Anyone used Cavision Filters?

Re: Anyone used Cavision Filters?

Well, if you are a pro and need this functionality, then you don't get a bargain matte-box or sun shade to put on your expensive gear. Depending on your job, you could be using this stuff daily (news gathering, documentary tv shows, etc.) so a $2000 or $3000 matte-box (if you need that functionality) is small fish.

If you are an independant filmmaker and don't use the gear much (maybe like a few weekends out of a month), and your budget is alot smaller, then it's probably not justified to get the very expensive gear. You won't need the durability for daily use.

I agree that not many of the companies that make the expensive gear have had much motivation to make cheaper more affordable prosumer versions. The risk for these companies is if they do too good of a job on the cheap versions, it would affect the sales of there more expensive quality versions. Not many film/video companies are after the indie/prosumer market
 
Re: Anyone used Cavision Filters?

Hey all,

I'd just like to say how amazing this site is - here I'd been trolling at dv.com for so many months trying to find 100a specific posts - yikes!

Anyway, I use the Cavision 4x4 hard-shell box with rods and as a clamp-on unit using their nicely executed screw-on adapter. Using rods or clamp-on really depends on whether you're using two filters and the French flags in my opinion.

I'd definitely use the rods with the flags - you might like to ditch the rods if you're going handheld or Steadicam.

I have a couple of thoughts on the Cavision product, though please keep in mind that I have some real mattebox snobbery baggage having cut my teeth as a 1st asst. on Panavision set-ups and on Chrosziel-fitted rigs.

The Cavision 4x4 is flimsy compared to the Chrosziel stuff. These guys just have a lightweight design - I'm not suggesting that they cut corners. For example, where the rear stage meets the clamping ring or rods adapter, only a couple of tiny machine screws keep the elements tied together. I've noticed a little deflection when the box is fitted with full accessories.

Another observation is that the rotating stage is a little sloppy in its channel. Naturally, this stage is primarily used with the linear polarizer. Also, it is very, very easy for a hack like me to get the bottom corner of the filter stage in my shot because the rotating stage tends to ride up out of the bearing to slot channels that are designed to keep the stage centered in relation to the front element of the 100a lens.

This issue has nothing to do with using clamp-on versus the rods - its a minor flaw or slop in the rear stage slot. It can be overcome through diligent operation - it surpises me that I allow it to creep into my shots as many times as I have.

The filters from Cavision aren't shabby, though I have bothered them about producing more of the basics like ungraduated .3 and .6 ND filters etcetera. The linear polarizer I bought gets the job done, but even the reps at Cavision will tell you that their glass is a stopgap product to get clients into the basics before jumping into the more expensive brands of glass.

Anyway, the bottom line is... I'd give the Cavision box a try if you really want to get a mattebox and are on a strict budget. It is a decent unit in my opinion, with the minor caveats mentioned.

Cheers,

e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top