Jump to content


Photo

Really cool new gel


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 May 2008 - 04:15 PM

http://www.rosco.com...o/roscoview.asp

Looks very very interesting. I can see it being useful in situations where outside there are large fast moving clouds and you anticipate a varying outside exposure, while your trying to maintain interior-through-the-glass exposure. Especially if its a long indoors shoot where you'd ND the windows anyway. Now if they release this in a combination with CTO, I am way down. Also I can see it being usefull for impresionistic effects/special effects.

Has anyone used this gel yet?
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 29 May 2008 - 04:20 PM

I've been dying to get my grubby hands on this as well; but i'm sure it's pretty expensive for the gel and the on camera filter :/
  • 0

#3 Chayse Irvin

Chayse Irvin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:03 PM

Awesome!
  • 0

#4 Rick Sharf

Rick Sharf
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:11 PM

thats amazing! it looks like it could be really useful for day for night situations. The bottom picture with 90 % polarization, could be extremely helpful. good spot michael, i had no idea about this stuff
  • 0

#5 Michael K Bergstrom

Michael K Bergstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Grip
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 29 May 2008 - 06:09 PM

Some quick facts on VIEW, it's only available on roll, it reduces light at a stop per layer, the viewing angle is about 65 degrees for it to work effectively, and it costs right around 100/foot for 56'x8". for that price, I think I'll stick with my ND. :D
  • 0

#6 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 May 2008 - 09:40 PM

100 bucks a foot? doh. In that case, I will stick to a 4K Hmi and ND(For the price it might even be cost effective. I am sure I can convince my gaffer to drop or remove a scrim if the light outside changes.)

Looked cool. but 5600/roll? no thanks. Rick Sharf- Bergstrom found it, emailed it to me and I posted it like its my idea. Then he comes on this board to nay-say the find he got. I will never understand that guy, but hes a genius at what he does, so I will let it slide.

and only one stop? Surely that can't be right. Polarizers that are off axis are nearly 100% light loss, if they are true polas. What good could 0-1 stop variation be on set, given the cost. I am going to keep it in mind for special effects, and big budgets.


*EDIT- after looking closer, its one stop loss through the camera filter. I am sure the gel goes opaque when the filter is fully off-axis.

Edited by Michael Collier, 29 May 2008 - 09:42 PM.

  • 0

#7 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 30 May 2008 - 04:23 AM

Blows my mind. I actually had the thought a couple months ago that there had to be something like this out there. Glad to hear Rosco is staying at the forefront of gel technology.

Now all I have to do is hope for a project where the script calls for an effect like this to be done in camera. Or at least something with the budget to buy a roll of the stuff.
  • 0

#8 Ollie Bartlett

Ollie Bartlett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Other
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:51 AM

Look like a lot of fun... cant wait to see some of the in camera voodoo and wizardry that people pull off with this stuff.

Although with it being an expendable i doubt i can rent it and i certainly cant afford it, therefore none of said voodoo or wizardry will be on my part :(

Edited by Ollie Bartlett, 30 May 2008 - 05:55 AM.

  • 0

#9 Michael K Bergstrom

Michael K Bergstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Grip
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:34 PM

Let me clarify on price, I don't know for sure, I haven't called Rosco or seen this for sale, but I've heard it's $800 for a roll.
  • 0

#10 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 May 2008 - 12:51 AM

Anyone know why there is a special filter for it? Why not just use a 1-stop POLA?
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 May 2008 - 09:39 AM

my money's on Marketing. . . (for the special filter).
  • 0

#12 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 31 May 2008 - 02:38 PM

Anyone know why there is a special filter for it? Why not just use a 1-stop POLA?


Seems like you can put it on the windows (the gel), with the Pola filter on your camera, and you can dial the pola in varying degrees as needed. You don't need to use either, but they can both be on camera and on the window, ready to rock when needed.
  • 0

#13 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 May 2008 - 08:42 PM

Seems like you can put it on the windows (the gel), with the Pola filter on your camera, and you can dial the pola in varying degrees as needed. You don't need to use either, but they can both be on camera and on the window, ready to rock when needed.


But my point is that the gel is just polarizer, so any old 1-stop pola would do the same thing as the special filter they're marketing for it. I guess, as Adrian said, that they're banking on a lot of people not noticing that and buying another 1-stop pola with the different name.
  • 0

#14 John Hoffler

John Hoffler
  • Sustaining Members
  • 132 posts
  • Film Loader
  • New Orleans, LA

Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:23 AM

that is awesome!

too bad I am a broke student...
  • 0

#15 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:33 AM

GO get on some shoots, and you can pillage the gel scraps!

That's how I started gathering up gels!

I still have a few of those laying 'round; not that I'd want to use them for anything but uber-run/gun/throw it in my backpack type shoots.

I've also made it a habit of giving away most of the gel scraps to anyone who I'm working with who wants/needs it.
Hell, I don't need a 12x12 piece of 216 THAT badly; I have 2 whole rolls sitting at home!
  • 0

#16 Valerio Sacchetto

Valerio Sacchetto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Student
  • Italy

Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:40 PM

But my point is that the gel is just polarizer, so any old 1-stop pola would do the same thing as the special filter they're marketing for it. I guess, as Adrian said, that they're banking on a lot of people not noticing that and buying another 1-stop pola with the different name.


This was exactly my thought! What's so revolutionary about it?
  • 0

#17 Daniel Madsen

Daniel Madsen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Student
  • Boston

Posted 07 June 2008 - 11:24 PM

What I don´t understand is how come the exposure doesn´t change as the dolly moves around the table. With a regular pola light is only polarized at a certain angle. Am I right or wrong?


Dan
  • 0

#18 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:07 AM

Interesting. Kinda like putting two polarizer filters in front of the camera. I saw some footage that was shot accidentally like that when the AC forgot there was a pola in the mattebox and the unsuspecting DP put a second one in. Depending on the (changing) angle of the second pola shot after shot, the image changed from 1 stop under to two or more. The difference here being that the second pola is BEHIND the subject, so the foreground is not under exposed, only what is behind the gel, keeping what is between the filter and the gel properly exposed.

I wonder if one would have to compensate for the first (on camera's) polarizer (the woman's exposure in this case). It seems logical that one would have to: A polarizer is a polarizer after all.

Oh, by the way, the AC in question was fired when the DP realized the unintended dual pola filter action and he is not getting much AC action lately (hum, wonder why?) . . .

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 09 June 2008 - 12:09 AM.

  • 0

#19 Miles Heckendorn

Miles Heckendorn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Norway

Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:14 AM

I found a few prices from a UK site.

http://www.lcauk.com...view/4527949163

Looks like the roll is a bit over $900 (£480).
  • 0

#20 Bob Hayes

Bob Hayes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Culver City, California

Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:11 AM

I, for one, can?t wait to try it!
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Opal

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Willys Widgets