Chinese Redrock copy matte box anyone?

cheezweezl

cheezweezl

Veteran
http://www.ebay.com/itm/250955867765?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649#ht_1605wt_1294

I realize this is a copy of the Redrock matte box which is basically a copy of the ARRI mb20. Has anyone here purchased one of these? The build quality looks on par with the Redrock from what I can tell. And the price is right!!!

The Chinese stuff is getting good. I just bought a follow focus from amazon for $150 on a whim. It's actually much nicer than my last Redrock ff. So that got me thinking.
 
there's been some complains on another forum about the 4x4 filter holder not holding the filters correctly in that matte box. Apparently the square holer it's slightly too big so the filters can fall off at any time. Also it seems that it doesn't line up perfectly with the rest of the rig/rods.

Here's a review which shows the problem

 
naavt said:
Are you talking about the Opteka FF180?
Click to expand...

Nope. I got the "Fotasy" one here.

On amazon it shows a standard rod mount that would have to be slid onto the rods from the front. The unit I received has the newer quick release snap on mount, similar to the redrock design. I have to say this follow focus is a deal and a half. Less lash than the redrock or zacuto and build quality is on par with these. If you want better performance, you'd have to spend 10-20x as much.
 
Re: the mattebox. I don't see a difference between the "red star", the one that got the bad review, the one from china, or the one from the CA distributor. I discovered the CA guy after I had placed my order from china so bummer there. I could have picked it up same day. As it stands, it's been 8 days since I ordered it and it hasn't arrived yet.

If the filter holders are too big and allow glass to fall out, then it will be going back. The cost of replacing one broken filter could be more than the cost of the mattebox!! However, I am planning to use 4x5.65 filters. That 4x4 plate looks wonky to me anyway. The guy in the video could have been using a weird size filter. I once tried a cokin resin filter in my chrosziel 4x4 and it was falling out just like in the video. The filter appeared to be 4x4 but was just slightly smaller.

Anyway, the guy in the video above did say he thought the build quality was good besides the filter holder so maybe I got another winner to go with my follow focus...

UPDATE: I just discovered this follow focus. Talk about PRO!!!

Another update: watching that bad review again, the guy confirmed my thought. he said he was using a 100mm filter. 100 millimeters = 3.93700787 inches. Just a little bit too small. The ultra rounded corners on his filter is something that the cokin resin filters have. maybe the same thing...
 
Last edited:
eiker_ir said:
there's been some complains on another forum about the 4x4 filter holder not holding the filters correctly in that matte box. [...] Here's a review which shows the problem
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, I wasn't planing to get this one in particular, but since I've watched the video, I definitively won't!
Still looking for a good one, but still not sure which one...
 
I don't understand why selling this stuff isn't illegal, but I know for sure that promoting it is unethical.
 
cheezweezl said:
Nope. I got the "Fotasy" one here.

On amazon it shows a standard rod mount that would have to be slid onto the rods from the front. The unit I received has the newer quick release snap on mount, similar to the redrock design. I have to say this follow focus is a deal and a half. Less lash than the redrock or zacuto and build quality is on par with these. If you want better performance, you'd have to spend 10-20x as much.
Click to expand...

I have an SgPro which I find very very good. No lag at all and superb construction. I only miss the reversible gear that the Opteka offers...
 
Lee Saxon said:
I don't understand why selling this stuff isn't illegal, but I know for sure that promoting it is unethical.
Click to expand...

Why should it be illegal? These aren't counterfeit products. Sellers aren't claiming these are something other than what they are - Matte boxes. If there are patented parts being infringed, then I agree with you. But patents generally last for 20 years, and I'm not seeing anything in these matte boxes that haven't been around at least that long.
 
Last edited:
Lee Saxon said:
I don't understand why selling this stuff isn't illegal, but I know for sure that promoting it is unethical.
Click to expand...

yes this product is a copy of the redrock mattebox. but didn't they just copy the arri? they changed it up a bit but didn't break any new ground. i don't hear them howling about it so who's the victim?
 
As a designer (about to launch an accessories line myself) I know how much "blood sweat & tears,"
as they say, goes into creating any product, even seemingly simple/straightforward ones.

I know how I'd feel if I went through all that only to see some Chinese counterfeiting operation (that's what these guys are, let's be honest) steal it and get all the sales because they're able to leverage near-slave labor to set a much lower price than me.

So I hate to see it happen to a designer at Arri (or the zillion other companies this has happened to, from fake Red PL mounts [just heard about that one today] to Ford Explorer duplicates).
 
Lee Saxon said:
I know how I'd feel... see some Chinese counterfeiting operation (that's what these guys are, let's be honest) steal it and get all the sales because they're able to leverage near-slave labor to set a much lower price than me.
Click to expand...

I would totally agree with you IF these were counterfeits, but these are NOT COUNTERFEITS. Let's be honest, nobody is selling them as Arri or Red Rock matte boxes.

A little research turned up this from 1934:

matte.jpg


That right there is your basic matte box. Pretty crazy to think that the whole concept is almost 90 years old.

Over the years others have come along and built on that patented product, like making a filter holder in 1983 than can hold 2 or more rotating filters:

filter.jpg

Or how about a follow focus. These have been around for a long time too, but someone is actually trying to get a patent on it. Yeah, right. Good luck with that!:
focus.jpg


See, when you make something that's new, you should and do (if you apply for it) get the exclusive right to make, sell, and/or license your product. But in exchange for that exclusive right, you agree to turn it over to the public domain after 20 years so anyone can make their own LEGAL, non-counterfeit copies.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
the mattebox showed up from china today. definitely more plastic than the redrock, but all the essential parts are metal. build quality and finish is on par with redrock. the previously mentioned statement about it not being perfectly centered over the rods is true. it's about 1/8-1/4" off. luckily my zacuto plate has side to side adjustment. now i'm off to see if the trays hold a standard 4x5.65 filter. if so, we have a winner. if not, it's back to china for this bad boy.

one unexpected perk: the rubber bellows and hard lens receiver ring from my old chrosziel fits perfectly into the rubber donut holder. i was kinda bummed about going to the donuts as the bellows is such a better back for any mattebox. in fact, it's the very reason i cancelled my redrock pre-order when it first started shipping. so anyone who has one of these or probably the redrock even, you can order a rubber bellows from chrosziel to replace the cheesy donuts. and just get the appropriate ring for your lenses...
 
keylight said:
I would totally agree with you IF these were counterfeits, but these are NOT COUNTERFEITS. Let's be honest, nobody is selling them as Arri or Red Rock matte boxes.
copies.
Click to expand...

Letus sent CAD files to a Chinese manufacturer to get a production quote. The manufacturer asked if they could rebrand the product and sell it in the Chinese market (since Letus only planned to sell it in the West). Letus said no. But the unauthorized Chinese version started showing up on eBay even before Letus had gotten to release their own version.

I realize these Chinese manufacturers usually just reverse engineer products rather than literally stealing the blueprints, but to me that's just as bad. And it seems to me you're saying it's not counterfeiting or even unethical because they didn't try to pass it off as "genuine Letus."

Maybe it's not technically counterfeiting, but it is theft and it is wrong. We should step out of our "I'm a consumer on a tight budget" shoes for a second and try on some, "How does this feel to the guy at Letus who stayed up nights finishing this design?" shoes.

There should be threads on Dvxuser warning other potential customers about these operations, not threads like this promoting them, was my point.
 
Last edited:
To each their own opinion, to everyone the same law.

And that's really the problem with your position as I see it. You seem to want to give Letus (or Arri, or RedRock... all western companies) a pass for their copying (or as you call it, counterfeiting), but not companies selling on ebay (which are mostly based in China and India).

Lee Saxon said:
I realize these Chinese manufacturers usually just reverse engineer products rather than literally stealing the blueprints, but to me that's just as bad. And it seems to me you're saying it's not counterfeiting or even unethical because they didn't try to pass it off as "genuine Letus."

Maybe it's not technically counterfeiting, but it is theft and it is wrong. We should step out of our "I'm a consumer on a tight budget" shoes for a second and try on some, "How does this feel to the guy at Letus who stayed up nights finishing this design?" shoes.
Click to expand...

Was it counterfeiting or theft when Letus (or RedRock copied other companies (like Arri)? Your opinion seems to be it's okay for Letus to copy others but not for Letus to be copied. What about a little consistency? If you think it's wrong, then it should be wrong for EVERYONE EQUALLY.

This is an example of counterfeiting. These matte boxes are not countefeits. Period.

As for your story about Letus and the CAD files....

Lee Saxon said:
Letus sent CAD files to a Chinese manufacturer to get a production quote. The manufacturer asked if they could rebrand the product and sell it in the Chinese market (since Letus only planned to sell it in the West). Letus said no. But the unauthorized Chinese version started showing up on eBay even before Letus had gotten to release their own version.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? The Letus looks nothing like the matte boxes on ebay.

matte-4.jpg

But let's assume for a moment that this did happen to Letus AND that they couldn't get patent protection (else they would have obvious remedies). How could they have protected themselves from this Chinese manufacturer? Contract law. By having the manufacturer sign an NDA (common when requesting quotes), Letus could bring action against the manufacturer for violations, and could also get injunctions blocking the import and sale of "copies" based on the violation.

Could they stop someone who is not under NDA from reverse engineering the product after it was released on the market? Not unless the product was currently patented.

Lee Saxon said:
There should be threads on Dvxuser warning other potential customers about these operations, not threads like this promoting them, was my point.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of the kind of warning you would write?

Look, I'm really trying to understand your position here, because people already get 20 years of protection for their designs. That's fair. To say someone who copies a design after patent protection ends is doing something wrong is... well, wrong. Seems like maybe you think designs should get the same kind of protection as copyrights.... And of course, sometimes a design does qualify for copyright protection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top