Diffusion filters seem to have become the most popular tool for filmmakers and photographers looking for cinematic effects when shooting digitally. But at what point is too much spread?
Since the rise of digital cinema, filmmakers have been looking for ways to find the best of both worlds: the convenience of digital collection with the characteristics of film stock.
This is a worthy goal and one that I identify with.
That’s why I wrote in detail about creating digital assets Looks like it was shot on film. and why I spend so much time creating Film Simulation LUTs and Film Grain Scans Replicate the look and feel of motion picture film.
But if I have anything to say about digital analog film effects, it’s that it requires a variety of technologies that only work when combined in an orderly manner.
No one technique works alone, but many filmmakers tend to become overly focused on one particular tool, which results in their shots being overly stylized.
Until recently, shallow depth of field has been the most obvious example.
Ten years ago, when digital SLR cameras first opened the door to digital shooting of movies on a shoestring budget, the filmmaking world went crazy.
They no longer need to use a 35mm adapter to achieve 35mm cinematic effects. Now, they can simply shoot with the professional-grade Canon 5D MK II, which can achieve ultra-thin focus thanks to its larger sensor and interchangeable lenses.
Even an average home movie may have a shallower depth of field than many Hollywood feature films shot on 35mm film.
But soon the shallow DOF trend became painfully oversaturated. Everyone started shooting wide open with full-frame sensors and competing to capture the thinnest focal plane possible. The resulting images almost always look subpar and definitely don’t look like film stock.
Before long, too shallow a depth of field became a classic example of over-stylizing an image without using any one tool.
Thankfully, this trend died down over the past few years and hasn’t resurfaced.
However, we did later see the same cycle repeated with many other technologies. especially, Overprotective Highlights when exposing, and lifting the shadows in post to create “Milky black appearance”.
In each of these cases, a technique was used in the hope of creating a more cinematic or “cinematic” final look, only to backfire and have the exact opposite effect.
Over the past few years, another depressing trend has emerged that is entirely consistent with the others:
Overuse of diffusion filters.
In addition to this, diffusion filters are often used to soften overly sharp 4K+ digital cinema footage, making it more pleasing to the eye.
The idea is that film (even 35mm) has a softer, more appealing feel than digital. So if we want our shots to look less digital, why not soften them with diffusion?
This is a reasonable assumption, but more valid in theory than in practice…because, again, There is no single factor that makes an image look like film.
It’s a combination of frame size, camera movement, movement rhythm, dynamic range, color balance, texture, and countless other related variables.
It is impossible to single out any one variable and prove that it is this The X factor behind the look of the film. There is no such thing.
If anything, it’s definitely not proliferation. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of movies shot on film are very sharp and don’t have any diffuse appearance.
Try putting some 65mm IMAX film next to a regular DSLR lens and see which one looks sharper. This movie will win by a landslide.
But even if we assume that all film is inherently softer than digital (which is simply not true), there’s still no reason to overuse diffusion—because it’s not diffusion that makes film appear softer, but the format itself.
Another argument for diffusion is that it improves highlight falloff and blooming, giving the image a more cinematic look. But this is not necessarily accurate.
While diffusion improves the subjective appearance of highlights in many cases, it does not simulate the appearance of actual film. Best case scenario, they are on the same level.
That’s not to say that diffusion filters don’t have their place.
A subtle 1/8 or 1/4 professional mist can be used elegantly to add a dreamy quality to your shots, or to help smooth skin tones. For highly stylized projects like music videos or experimental short films, a more aggressive diffusion can be effective.
The question is not whether diffusion can create beautiful visual effects (of course it can), but whether it can These results are cinematic – but they usually are not, unless combined with other techniques.
Personally, when I want a more analog/35mm look from digital footage, I almost always choose to use vintage glass on my camera rather than a diffusion filter.
A nice vintage lens (or even a modern lens with vintage quality) can go a long way in adding personality to your photos while softening the harshness of digital.
It softens your edges without adding unnecessary haze, and looks much better than clean modern glass that’s been overly softened by filtration (at least in my opinion).
The same can be said for using a nice soft light source, a light mist, or the right light source. In-camera LUT.
Nonetheless, diffusion filters still have a place in my gear kit and I believe they always will.
They are just as important as any other tool and in the right hands can produce beautiful results. They’re not a magic bullet for making digital footage look like film, but then again, nothing is.
Do you like using diffusion filters? Please leave a comment below.
For more exclusive articles like this every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here .
