saving money on filters
Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:11 PM
Filters are one issue i'm having trouble deciding on.
I do not have enough money to purchase a mattebox at the moment, so i'm trying to decide between round screw-on filters and gelatin filters.
I figured gelatins would be cheaper, but it looks like on filmtools they can be 30-60 bucks a piece! Knowing these won't last nearly as long as a glass filter i'm leaning towards glass.
And as for optical quality, if i am shooting with an Angenieux zoom... would it make sense to just buy the cheapest ones i find? (still Tiffen or B+W, just not the really nice ones)
Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:27 PM
Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:53 PM
If i got the ACL Mattebox from Les Bosher, would this be able to work on different cameras?
Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:09 PM
Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:37 PM
Just so you know, I'm not sure where the filter holder is in the Eclair is in relation to the gate. I am speaking from in regards to the Panavision system, where the gel is in a safe place to not photograph minor imperfections on the film. Modern Arri cameras also have a gel slot, but it is located in the gate, so very, very few people use them because the slightest imperfection will be photographed due to the proximity to the film. If the gel slot is located in a risky place in your Eclair, then do not use gels, and go for glass filters.
Edited by Mike Panczenko, 19 October 2008 - 01:40 PM.
Posted 19 October 2008 - 02:00 PM
Posted 19 October 2008 - 02:02 PM
The other thing is, depending on what you are shooting, if you are using a Bolex, it would be nice to not have to look through stacked ND in an older eyepiece. but I will say that, in bright say exteriors shooting on tungsten stuck, when you're using an 85N9, shooting at a T4 or T5.6, it can be hard to see anything!
This situation/problem would occur whether the filters were gels or glass, correct?
Posted 19 October 2008 - 02:06 PM
Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:41 PM
Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:55 PM
Nick, since a matte box is something you consider out of the question, I think that the wratten gel filters are your best bet. I've never really encountered screw-on filters in the cine world, but maybe I've just been lucky?
Appendix A: The Eclair ACL has a gel slot?! It has been a looong time since I last held one of these puppies!
Appendix B: Yeah, Philly represent?
Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:59 PM
What's new Rory? One of these days We should get all the Philly people together for drinks!
Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:08 PM
Yeah the ACL does indeed have a gel slot believe it or not! One of the things Aaton felt was not worth it to copy
And I concur- a beer for the Philadelphians, even for a neo-Philadelphian like myself, would be wonderful!
Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:12 PM
As for filters, etc, is there a standard size behind the lens? Just curious, though I doubt it?
Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:33 PM
glass go with B+W, expensive but last much longer, scratch resistant.
forget the matte box, big, bulky, heavy, unless you're shooting with 85's/color corrections or need special diffusers, day for night, frost, fluro, etc
Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:52 PM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 06:58 PM
Cokin-style filters are what Adrian is referring to, but these generally fit inside a matte box like glass filters (although Cokin does sell a wonky clip-on holder used more for still lenses). These are neat, cheap solutions, but I wouldn't rely on them as high-end, optically pure filtration.
The holder ring screws in, but are you actually contesting that Cokin isn't as optically pure as other brand filters out there?