Thread: 4x4 filter systems compatible with cinema filters?

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1 4x4 filter systems compatible with cinema filters? 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,113
    I'm already the worst for asking so many odd DIY questions like this, but I have a 4x4 filter system for my Canon 7-63mm t2.6 lens and I tried fitting its matte box on my 12-240mm Angenieux zoom and... it doesn't fit! They're both 95mm front threads I think, so that's disappointing. But I want to use my Classic Softs on both.

    What are my best options? Do the Lee/Haida/Z Pro filter holders also hold these filters? Or do I want this thing:

    https://www.adorama.com/wc231700.html

    I might as well just buy 95mm classic softs at this point...

    Also, what are the best 4x4 NDs for shooting film?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,485
    For 20 years I think I've been telling people to use 4x5.65" filters. It sounds like you're shooting Super 16mm however and can get away with 4x4" filters, but I would still recommend 4x5.65". Just way more compatible with all sorts of glass.

    I would recommend a matte box with a sunshade and eyebrow like the Wooden Camera Zip Box Pro or Bright Tangerine Misfit Kick.

    If size is an issue, the Bright Tangerine Misfit Atom which doesn't have an eyebrow but does have a rubber sun shade is super compact and you can very much stash it anywhere. It comes with me on every shoot just in case.

    ND-wise, I like the Tokina IRND or Firecrest NDs mainly, but there's a lot of good options. I used Tokina's on Kodak V3 50D a couple years ago and worked great.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,096
    Try the IDX Alpha-I ND filters if you haven't had a chance to test them...

    way different performance in terms of kick back
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    I'm already the worst for asking so many odd DIY questions like this, but I have a 4x4 filter system for my Canon 7-63mm t2.6 lens and I tried fitting its matte box on my 12-240mm Angenieux zoom and... it doesn't fit! They're both 95mm front threads I think, so that's disappointing. But I want to use my Classic Softs on both.

    What are my best options? Do the Lee/Haida/Z Pro filter holders also hold these filters? Or do I want this thing:

    https://www.adorama.com/wc231700.html

    I might as well just buy 95mm classic softs at this point...u

    Also, what are the best 4x4 NDs for shooting film?
    Keep in mind that the 12-240 has a rotating front barrel for focus. Need a matte box for rail mounting, not clamp on unless it has a round shade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by David Rasberry View Post
    Keep in mind that the 12-240 has a rotating front barrel for focus. Need a matte box for rail mounting, not clamp on unless it has a round shade.
    I own that lens and didn't even know that. Thanks!

    So then I was thinking of getting something more like this:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...SABEgKw6PD_BwE

    Looks like the Cokin filter is designed for 100X100X1.6mm filters whereas 4x4 filters are 101.6X101.6X4mm, but the lee filter holder might work for them. :/

    I have a few lenses with 82mm and 95mm front filter threads (and one 138mm that I think is a lost cause) and wanted a screw-on (or clamp-on) option for diffusion and ND filters because I’m not going to buy another two sets of screw-on filters. But I also don’t want a full-blown 4X5.65 matte box, even if this is probably the correct answer long-term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    If size is an issue, the Bright Tangerine Misfit Atom which doesn't have an eyebrow but does have a rubber sun shade is super compact and you can very much stash it anywhere. It comes with me on every shoot just in case.

    ND-wise, I like the Tokina IRND or Firecrest NDs mainly, but there's a lot of good options. I used Tokina's on Kodak V3 50D a couple years ago and worked great.
    I found the Firecrest filters to be very heavily tinted in my experience, but only used them for stills. Buying a Haida filter to replace the strongly tinted ND 1.8 and the ND3.0 was worse... or maybe it's a different line?

    That matte box looks great, though.

    What ND strengths do I want for shooting film? 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2? I’d be shooting Kodak 50D outside exclusively (I lack imagination), rating it at 32 ISO, and aiming for a t4/t2.8 split (or is a t5.6/t4 split a better idea?) most of the time… so sounds like I wouldn’t need anything stronger than a 1.2? I could probably get by with just a 0.6 and 1.2 it sounds like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Yes, you wouldn't need anything heavier than a 1.2 with 50 ASA film, maybe not anything more than an ND.90 if you are rating the film at 32 ASA.

    The old "Sunny 16" rule says that in frontal sunlight on a clear day, the exposure is f/16 if the ASA value of X is the same as the shutter time of 1/X, so 50 ASA at 1/50th (close enough to the 1/48th time of a 24 fps camera with a 180 degree shutter) gives you f/16. Which means you'd need an ND1.2 to get to f/4. But that's a worst case scenario -- you're overexposing a little and often you aren't exposing frontal sunlight at key, you let it be a little hot, or you are shooting in backlight and opening up a stop, and then it might get overcast, etc. So even an ND1.2 might be rarely used unless you really want to get down to an f/2.8.

    If you really want to stay close to the same stop all day, you'd need the ND.3 increments.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC View Post
    Yes, you wouldn't need anything heavier than a 1.2 with 50 ASA film, maybe not anything more than an ND.90 if you are rating the film at 32 ASA.

    The old "Sunny 16" rule says that in frontal sunlight on a clear day, the exposure is f/16 if the ASA value of X is the same as the shutter time of 1/X, so 50 ASA at 1/50th (close enough to the 1/48th time of a 24 fps camera with a 180 degree shutter) gives you f/16. Which means you'd need an ND1.2 to get to f/4. But that's a worst case scenario -- you're overexposing a little and often you aren't exposing frontal sunlight at key, you let it be a little hot, or you are shooting in backlight and opening up a stop, and then it might get overcast, etc. So even an ND1.2 might be rarely used unless you really want to get down to an f/2.8.

    If you really want to stay close to the same stop all day, you'd need the ND.3 increments.
    Thanks, David. My indulgent DIY questions don't deserve your expertise. But I do appreciate it!

    Do you recommend rating film 1/3 stop hot? I just remember from my first production course it was recommended and S16 is grainy to start with.

    How do you expose a backlit scene like that usually?

    Sounds like I really just need 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9.

    What ND brands do you normally rent? Are there issues with IR pollution with film?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Thanks, David. My indulgent DIY questions don't deserve your expertise. But I do appreciate it!

    Do you recommend rating film 1/3 stop hot? I just remember from my first production course it was recommended and S16 is grainy to start with.

    How do you expose a backlit scene like that usually?

    Sounds like I really just need 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9.

    What ND brands do you normally rent? Are there issues with IR pollution with film?
    That's what I carry. All of my cameras have either '2, 4 and 6 stops' or '3 and 6 stops' built-in, so with those .3, .6 and .9 ND's I can go from 0 to 11 stops in 1-stop increments with a two stage matte box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt W. View Post
    Thanks, David. My indulgent DIY questions don't deserve your expertise. But I do appreciate it!

    Do you recommend rating film 1/3 stop hot? I just remember from my first production course it was recommended and S16 is grainy to start with.

    How do you expose a backlit scene like that usually?

    Sounds like I really just need 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9.

    What ND brands do you normally rent? Are there issues with IR pollution with film?
    Because with film, particularly 50 ASA film, you aren't using super-heavy ND's, plus film is less sensitive to IR than digital sensors are, IR pollution hasn't been much of an issue with film (though "Invictus" had a weird problem with IR pollution shifting the colors of the rugby uniforms). I think any of the mainstream brands would be fine.

    How you expose in backlight is a creative issue, and it depends on how high in the air the sun is, whether it is a toppy backlight or more of a halo from the late-afternoon sun, etc. How I approach exposure is to imagine a circular dolly move around the subject -- would I change the stop as I move from front to backlight? Maybe not. But generally I'd open up a stop from the reading of the sunlight, which means the shadows are still about two stops dark. But it depends, there are day situations where most of the scene is shadowed and it makes sense to expose more for that. In those situations, I tend to measure the shadows and underexpose by one-stop because I still want them to feel like shadows, not at full exposure. As a base ASA, I often rate a film stock 1/3 or 2/3-stop slower, but since 50 ASA film is so fine-grained (in 35mm at least), I tend to rate it at 40 ASA or 50 ASA because I'm not worried about grain.

    I learned exposure by shooting reversal film which had no latitude for mistakes, plus no way to correct later (I was projecting the original) so I got a feeling for whether a scene should be exposed a little dark or bright.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC View Post
    Because with film, particularly 50 ASA film, you aren't using super-heavy ND's, plus film is less sensitive to IR than digital sensors are, IR pollution hasn't been much of an issue with film (though "Invictus" had a weird problem with IR pollution shifting the colors of the rugby uniforms). I think any of the mainstream brands would be fine.

    How you expose in backlight is a creative issue, and it depends on how high in the air the sun is, whether it is a toppy backlight or more of a halo from the late-afternoon sun, etc. How I approach exposure is to imagine a circular dolly move around the subject -- would I change the stop as I move from front to backlight? Maybe not. But generally I'd open up a stop from the reading of the sunlight, which means the shadows are still about two stops dark. But it depends, there are day situations where most of the scene is shadowed and it makes sense to expose more for that. In those situations, I tend to measure the shadows and underexpose by one-stop because I still want them to feel like shadows, not at full exposure. As a base ASA, I often rate a film stock 1/3 or 2/3-stop slower, but since 50 ASA film is so fine-grained (in 35mm at least), I tend to rate it at 40 ASA or 50 ASA because I'm not worried about grain.

    I learned exposure by shooting reversal film which had no latitude for mistakes, plus no way to correct later (I was projecting the original) so I got a feeling for whether a scene should be exposed a little dark or bright.
    Thanks, that's really helpful. In most of those cases were you adding fill to brighten up faces on the side not facing the sun or is it just typically around a three-stop difference? Of course I understand that it's based on the scene as the ambient light is primarily going to be natural fill–and if someone is standing in a black void lit by the sun it's a different story from being on a white-sanded beach or something.

    Looks like Invictus was shot on 5219. I think Kaminski used to shoot unfiltered 800T for day exteriors, I admire that approach. But I don't think I am going to try it right now and will rely on slower stocks in general.

    Do you think 50D and 250T give more of the look of 35mm to S16 photography? I've always liked how fast stocks look on 35mm and slower ones look in S16 for some reason.

    I learned to expose slides with a spot meter and Velvia 50. But no one wanted a portrait where they looked nuclear orange so never spend much time shooting faces except on color negative and B+W in which case the lab would always compensate. :(

    Well I guess we have the DI now so I don't even have to do a very good job. Appreciate the advice, makes a lot of sense and is much-appreciated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts