EX3 and 4X4 glass filters ... at DVinfo.net

Dean Harrington · August 10th, 2008, 05:53 AM

Which size is best for the stock EX3 lens 4X4 or larger considering a hood will have to go on the lens when you use something like the RedRock matte box?

Dean Harrington · August 10th, 2008, 04:29 PM

anybody brooding over this issue or anybody who is considering same!

George Kroonder · August 11th, 2008, 12:55 AM

4x4's need to be close to the lens to cover the lens at wide and not vingette. I'm not familiar with the Redrock setup, but you may be better off with a 4x5.65.

George/

Peter Rixner · August 11th, 2008, 01:00 AM

Hi :)

4x4 works for me at a EX1, which should have the same lens.
I use a Chrosziel Mattebox that is very close to the lens.

Dean Harrington · August 11th, 2008, 02:10 AM

I'll see how it goes. Maybe some 4X4 up for grabs if they don't work on the EX3.

Brendan Walsh · February 13th, 2009, 11:10 AM

Just in case anyone else was wondering about this...

I have the EX1 and the Redrock Mattebox and have found that the 4x4s really don't work all that well this setup. In fact the only way I was able eliminate vignetting on the filter stage closest to the lens was to either flip the mattebox upside down (the common mattebox cure for most EX1 users) or to rotate just that filter stage upside down before attaching the mattebox.

Although this method did seem to work I don't know that I'd trust putting a second 4x4 in the front filter tray without a good monitor that had underscan to be sure it wasn't vignetting at full wide.

To me it's not worth the risk to invest in 4x4s. For anyone who already has 4x4s then it may be worth it to try them out. For me, I'm starting from scratch and I'd rather spend the extra money on the 4x5.65s not have to worry. With the cost of filters I'd also like to ensure that I'll be able to use them on future cameras, and the 4x5.65s are a safer bet for that.

Steve Shovlar · February 13th, 2009, 12:25 PM

Anyone who wants some 4x4, 5.65x4 and 6.6x6.6 filters should look on ebay as I have a load on there at the moment. Starting at 99p!! ( though hopefully not endng on that price!)

I use a Vocas mattebox and all sizes work fine. It doesn't hold the 6.6x6.6 but if smaller work the larger certainly will.

Mitchell Lewis · February 13th, 2009, 12:27 PM

The Red Rock Matte Box uses 4 x 5.65" filters. You need to use a mylar mask (supplied with the matte box) to use 4 x 4 filters with it. It's a real nice setup.

Derek Reich · February 13th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Hey, Dean
For what it's worth.... when I bought my EX3 I already had a Chrosziel Sunshade with a load of 4X4 filters I use on my Beta. Being the cheap bastard I am, I decided to see if I could make this work without having to by more stuff. I was delighted to find that Chrosziel made a 77mm to 104 adapter ring (compression type on the matte box end) which fit perfectly. The one drawback I encountered was the locking knob for the matte box interfered with the camera mic. If I rotated the first stage 180 degrees, the knob was easy to use, but if you set the camera down on a table or flat surface, the front of the camera rested on the knob which is taller than the shade hood. So, I cut the knob down about 1/2", and wrapped some gaffer's tape around the end to have some gription to turn the knob. It works great, (albeit a little challenging to turn the knob under the camera mic, but if you keep the first stage rotated 180 degrees, the knob is on the bottom and no longer hits when the camera is set down) and I have no vignetting at all from either stage. I discovered a little late that if I rotated the first stage 90 degrees (sideways) and rotated the second stage and hood back to vertical, (I may have which stage is which backwards, but you get the idea) I wouldn't have to had cut the knob down, but then any filter in that stage is horizontal.

Probably not the most perfect solution, but it works great and only cost me the $100 for the adapter ring. If you are able to get a better deal on 4X4 filters, this could be a viable option. The sunshade is easy to take on and off the lens, but the ring has to come off to put on a wide adapter, and I tried but cannot make the shade work on the wide adapter. (Century Optics) I suspect it would most likely vignette on that anyway.
But with this arrangement, you should not see any vignetting from either stage. Now, that said, I have been somewhat distressed to discover that none of the IR filters I'd like to try seem to come in a 4X4 size... at least I've not found any yet.
cheers

August 10th, 2008, 05:53 AM	#1
Dean Harrington Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 898	EX3 and 4X4 glass filters ... Which size is best for the stock EX3 lens 4X4 or larger considering a hood will have to go on the lens when you use something like the RedRock matte box?

August 10th, 2008, 04:29 PM	#2
Dean Harrington Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 898	come on guys/gals ... anybody brooding over this issue or anybody who is considering same!

August 11th, 2008, 02:10 AM	#5
Dean Harrington Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 898	thanks ... I'll see how it goes. Maybe some 4X4 up for grabs if they don't work on the EX3.

February 13th, 2009, 11:10 AM	#6
Brendan Walsh Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 109	EX1 and 4x4s Just in case anyone else was wondering about this... I have the EX1 and the Redrock Mattebox and have found that the 4x4s really don't work all that well this setup. In fact the only way I was able eliminate vignetting on the filter stage closest to the lens was to either flip the mattebox upside down (the common mattebox cure for most EX1 users) or to rotate just that filter stage upside down before attaching the mattebox. Although this method did seem to work I don't know that I'd trust putting a second 4x4 in the front filter tray without a good monitor that had underscan to be sure it wasn't vignetting at full wide. To me it's not worth the risk to invest in 4x4s. For anyone who already has 4x4s then it may be worth it to try them out. For me, I'm starting from scratch and I'd rather spend the extra money on the 4x5.65s not have to worry. With the cost of filters I'd also like to ensure that I'll be able to use them on future cameras, and the 4x5.65s are a safer bet for that.

February 13th, 2009, 12:27 PM	#8
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	The Red Rock Matte Box uses 4 x 5.65" filters. You need to use a mylar mask (supplied with the matte box) to use 4 x 4 filters with it. It's a real nice setup. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

August 11th, 2008, 12:55 AM	#3
George Kroonder Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Utrecht, NL \| Europe 3rd Rock from the Sun Posts: 612	4x4's need to be close to the lens to cover the lens at wide and not vingette. I'm not familiar with the Redrock setup, but you may be better off with a 4x5.65. George/

August 11th, 2008, 01:00 AM	#4
Peter Rixner Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: near Munich, Bavaria Posts: 139	Hi :) 4x4 works for me at a EX1, which should have the same lens. I use a Chrosziel Mattebox that is very close to the lens.

February 13th, 2009, 12:25 PM	#7
Steve Shovlar Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Dorset UK Posts: 697	Anyone who wants some 4x4, 5.65x4 and 6.6x6.6 filters should look on ebay as I have a load on there at the moment. Starting at 99p!! ( though hopefully not endng on that price!) I use a Vocas mattebox and all sizes work fine. It doesn't hold the 6.6x6.6 but if smaller work the larger certainly will.

February 13th, 2009, 02:31 PM	#9
Derek Reich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Washoe Valley, NV Posts: 304	Hey, Dean For what it's worth.... when I bought my EX3 I already had a Chrosziel Sunshade with a load of 4X4 filters I use on my Beta. Being the cheap bastard I am, I decided to see if I could make this work without having to by more stuff. I was delighted to find that Chrosziel made a 77mm to 104 adapter ring (compression type on the matte box end) which fit perfectly. The one drawback I encountered was the locking knob for the matte box interfered with the camera mic. If I rotated the first stage 180 degrees, the knob was easy to use, but if you set the camera down on a table or flat surface, the front of the camera rested on the knob which is taller than the shade hood. So, I cut the knob down about 1/2", and wrapped some gaffer's tape around the end to have some gription to turn the knob. It works great, (albeit a little challenging to turn the knob under the camera mic, but if you keep the first stage rotated 180 degrees, the knob is on the bottom and no longer hits when the camera is set down) and I have no vignetting at all from either stage. I discovered a little late that if I rotated the first stage 90 degrees (sideways) and rotated the second stage and hood back to vertical, (I may have which stage is which backwards, but you get the idea) I wouldn't have to had cut the knob down, but then any filter in that stage is horizontal. Probably not the most perfect solution, but it works great and only cost me the $100 for the adapter ring. If you are able to get a better deal on 4X4 filters, this could be a viable option. The sunshade is easy to take on and off the lens, but the ring has to come off to put on a wide adapter, and I tried but cannot make the shade work on the wide adapter. (Century Optics) I suspect it would most likely vignette on that anyway. But with this arrangement, you should not see any vignetting from either stage. Now, that said, I have been somewhat distressed to discover that none of the IR filters I'd like to try seem to come in a 4X4 size... at least I've not found any yet. cheers __________________ www.zooprax.com