P4P Filters - DJI vs PolarPro
- Thread starter Eddyfisher
- Start date
-
- Tags
- filters
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 23
- Age
- 39
I guess you could say I'm a "ninja" but I do like to avoid heavy handed pathing and masks. I was given my first set of grads 2 years ago and aside from a comparison shot i did ive actually used grads on aerial rigs one time. Good call on the cinema series filters. You cant go wrong there!
Do you have a source or evidence for those statements? I had both PolarPro and DJI ND's for my P4 and didn't personally notice a difference except the ease of not having to slip on and off the PolarPro filter every time I needed to attach the gimbal clamp (not to mention potential issues with slight extra weight and extra layer of glass).
I was pretty dialed in with the DJI ND16 on my P4 for the conditions I flew in and much preferred the ability to leave it on as default compared to the on-again, off-again routine with the PolarPros.
I value other people's opinions and look forward to evidence, but to just bluntly state that the OEM filters are basically an afterthought not even used by DJI employees seems begging for a credible source. Meanwhile, apparently, you state a third party that adds more setup steps, layers of glass, and weight is somehow obviously superior as if everyone accepts it as fact.
Further, if DJI glass is in fact inferior, I'd sure like to see PolarPro or someone else make OEM style screw-on types that replace the UV without having to slip a big monocle or whatever over my lens.
Edit: As has been mentioned, Polar Pro does feature screw on filters for the P4P. In fact I just received them and look forward to trying them out. As for the inferiority to DJI filters, I'm still not sure as I have no evidence one was or another. I'd like to see a test, thought I still think I'd be surprised to detect a difference.
Last edited:
Thanks for this, I knew I spent the money on the 4Pro for a reason! (yeah, finally got 10 minutes to watch the video)
I use PolarPro. I've had DJI ND's for my P3 and P4. What I don't like about the DJI version is no markings on the rim to let me know which ND I'm holding. PolarPro's ND all come with proper labeling on the ND. Makes it a lot easier to select the right one when out in the field shooting.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Awesome. Looks like their soon to be released NDs also used a threaded mount. I did not like the push on type. Thanks for the link.
I do wish they were sold individually, though.
Assuming you're making use of the extra image quality and DOF provided by an aperture around f4, I'm not sure ND4 would really be needed.
How often were you wishing for an ND2 on the P4, afterall?
I hate to sound like I own stock in the company or something, but it seems as though all of your criteria have been met. I read in their FAQ that they will sell any of their lenses "a la carte" if you do not wish to purchase the entire kit.
Great point! Just to add to that, I think it's worth noting the larger sensor size as well. The P4P takes in considerably more light than previous Phantoms, and therefor could necessitate a need for an ND8 when a pilot may have normally gone for their ND4. I think Polar Pro took this into account when coming up with a series of ND's to cover a wide array of lighting conditions.
We're still basically in agreement on the other part, but while they take in more light total due to the larger glass and sensor area, that does not mean they take in more light at a given point on the surface of the sensor. In other words, exposure basics don't change. Imagine using a bigger water hose to water a larger garden. Yes you are using more water, but a given patch is still receiving the same amount of water.
A light meter is a light meter, and f4 or whatever still results in the same amount of effective exposure. So the part I quoted above is not strictly true.
Glad to hear about the a la carte options coming!
The pixels are bigger in the P4P. Bigger pixels == absorb more light. If you have a P4 @ iso 100 1/60th f/2.8 and P4P @ iso 100 1/60th f/2.8, the P4P will be at least 1-2 stops brighter. At least that is the logic I used to theorize why PP skipped the ND4, and offer an ND8 in their kit, instead of the ND4 that they previously offered for the P4. I'm assuming that we're using the ND's with the intention of slowing shutter speed down to double whatever your framerate is and maintaining good exposure through the use of ND's and Aperture while leaving the rest at iso100, shutter speed = 2xframerate whenever possible?
A la carte options are available now, you just have to contact them with which piece(s) you want. I've contacted them a few times since placing my pre-order for the Shutter Collection, with great response times and communication. They're winning my heart quickly.
A la carte options are available now, you just have to contact them with which piece(s) you want. I've contacted them a few times since placing my pre-order for the Shutter Collection, with great response times and communication. They're winning my heart quickly.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree, unless the metering is just subpar. But not theoretically speaking. If that were the case, all handheld light meters would have to be told what kind of camera they were supposed to be measuring for.
My theory why PP discontinued the ND4 is that you can just bump to F4 (or 5.6 if necessary), get better results with greater DOF, and I doubt it was a very good seller anyway.
My theory why PP discontinued the ND4 is that you can just bump to F4 (or 5.6 if necessary), get better results with greater DOF, and I doubt it was a very good seller anyway.
Hey, I'm all for learning and sharing perspectives! That's why I got more into shutter speeds in my previous post. Sometimes F4 isn't enough to get shutter speeds down to where you need them to film in a "cinematic fashion", so we're using the ND's to get the shutter speed to the range we want to be filming in, and hopefully the aperture will help with the fine adjustments, and allow us room to wiggle with creative depth of field. What kind of exposure settings do you normally shoot with when you find yourself using ND's and filming 30 or 60fps footage, particularly shutter speeds?
I got into it a bit in post 23, but I go for 24fps at 1/50 usually. Of course for 60fps I'd shoot for 1/120, which is easier to achieve.
With my old P4 in golden hour (so not super bright) I almost always used ND16 to get to 1/50s. I really needed an ND32 as well.
I just don't think ND4 would have been cutting it in many situations even locked at f2.8 (maybe some at 1/60). Now with every reason imaginable to try to stay around f4, it would be like asking why they didn't previously offer an ND2.
BTW larger pixels do gather more light efficiently, so higher ISO quality is often better, but that's going the other direction when we're trying to limit light. And I'm not actually sure how much larger the pixels would be on a 20MP 1 inch sensor compared to the smaller 12MP P4. I'd guess that some of the improved higher ISO performance is also due to better sensor design/electronics (readout, etc) causing less noise.
Back to settings... I suppose if someone were planning to shoot at 120fps 1080p for slowmo, then maybe ND4 could still be useful to achieve 1/240s. Hadn't really thought about that scenario. But then 2.8 would be an option too.
With my old P4 in golden hour (so not super bright) I almost always used ND16 to get to 1/50s. I really needed an ND32 as well.
I just don't think ND4 would have been cutting it in many situations even locked at f2.8 (maybe some at 1/60). Now with every reason imaginable to try to stay around f4, it would be like asking why they didn't previously offer an ND2.
BTW larger pixels do gather more light efficiently, so higher ISO quality is often better, but that's going the other direction when we're trying to limit light. And I'm not actually sure how much larger the pixels would be on a 20MP 1 inch sensor compared to the smaller 12MP P4. I'd guess that some of the improved higher ISO performance is also due to better sensor design/electronics (readout, etc) causing less noise.
Back to settings... I suppose if someone were planning to shoot at 120fps 1080p for slowmo, then maybe ND4 could still be useful to achieve 1/240s. Hadn't really thought about that scenario. But then 2.8 would be an option too.
Spot on here. Solid response. I think we're on the same page! I don't see much use for ND4 -- personally. Thanks for the good morning convo!
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Those appear to be solid colored filters mislabeled as Grad filters, which are not graduated ND at all. Alas.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Currently out of stock even for the P4/P3. No order capability, either. ND8 to ND16 is way too extreme. I'd love an ND4 to Clear GND, for golden hour video.
They look like grad filters to me! I ordered them after getting this reply from Harry at Freewell when I inquired about the specs:
"Its ND8 , It half clear & half grey.
All our Grad filter are 360degree rotating ring you can make the shade as per your choice."
I'll try and post back after I get them...
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Similar threads
