Filters for the RPP's

[Alan Thornton]

If you've received shipment of your RPP's, have you tried using any filters
and if so, what size is it?

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

The filters depend on your matte box filter trays size.
4x5 are more up to date as the new formats of 16:9 but there is problem with Pola as 4x5 is not a square but a rectangle so you can't rotate it for best result.
You may end with 4x5 and some round 4.5 or 138mm.

 

[Alan Thornton]

I do have that option but I'm looking at the primes & it looks as though they can take a screw-on filter, maybe 105mm and I'm wondering if that is the correct size.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I can't comment on the screw-in filters as I haven't tested and the RPP's are out on a job. I'm assuming at this time, until I get them back to where I can test, that the RPP's don't have standard sized threads to accommodate screw-on filters. As this is the case with the 300mm RPP, the threads up front are 112mm on that, If I recall, but not usable for filters as the thread size is non-standard.

As said above, the 4x5.65 filters cover fine, but if you need to rotate, you'll want to go to 5.65x5.65.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Those threads are most likely there for the construction of the lens and not for the attachment of filters.

 

[Alan Thornton]

Thanks for the comment, Jeff. I know that the 300mm RPP is the only one that has a 138mm O.D. & the 25-100mm lenses are all 110mm O.D.
Using a dial caliper, it reads 105mm I.D., but I want to be sure.
The main purpose for this is to put an optical flat, on the front, for protection.

 

[Frank Weeks]

Those threads are most likely there for the construction of the lens and not for the attachment of filters.

Although I intend to use drop in filters most of the time. Having screw-in filters for light weight configurations has crossed my mind. Can someone clarify the filter size/capability.

I've always thought 110mm would work.

 

[Claus Mueller]

Hopefully someone will offer a srew-in or clamp-on adapter for RPPs. One of the main advantages of the Scarlet/Epic is the small form factor and modularity beside dynamic range and instant on functionality. I think many of us want to use their Scarlet/Epics and RPPs in a very compact, light configuration without mattebox for whatever reasons.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thanks for the comment, Jeff. I know that the 300mm RPP is the only one that has a 138mm O.D. & the 25-100mm lenses are all 110mm O.D.

Uh, the 300mm RPP does not have a 138mm O.D. I don't have my calipers handy, but the lens is sitting right here in front of me as well as a tape measure, which is giving me an approximate O.D. of about 4-5/8" or somewhere around 118mm. Half-assed iPhone picture attached.

Looking in my notes, I measured the I.D. to be 112mm like I said above. A 112mm B+W UV filter here is the right size, but the thread count on the lens is not the same as the standard filters. The filter fits near perfect, but I can only thread it in 1/4 turn before it tightens, due to the mismatched threads.

And yes, the new RPP's (25 thru 100) all have a 110mm O.D. But I'm going to agree with Mitch that the threads are probably related to the lens construction and not intended for filter use and are probably sized to where they won't work, even if the diameter matches that of a standard filter size.

I'll have my RPP set back on Sunday and I can see if a 105mm filter will fit.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Cine glass isn't light weight...

I don't see how RPP's are an option if a matte box isn't... especially when wanting to protect the front element with a flat...

For whatever reasons...


BTW - The RED fully built in studio mode is light weight. (Under 80lbs. is light)

 

[Claus Mueller]

I'm not talking about studio mode, I'm talking about a light, compact DSMC configuration. Of course the RPPs are not light weight but for now until we'll have the electronic FF lenses my preferred solution.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Sorry, I forget about the DSMC system of the future...

Keep thinking in terms of digital cinema...
... cinema being narrative and in motion, or of movies...

I get confused these days...

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

So I guess to have some sort of range of adjustment with ND Grads you would need to go big... right? 4 1/2 inches is a lot to cover... Or would it be a good idea to get Vertical grads with the gradient on the side and mount it vertically on the matte box?

 

[Brook Willard]

If you're going with grads, consider just getting a 6.6x6.6 mattebox and calling it good. There are lightweight 6x6 matte boxes if you need them, but if you're talking grads... might as well get filters that'll work with everything.

As for "normal" filtration, just pick up some 4x5.65 filters and an appropriate clamp-on mattebox If you're looking for lighter weight, you could go with something smaller than that... but you'll end up needing a 4x5 mattebox anyways at some point.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I added to my question just as you were responding Brook. Thanks for your answer. Please tell me what you think about this: Would it be wise to get Vertical grads with the gradient on the side and mount them vertically on the matte box? It seems it would work so long as the MB allowed for 90 degrees rotation and then let you pull them out/in as needed.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

for grads I would always prefer a square filter. That way, if any rotation is needed, I don't have to worry. A 4x5.6 filter standing vertically is not good for the RPP's I would think, especially down the road when we'll be shooting the full S35 frame or even the larger Mysterium-X "5K" frame. The lenses have a 110mm outter diameter, which is 4.3", so to me that says a 4" wide filter just barely covers and could start to vignette as you stack them or on the wider focal lengths. Someone around here posted that 4x4 filters cover his RPPs... And then I thought I saw someone else say that the 4x4's were starting to vignette on the 25mm when he had two of them stacked.

Brook's suggestion of a 6x6 mattebox isn't a bad way to go, if you can justify the purchase. The new Arri MB28 is physically about the same as a MB20 and it holds 6.6x6.6 filters. The down-side is just the cost of the larger filters and mattebox. 5.65 x 5.65 filters are a good size too and are quite a bit cheaper. They will still cover most any lens. Off the top of my head, the only two they won't cover of the mainstream glass are the Optimo 24-290 and Cooke 18-100.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

So I guess an MB-20 with 5.65 x 5.65 grads and 4 x 5.65 everything else would be fine for RPPs including the 18mm and a Tokina which we would likely only use as a 12.5mm prime. I understand it also allows for a round circular filter to be dropped in addition to the three 5.65 x 5.65 stages. That would be all I would need which at worst case scenario would include IR + Grad + Solid ND + Pola if we needed all of it at once on a hot mid day out on the snow to retain detail on the ground. Also when not needed we could take off one of the stages and make it a tad lighter by leaving the pola in the bellows or whatever that spot is called where you'd drop in the round filter.

This would give us a 5.65 x 5.65 grad on the a rotating stage and we'd make it the closest to the lens. Which sounds like we'd be getting quite a bit of play. I am also guessing we'd shoot only 4k and most likely not 5k on the Epic-X, but we'll never know what each of us will be doing till we get there.

 

[Evin Grant]

5x5 and 5.65x5.65 are really bastard formats. You can certainly accomplish what you need in these sizes but You'll be hosed if you try to rent, most houses don't stock a very good selection of filters in any sizes except 4x5.65 and 6.6x6.6.

 

[Jeremy Wiles]

Why can't 4x4 filters work on lens for the Red?

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Why can't 4x4 filters work on lens for the Red?

They are too big to put in a rear filter slot and too small to put on the front of most cine lenses.