Anyone tried the redrock followfocus on XL H1?

Have you tried Able's, they had 'em a few weeks ago... pricey, but the FF is way better than any others I've used, plus the scale is visible from the viewfinder, which can be useful... Matte box is just a lens hood with nice filter trays, any would be fine as long as the aspect ratio is right...

I just received my first mattebox -- the Chrosziel with FF -- and will start the filter-buying process now.

Question: is there a reason to get any 4x5.65 filters or is getting only 4x4's sufficient? I do use the 3x wide-angle lense (and plan to get the 6x wide-angle when it comes out) if that's a factor.

4x4's should be fine, even with the WA.. I could be wrong, not having seen the lens, but I actually usually use a 3x3 Chrosziel clip-on with my H1 because it's lighter and smaller, and I mostly handhold... The Panavision size filters are expensive (I know, I've got over 20 of them) and significantly heavier.. Chrosziel makes that front holder a combination so people with both sizes have a choice -

I'm not familiar with the DV matte box (my 4x4's an older super16 one I've pulled from my Aaton kit) but if it's similar, the outer side edges of the hood will probably inter the frame before the edge of a 4x4 filter in the front holder...

Thank, Steve. It looks like that might be the case with this mattebox as well.

I have not attached mine to the XL H1 yet -- have been awaiting the mailing of the instructions, but given that it's been almost a week, I'm ready to just jump in and try to figure it out.

Is it the case that the rails attach directly to the body of the camera, making the use of the (wonderful) Canon quick release plate no longer possible?

Patricia: I've never even seen the Canon quick release plate so I don't know how it mounts (I use a 20 year old O'Conner 50 head with it's plate) but my guess is that it will be a problem...

The mattebox base is basically two flat plates seperated by two one inch aluminum dowls that elevate the camera in relation to the mini-rods (which are mounted to the front of the bottom plate).. You may be able to engineer a way to attach the quick release to the bottom plate.. maybe someone here has done it...

My camera is heavy because I use Anton Bauer batteries, a wireless receiver, custom grips (mounted to the mini-rods), follow focus and, occasionally, a grip-mounted 7" monitor - so in my personal opinion the mounting system looks under-built under the camera when it's on a tripod.. I'm sure Chrosziel knows what they're doing, but I reinforced the "dowls" by fabricating pieces of aluminum channel and affixing them to both sides... May not actually be any stronger, but it looks better and provides some peace of mind...

Hey, another person who uses a tripod forever. I bought my O'Connor 50 in 1985.

Good head - heavy, which is needed with a heavy (over 10lb) camera... I still use wooden sticks sometimes, too...

For what it's worth, I called 16x9 and asked about the ability of the rail support to carry the weight of the camera, A-B battery, 7" monitor, plus mattebox (my current configuration as well). They said it's "no problem at all", although I agree with you that it looks a little undersupported.

Does anyone know what FF gear ring works with the Canon 3x lens? The one in the kit doesn't fit (only fits the 20x) and so far I haven't gotten a response from 16x9.

Patricia: They may not make a gear for that lens, again, I don't know it...

Get a precise measurement of the diameter of the focus ring area on the lens at several different places (widest and narrowest) and then call someone who deals with film lenses and see if there's an off-the-rack ring that might fit...

Birns & Sawyer used to be good for that sort of thing, don't know if they still are...

Good suggestion, Steve. I'll give that a try. So far 16x9 hasn't been able to give me this information.

16x9 is the US importer for Chrosziel and is probably not aware of the boxes of lens gears sitting on shelves around the country - there're probably 10,000 in Burbank alone...

You could try looking for a lens repair tech, he could probably machine an existing gear for about the same as buying a new one (it's not rocket science.. chuck it up on a lathe and cut the interior surface till it matches) He may want your lens to be sure of the fit... FYI - the gear pitch for cine lenses is the same as the 20x gear...

This is the kind of thing that was common in the days before "box stores".. now it's getting a little more difficult..

Also, someone on this forum may have an answer if you're patient.. start a new thread in the XL1-2 thread (I know, no cross-posting, but truly it's a new question)... Good luck..

Hello Matteboxlovers

I have a Crosziel 4x4 mattebox now and I have ordered the 6x zoom... it suddenly struck me... will the matteboxe vignette the picture if used with clamp on to the new wide (3.4mm). Has anyone used a Chrosziel or other 4x4 matteboxe with the old 3x SD zoom? Have look on this (from Vocas homepage); "If two 4X4" filters are placed against the front of a lens wider than 5 mm they will vignette. This means that the edges of one filter will be visible in the picture. If only one filter is placed against the lens front (without rotating) it will not vignette. Therefore it is impossible to design a mattebox with two 4X4" filters for lenses wider than 5 mm. ". It doesn't say if this is focal length @ 1/3" CCDs... what do you think? Do I have to invest in a 4x5.65" filter set-up?

For information, Chrosziel will have stepdown from 104 to 82 thread mount and a 85 mm split ring for clip-on outside of lens, if you have the same matteboxe as me!

I use a 3x3 regularly with the 20x and the 16x, so I would assume the 4x4 would cover the WA.... I do have an older, shorter Chrosziel adapter ring that places the matte box about 1/4" closer to the front element than the one that comes with the current kits... Don't know the #, but it may solve any vingetting problems...

Yes, the 3x vignettes at full wide. Even the Chrosziel matte box shows up on the edges of the frame.

And now for a completely off-topic, minor interruption.

Robert, you've just made the 10,000th post to our XL H1 forum. That's a big milestone as far as I'm concerned, what with me bleeding Canon red and all. Send me your mailing address via private email, please -- you've just earned some swag. Thanks for giving this board its final push into the five-digit post count range. Much appreciated,

What about the http://www.indiesnap.com/hd.html? It was mentioned early in this thread but nobody mentioned it in the last few pages. The price is nice and the build quality looks pretty decent.

The Chrosziel looks amazing but the price is really high. I am sure it is worth it but there might be alternatives that work just as good.

I've got the Chrosziel setup on my XL2.... it is SWEET. I got the follow focus, rods and matte box all together. Not only is it extrememly functional, it is tough as well. I can sling my camera over my shoulder and not worry about bending or breaking anything.

Worth the 3 grand in my opinion....

Another point, which has been made elsewhere, is that these accesories last. The mattebox I use with my Hi I originally bought over 10 years ago to use on my super16 camera, it has followed me through a DSR300, a DVX, and XL2 and now the H1. The baseplates are different, but I have modified mine twice to fit first the DVX and then the XL2 (which also fits the H1). Same with follow focus, although my original FF is a studio rig with controls on both sides, so it won't fit the H1 because of the lens handle... but the DV version, which I have as well, will fit anything.. They're well made and they last..

But, and this is a big "but" (and I don't mean it as a put down).. don't spend the cash if you just want your camera to look cool - most people don't need a high-end mattebox, and many don't need the FF at all.. The 3 grand would be better spent on the WA lens unless you really need it...

Which people do need a mattebox according to you? I am going to shoot documentary and corporate video. It will be a matte box or normal filters, and I do not like to invest in something I need to replace in a later stadium. So with that logic, I prefer to invest in a good matte box instead of 72mm filters.

Which people do need a mattebox according to you? I am going to shoot documentary and corporate video and short films in a later stadium. The chance is high that I will buy a matte box one day, so investing in 72mm filters is not a real option. So maybe the 6X WIDE is a better investment at this moment.

People who NEED matteboxes are those that use a lot of filters and filter combinations.. ie, a polarizer with a graduated ND with a ProMist.. (a combination I use often).. I have a super16 Chrosziel mattebox that allows me to use three filters.. I have accumulted, for particular jobs, over 50 filters in various sizes over the years, way too many as a matter of fact - many are color-correction and color-tint filters for shooting in film (with the H1 you can do this stuff in the menu)...

For the majority of the H1 shooting that I do I simply use an old 3x3 Chrosziel clamp-on, which is similar in size to the stock hood, but allows me to use two 3x3 filters - most often a SoftFX and a polarizer or a grad.

So much of what filters do can be done in the camera now that my filter kit tends to get smaller and smaller year after year..

Sure, an H1 with a big mattebox on rods with a follow-focus looks very pro-cool, but it's the pictures that count, not how the camera looks... This stuff is WAY expensive - the filters alone are $200@ and up, way up (my 4" round polarizer cost over $400) -

Sorry Tiffen and sorry Chrosziel, but I'm just saying, if you don't need it, save the cash for something else...

I wanted to get one of those smaller clamp-on lens hood/filter holder type matte boxes for the XH A1, but the guy at Cavision said the way the mic sticks out it would have to use an adapter extension ring and that probably would put it far enough out to cause corner vignetting. I think I'll just stick with my Series 9 filters and French flag.

S9s are fine,

but FYI, the 3x3 Chrosziel works fine on the H1, no mike interference at all.. by the way, I've mentioned it before but it should be known that I have an older Chrosziel adapter ring that doesn't stick out as far as the one that comes with the DV mattebox.. there could be vignetting with the longer one...

Oops I was talking about the A1...came here from email and didn't realize I was in the H1 thread.

Bill, yeah I was VERY disappointed that Canon put that damn bulbous un-removeable mike on the A1, ala the Sony... It would be such a nice camera if you could strip it, since, in my case, I would probably never use that mike anyway (not that it's bad, probably. it's just that I have several much better ones and would use them). It was a deal-killer for me.. I was going to get one as a backup.. Course you could always break out the Sawzall...

I just got my camera in today. It appears there are little screws underneath, and you could probably take off the mic if if you wanted. It doesn't bother me, though I'll probably never use it.