Hello,

I read somewhere on this forum that I can use an ND PL filter as an ND filter if I put it on the camera a certain way. Do any of you know if this works/how I need to put it on? I only bought a PL set, but I'd like to try to use it as a standard set too.

Hi, thanks for the inquiry, may we have the screenshot of those filters to check if will it be compatible with our Mavic Pro?

DJI Tony Posted at 2018-7-19 16:00
Hi, thanks for the inquiry, may we have the screenshot of those filters to check if will it be compatible with our Mavic Pro?

I don't have any pics on hand, but they're just the usual Polar Pro Cinema Series, like most people get. I've been using them for weeks, I'm just wondering if there's a way to set them up without the polarizing. I can't find the old thread where I first read it.

I think whichever way you turn the polariser, you will get a polarizing effect, either on the sky, or the foreground. Nature of the beast, it will do what it was designed for and it will work if photographer input is correct, and it will mess up your image if photographer input is not right. The filters with PL is ND filters as well, with added PL.
You do get just normal ND filters, without PL.
PL will also give u one stop less light, again, whichever way you turn it.

Charissa Posted at 2018-7-20 03:24
I think whichever way you turn the polariser, you will get a polarizing effect, either on the sky, or the foreground. Nature of the beast, it will do what it was designed for and it will work if photographer input is correct, and it will mess up your image if photographer input is not right. The filters with PL is ND filters as well, with added PL.
You do get just normal ND filters, without PL.
PL will also give u one stop less light, again, whichever way you turn it.

I agree. I have been loving my Polar Pro PL ND filters. Every time I fly I look into the filter and rotate it until I think it looks best (usually until the sky is darker blue and the water looks right) I do my best and am still playing around but I think like Charissa said that it actually hurt some photos I took one day, maybe I didn't have it positioned right.

But most of the photos I got right came out incredible compared to my regular ND filters.

What i did notice a lot with drone images taken with a PL filter, is a uneven blue saturation in the sky on most of them, obviously because the rotation is incorrect for the image. Have to be honest and say that it definitely spoil the image for me then. It looks abnormal and i would bin such a image if it was mine. Where a PL does work very nice, is to cut glare and reflections in water. I do have to say that i do not think that a drone polariser can cut a extra 2 stops, the real estate area on the small glass is just not enough IMHO.

isn't reducing light a good thing? I have only been doing photography for a few years but every other photographer usually tells me its better to take photos darker rather then brighter since you can always add light in post.

kinda confused why that article says its a bad thing.

El Diablo Posted at 2018-7-20 05:58
There's no such thing as good or bad thing. It depends on what conditions are you shooting. Ideally you want the right exposure.

For example, if you are in a sunny environment, to avoid very high fps, cutting light through a filter migth be a good idea. On the other side, if you are shooting a scene during a nice sunset, further cutting light will either decrease your fps (to allow more light during the same amount of time) or will increase your ISO to compensate (not good due to the introduction of noise = small sensor).

very good explanation and thanks for taking the time to post that

Thank you all for your replies.

So if I want no polarizing effect, I NEED to get a stock ND filter set.

Now, I've also been getting some big issues with overexposure that I never had before getting the filters (back then, I just set the EV dial to -1 to compensate). The big problem is the sky blending together into one white mass when I'm flying towards the side of the sky the Sun is on (east before noon, west after noon), but sometimes it shows up on white buildings too. I've got two pictures of the buildings:



Do I just need to get a 32? My set only goes up to 16, so I've been using it for cloudy and sunny skies.

An ND filter is pointless for photos.    The idea behind using them is to slow the shutter speed to get more motion blur without overexposing the pic - which helps your videos look more cinematic.   You wouldn't want to add 'blur' to static pics...

LP

LeafPeeper Posted at 2018-7-20 16:17
An ND filter is pointless for photos.    The idea behind using them is to slow the shutter speed to get more motion blur without overexposing the pic - which helps your videos look more cinematic.   You wouldn't want to add 'blur' to static pics...

LP

The blur in pictures can be undesirable, but the polarizer clearly has a useful function. I use the ND PL because that way I can both shoot video and stills without having to fly two separate flights. If I don't have an ND filter, my video will have awful jello and microvibrations.

Appalachian Aerials Posted at 2018-7-20 17:46
The blur in pictures can be undesirable, but the polarizer clearly has a useful function. I use the ND PL because that way I can both shoot video and stills without having to fly two separate flights. If I don't have an ND filter, my video will have awful jello and microvibrations.

Agreed - the CPL definitely does have a use for stills.

LP

If I bust the glass out of my ND4, will the filter still prevent jello?

El Diablo Posted at 2018-7-22 22:20
An ND filter is not useless for photos, it is exactly the opposite. ND filters, especially graduated are often used to balance the exposure between the sky and the foreground. In his case, unless the drone parameters are set manually to adjust for the right exposure, an ND filter might be the only solution to partially cut some light.

First off, I'd argue that a graduated filter isn't really a 'neutral density' filter...but yes, it can be argued because it doesn't change color characteristics.   In the case of full coverage ND filters, the whole point is to reduce the light entering the camera to allow for slower shutter speeds or wider apertures.    If using auto settings, the cam will just slow the shutter speed or pick an aperture for you to get the exposure comp you set.     If using manual settings, you'd set them however you wanted.   There would be no point for the ND filter unless you were taking pics of something so bright that the highest shutter speed, smallest aperture and the lowest ISO still gave you overexposed images - or if you needed a really narrow DOF (wide aperture) and pics were getting over exposed even at the fastest shutter speeds.  With today's cams, I just can't see that being common, but I guess I can concede.    The situation is totally different for video.

Edit: I haven't ignored the fact that we can't control the aperture on the MP.  I'd still argue that the highest available shutter speed/lowest iso setting is still enough to meet every exposure situation you are likely to encounter making ND filters useless for stills (again, not talking about graduated filters, polarizers or video).
LP

El Diablo Posted at 2018-7-22 22:33
Microvibrations are not caused by an ND filter unless it is not designed to work with the gimbal (it has to be heavier than normal and not througly tested). I believe what you describe as jelly and vibrations will be a jerky video sequence result of very high frame rates. This is due to the camera going to very high shutter speeds to try to decrease the amount of light hiting the sensor. This results on too many frames per second producing an unnatural intermitent video without any pleasing cinematic flow.

Your shutter speed should be approximately the double of the frames per second you are recording. To get a smooth and more cinematic look, if you are recording at 30 frames per second, you want your shutter speed to be 1/60th of a second.

I think you misread my post. When I fly with no filter, my camera gets these shakes that causes ugly vibrations on the camera. It also gets the weird lines that are caused by the jello effect. These only happen about once every few minutes.

If I fly with an ND filter, I don't experience any of those problems. That's why I bought the filters, in fact. People said they filter out jello (which they do), so the color and exposure benefits were just bonuses.

Appalachian Aerials Posted at 2018-7-23 16:35
I think you misread my post. When I fly with no filter, my camera gets these shakes that causes ugly vibrations on the camera. It also gets the weird lines that are caused by the jello effect. These only happen about once every few minutes.

If I fly with an ND filter, I don't experience any of those problems. That's why I bought the filters, in fact. People said they filter out jello (which they do), so the color and exposure benefits were just bonuses.

Yeah, this makes no sense to me.   There's no way an ND filter would filter out vibrations or jello - unless the added weight of the filter is helping to stabilize the gimbal, in which case you have a gimbal issue and I'd look into getting it fixed.
The other possibility is that you are seeing prop shadows caused by a perfect combination of light angle, lens flare and shutter speed to provide the interference pattern.  An ND filter would result in a slower shutter speed and get away from that (non) sweet spot.

Here's my example of prop shadow ->
Is that what you mean by lines and jello?  If so, then yes, I can see the ND filter helping...


LP

LeafPeeper Posted at 2018-7-23 16:41
Yeah, this makes no sense to me.   There's no way an ND filter would filter out vibrations or jello - unless the added weight of the filter is helping to stabilize the gimbal, in which case you have a gimbal issue and I'd look into getting it fixed.
The other possibility is that you are seeing prop shadows caused by a perfect combination of light angle, lens flare and shutter speed to provide the interference pattern.  An ND filter would result in a slower shutter speed and get away from that (non) sweet spot.

Well, some people said the extra weight IS what takes the jello out. I'm not bothering with fixing the gimbal; this is my second Mavic to have the issue, DJI's customer service is infamous, and it would cost hundreds of dollars to have somebody else look at it.

The prop shadow part makes sense.

El Diablo Posted at 2018-7-23 21:43
And I think you answered the issue yourself:

"There would be no point for the ND filter unless you were taking pics of something so bright that the highest shutter speed, smallest aperture and the lowest ISO still gave you overexposed images"

I guess we can agree to disagree.   I still find it hard to believe this is his issue.   With exposure comp or manual settings I can get my pics WAAAAY underexposed even in the brightest sun and with no filter.   My bet is that the Mavic is just picking shutter speeds that are overexposing his shots and he isn't compensating.   Mine does it too which is why I need to manually adjust settings.

LP

Well, today I started getting a bunch of jello DESPITE having the ND PL filters on. All I can think is that there might have been really heavy wind at that height, to where not even the jello filter could stop it all.