
simply puts up a flag on a stand to block the offending light.  These
multi-element zoom lenses can flare pretty easily if you are not careful.

Kind of a different situation from an avaliable-light photo shoot.

Mike D

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: UVa Filter unwanted effects.


>
> >>but comparing a video studio situation to a photo situation
> (studio or not) is a completely different set of circumstances<<
> >> I can see where it would happen in a
> video studio though, if care were not taken in the lighting<<
>
> Why are they different?. I would think they are comparable.Could you
> elaborate?
>
> [Austin] That's a good question.  I thought a bit about it, and the video
> sets I have worked on, all have a LOT more lights than we ever use in the
> photo studio, also, the video cameras move around a lot more, plus there
> are more of them.  The most we ever move in the studio is probably a 10'D
> circle...if that, and the lighting is VERY structured.  Most video sets I
> have seen, have so many lights, and they are so far away...I could readily
> imagine it being a much more complicated problem with flare than in the
> photo studio.
>
> >>I have
> been shooting in the studio (and out) for 25 years, always using filters
> and have NEVER seen any image problems at all<<
>
> What filters are you using in the studio? Most of my shooting is in the
> studio, and unless I need CC filters there is no need for a filter(for
> protection). Just curious.
>
> [Austin] Since I never noticed any difference, filter on or off, I just
> prefer to keep them on.  I've heard the pros and cons of using/not using
> filters for 25 years, so just to prove it to our selves, about 10 years
> ago, we ran a test, to see if anyone could identify 6 out of 6 sets of
> 'identical' prints 6 shot with a UV(0) and six without.
>
> We used a number of different lenses, half were studio shots, half outdoor
> shots.  The prints were all 20"x24".  All were B&W, cold light printed,
> Schneider 80mm Componon-S f4 enlarging lense, Tri-X or Plus-X, D-76/1:1
> +30% development.  I don't remember what paper they were printed on...
>
> At least a dozen professional photographers tried, and numerous 'other'
> people.  Results...no one could tell the difference.  It averaged out to
> three (max was 4, and it was not repeatable...), so statistically, they
> were indistinguishable.
>
> I mean damn, think about it.  If a lense has 6 elements, meant to bend the
> image all around and have it come out with no/incredibly minimal
distortion
> on the other side, and they can get that right, they can't get a damn flat
> piece of glass right?
>
> I personally use a UV(0) Hasselblad filter on all my Hasselblad lenses,
> plus I ALWAYS use a shade...even in the studio...
>
>
>