Pics and first impressions DJI ND8 and ND16 filters

[PeterW_R]

Hello guys,

I haven't seen any pics of the official ND16 and ND8 filters from DJI, so I thought I would post mine. As you'll see it's a perfect aestetic fit for the stock gimball as opposed to other filters.

They come in a simple foam box that could really be improved, I think I'll store them in my GPC case as the foam fit seems to suit them perfectly.

They appear to do their job well. One word of warning, the ND16 came pretty dirty, I had a hard time blowing the filter and cleaning it with a an optical clothing, finally a huminidief cotton did the job. The coatings appear to be fairly durable as it was not unharmed by thorough cleaning.

I'll definitely use them for video, I'm shooting 4K 25fps with PAL and the ND16 appears to do a better job on keeping the shutter speed around 1/50 in a sunny afternoon.

Do you know if ND filters can also be of help when doing photos?

 

[Kaitlyn]

Hello guys,

I haven't seen any pics of the official ND16 and ND8 filters from DJI, so I thought I would post mine. As you'll see it's a perfect aestetic fit for the stock gimball as opposed to other filters.

They come in a simple foam box that could really be improved, I think I'll store them in my GPC case as the foam fit seems to suit them perfectly.

They appear to do their job well. One word of warning, the ND16 came pretty dirty, I had a hard time blowing the filter and cleaning it with a an optical clothing, finally a huminidief cotton did the job. The coatings appear to be fairly durable as it was not unharmed by thorough cleaning.

I'll definitely use them for video, I'm shooting 4K 25fps with PAL and the ND16 appears to do a better job on keeping the shutter speed around 1/50 in a sunny afternoon.

Do you know if ND filters can also be of help when doing photos?

I'd argue they are useless for photos. With a fixed aperture of 2.8, only ISO + shutter speed can be affected. You'd want your ISO to be as low (close to) 100 as possible, while maintaining a decent shutter speed. Given that it can do 1/8000s you're fine for 99% of shots without any ND in my opinion.

 

[Wibble]

I'd argue they are useless for photos. With a fixed aperture of 2.8, only ISO + shutter speed can be affected. You'd want your ISO to be as low (close to) 100 as possible, while maintaining a decent shutter speed. Given that it can do 1/8000s you're fine for 99% of shots without any ND in my opinion.

I agree why would anyone want to reduce the amount of light coming into a lens?
A polariser makes sense or a UV filter but not something to effectively reduce your light gathering.
And why shoot in 25fps? Who wants blur? We have the technology lets use it. Or why bother with 4k???

 

[Wibble]

And sorry PeterW_R not having a go at you personally I can assure you!

 

[realsting]

I agree why would anyone want to reduce the amount of light coming into a lens?
A polariser makes sense or a UV filter but not something to effectively reduce your light gathering.
And why shoot in 25fps? Who wants blur? We have the technology lets use it. Or why bother with 4k???

I've already shot one film using the DJI ND's and they've worked well. Using the ND16 on a bright day enabled me to shoot at 100 ISO whilst maintaining a nice motion blur, and coupled with the 4K I got some great footage. Oh BTW 25fps is what we shoot on in PAL land and adds a nice cinematic effect. Higher speeds are only good for slowing down motion .. Unless you like the horrible video motion effect!

 

[Wibble]

I've already shot one film using the DJI ND's and they've worked well. Using the ND16 on a bright day enabled me to shoot at 100 ISO whilst maintaining a nice motion blur, and coupled with the 4K I got some great footage. Oh BTW 25fps is what we shoot on in PAL land and adds a nice cinematic effect. Higher speeds are only good for slowing down motion .. Unless you like the horrible video motion effect!

I actually HATE the so called cinematic effect of blur. Watching fast actions films it becomes so blurred you can't see what the hell is going on.
Nobody would put up with 25hz refresh rates on monitors etc. Or 640x480 resolutions etc.
4k is here now - why stick with old technology?
All computer games and graphics cards are pushing for faster and faster frame rates for smoothness.

 

[PeterW_R]

Wibble I think it comes down to personal preference. My home TV is UHD PAL so shooting 4K PAL made more sence, there're plenty of video tutorials that emphatise the use of ND filters at lower framerates to ease the visual experience.

 

[30secs]

Maybe a silly question, but can't I just adjust the exposure on the controller to increase/decrease "nd" ?

Also, I like to video record all if my flights, in 1080p. What frame rate do you recommend and why?

 

[Dacon Productions]

I ONLY shoot 1080P/60.

 

[4wd]

Wibble I think it comes down to personal preference. My home TV is UHD PAL so shooting 4K PAL made more sence, there're plenty of video tutorials that emphatise the use of ND filters at lower framerates to ease the visual experience.

There's really no need to use PAL unless your TV is ancient which it clearly isn't
Youtube is probably best on 30fps.
The option to use PAL now effectively just allows a different range of shutter speeds.

 

[4wd]

Maybe a silly question, but can't I just adjust the exposure on the controller to increase/decrease "nd" ?

Also, I like to video record all if my flights, in 1080p. What frame rate do you recommend and why?

You can adjust the dial to get a suitable exposure.
It primarily only changes the shutter speed so faster speed lets in less light resulting in darker image.
This works perfectly OK but there is a school of thought that your video footage looks smoother if the shutter is kept low (perhaps) ideally 1/50th
To do this in bright conditions you need a fairly dark filter - like sunglasses.
The drawbacks are possible effect on white balance and making the shutter too slow if during a flight you want to pause video and take stills.

My feeling is the 'need' for NDs is often greatly exaggerated, and you really don't need worry about it unless you are into serious editing and trying to achieve a cinematic style. Furthermore using them with little understanding of why is likely to cause as many problems as it solves.
The same applies to polarisers only more so.

On the other hand a set of three NDs is not terribly expensive - and is nice to have.

 

[30secs]

You can adjust the dial to get a suitable exposure.
It primarily only changes the shutter speed so faster speed lets in less light resulting in darker image.
This works perfectly OK but there is a school of thought that your video footage looks smoother if the shutter is kept low (perhaps) ideally 1/50th
To do this in bright conditions you need a fairly dark filter - like sunglasses.
The drawbacks are possible effect on white balance and making the shutter too slow if during a flight you want to pause video and take stills.

My feeling is the 'need' for NDs is often greatly exaggerated, and you really don't need worry about it unless you are into serious editing and trying to achieve a cinematic style. Furthermore using them with little understanding of why is likely to cause as many problems as it solves.
The same applies to polarisers only more so.

On the other hand a set of three NDs is not terribly expensive - and is nice to have.

Thank you for that. I have a 3 and set, and I mainly record video. One time I wanted to test the and usability because I haven't really noticed it before.. So I flew without, with nd4 and nd8... I could not term the difference and actually the naked lens had better colors IMO!

 

[realsting]

I actually HATE the so called cinematic effect of blur. Watching fast actions films it becomes so blurred you can't see what the hell is going on.
Nobody would put up with 25hz refresh rates on monitors etc. Or 640x480 resolutions etc.
4k is here now - why stick with old technology?
All computer games and graphics cards are pushing for faster and faster frame rates for smoothness.

And I actually HATE everything motion-sharp and 'smooth' as you put it because it emphasis too much the fact that it's bloody video and not film.. It loses its organic feel. I love the cinematic look. With all the work I do, (and I'm only referring to what I do as high frame rates etc have their place), I shoot 24 or 25fps and higher frames rates for slow motion that go onto a 25fps editing timeline (so rendered out as 25fps). So although I am still shooting video (of course), it's not unnecessarily emphasised with the wrong frame rate.

Moreover, using the (DJI) ND filters I'm able to bring down the ISO to 100 (in many cases) to get a cleaner image whilst maintaining (to a point) 1/50th second shutter, or twice the 25fps frame rate as it should be for this kind of shooting. Everything I shoot is UHD (3840 x 2160) as this is exactly 4 x HD (2 x Height of HD and 2 x Length of HD) which translates pretty well when I start add post work to the image etc..

The high speed frame rates of computer games as you have referred to in your post is something I strive to steer well clear of! IMO it looks 'SHITE'!

Happy shooting!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Dacon Productions]

...and shoot B&W, make a real "cinematic" silent, look movie.

 

[chris digata]

The world is now digital so why even shoot in 24 or 25fps it dont make sence!! - here is why..
im Uk and have all set to ntsc 30fps or more because i film with natural light and mix other footage back for computer monitors.

We all want as many frames per sec as poss for smoothness in slow turns ect ect.
Yes if you then want to encode down to Pal 25fps for your dvd disk so be it, but with a slight quality loss, think how are you playing your footage back?
The main options for so many frame rates are:
1. if you are joining clips together then it is best to have them all recorded in the same framerate as quality will be lost during encodong.

2. If your making a video disk to be played back on an old pal or Ntsc tv that is not caperble of auto switching modes the yes record in the frame rate needed

3, The Main reason for fps is the Hz - so if your monitors, computers or screens are set to - 50Hz = 25fps / 60Hz = 30fps or even 24fps for a more cinamatic style, but the more frames per second is best for fast moving footage but still should be played back in the fps it was shot at for the best quality and to stop frame judder, flicker or frame skip.

So yes some people do use 25fps and yes most tv`s can switch between 50Hz and 60Hz but your eye wont tell the difference in most cases
The main reason is because of the electricity timing in your region.. if your in a country that supplies 50Hz then still best to use 25fps
Why some ask, ok your filming and using lighting that is pluged into the mains, the lights are running at 50Hz and your filming in 30fps, this causes light flicker because the light sorce is running slower..
hope that helps some, so think about the play back frequency, the utility frequency and the recording frequency and match them for best results

 

[Sim597]

I agree why would anyone want to reduce the amount of light coming into a lens?
A polariser makes sense or a UV filter but not something to effectively reduce your light gathering.
And why shoot in 25fps? Who wants blur? We have the technology lets use it. Or why bother with 4k???

It's because mostly ppl fly in good weather during the sunny parts of the day, this in turn will let you take a little longer of a pic, slow down the shutter. In bright noon conditions I would like to have a 4, but that's as far as I would go personally, I am a hobby photographer with prolly about $3k in glass and bodies all Nikon, and I think the ND8/16 there's even a 32 is just too restrictive and not needed unless using on the sun


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app