Tutorials & Tips

Few topics in drone filming trigger more disagreement than filters. Some pilots consider ND and CPL filters essential for cinematic results. Others see them as outdated habits from traditional filmmaking that slow down spontaneous flying. The truth is less comfortable: filters are powerful, but they also force creative decisions long before you press record.Take ND filters. In theory, they exist to slow down shutter speed and introduce natural motion blur. In practice, they lock your footage into a specific look. An ND4 on a cloudy afternoon can gently smooth motion without sacrificing brightness, but many pilots argue it barely makes a visible difference unless something in the frame is moving fast. Is that subtle gain worth the extra setup time? Some say yes. Others never bother.Move up to ND8, often described as the “safe” daytime filter. It works well in mild sunlight and keeps motion from looking nervous or overly sharp. Yet critics point out that modern drone sensors and log profiles already handle this range reasonably well. If the audience cannot articulate what changed, does the filter truly add value, or is it just peace of mind for the pilot?ND16 is where the debate sharpens. This filter undeniably changes footage. Motion becomes fluid, highlights stay under control, and the image feels more cinematic. For many creators, ND16 is non-negotiable in bright daylight. For others, it is a creative straightjacket. Once mounted, fast-moving scenes lose their crisp, hyper-real edge. Is that a flaw, or is that the point?With ND32, opinions diverge even further. Supporters love the dramatic motion blur it introduces in water, traffic, and clouds. Detractors argue it removes too much immediacy and can make footage feel sluggish or artificial. At this point, the filter is no longer correcting a problem—it is making a stylistic statement. And not everyone agrees on that style.ND64 pushes the argument to its extreme. Used correctly, it produces striking, almost surreal results. Used casually, it ruins exposure and forces the camera into compromises. Many pilots never touch it. Others swear it unlocks shots impossible to achieve any other way. The disagreement is not technical; it is philosophical.Polarizing filters create a different kind of controversy. A CPL can transform aerial footage by cutting glare and revealing detail in water, glass, and foliage. Colors deepen, skies gain weight, and reflections stop dominating the frame. But polarization changes with angle. As the drone yaws or follows automated flight paths, the effect shifts. Some viewers notice immediately. Others never do. Should visual consistency be sacrificed for richer colors, or is that inconsistency part of the aerial perspective?ND/PL hybrids are often praised as practical solutions, but even they split opinion. They simplify filming in bright, reflective environments, yet they also remove choice. You commit to polarization whether the scene needs it or not. Convenience versus control becomes the central question.What makes this debate relevant is that modern drone cameras are better than ever. Auto exposure is smarter. Dynamic range is wider. Log profiles are more forgiving. This raises an uncomfortable question: are filters still essential, or are they becoming creative preferences rather than technical necessities?Perhaps the real issue is not whether filters are “needed,” but whether drone pilots are willing to commit to a look before the flight begins. Filters force intention. They also remove flexibility. Some creators thrive on that discipline. Others reject it entirely.And that may be why filters continue to divide the drone community—not because they work or do not work, but because they reveal how each pilot thinks about control, realism, and storytelling from the air.