I am somewhat short of funds since my P4 purchase....only a temporary issue......if you could only buy one filter what would be best suited for general use...mostly sunny days.

i would wait. the camera is so advanced is able to work wonders and if you really need to adjust exposure you can tap on the screen. filters do one thing: reduce extra light. since this is a wide lens, they dont make much sense unless you prefer vivid colours (in extra light colors wash white, so if you reduce white colors become stronger, however dark colors will become black), but that is a trade-off of realistic color rendition. people prefer natural colors because that shows the way the eye can see, instead of story book or calendar coloring, which is stunning to the eye but not natural.

I posted in another Thread (Post number 17), the settings given(Provided by other people) give nice smooth gimbal movement. Also provides good information on ND filters and examples of how they improve the quality of your video. No one filter suites all, but if generally Sunny days then ND16 would likely get used most.

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-23 04:22
i would wait. the camera is so advanced is able to work wonders and if you really need to adjust exposure you can tap on the screen. filters do one thing: reduce extra light. since this is a wide lens, they dont make much sense unless you prefer vivid colours (in extra light colors wash white, so if you reduce white colors become stronger, however dark colors will become black), but that is a trade-off of realistic color rendition. people prefer natural colors because that shows the way the eye can see, instead of story book or calendar coloring, which is stunning to the eye but not natural.

The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture camera, the only way to adjust the exposure properly is to use filters. The adjustments it makes to try and correct the exposure value are either shutter speed or ISO setting, or a combination of both. And although reasonably good results can be achieved it is not an ideal situation, which is where the Phantom 4 Pro with its variable aperture is a big improvement.

What filter you get depends on what video resolution you use.

I mainly shoot 1080P @ 60 fps.   In this case I want a shutter speed of 1/120 second.  The ND16 filter manages to get me there even in the winter on sunny days with the ground covered in white snow.  Because of this, the ND16 my most used filter.

If you shoot using one of the resolutions that  uses a lower frame rate then you'll need a darker filter.  For instance, 4K @ 24 FPS requires a shutter speed of 1/48 second.  This will require a much darker filter to obtain that shutter speed.

If you short of funds best go for VARIABLE ND2-400 many will tel you here they give X but that happens only when you go too deep if  you are operating within level of ND4-ND64 their is no problem with them.

On my flight today I could see both sensor sensitivity and shutter speed adjust in auto exposure for best metering. On the links posted here I've seen that shutter speed gets set which is not good in my opinion. I still believe filters are a waste of money unless you have particular scenes to record, where the illumination might render colors better. I fly around, not set on a specific scene and shutter speed varies from 320 to 4000.  If I used a filter, then it wouldn't work .

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-23 22:37
On my flight today I could see both sensor sensitivity and shutter speed adjust in auto exposure for best metering. On the links posted here I've seen that shutter speed gets set which is not good in my opinion. I still believe filters are a waste of money unless you have particular scenes to record, where the illumination might render colors better. I fly around, not set on a specific scene and shutter speed varies from 320 to 4000.  If I used a filter, then it wouldn't work .

WindSoul:

? And !

Keep Smiling,

Augustus

Augustus Brian Posted at 2017-2-23 22:59
WindSoul:

? And !

My point being filters are neither mandatory nor an all-time improvement. Capisci?

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-23 23:05
My point being filters are neither mandatory nor an all-time improvement. Capisci?

No they are not mandatory but yes they can make an improvement to the quality of the video. On a bright sunny day an ND filter of the correct strength will allow you to reduce your shutter speed closer to the rule of thumb 2 x fps to make your videos more cinematic.

To the OP - I'd wait until I could get a whole set of ND's. If you can't go polar pro then taco rc is a good second choice.

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-23 23:20
No they are not mandatory but yes they can make an improvement to the quality of the video. On a bright sunny day an ND filter of the correct strength will allow you to reduce your shutter speed closer to the rule of thumb 2 x fps to make your videos more cinematic.

To the OP - I'd wait until I could get a whole set of ND's. If you can't go polar pro then taco rc is a good second choice.

Rule of thumb 2x means nothing. The camera moves and shutter is required to act fast to avoid motion blur. The video frame rate may be 60Hz but sampling is done at shutter speed. Have a good night!

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-23 23:33
Rule of thumb 2x means nothing. The camera moves and shutter is required to act fast to avoid motion blur. The video frame rate may be 60Hz but sampling is done at shutter speed. Have a good night!

I hate to break it to you but most people prefer the look of the video when shot like this as it is most similar to the movies you watch. A super sharp video isn't always desirable.

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-23 23:53
I hate to break it to you but most people prefer the look of the video when shot like this as it is most similar to the movies you watch. A super sharp video isn't always desirable.

You are wasting your breath unfortunately, *Soul is a veritable Mountain Of Misinformation.

Actually his post is technically correct but presents an incomplete picture of how best to shoot aerial video.

With a fixed aperture camera, you need to be able to control light via ND filters to come into an acceptable shutter speed - and yes, most videographers agree that this is about twice the frame rate. It adds a bit of desirable motion blur, and will avoid artifacts that can occur in your videos (line blur). On top, it usually takes out the props that might enter into your field of vision.

I recommend a set of ND filters up to maybe ND32. The filters I use most is ND8 and ND16. I got mine from Taco RC in Hong Kong, and they are of good quality.

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-23 23:53
I hate to break it to you but most people prefer the look of the video when shot like this as it is most similar to the movies you watch. A super sharp video isn't always desirable.

if i may, break it or not, just dont hate it. nothing good comes out of hatred.

there's an excerpt from a previous post on this thread:
"
The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture camera, the only way to adjust the exposure properly is to use filters.
"
Based on my experience which is by no means extensive but it is first-hand, i believe that sentence is incorrect. reasons can be found in this post.

i dont say filters do nothing. if you check on photography sites you can see filters are used to render color more vividly, or to make water flow look linke long night shots with trailing lights. filters are employed to reduce the light in order to allow a long exposure, which whill render details of the static subject while anything moving becomes blurry. that's all.

besides color enhancement-provided the right illumination though, filters do nothing. as someone already mentioned it and i confirmed, camera has an auto exposure which is simply good. and an electronic shutter speed at par with best dslr cameras (with a remark, the shutter in a dslr is mechanical). they managed many things right, with camera auto exposure one of them.

im not against opinions or even against filters. maybe ill buy some if the scene i record requires attenuation of strong light which the camera cant manage automatically, which as of my experience with this camera P4, i doubt is gonna happen. fact is i fly over water where light is always strong and i'm content with the quality of the recording. as for filter/no filter youtube vids, i would say they are not convincing. simple as that.

PS: i did notice  the poisoning remarks in a post above. please note is not about what is wrong in a message or what reasoning would have been better. it is about making uncivilized comments about a fellow contributor. i deplore the fact that such a person is given equal rights with the rest of contributors, this can not reflect well on this forum. i hope the person who made a contribution out of denigrating or being derogative will come to senses on his own accord.

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 09:43
if i may, break it or not, just dont hate it. nothing good comes out of hatred.

there's an excerpt from a previous post on this thread:

WindSoul:

Again, with respect to your most experienced, knowledgeable information regarding the use of filters on the P4: ?? and !!

Keep Smiling,

Augustus

My statement:-

"The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture camera, the only way to adjust the exposure properly is to use filters."

And the reply from another post:-

"Based on my experience which is by no means extensive but it is first-hand, i believe that sentence is incorrect. "

Unfortunately this statement is incorrect. The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture (f2.8), and the only way to reduce the amount of light entering the camera is to use Neutral Density filters, that is fact, not fiction.

Keep Smiling

Aardvark Posted at 2017-2-24 12:52
My statement:-

"The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture camera, the only way to adjust the exposure properly is to use filters."

you either didnt read my post entirely or dont agree with my conclusions. since you already made your opinion clear  in a previous post, just reiterating a statement without bringing any new evidence other that your opinion on fact and fiction is not worth debating. thank you for making that clear!

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 13:05
you either didnt read my post entirely or dont agree with my conclusions. since you already made your opinion clear  in a previous post, just reiterating a statement without bringing any new evidence other that your opinion on fact and fiction is not worth debating. thank you for making that clear!

The focal ratio is stamped on the front of the camera f2.8, that is not my opinion but fact.

The P4 specification says it is an f2.8 camera, once again fact , not my opinion.

ND (Neutral Density ) filters reduce the amount of light entering the camera, as would a variable aperture camera, which the P4 is not. That is fact, not my opinion.

Is that sufficient evidence for you ?

Aardvark Posted at 2017-2-24 13:16
The focal ratio is stamped on the front of the camera f2.8, that is not my opinion but fact.

The P4 specification says it is an f2.8 camera, once again fact , not my opinion.

no, it isnt evidence. has no relevance in the context of this discussion.
filters reduce the white offset in the light reflected from the subject, in order to render the colors on the subject better. that is their only purpose. but what hey do to the rest of the scene is just turn it dark. that is the negative effect of using a filter.


i would have asked you to read my posts in this thread, but i believe you have difficulties to follow and understand. please allow me to point it for you:
"
The adjustments it makes to try and correct the exposure value are either shutter speed or ISO setting, or a combination of both
"
that is a quote from your own post. it is right. aperture has nothing to do with anything relevant in this laboured debate you dragged me through. the camera adjusts very well in both strong light (shutter 1/4000, sensitivity on -) and low lights (shutter 1/320, sensitivity on +), rendering filters useless. the f/2.8 aperture has to do with the amount of useful light (light reflected from the subject), which for a wide lens is needed to gain contrast in shaded areas of the landscape. is what makes the eyes of say a dog render colored in a picture instead of black, if i may. meaning the f/11 of the P4pro would render with prevalence black for dark colors and better contrast in white-washed colors.
by comparison, the f/2.8 of the P4 is limited at rendering white-washed colors (turns them into white) but has better rendition of dark colors( doesn't turn them into black). of course there is a balance as to how much white is too much on a frame and here my quoting gives you credit, for pointing out shutter speed and sensor sensitivity.
i believe in the P4 camera, based on my previous experience in photography as well as my actual experience with the P4.
sorry, i have a life outside this forum. besides, i cant really debate while other people sidekick, turning an interesting debate into something uncivilized. this discussion ends here.

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 13:42
no, it isnt evidence. has no relevance in the context of this discussion.
filters reduce the white offset in the light reflected from the subject, in order to render the colors on the subject better. that is their only purpose. but what hey do to the rest of the scene is just turn it dark. that is the negative effect of using a filter.

You appear to be technically ignorant, as ample evidence has been presented to you that your statement is wrong. This forum would be better off without your uninformed advice. Simply put, go away and stop propagating bad advice.

Geebax Posted at 2017-2-24 14:06
You appear to be technically ignorant, as ample evidence has been presented to you that your statement is wrong. This forum would be better off without your uninformed advice. Simply put, go away and stop propagating bad advice.

getting the debate to a language more adequated to your own sense of debating?
"
You appear to be technically ignorant, as ample evidence has been presented to you that your statement is wrong. This forum would be better off without your uninformed advice. Simply put, go away and stop propagating bad advice.
"
in terms of evidence about troublemakers this is so ample that i couldn't let it go.
unprovoked and vicious. the mark of the bully.

AlecW Posted at 2017-2-24 14:23
"unprovoked and vicious"

Nope, the truth hurts.   Ask yourself why the moderators have deleted some of your posts and not others?

i can not discuss moderator decisions or posts, you know that.
one of the posts was deleted without being reported, while the other was deleted without reason. that's the stretch of my knowledge, now anyone knows what i know.
while useless posts are sitting fine in the forum, poisoning everything, even this thread. what do i make of that?

congratulations!

I imagine the OP might be somewhat bemused by now, but in answer to his original question, in my humble opinion, In a Sunny setting an ND 16 might be the most commonly used ND filter. I have a set of three myself ND4, ND8 & ND16 which cover most of the situations I encounter in my generally cloudy climate interspersed with the odd Sunny day or two.

I would recommend ultimately a set of three or four ND filters to cover most requirements.

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 09:43
if i may, break it or not, just dont hate it. nothing good comes out of hatred.

there's an excerpt from a previous post on this thread:

Ok let me be a bit clearer. Let''s get the context correct for a start, I believe the OP is asking about ND filters in the context of videos not taking stills.

In this regard (and has been posted by others in this thread also) ND filters are used to reduce the amount of  light in order to be able to use a lower shutter speed to conform to the 2x fps rule of thumb to achieve that 'cinematic' look to the video. Contrary to your casual dismissal of this  'rule' it is a proven fact that humans are so used to associating some motion blur with how a movie is supposed to look (please read up on this for more information before putting down the comments of others).

Taking some other points, I do agree with you that the comments from another poster:"The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture camera, the only way to adjust the exposure properly is to use filters............The Phantom 4 has a fixed aperture (f2.8), and the only way to reduce the amount of light entering the camera is to use Neutral Density filters, that is fact, not fiction.."
isn't in itself correct as the exposure is adjusted in camera (in auto mode) via shutter speed. For general use leaving the camera in auto is fine. I don't understand why so many advocate the use of manual when they have no way of measuring the correct exposure. Only in certain circumstances will I use manual on a camera. Simple EV correction is usually more than sufficient to compensate.

Your comments:
'filters are used to render color more vividly, or to make water flow look linke long night shots with trailing lights. filters are employed to reduce the light in order to allow a long exposure, which whill render details of the static subject while anything moving becomes blurry. that's all.'
is only relevant to stills photography, video is a different ballgame.

'as for filter/no filter youtube vids, i would say they are not convincing. simple as that.'
That's most likely because they aren't getting a shutter speed close to what the rule says.



Capisch?

I use my ND8 or ND8 polarized the most on sunny days.

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-24 15:09
Ok let me be a bit clearer. Let''s get the context correct for a start, I believe the OP is asking about ND filters in the context of videos not taking stills.

In this regard (and has been posted by others in this thread also) ND filters are used to reduce the amount of  light in order to be able to use a lower shutter speed to conform to the 2x fps rule of thumb to achieve that 'cinematic' look to the video. Contrary to your casual dismissal of this  'rule' it is a proven fact that humans are so used to associating some motion blur with how a movie is supposed to look (please read up on this for more information before putting down the comments of others).

"I don't understand why so many advocate the use of manual when they have no way of measuring the correct exposure."

I use the Exposure Value as measured by the camera itself and displayed in DJI Go, as you say this simple EV correction is usually sufficient. Is the exposure information given by the camera wrong ?

I would sum up the use of ND filters this way: They have little benefit in shooting stills, as the shutter speed can be adjusted to correctly expose the shot. For video, increasing the shutter speed freezes each frame with no motion blur, therefore producing staccato motion. To eliminate the staccato motion, you want to introduce some motion blur, and to do that you need to slow the shutter down. For a camera that does not have any aperture control, that leaves no real way to control the exposure, other than the ISO setting, which is simply amplification, and that does not control over-exposure. So you place an ND filter in place on the lens to reduce the amount of light getting to the sensor, leaving you able to slow down the shutter to a low value. A properly designed ND filter has no effect on the colours of the image, that is why they are called ND or Neutral Density filters. It means they are the same density to all wavelengths of light.

Aardvark Posted at 2017-2-24 15:25
I use the Exposure Value as measured by the camera itself and displayed in DJI Go, as you say this simple EV correction is usually sufficient. Is the exposure information given by the camera wrong ?

no, it's just that I just see quite a few posts around (in various forums) spouting exposure settings without regard to the circumstances.  

Geebax Posted at 2017-2-24 15:26
I would sum up the use of ND filters this way: They have little benefit in shooting stills, as the shutter speed can be adjusted to correctly expose the shot. For video, increasing the shutter speed freezes each frame with no motion blur, therefore producing staccato motion. To eliminate the staccato motion, you want to introduce some motion blur, and to do that you need to slow the shutter down. For a camera that does not have any aperture control, that leaves no real way to control the exposure, other than the ISO setting, which is simply amplification, and that does not control over-exposure. So you place an ND filter in place on the lens to reduce the amount of light getting to the sensor, leaving you able to slow down the shutter to a low value. A properly designed ND filter has no effect on the colours of the image, that is why they are called ND or Neutral Density filters. It means they are the same density to all wavelengths of light.

With all the blah, blah, blah and misinformation in this thread so far, this comment by Geebax is concise and correct.

Many people think that ND filters magically improve their photography and videos when they have ONE purpose in this context... to reduce the shutter speed to induce motion blur. This can be done in stills to blur flowing water or moving objects but they have no other purpose for stills.

Personally, for video, I have no need to use ND filters as I believe in capturing the most information (sharpest image) in every frame. If i want motion blur to make it look more like film, I'll add it in post.

RSW Posted at 2017-2-24 15:51
With all the blah, blah, blah and misinformation in this thread so far, this comment by Geebax is concise and correct.

Many people think that ND filters magically improve their photography and videos when they have ONE purpose in this context... to reduce the shutter speed to induce motion blur. This can be done in stills to blur flowing water or moving objects but they have no other purpose for stills.

How do you do this in post?

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-24 15:55
How do you do this in post?

With Adobe After Effects.
There are two methods. One is called Pixel Motion Blur and analyzes the movement of elements in the image and blurs the pixels along those movement vectors. The other is called Force Motion Blur which uses frame interpolation.

Thanks. Unfortunately for the casual hobbyist (eg myself) it's hard to justify the cost of adobe products which we only use every now and then. So it's still ND filters for me!

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-24 15:09
Ok let me be a bit clearer. Let''s get the context correct for a start, I believe the OP is asking about ND filters in the context of videos not taking stills.

In this regard (and has been posted by others in this thread also) ND filters are used to reduce the amount of  light in order to be able to use a lower shutter speed to conform to the 2x fps rule of thumb to achieve that 'cinematic' look to the video. Contrary to your casual dismissal of this  'rule' it is a proven fact that humans are so used to associating some motion blur with how a movie is supposed to look (please read up on this for more information before putting down the comments of others).

dont know exactly about that cinematic feel. such a concept is new to me. cant counter there. i've seen a sample with blurring instead of eye-stressing transition of sharp imagery on close setups, then you got me. this camera cant possibly record fast transitions anyway, it has a compression rate in excess of 80:1.
where you agree with me, you continue saying that manual is not good. i take you refer to shutter- then i agree (back), the manual shutter in changing lighting cant be good.
about the youtube remark, i cant do anything but draw conclusions. even in this thread the use of filters is setup with manual shutter speeds. if i have to drop auto exposure to use a filter, then that scene must be static.
who's Capisch?

AlecW Posted at 2017-2-24 17:15
Posted by you above.
"My point being filters are neither mandatory nor an all-time improvement. Capisci?"

yet another phenomenal contribution. absolutely unrelated to anything.

talking on lame, nobody can top that!
is there something you need explaining, dear?

AlecW Posted at 2017-2-24 17:23
Look in a mirror

Little snips like "who's Capisch?", when you first used that are just childish.  You have zero credibility, your posts are just stupid drivel.

my God you're deep! are you following my posts again? what is this, lame competition? you know who Capisch is and i dont, is that it?

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 17:05
dont know exactly about that cinematic feel. such a concept is new to me. cant counter there. i've seen a sample with blurring instead of eye-stressing transition of sharp imagery on close setups, then you got me. this camera cant possibly record fast transitions anyway, it has a compression rate in excess of 80:1.
where you agree with me, you continue saying that manual is not good. i take you refer to shutter- then i agree (back), the manual shutter in changing lighting cant be good.
about the youtube remark, i cant do anything but draw conclusions. even in this thread the use of filters is setup with manual shutter speeds. if i have to drop auto exposure to use a filter, then that scene must be static.

where you agree with me, you continue saying that manual is not good.No I didn't, to use manual you need to have a way of measuring the exposure (either using the camera or some other means). There those who simply think that there are some magic manual settings to be used in all circumstances when you wack on an ND filter.


if i have to drop auto exposure to use a filter, then that scene must be static.
No, the camera will compensate for the lower light level by lowering the shutter speed. Doesn't matter if you're taking a still or video.


who's Capisch?
Now who's the troll? Ok I did misspell it, capisce?

joe_gadget Posted at 2017-2-24 17:30
where you agree with me, you continue saying that manual is not good.No I didn't, to use manual you need to have a way of measuring the exposure (either using the camera or some other means). There those who simply think that there are some magic manual settings to be used in all circumstances when you wack on an ND filter.

camera compensates? we're getting to technical im afraid. dont feel like talking metering in this thread.
misspelled? no, you spelled it right from the first two times, although differently. i couldn't figure out what you meant, that's all.

WindSoul Posted at 2017-2-24 17:05
dont know exactly about that cinematic feel. such a concept is new to me. cant counter there. i've seen a sample with blurring instead of eye-stressing transition of sharp imagery on close setups, then you got me. this camera cant possibly record fast transitions anyway, it has a compression rate in excess of 80:1.
where you agree with me, you continue saying that manual is not good. i take you refer to shutter- then i agree (back), the manual shutter in changing lighting cant be good.
about the youtube remark, i cant do anything but draw conclusions. even in this thread the use of filters is setup with manual shutter speeds. if i have to drop auto exposure to use a filter, then that scene must be static.

WindSoul:

"dont know exactly about that cinematic feel. such a concept is new to me. cant counter there."

I continue to be impressed by your ability to admit when you are tau(gh)t. This is but one of the many, many attributes that you possess, virtues for which I harbor ever-vigilant, hardy Respect. For. You.

Keeep Smiling,

Augustus