Breakthrough Photography Promises The Best Circular Polarizer

[grahamclarkphoto]

...
Yes, B+W filters are good. They use Nitto CPL Film, made in Korea, sometimes China.
...
We're the first filter maker to make our own CPL film, we manufacture it in California. We use that one on the X3 CPL.

Graham

If I read these graphs right, the B&W filter doesn't let through as much blue light as it does red light. This would lead to darker blues than reds. From a personal perspective, I might almost prefer this as it would produces a deeper blue for the sky. The X3 will create a sky that is brighter than (say) a red ball. That's not my goal with a CPL doing landscape - the goal is usually to turn the sky down.

That's incorrect

Graham

 

[jeffa4444]

Other companies make specialist polarising films like Polatechno in Japan or inorganic like Moxtex Inc in the US. Prescriptive polarising materials can be made it comes down to cost the film types generally available are for LCDs and thus cheaper because they are mass produced.

 

[Ladislav]

There are real world images and very positive reviews for X3 ND filters but nothing to show benefit of X3 UV and X3 CPL I seriously don't consider graphs as much of a prove because I don't know how to transfer their values into a real world images. I already have 67mm B+W XSPro and 82mm Hoya HD. What I would like to see is some direct comparison which would convince me to upgrade.

I also wonder if these guys try to make graduated ND filters?

 

[Hector1970]

What does the 25 year guarantee cover?
I assume it doesn't cover the main risk which is dropping it.
I've seen this a few times on Kickstarter where people are offering long guarantees from companies which are barely start ups. They are unlikely to be there is 25 years time to honour the guarantees.

It looks a good product and best of luck to it. Colour cast isn't the end of the world (its often an attractive feature) and can be removed (by comparing the difference between a white page with and without the filter in lightroom with the Temp and Tint settings.
It is good to see a company new into the field which drives the competition on and hopefully reduces the prices. They should move into 100 x 150 filters. LEE just keep taking all my money.

I find Kickstarter increasingly annoying.
I've back many projects but there are certain number of trends
a) Companies already selling products using it as a way to sell more (there is nothing new about the product or the company
b) Companies using it as a source of R&D money and its totally at risk of the crowdfunders and no risk to investors in the companies
c) Some projects have become complete frauds, some have no intention of producing a product, others use it soley to develop the R&D and then collapse the project but a similiar product comes out for the main company
d) Postage costs are a killer (to Europe - most projects are US based), I don't blame the projects too much for this but Kickstarter should help. Prices are without VAT. Thats a big sting in the tail 6 months later. It's often not too clear with country the project is based out of (or will be sent from)
e) Kickstarter wash their hands of problem projects with no come back

Having said all that there are a number of very good projects with very creative ideas that are well worth supporting.
I wish it was easier to find Photographic related projects in Kickstarter. They have a photography section but its the books. Camera related gear tends to be in Design or Technical / Engineer (I can't remember the category). It's not easy to find the projects at their earliest stages when the prices are at their best.

 

[wsmith96]

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

What does the 25 year guarantee cover?
I assume it doesn't cover the main risk which is dropping it.
I've seen this a few times on Kickstarter where people are offering long guarantees from companies which are barely start ups. They are unlikely to be there is 25 years time to honour the guarantees.

It looks a good product and best of luck to it. Colour cast isn't the end of the world (its often an attractive feature) and can be removed (by comparing the difference between a white page with and without the filter in lightroom with the Temp and Tint settings.
It is good to see a company new into the field which drives the competition on and hopefully reduces the prices. They should move into 100 x 150 filters. LEE just keep taking all my money.

I find Kickstarter increasingly annoying.
I've back many projects but there are certain number of trends
a) Companies already selling products using it as a way to sell more (there is nothing new about the product or the company
b) Companies using it as a source of R&D money and its totally at risk of the crowdfunders and no risk to investors in the companies
c) Some projects have become complete frauds, some have no intention of producing a product, others use it soley to develop the R&D and then collapse the project but a similiar product comes out for the main company
d) Postage costs are a killer (to Europe - most projects are US based), I don't blame the projects too much for this but Kickstarter should help. Prices are without VAT. Thats a big sting in the tail 6 months later. It's often not too clear with country the project is based out of (or will be sent from)
e) Kickstarter wash their hands of problem projects with no come back

Having said all that there are a number of very good projects with very creative ideas that are well worth supporting.
I wish it was easier to find Photographic related projects in Kickstarter. They have a photography section but its the books. Camera related gear tends to be in Design or Technical / Engineer (I can't remember the category). It's not easy to find the projects at their earliest stages when the prices are at their best.

We designed our warranty after Apple's warranty, except instead of 1-3 years it's 25:

1. Examples: Defects in craftsmanship, Weather-sealing failing, MRC cracking
2. We've already finished 100x100mm and 100x150mm
3. 9% of Kickstarter projects get funded, of those that get funded something like 84% don't ship.
4. We shipped on-time last year
5. We do all the R&D before we go to to Kickstarter, we then use Kickstarter as a means to prove or deny demand, for market research to eliminate risk
6. We charge $4.82 USD to ship anywhere in the USA, and $10.28 to anywhere in the world, including North Korea

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.

We've already said in the updates that we're finished manufacturing them and that we're now working on packaging, why wouldn't you think that we would actually ship?

Graham

 

[wsmith96]

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.

We've already said in the updates that we're finished manufacturing them and that we're now working on packaging, why wouldn't you think that we would actually ship?

Graham

I miss understood the kickstarter, sorry about that. I read it as all of the pledges must be filled before shipment starts. Not knocking your company, just the amount of pledges required and if people will put forth the money.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.

We've already said in the updates that we're finished manufacturing them and that we're now working on packaging, why wouldn't you think that we would actually ship?

Graham

I miss understood the kickstarter, sorry about that. I read it as all of the pledges must be filled before shipment starts. Not knocking your company, just the amount of pledges required and if people will put forth the money.

The goal was $30,000, so if we hit $30,000 we would start manufacturing. We hit the $30,000 goal in two days, and everything is nearly finished now.

Graham

 

[jeffa4444]

To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first, this has been the norm in cinematography for the thirty five plus years Ive been in the industry. No one is more particular than mainstream film crews in making sure images are sharp in the camera given the screen sizes images will be seen at. ALL filters will degrade an image and can provoke image shift but I dont completely agree about the thickness of the glass as much is down to the clarity of the glass type chosen and if they are optically flat, a difference of 1, 2 or 3mm will have little real world difference. We collumate lens on-camera including the filters in critical testing especially if were trying to eleminate softness. Secondly widely in cinematography filters are tilted to offset glare its only a slight degree change but this shows very little if any affect on projected images.
Heavier NDs will affect sharpness regardless of the manufacturer its a factor of the dyes used whether dipped resin or sandwiched film in glass, more expensive metal deposit NDs are better but still affect the image. Only when we have sensors capable of 20 stops will we negate the need for NDs especially grads. Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.

The best polarizer? is the one you have in your bag I dont know of anyone who blamed a shot on their polarizer.

 

[xseven]

What is the light loss you measured when using the polarizer?

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first, this has been the norm in cinematography for the thirty five plus years Ive been in the industry. No one is more particular than mainstream film crews in making sure images are sharp in the camera given the screen sizes images will be seen at. ALL filters will degrade an image and can provoke image shift but I dont completely agree about the thickness of the glass as much is down to the clarity of the glass type chosen and if they are optically flat, a difference of 1, 2 or 3mm will have little real world difference. We collumate lens on-camera including the filters in critical testing especially if were trying to eleminate softness. Secondly widely in cinematography filters are tilted to offset glare its only a slight degree change but this shows very little if any affect on projected images.
Heavier NDs will affect sharpness regardless of the manufacturer its a factor of the dyes used whether dipped resin or sandwiched film in glass, more expensive metal deposit NDs are better but still affect the image. Only when we have sensors capable of 20 stops will we negate the need for NDs especially grads. Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.

The best polarizer? is the one you have in your bag I dont know of anyone who blamed a shot on their polarizer.

Again, 36MP+ is the resolution at which point resolving power reduction becomes noticeable.

What's the resolution of 1080P and 4K? There's the answer.

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

What is the light loss you measured when using the polarizer?

There are two types of CPL film:

1. 99.3% polarization efficiency
2. 81.7% polarization efficiency

The latter increases light transmission slightly, and filter makers pass it off as "High Transmission", which is just a dirt-ball marketing tactic.

All our CPLs are 99% polarization efficiency.

Graham

 

[AvTvM]

Based on Graham's statement in this thread, I need to rethink my backing for a 105mm X3 CPL. Had planned to use it on a Lee 100x150 filter holder - sometimes in front of an ND grad - to get independent rotation on both filters. Don't have a 36+ MP sensor camera yet, but want this to be somewhat future proof.

Maybe Breakthrough can figure out a filter holder with 2 slots that can be rotated independently and a 100x100 CPL. Then we could stick the CPL into the slot closer to the lens front element. I'll back that kickstarter project.

 

[jeffa4444]

Actually pixel pitch plays into this, for instance the Canon 5DS is 4.1um, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is 3.74um both will produce more noise in the shadows than say a Nikon D610 at 5.95um. This is obviously simplistic because the circuitry plays a big part in managing noise but noise will contribute to the detrimental affects of filters. More importantly if we follow your logic then we should be matching lenses frequency to the pixel pitch but that is never going to happen given the different pixel pitches across the different cameras in each manufacturers ranges but that will maximise resolution far more than a filter alone.

 

[ahsanford]

To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first...

[truncated]

...Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.

Thanks, Jeffa. So this opens up a few questions:

1) Why is Lee Filters -- one of (if not the) biggest names in professional landscape work -- not espousing a similar Lens > CPL > Adaptor Ring > Holder > Slot-in Filter setup? 36MP is not a recent development, and Lee continue to market a system which places the CPL beyond the slot-in filters (i.e. as the furthest forward piece of glass). Do they think vignetting is a bigger deal than sharpness, or is the threat to sharpness not that great?

2) Have any stills shooters run a head to head with the two different ways we've discussed? I looked at Graham's samples, but I didn't see any full res shots to compare.

Again, I don't mean to doubt Graham's posting -- I find it noteworthy and want to learn more. I just need to see the kind of sharpness hit we're talking about just from the order of stacking everything. Does anyone have that?

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.

 

[ahsanford]

Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.

Or we could just becomes obsessives and focus stack everything: f/5.6 is the new f/14 if you take enough exposures.

- A

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Actually pixel pitch plays into this, for instance the Canon 5DS is 4.1um, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is 3.74um both will produce more noise in the shadows than say a Nikon D610 at 5.95um. This is obviously simplistic because the circuitry plays a big part in managing noise but noise will contribute to the detrimental affects of filters. More importantly if we follow your logic then we should be matching lenses frequency to the pixel pitch but that is never going to happen given the different pixel pitches across the different cameras in each manufacturers ranges but that will maximise resolution far more than a filter alone.

You're right, pixel pitch is becoming much more important, and noise performance is actually going down as a result of denser pixels, however filter performance is not directly affected by this.

Personally I've noticed much more noise in shadow detail on my Canon 5Ds R than my A7R2 or other cameras with lower MPs, which is why they probably limited the ISO to 12k.

But limiting the Live View to ISO 12k... now Canon just shot themselves

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first...

[truncated]

...Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.

Thanks, Jeffa. So this opens up a few questions:

1) Why is Lee Filters -- one of (if not the) biggest names in professional landscape work -- not espousing a similar Lens > CPL > Adaptor Ring > Holder > Slot-in Filter setup? 36MP is not a recent development, and Lee continue to market a system which places the CPL beyond the slot-in filters (i.e. as the furthest forward piece of glass). Do they think vignetting is a bigger deal than sharpness, or is the threat to sharpness not that great?

2) Have any stills shooters run a head to head with the two different ways we've discussed? I looked at Graham's samples, but I didn't see any full res shots to compare.

Again, I don't mean to doubt Graham's posting -- I find it noteworthy and want to learn more. I just need to see the kind of sharpness hit we're talking about just from the order of stacking everything. Does anyone have that?

- A

Talking about results is a lot less effective than viewing results, click here: http://breakthrough.photography/performance-gallery

Go down to the Lee vs. X3 ND comparison. Notice how the sharpness sucks?

The reason for this is not that the glass has no MRC coatings, or that the glass is bad, both of which could be true, but rather the glass is thick and it sits much further away from the front lens element.

Graham