4x4 filter systems compatible with cinema filters?

[Matt W.]

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?

 

[Phil Holland]

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.

 

[Dan Kanes]

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

 

[David Rasberry]

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.

 

[Matt W.]

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/prod...MI_I7njYfK5wIVCY6zCh2qUQhzEAQYASABEgKw6PD_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.

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.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

[Matt W.]

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?

 

[Christopher A. Bell]

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.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

[Matt W.]

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.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I try and not use fill unless it is necessary and then as little as needed. Film has a lot of overexposure latitude so you can expose for how dark you want the shadows to look outdoors. Slow film is a good idea in 16mm.

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks again. That's a different approach to exposure than I'm used to with video and reversal. Will need to practice a bit to get a feel for it, but that already makes sense.

 

[David Rasberry]

Matt, if you are shopping for a matte box you might want to consider the Petroff. I bought one of the old series 3 stage units used some years back when new prices were in the $800-$1200 range.
Petroff simplified the production down to one size with 142mm opening and a matching filter stage with a choice of filter holder sizes up to 4x6 and moved manufacturing to Europe after getting his first design ripped off by the Chinese.
This thing comes with full flag set and two stages with filter holders of choice and lens adapter clamp or donut ring for the ridiculously cheap price of $240. Much better quality than anything else anywhere near its price. Handles up to 3 rotating stages with the first two being lockable. Exceptionally well engineered, sturdy, and light. Mine has he 15mm lightweight rod support which is an optional accessory. Haven't been tempted to swap it for anything else.
Really, serious bargain! Better design, better quality, and much lighter than a Redrock Micro for 1/4 the price.

http://petroff.ws

Rigged with my Angie 12-240 on the Bolex for the solar eclipse a few years back.

 

[Matt W.]

Matt, if you are shopping for a matte box you might want to consider the Petroff. I bought one of the old series 3 stage units used some years back when new prices were in the $800-$1200 range.
Petroff simplified the production down to one size with 142mm opening and a matching filter stage with a choice of filter holder sizes up to 4x6 and moved manufacturing to Europe after getting his first design ripped off by the Chinese.
This thing comes with full flag set and two stages with filter holders of choice and lens adapter clamp or donut ring for the ridiculously cheap price of $240. Much better quality than anything else anywhere near its price. Handles up to 3 rotating stages with the first two being lockable. Exceptionally well engineered, sturdy, and light. Mine has he 15mm lightweight rod support which is an optional accessory. Haven't been tempted to swap it for anything else.
Really, serious bargain! Better design, better quality, and much lighter than a Redrock Micro for 1/4 the price.

http://petroff.ws

Rigged with my Angie 12-240 on the Bolex for the solar eclipse a few years back.

Thanks, David. Cool rig, too! When I'm in the market for a new matte box I will look into that. For now I think maybe I just need some screw on filters after all... and a few basic 4x4 NDs for the current matte box on the 7-63mm.

Thanks again to everyone for the useful advice.

 

[Lee Saxon]

What are my best options? Do the Lee/Haida/Z Pro filter holders also hold these filters?[/QUOTE]

Lee and the like use 2mm thick filters, whereas cine filters are 4mm. Tiffen (I think it's Tiffen) claims for this reason to have created the first cine version of such a clip on holder. As I recall, they charge $7 billion for it. lolnope don't pay the cine tax. Lee sells 4mm replacement guides for their holder for pocket change https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MI8paxivXo5wIVQdbACh0eWQy8EAQYASABEgJzRPD_BwE

 

[Matt W.]

What are my best options? Do the Lee/Haida/Z Pro filter holders also hold these filters?

Lee and the like use 2mm thick filters, whereas cine filters are 4mm. Tiffen (I think it's Tiffen) claims for this reason to have created the first cine version of such a clip on holder. As I recall, they charge $7 billion for it. lolnope don't pay the cine tax. Lee sells 4mm replacement guides for their holder for pocket change https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MI8paxivXo5wIVQdbACh0eWQy8EAQYASABEgJzRPD_BwE[/QUOTE]

Thanks! The Tiffen holder actually looks pretty affordable ($70 or so) but only compatible with 77mm and 82mm threads, I think? I bought two Lee set ups and the guides above. One snap on for 95mm front lenses and another for 82mm and 77mm.... I have screw on filters for the rest.

I think I'm just going to live with not having filters on my 138mm lenses. (Or renting.)

Thanks for the link!

 

[Lee Saxon]

Thanks! The Tiffen holder actually looks pretty affordable ($70 or so)

Yeah, I don't think the Pro100 was the one I was thinking of, it must not have been Tiffen. But I can't find whatever NAB video I thought I saw it in, so I could've hallucinated it. Anyway, I find the Lee's very easy to work with, hope you'll be happy with them!

 

[Matt W.]

Yeah, I don't think the Pro100 was the one I was thinking of, it must not have been Tiffen. But I can't find whatever NAB video I thought I saw it in, so I could've hallucinated it. Anyway, I find the Lee's very easy to work with, hope you'll be happy with them!

The 95mm push-on adapter is great so far. A little loose fitting on the Angenieux, but not bad at all. No vignetting from what I can see. Recommended.