Jump to content


Photo

saving money on filters


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:11 PM

Still in an effort to gather all of the necessary supplies for situations i'm sure to face while shooting with my Eclair ACL.

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)


Thanks-
Nicholas
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:27 PM

I would strongly recommend glass filters in a proper mattebox. . . It's an investment that will last you a long time and be able to work with different cameras/lenses. . . I know there is some sticker shock. . .but you get what you pay for in this business a lot of the time.
  • 0

#3 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 19 October 2008 - 12:53 PM

A mattebox is certainly something i plan on getting, but right now it just isn't possible.

If i got the ACL Mattebox from Les Bosher, would this be able to work on different cameras?


Thanks-
nicholas
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:09 PM

Can't say I know of the mattebox, but they should work across camera platforms.
  • 0

#5 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 19 October 2008 - 01:37 PM

The thing about gels is that while they may cost 30-60 a piece, you don't use a whole gel at once. You cut the gel, to fit the holder, and can normally get about 3 or 4 individual gels out of one package. 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. It seems on this forum a lot of people are against using behind the lens gels- I think it is most likely a more American thing, because of the prevalence of Arri in Europe- 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! Yes, the gels will not last forever, and yes they can get expensive. But if you are doing casual shooting, and buy some gels, they should last you a decent amount of time before you have to buy any more.

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.

  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 02:00 PM

Mike, I was under the impression he was speaking of the gel resin filters, as opposed to the lighiting gel mounted as you would in a bolex. my reason for this assumption is his mention of tiffen and b+w who, as far as I know, only manufacture glass and resin filters....
  • 0

#7 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

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?


-nicholas
  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 02:06 PM

When looking through that much filtration, yes, it can be a problem on either or.
  • 0

#9 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:41 PM

Yeah but you don't use lighting gel material behind the lens- ever. Kodak Wratten Gels are what's made for those slots. You don't want ot put a lighting gel back there- it will screw up focus, and not be optically pure enough.
  • 0

#10 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:45 PM

Cokin?
  • 0

#11 Rory Hanrahan

Rory Hanrahan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • NYC

Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:55 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.

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?
  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 07:59 PM

Ahh, yes, see, that clears up my filters confusion too. I just got used to 4x4 Tiffens.
What's new Rory? One of these days We should get all the Philly people together for drinks!
  • 0

#13 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:08 PM

Appendix A: The Eclair ACL has a gel slot?! It has been a looong time since I last held one of these puppies!

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 :P

And I concur- a beer for the Philadelphians, even for a neo-Philadelphian like myself, would be wonderful!
  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:12 PM

Sometime soon; just let me know. I'm partial to a little place called Cantina in S. Phila; but, so long as there's good beer. . .I mean, after the Phillies thing; I think we deserve it...
As for filters, etc, is there a standard size behind the lens? Just curious, though I doubt it?
  • 0

#15 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:33 PM

gels, go with Kodak don't screw around with Lee or anything else.

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
  • 0

#16 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:52 PM

Thanks everyone for all the replies. Much appreciated.

-nicholas
  • 0

#17 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

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?
  • 0


CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly