Don't need no steenking matte box...

S

stabwound

Well-known member
... or do I?

Considering a matte box costs around a thou and upwards, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend money on one... especially in this digital age.

If I was doing film, and needed to use a grad filter for the sky then ok... (even though most of the time the shot screams "Grad Filter").

But when you are shooting digital, and have a wealth of post production effects, the need for filters is kinda obsolete.

Blown out sky? I'd expose first for the sky, then digitally stick in in the offending footage.

As for cutting down flare, the lenshade that comes with the HVX will do just fine.
 
NBC shooter:

You put my mind at ease.

Last year, when I was showing off my newly purchased fx1 Sony at the Victoria Film Society, someone (a pro, presumably... he said he was) suggested no pro would be caught seen without a mattebox on his camera.

I admitted to him I've no pro experience... and suffered from matte-box complex since that remark.

Thank you, Doctor. I can sleep better.
 
uhm sorry.. but you got it the wrong way around pal ;)

as film has a much higher latitude than current DV/digital camcorders it's not so much of a problem to have the sky in the frame without blowing out... with a camcorder a ND grad can be a real life saver in such situations.
and simply replacing blown out sky in post pro is not easy at all! in fact it just made me laugh reading your post about this at it would be just a matter of pressing a button... jeez
;)
 
SoerenM:

Huh??

I never said anything about pressing a button. Yeah, it takes SOME effort... I'll need to build a mask in Photoshop and composite in the sky in AE. But the result is much better than using a grad filter and well worth the effort. And yes, I know film has more latitude... and need grad filters less than video... but digital video has more options, and film doesn't.

This is the way I handle lattitude with my digital still camera (Canon 10D... known for blowing out highlights)... it's called bracketting for exposure:

(1) Lock down camera. Expose for sky

(2) Expose for subject (assuming it's a building).

Combine the two in photoshop. It's not a great effort. I do it all the time... almost every landscape shot. Sometimes I even expose for shadow as well, if it's important. If you care about your picture, you will make the effort.

The same can be done for video... I've done it many a times (ofcourse, it's tougher if handheld because of tracking problems, but I prefer locking down the camera, so it's no biggie).

The thing I object to about grad filters is that the grad effect runs into the subject as well, and the grad effect is obvious.

I'm happy you had a good laugh though. :)

My question to the rest of the forum is this: Is above technique viable and easily doable, or do you find it "not easy at all"?

Here's an After Effects tutorial, for those who want to go the extra mile:

http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/page_wrapper.cgi?forumid=<FORUMID>&page=/articles/kramer_andrew/sky_replacement/index.html
 
Remember, in camera processing/effects are done at much higher bitrates. Normally cameras have a 12bit DSP...you have much more room to play with before it goes to tape (or any 8bit record method).
My 2cents FWIW.

Brian Broz
 
I have a Formatt Matte Box and they are very good value and do a great job. Only downside is that they do not use rails, but attach to the lens, so if you knock it....
Anyway I still recommend using a Matte Box every time. I see on ebay UK they have a formatt Matte Box for about $160 at the moment. Shouldn't go much higher than that. Do a search.
 
Someone on this forum mentioned that learning film provides a deeper set of discipline than digital. And he opined that emerging digital artists may pick up lazy habits.

I guess he may have been on the ranch with that assessment. Unless dealing with specific VFX issues, I'd try to do everything possible to get my footage near my intent. That includes matteboxes, for those who can afford them. Gerry riggin' one is all right, but "fix it in post" ? Nah, sounds lazy to me.

Cheers.
 
NBCshooter said:
Don't need it. Flag your lens from any direct light with a solid or blackwrap. Tape your grads to your lens shade.
Click to expand...

I kinda second that.
Yes, you don`t need it and you can use blackwrap to flag the lens. If you don`t mind the "my little brother did this"-look. If you do Indies - go ahead.
If you want to earn money with your work, your clients could consider it "uncool" (i will prob. get flamed for this...). Companies spend billions of dollars making their products look good and valuable (same reason why they will pay YOU...), so at some point I would invest in my own appearance...
(OK who`ll be the first stressing that its not how you look, but what you do that gets the job done...)

TAPING YOUR GRADS TO YOUR LENS SHADE could only be meant as a joke, right? Right?

The fixing the sky in post is something done on a regular basis, but only if it couldn't be captured in camera eg because of a dull sky or for dramatic effects work (storm, alien invasion etc), it´ll cost you time and money and depending on the footage it´ll look more or less convincing...
Color grads on the other hand, I would also do in post only...
 
You don't "need" a matte box to make compelling images... but it does make it easier. Can you drive a nail with a wrench? Sure... but it will take a while and those that know about hammers might look down at the choice. But if it works for you then have at it.

Filters and Matte boxes are tools like anything else.

Personally, I find that my usual filter pack is a polarizer and some form of diffusion, only rarely does a grad come into play. You can screw mount these to the camera, but finding the sweet spot on a pola while sticking your fingers into a lens hood is a pain.

There is an image element too... clients, and actors show more confidence and are more relaxed when you show up with well maintained, professional looking gear. Dressing out a smaller camera does help shake the"consumer" stigma that plagues the form factor. For my money it's absolutly worth the investment.

Cheers,
David C. Smith
LA / OC DP
 
@stabwound.. I totally second what Spartacus wrote:
> The fixing the sky in post is something done on a regular basis, but only if it couldn't be captured in camera eg because of a dull sky or for dramatic effects work (storm, alien invasion etc), it´ll cost you time and money and depending on the footage it´ll look more or less convincing...

I know several people who do post work for a living - of course this is done on a regular basis - but primarily (as Spartacus already wrote) if it is to achieve a dramatic effect of some sort. Or if there was no way around blowing out the sky. Or if someone simply f*cked up the shot.
However it's not easy at all to do it convincingly! There is nearly no comparison to doing it on photo/still work.
If you've only got a locked down shot with a _non moving camera_ and without a subject or with a near-to-none moving subject then it's no problem of course. But if you have to mask out a person/objects moving at 24/25 frames per second over several seconds or even minutes with even a moving (worst case handheld) camera it can become a total nightmare. ;)
I've seen people who had to sit thru several nights for fixing such a shot that were moaning why the shot couldn't have been prepped better in the first place...
 
yah, it only takes two seconds to pop in an ND Grad to fix a blown out sky on location...
why would I want to create more work for myself and "fix" it in post? :undecided
 
>>> However it's not easy at all to do it convincingly! There is nearly no comparison to doing it on photo/still work.
If you've only got a locked down shot with a _non moving camera_ and without a subject or with a near-to-none moving subject then it's no problem of course. But if you have to mask out a person/objects moving at 24/25 frames per second over several seconds or even minutes with even a moving (worst case handheld) camera it can become a total nightmare. ;)
I've seen people who had to sit thru several nights for fixing such a shot that were moaning why the shot couldn't have been prepped better in the first place...<<<

SoerenM:

If the camera guy has never done post work then there's a good chance he'll make life hell for the post-guy.

Maybe I'm lucky because I do my own shooting and my own post-work... and know how much post work will be involved even before I set up my first shot. "Salvaging" shots through post work means I'm a lousy camera guy in the first place... but so far, I've had to salvage very little.

Like I said (and perhaps I should have stressed), I prefer to lock down the camera for my shots, and probably will avoid any shots like you described... an object or person moving over an open sky or shots with a shakey handheld camera. I am too aware of problems passed down the line... because I'm the sucker who's doing the post work.

Even so, it's possible to handle without doing frame-by-frame masking (now THAT'S work). Check out the AE tutorial I pointed to. It's a shot of a motorcyclist coming over a hill shot with a hand-held camera. It looked pretty convincing to me... and the tutorial wasn't difficult.

Filmstox:

>>>>You don't "need" a matte box to make compelling images... but it does make it easier. Can you drive a nail with a wrench? Sure... but it will take a while and those that know about hammers might look down at the choice. But if it works for you then have at it.

Filters and Matte boxes are tools like anything else.<<<<<

I agree with you about the need for the right tools for the right project. But what if the "hammer" (or in this case, a glorified filter-holder) costs $350 - $1500? I'm convinced I'm not gonna use a lot of filters... I'd much rather put the money towards something else... a bang for the buck sort of thing.

Mind you - I understand the need to impress a client with a professional looking matte box... and if I thought that brought in business, work and lots of moolah, I'd spring for one. If I was doing corporate or wedding work on a regular basis, I'd probably get one. If my priorty is just to hand the client the damned tape in the morning, I'll happily slap on the grad/polarizer/color filter and get the job over with. Done! Dear Sir/Madam, please send cheque...

But I really wanna do an indie pic... and the only person I wanna impress is me. I've got more time than money. For me, I'll walk the extra mile...

Thanks for the responses, folks! I loved hearing your opinions!
 
Well, I just read the ENTIRE Bogen Formatt 500 post (all 23 pages) and pretty much decided on getting the Formatt. I like the filter-edge protecting design of the Bogen filters. But, for only $350 USD, I now take back my "you don't need no stinking mattebox" philosophy. I guess what I was originally trying to say was . . . that I just thought it's silly to spend over $1000 on a product for a camera that only costs $3,000. If you're going to spend that kind of money on accessories, perhaps that money would've been more well spent on buying a better camera, was my philosophy.

The other thing I wanted to say was that I totally agree with Stabwound's philosophy toward doing grad effects in post. But with a new HVX200 in mind, I'm getting excited about actually putting filters in front of my lens again (a technique I've shied away from for the last 20 years). My philosophy had always been that, [SD] video is so crappy in the first place, why even think about making it crappier? I don't even put UV filters on my lenses. And make no mistake about it. ANY additional glass you put in front of your lens is going to degrade your image.

The one thing I did also want to state was my complete abhorrence of the use of any resolution-robbing filters such as ProMists. In my opinion, I think these effects should ONLY be done in post (I know, the optical in-camera effect is different than the effect done in post), and not rob your image of resolution at the acquisition stage where that decision is final. Again, my thinking is that, we're working within such razor-thin margins for error in the first place, that in video, you need to capture the sharpest, most pristine signal you can possibly acquire with any given camera head. I was once on a Betacam shoot long ago wondering why my image looked so crappy. After shooting several set-ups, I finally removed the lens from the camera . . . only then did I notice that someone had attached a black stocking to the rear lens element!
 
There's a formatt matte box on ebay at the moment. This seller always has one up.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FORMATT-MATTE...oryZ3319QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
They sell to europe but if you email them first and pay via paypal it will only cost you about $170 plus postage to the USA, as they are quite light. States on the auction they post abroad. I sold mine about three months ago. Put a buy it now of £110 on it and it sold to a guy in LA within 15 mns of the auction going online. Reason I sold mine was because I wanted a Vocas, which uses rails.
 
Hmmm Ebay coming through again. Thanks for the post. And thanks for this thread. I too was on the fence about purchasing a mattebox but now i'm sold.

DVXUser.com ~ "Better Info for Smarter Decisions"
 
A matt box is one of difference between professional and amateur

when people a cam with one on they assume you know what you're doing

A pro mattbox will make your work quicker and more efficient, and allows you to do things you can't without one, like shifting a grad filter to exact spot you need it.

I created some real beautiful setting sun shots that could not have been achieved without the use of a matt box and several filters. Sure, you could have gotten a similar shot without the box and filters, but it wouldn't look as good.

you can also get a job without a college education, but you tend to get better jobs with a college education. for those of you that like analagies
 
Icarus2005 said:
A matt box is one of difference between professional and amateur

when people a cam with one on they assume you know what you're doing

A pro mattbox will make your work quicker and more efficient, and allows you to do things you can't without one, like shifting a grad filter to exact spot you need it.

I created some real beautiful setting sun shots that could not have been achieved without the use of a matt box and several filters. Sure, you could have gotten a similar shot without the box and filters, but it wouldn't look as good.

you can also get a job without a college education, but you tend to get better jobs with a college education. for those of you that like analagies
Click to expand...


"A matt box is one of difference between professional and amateur

when people a cam with one on they assume you know what you're doing"


What an incredibly sad a statement to make.
 
NBCshooter said:
Don't need it. Flag your lens from any direct light with a solid or blackwrap. Tape your grads to your lens shade.
Click to expand...
How often would you tape a circular polarizing filter till you finally have it the right way to make best use of the polarizer? Maybe you are just lucky and have all the time on location to tape and try and tape and try...
I hate to say it - not at least because of the price - but I shoot since many years outdoors and never leave home without the matte box...
By the way: it should be your footage that shows you are a pro, not the look of the equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top