Matte Box rip off scandel ?

[4mat]

Is it me or do matte box's seem to be a complete rip off ?

Why the hell doesn't somebody (me) make a hardened rubber matte box and filter holder for the HVX. You wouldn't need rods as the weight would be less, the price would be under £20 and we would get the same result.
PS i could make some fake carbon fiber plastic rods if you like the look mmmmmmm.
-matt:violin:

[stabwound]

My thoughts exactly.

The hood that comes with the HVX is almost a mattebox... Panasonic could easily make a mattebox version (french flage etc) as an alternative at a little more cost.

Expense wise, I think you're better off spending the $500 - $1500 for matteboxes for other more essential equiptment.

[Digital Angel]

Firstoff, stabwound thats a lovely name and secondly, ive worked with barn doors on lighting equipment and to me those french flags look similar. pardon my noobyness, but what exactly do they do, for image etc, i know the box holds the filter, are the doors for removing glare alone. seems like you would only need it if you had a light that was able to shine direct light at the side of the lens.

[Steve Shovlar]

Totally diagree. matte Boxes are almost essential. I have the Vocas which costs well over £1200 but wouldn't be without it. Want a light weight box, Formatt based in south Wales do a very good one that attaches to the front of the camera for about £300. in fact you can buy them on ebay.co.uk for only £100. They are selling on there every day. Buy it, use it and you will never be without it.

[4mat]

Hi Steven,
Can you enlighten me as to what your £1200 matte box does that a cheeper one won't ?
I'd rarther have a couple of 4gig p2 cards anyday and a £120 formatte box of ebay.
I guess i'm not letting you budget my next feature then lol.
Only kidding
Peace
-matt

[stabwound]

Edit: In reply to Digital Angel.:

French flags and barn doors on a light block light. Used on a camera, it prevents glare. On a light, it helps control the area you need lit.

Confession time here.... I've never owned, or used a mattebox... because I've never felt the need for one, especially when I used the FX1 and the Hvx. The hoods on those cameras did their jobs... I've not had glare problems.

As for filters, I'm very suspicious of anything that's not multicoated. I don't know too much about the drop in filters used on a mattebox, but I'm sure anything plastic or gelatin will degrade the image.

Anyways... since I can do most filter effects in post, I don't think filters are neccessary.

If you're using film, then filters are required.

I swiped "stabwound" off a character in "Married with Children".

[booth]

The hood on the HVX is huge compared to the DVX!

[dop16mm]

For sheer functionality nothing beats black wrap and gaffer tape, may not be pretty but it gets the job done.

[stabwound]

Totally diagree. matte Boxes are almost essential. I have the Vocas which costs well over £1200 but wouldn't be without it. Want a light weight box, Formatt based in south Wales do a very good one that attaches to the front of the camera for about £300. in fact you can buy them on ebay.co.uk for only £100. They are selling on there every day. Buy it, use it and you will never be without it.


For what it is, the costs of some of these things, as the first poster remarked, are a bit high.

I know I shouldn't comment on equptment I've never used. But I'm open to changing my mind when I do get to use one.

As for the HVX lens, it's pretty free of ghostings and reflections in almost every shot so far. I haven't pointed it at the sun, though various posters have done so without bad things happen.

[J.R. Hudson]

Forget doing Grads in Post; that's absurd.

Matte Boxes rule. I cannot even imagine shooting without one; whether it's ND Grads, Pol's or even Soft-FX ......

Don't hate them because they cost a few dollars! Some are inexpensive and some are gonna cost you. Obviously the 4 Rotating Stage MB that holds 4" X 6" and is supported on Rods to accomodate different lenses is going to cost more than one that hold one filter in a hood.

If you wan't one for the HVX and are concerend about price then check out Dakotapod's MB on this site.

Grad in post ? Huh ? How can you even get the shot on-location without blowing it out or losing it without using a Grad in the first place ? Explain that one!
-

The cost are high due to the market supply. It isn't just the material it's the amount they are going to actually sell down the road. It's not like everyone and their mother are buying MB's.

[Erik Olson]

Of course the SteadiCam guy hates grads - you're never standing still. Matteboxes aren't the result of marketing toward filmmaker's vanity. The mattebox you see today has changed very little since they were first introduced along with motion picture film itself.

Everything that you see in today's matteboxes - from bellows and the number of fixed and rotating stages to filter size to French flags and support rods - is there because filmmakers needed these features at one time or another.

This discussion pops up frequently - often from budding filmmakers who have little time in an actual production environment.

http://www.latinoreview.com/moviereviews/2002/sk2/images/robertrod.jpg

Even filmmakers who buck almost entirely the conventions of studio filmmaking use matteboxes - to the tune of $2k a pop. Matteboxes, like sound, lighting, grip and dolly equipment are vital tools employed by filmmakers to achieve a particular technical result.

There's a reason serious filmmakers use them and it isn't to look cool. Okay, admittedly, they look pretty cool.

e

[stabwound]

Forget doing Grads in Post; that's absurd.


Grad in post ? Huh ? How can you even get the shot on-location without blowing it out or losing it without using a Grad in the first place ? Explain that one!
-

The cost are high due to the market supply. It isn't just the material it's the amount they are going to actually sell down the road. It's not like everyone and their mother are buying MB's.

Unless I'm wrong, grad filters are used to darken the sky so it doesn't blow out as much.

Problem with using grad filters is that it darkens anything that's in the sky area.... buildings, trees... and it' screams: "It's so obvious we're using a grad filter here, folks!"

Check out a lot of the older Bond movies. The buildings mysteriously are dark near the top.

Nice thing about using digital effects like AE is that you can mask out the sky area and drop in corrected version, or even another different sky. I saw a AE tracking tutorial for synching the sky footage for those who are handholding their shots.

My own strategy for blown out skies is to two takes of the same scene (cam locked down) one corrected for subject, second corrected for sky, then combine the two with a mask.

Don't get me wrong... those matteboxes look cool. 100 bucks is a good price (my UV filter cost me that. It's the $1500 versions that make me gasp.

[R Gale]

Anyways... since I can do most filter effects in post, I don't think filters are neccessary.

If you're using film, then filters are required.

???????:huh:

Ask any professional Director of Photography, using the right filters on camera is essential, especially when shooting with a video camera!
Once part of a shot is blown out, that's it , detail is gone. If you want to add another sky with multiple shots and /or matchmoving and ae etc, that's cool, but it's not the easiest way to go about it.
Polarizers eliminate haze, unwanted reflections, give colors a richer look.
ND grads can make a blown out sky look great, and they are a seriously good way to make your video look like film.

I agree these $1,500 MB's are pricey, but so are a lot of the professional tools.

[Opcode]

I always shoot with a mattebox when I can. The first reason being that if I'm outdoors I'm almost always using a polarizer or ND's, or a combination of the two. Now you could use the digital ND's to help but they are quite course adjustments. A set of ND's gives you much better control and optically, it's real glass so your results will arguably be better.

The second reason, and this is huge...flaring. You have a mattebox and flags because you could very well be aiming your camera toward a direction that has either the sun in it, some reflection of a bright source or actual lights in the shot. When you are shooting in doors, you will have lights (assuming you are actually lighting, which you should be). And chances are, you will have some light that is shining toward the lens. It's extremely common to need to flag lights to prevent it flaring the lens.

Third, it looks cool. Clients, producers, actors alike all feel more professional when your little video camera has a hunkin matte box sitting at the end.

[stabwound]

???????:huh:

Ask any professional Director of Photography, using the right filters on camera is essential, especially when shooting with a video camera!
Once part of a shot is blown out, that's it , detail is gone. If you want to add another sky with matchmoving and ae etc etc, that's not the easiest way to go about it.
Polarizers eliminate haze, unwanted reflections, give colors a richer look.
ND grads can make a blown out sky look great, and they are a seriously good way to make your video look like film.

Ooops. I didn't mean ALL filters aren't needed. My fave filter is the polarizer... for reasons you've described. But I'll get a screw on one. But as for color correction filters and soft filters... well....

I agree that matchmoving is not easy, but if you really wanted a shot to work, then you might want to go the extra mile. I'll almost bet George Lucas didn't use a grad filter on last Star Wars movie.

My philosophy in life is this: If ya need it, ya need it. You'll find out soon enough. Then go buy it.

For instance, my older, possibly none multicoated wide angle slr lens is in need of a very large hood to get glare free pics. So I buy the biggest one in the used bin and glue it on.

In the two days of testing, I've been extremely happy with the ghost free/reflection/glare free images of the HVX... for shade purposes, the hood is great.

In contrast, I borrowed small handicam with a teeny hood for a track meet a couple of months ago. In any backlight situation the picture washes out. Movie makers in the old days probably had the same problems... hence the Mattebox was essential.

R.Gale.... I don't work professionally in the video/film industry, other than volunteering at Shaw Cable Community Channel (no, they were probably to cheap to use matteboxes). I don't profess to know everything... if I'm missing something that the pro's know. ... if my opinion is wrong, give it to me with both barrels.

While I'd LIKE to get the stuff the pro's use (expensive mikes, lights etc) budget restraints keep me questioning every purchase.

[J.R. Hudson]

Unless I'm wrong,

That you are.

--

I can't explain it any other way than it's already been explained in this thread. The MB is essential to any serious cinematograpoher; period. There is no 'if, and's or but's...'

--

Sounds to me like you are jumping through fire to get your shot off:

--


My own strategy for blown out skies is to two takes of the same scene (cam locked down) one corrected for subject, second corrected for sky, then combine the two with a mask.

"You cannot be serious!"

http://www.ken.ch/so/alt/schuelerInnen/h3b2000/www.tennis.ch/bilder/john%20mcenroe.jpg

--



Nice thing about using digital effects like AE is that you can mask out the sky area and drop in corrected version, or even another different sky. I saw a AE tracking tutorial for synching the sky footage for those who are handholding their shots.


I can dig this for a specific approach; creating skies that otherwise were not there or that physically just could not be gotten...

But to rely on this method exclusively seems lavish

[bgundu]

I used to wonder about Matte boxes many years ago until I actually used one. To achieve nice DOF you have to really open the aperture. When the on camera ND filters are to agressive, you have to either use a screw on filter, or a square one that fits into a matte box. Trust me, you don't want to waste time removing your HVX lens hood to change a screw on filter. The matte box solution is a very convenient way to quickly change your setup. As a photographer, I never leave home without my filters. A polorizer is an essential tool, and should be part of your video gear. There are many options and price ranges when it comes to matte boxes, so don't feel like you have to get the most expensive one. But you really do get what you pay for. If you're using it almost everyday, (which also means you're making money) I can't imagine anyone skimping on this. If you think the boxes are too expensive, check out the prices on the filters themselves. But the nice thing is, it's an invesment that will last you many years.

I would say the Vocus brand is the middle level and the nicer stuff is from Petroff or Chrosziel. We'll leave follow focus prices for another discussion.

[stabwound]

That you are.
--

Poop. I'll take your word that I am... since I've never used one.


Sounds to me like you are jumping through fire to get your shot off:

"You cannot be serious!"

A lot of digital still photographers do exactly that to boost dynamic range. Some will shoot for hightlights only, mid values and shadow details and combine. Sounds like a lot of work... but it's pretty easy. For the time taken, it's satisfying.


can dig this for a specific approach; creating skies that otherwise were not there or that physically just could not be gotten...

But to rely on this method exclusively seems lavish

Well... if I was shooting an all day concert with a lot of blown sky then yah, I'd slap on the ol' gradated filter, even if I have to handpaint it. I ain't AE'ing no 6 hours worth of footage!

But for a nice ten second establishing shot of my beloved indie feature.... it's no big deal.

[J.R. Hudson]

Poop. I'll take your word that I am... since I've never used one.


Once you use one you will be in Nirvana; I promise.




A lot of digital still photographers do exactly that to boost dynamic range. Some will shoot for hightlights only, mid values and shadow details and combine. Sounds like a lot of work... but it's pretty easy. For the time taken, it's satisfying.


Admittedly I do not shoot stills (I want to yet just another thing to do on the 'to do' list)



Well... if I was shooting an all day concert with a lot of blown sky then yah, I'd slap on the ol' gradated filter, even if I have to handpaint it. I ain't AE'ing no 6 hours worth of footage!

But for a nice ten second establishing shot of my beloved indie feature.... it's no big deal.


I dig it ! Nothing cooler than skies.

-

Check Open Range (Costner film) I think the entire film had post accentuated skies; gorgeus stuff.

ON another note

I did this composite in post:

http://media.putfile.com/Composite-Test

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=38756

-

So yes; I suppose both methods have their pros

[Blaine]

I love it, John. You're just an old softy. You growl, then bark, then listen, then chill. :grin:

[stabwound]

I used to wonder about Matte boxes many years ago until I actually used one. To achieve nice DOF you have to really open the aperture. When the on camera ND filters are to agressive, you have to either use a screw on filter, or a square one that fits into a matte box. Trust me, you don't want to waste time removing your HVX lens hood to change a screw on filter. The matte box solution is a very convenient way to quickly change your setup. As a photographer, I never leave home without my filters. A polorizer is an essential tool, and should be part of your video gear. There are many options and price ranges when it comes to matte boxes, so don't feel like you have to get the most expensive one. But you really do get what you pay for. If you're using it almost everyday, (which also means you're making money) I can't imagine anyone skimping on this. If you think the boxes are too expensive, check out the prices on the filters themselves. But the nice thing is, it's an invesment that will last you many years.

I would say the Vocus brand is the middle level and the nicer stuff is from Petroff or Chrosziel. We'll leave follow focus prices for another discussion.


Despite what've I've posted, down the road, when I'm doing paying gigs, I'll probably be using mb's and filters, like the regular pros, if only for the sake of getting the job done quickly and well.

As one who is still planning their first mini indie project, it's a matter of priority. I've still yet to buy the right mics and lights, and surely a mb is down the list of essentials.

I'll see if I could test drive one. If it works as advertise, I'll be happy to change my position.

[J.R. Hudson]

Lol Blaine !

[Erik Olson]

Bracketing is great for still photography, but has limited or no application in narrative filmmaking. It costs literally nothing to repeat a few frames of film or digital media memory for stills safety and post-production latitude.

Cinematographers work much harder to nail exposure before the camera rolls an inch of film. Repeat takes are reserved for performance and blocking issues almost exclusively. We're recording thousands of images in the time a stills photographer might record a few.

You're trying to extend your (perhaps very extensive) experience in one discipline to two entirely disparate crafts that are based on some common principles, cinematography and stills work.

I respectfully recommend that you get some time under your belt in the crafts of film or digital video before decidedly lambasting proven tools and methods. It just comes across as ignorant.

e

[holditnowfilms]

From what I gathered from the scattered topics of the postings the Matte Box does this-
It lets you use FILTERS
It blocks light from your lens.

That's pretty simple. Makes sense.

If you have the budget a matte box can be useful if you don't have the cash be resourceful!

You can get a filter holder pretty cheap.
You can build a FLARE STOPPING DEVICE with black foam core and Gaffer tape- to use when you have serious flare issues that the stock hood can't handle.

Use either only when needed.

As for the other crazy stuff...


Stop trying to "LOOK COOL" or "BE COOL". You're not. Rock stars and Actors are cool. You're the film geek with a camera. You get to hang out with the cool people but don't be fooled into thinking you're one of them. You're not. You're the enemy. They only like you because you can make them look good. Do otherwise and you will pay.:)

If you want to be cool better start taking acting or guitar lessons!

If you looking cool is the only reason people will work with you.. re-write or find a new script.
Hehehehehe

[stabwound]

From what I gathered from the scattered topics of the postings the Matte Box does this-
It lets you use FILTERS
It blocks light from your lens.

That's pretty simple. Makes sense.

If you have the budget a matte box can be useful if you don't have the cash be resourceful!

You can get a filter holder pretty cheap.
You can build a FLARE STOPPING DEVICE with black foam core and Gaffer tape- to use when you have serious flare issues that the stock hood can't handle.

Use either only when needed.

As for the other crazy stuff...


Stop trying to "LOOK COOL" or "BE COOL". You're not. Rock stars and Actors are cool. You're the film geek with a camera. You get to hang out with the cool people but don't be fooled into thinking you're one of them. You're not. You're the enemy. They only like you because you can make them look good. Do otherwise and you will pay.:)

If you want to be cool better start taking acting or guitar lessons!

If you looking cool is the only reason people will work with you.. re-write or find a new script.
Hehehehehe

Easy, Holditnowfilm.

I expressed my opinion, that's all. I qualified my statements with admissions that I'm not a pro, and don't work in the industry.

No, I've never used a graduated filter, nor used a mattebox.

I'm basing my arguments on my logic, and already said I'll change my opinion, when given a convincing argument. Bob Gundu has tried it and liked the Matte Box. He was convincing in the need for external ND filters. If you've read my answer to Bob, I said I'd try it... and will probably end up agreeing with him.

As for the "looking cool" thing.... that's so far from the truth I won't comment. I promise you my admission that my volunteering with Shaw Cable Community Channel is EMBARRASSING... it's not a boast. But it's the closest experience I had with pro equiptment... and even then, they were ancient Umatic tape machines.

There's a lot of pros on this forum: the last thing I want to do is tangle with them on facts, because I don't have a leg to stand on.

I once voiced my opinion on laser disk based cams... wasn't convinced of their reliablity. NBCshooter asked me how I can conclude that.... saying that none of disk/cams at his work had failed to his knowledge. How can I argue with that?

I had to concede to NBCshooter's view. It's based on logic. He's right, I don't know about disk/cams, never having used one.

You're obviously a pro, so I'll concede this one too.:)

Thanks for the lessons on being cool, by the way.

[stabwound]

I respectfully recommend that you get some time under your belt in the crafts of film or digital video before decidedly lambasting proven tools and methods. It just comes across as ignorant.

e

Ouch.

Well, you're right on that score.

I'll keep my opinion to myself until I get some professional experience.


:)

[Erik Olson]

Please consider that it's a mattebox salesman trying to convince you that you need a mattebox.

Ulterior motives - me?! Naw, never...

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

e

[oneinfiniteloop]

A lot of digital still photographers do exactly that to boost dynamic range. Some will shoot for hightlights only, mid values and shadow details and combine. Sounds like a lot of work... but it's pretty easy. For the time taken, it's satisfying.

This is generally done, if combined, for purpose of creating HDR images, which is something no video camera can achieve (except maybe the Genesis, and I'm not even sure on that).

What can achieve said HDR image...35mm film.

Matte boxes are great tools, and along with filters you can take your cinematography game up a level.

[snarton]

Bracketing is great for still photography, but has limited or no application in narrative filmmaking.

The technique he's talking about isn't bracketing, which is used to ensure a correct exposure. He's overcoming the inherently limited dynamic range of today's CCDs by taking the image twice and then combining the portions of the two images where there are details. I agree that this technique has limited use in most video situations.

--Jeremy

[Erik Olson]

Yap, that's what I said, "...for stills safety and post-production latitude."

e

[aelent]

If you looking cool is the only reason people will work with you.. re-write or find a new script.
While I'll admit I have not/am not/nor will ever be cool, I gotta take issue with you on that last sentence. Perception is reality. Especially when working with most clients because they have NO clue, most of the time. So if you walk in with a ginormous rig they are going to be more impressed than if you came in with a camera like the HVX on its own. Granted, the mattebox could be made of card board and have no filters in it, it makes no difference to the client. All they see is something big and fancy looking. In turn that makes them feel more confident in you and are more likely to hire you again in the future. Its silly but true. I call it the "Blinky Light Factor". A wall of blinky lights that do nothing will dazzle a client faster than a vanilla box that can do everything. So, things like matte boxes, dollies, SteadiCams, etc have a huge psychological impact on your client.

Having said all that, those are NOT reasons to be using a matte box. But it sure as hell is a nice perk. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[David_M_Payne]

While I'll admit I have not/am not/nor will ever be cool, I gotta take issue with you on that last sentence. Perception is reality. Especially when working with most clients because they have NO clue, most of the time. So if you walk in with a ginormous rig they are going to be more impressed than if you came in with a camera like the HVX on its own. Granted, the mattebox could be made of card board and have no filters in it, it makes no difference to the client. All they see is something big and fancy looking. In turn that makes them feel more confident in you and are more likely to hire you again in the future. Its silly but true. I call it the "Blinky Light Factor". A wall of blinky lights that do nothing will dazzle a client faster than a vanilla box that can do everything. So, things like matte boxes, dollies, SteadiCams, etc have a huge psychological impact on your client.

Having said all that, those are NOT reasons to be using a matte box. But it sure as hell is a nice perk. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Then there is this Matte Box, priced right and impressive. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50411

David :laugh:

[J.R. Hudson]

Looking cool or not; My DVX looks damn sexy with a box on it

[ddh]

I have to agree John. The Matte Box makes any camera look cool and professional. I like portability and have a cinetactics MatteBlox with an oversized French Flag for my DVX. Not the cheapest and not the best but it tucks away nicely.

[holditnowfilms]

While I'll admit I have not/am not/nor will ever be cool, I gotta take issue with you on that last sentence. Perception is reality. Especially when working with most clients because they have NO clue, most of the time. So if you walk in with a ginormous rig they are going to be more impressed than if you came in with a camera like the HVX on its own. Granted, the mattebox could be made of card board and have no filters in it, it makes no difference to the client. All they see is something big and fancy looking. In turn that makes them feel more confident in you and are more likely to hire you again in the future. Its silly but true. I call it the "Blinky Light Factor". A wall of blinky lights that do nothing will dazzle a client faster than a vanilla box that can do everything. So, things like matte boxes, dollies, SteadiCams, etc have a huge psychological impact on your client.

Having said all that, those are NOT reasons to be using a matte box. But it sure as hell is a nice perk. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Well I have to admit my experience is not corporate so I don't know about these issues. So I will bow down to that being another reason. I do understand silly. Maybe I will put a panavision logo on my black foamcore matte box! Couldn't hurt.

I know of FCP based post houses that buy a cheap AVID DV package to have AVID on the screens during meetings with clients. So this logo lust must creep into all areas.


PS- STABWOUND I didn't have a problem with your post I was just trying to figure out the mattebox question myself.

[aelent]

Maybe I will put a panavision logo on my black foamcore matte box! Couldn't hurt.
Brilliant! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

[SPZ]

While I'll admit I have not/am not/nor will ever be cool, I gotta take issue with you on that last sentence. Perception is reality. Especially when working with most clients because they have NO clue, most of the time. So if you walk in with a ginormous rig they are going to be more impressed than if you came in with a camera like the HVX on its own. Granted, the mattebox could be made of card board and have no filters in it, it makes no difference to the client. All they see is something big and fancy looking. In turn that makes them feel more confident in you and are more likely to hire you again in the future. Its silly but true. I call it the "Blinky Light Factor". A wall of blinky lights that do nothing will dazzle a client faster than a vanilla box that can do everything. So, things like matte boxes, dollies, SteadiCams, etc have a huge psychological impact on your client.

Having said all that, those are NOT reasons to be using a matte box. But it sure as hell is a nice perk. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Very good post. Agreed.

[doumm]

Hey guys, yes I definitely can see 4mats point, I mean, a chroziel over in Australia is $2200, I mean for a bit of mild steel or whatever they're made of, with a couple of hinges, yikes! And yes I still want one, because I do believe they are a necessary evil.
But a question, as I haven't yet got my rig, I'm on a long journey of saving $ at the moment, but using the barn doors, does this mean you need a different approach to on-camera lighting, do the doors cast a shadow, and also, what about the onboard mic, or even if you fit a good shotgun mic, does it at all do any weird things with the sound? And therefore you should only think of offcamera sound and lighting when using the mb?:dankk2:

[J.R. Hudson]

The doors do not vignette unless you close them in so tight. You need an external mic for any serious work. You want the mic as close as possible to the talent / subject. The onboard is crap and good for maybe ambient pick-up (IMO).

Without a MB you an Flag off any flares (and even with a MB)

[doumm]

cheers John

[Illya Friedman]

I've notice that in the last 5-6 years, reality television production has really taken to using matteboxes. Whereas before 2000 they were the exception rather than the rule. Prior to 2000, most folk would get screw in 127mm/105mm polas for lens shades and that was it.

I.

[Illya Friedman]

About 10 years ago I worked on a feature with with an actor who had a supporting roles in a couple films that won Academy Awards but has never received any real personal recognition. He now is essentially a career character actor, popping up in TV series and the occasional B movie. He's rather insecure, a prima donna and doesn't really understand cameras and optics (big surprise).

Anyway, he knows that wide angle lenses are not flattering in close-ups and he was paranoid every time he saw a prime go up on the camera (he assumed it was a wide angle). The DP finally decided just to keep the 6x6 MBs the the extra large eyebrow to make everything look like a larger/longer lens.

If the star ever thought the lens was under 75mm a big on set conference with the star, director and DP would erupt. It would be the same conversation over, and over... The star wanted nothing wider than a 75mm. The MB and Eyebrow were used purely for looks but it worked.

I.

[Jarred Land]

every dp i have ever worked with prefers to lock in even just color with filters.