MattBox comparison!

I hesitate to enter this debate as it seems rather fraught.

Anyway I have bought many cheap Matteboxes, including Cavision ones, Indian ones, etc...They all fall apart. A Mattebox that costs a lot of money, costs a lot more because of it's build quality. Chrosziel, Arri, Petroff all make fantastic Matteboxes. I have a used Chrosziel from ebay and it's awesome.

Of the cheaper new ones there is one choice as far as I am concerned and that is the Redrock one, unfortunately it is rather heavy and not ideal for an EX1.

Professional TV gear has always cost a lot of money. Is that justification? No...that's the way it is unfortunately. Companies like Zacuto make expensive support gear. Before I bought their gear I spent a fortune on other makes which all fell apart, I then gave in and spent a fortune on the Zacuto rig and have never regretted it. It is as good and solid today as it was when I bought it 18months ago. This analogy applies to Matteboxes...spend a small amount and don't expect it to last. Spent a lot of money and you should be guaranteed a long and happy life together...
 
devnull said:
It's not a clip on piece of plastic. It light enough you CAN clip it on, or rail mount, or swingaway, and it's not plastic, has 2 rotating filters, unlike most others, and it fits the EX1 in a usable fashion by not being blocked by the native mic. Machined from aluminum alloy. The only matte better is the Arri.
And when someone says, "Are you insane?", usually that means you've called them insane. Based on your other threads, I should have know better than to try and help.
Click to expand...

I dont think you need to be offended. This is a forum and often things are taken out of context.

I agree with your post regarding the cost of professional gear, and the whys to that. But you did say -
devnull said:
If you think that's insane maybe you need to try a different industry, this one is obviously not for you.
Click to expand...

Which also could be taken as insulting.

Personally Ive used many matte boxes on different jobs. Recently saw the new Redrock MB on red, and it looked great as a cheaper option, solid design, well manufactured, the options you need and easy to use.

A Toyota isnt a Ferrari, but can a Toyota take you from A to B comfortably? Sure it can.
 
Hello, in ebay i found a matte box for146.74us$,rod included
Has someone tried it?
searching "New Matte Box with Rod for Professional Video Camera" in ebay.
looks great!.
 
I have bought a Geardear two years ago and have never regret it. And as times went by, I changed my cameras from a DVX100 to a HVX200 and to even bigger lenses, and nowadays sometimes to a rented Sony EX1 or HVX171, it is easy with the changeable lensmounts, sometimes as a clip-on, sometimes with rods.

The modular system of the Geardear convinced me two years ago and does it still...

Marc
 
Don't forget Vocas

Don't forget Vocas

Check out this matte box:

I own and love it.

Check out this link for some shots of the matte box on an EX1
 
Arriflex makes one as well if you like high end for $3500

Arriflex makes one as well if you like high end for $3500

It has the quality of all arriflex stuff
 
My Cavison stuff has worked out just fine. And I am rough on gear as well, but I take care of expensive things. Just work smart.
 

Attachments

  • 20081108_IMG_0011.JPG
    20081108_IMG_0011.JPG
    154.7 KB · Views: 0
Meep said:
I have the redrock matte box and use it with my EX1.

I like it a lot. The build is excellent, the swing-away is neat and the coloured accents are cool.

However, it does not play nice with the EX1.

In the first instance, (and I think this is a design flaw but redrock claim otherwise), the mattebox cannot slide backwards onto the rails. Part of the unit extentds below the rails and prevents this.

Also, there is an issue with the EX1 mic/lcd housing in that to prevent seeing the matte box edges at full wide, the LCD needs to swing out and the mic needs to touch the mattebox. In this position, the lcd cannot swing back again. Also, a third party 3-stage lens hood is required to mate the matte box donut to the ex lens. An ex1 solution in the form of a custom back has been promised by red rock for some time now but has not yet appeared.

Here's a pic of my rig with the matte box on;

IMG_1555.jpg


And a close up of the mating set-up;

IMG_1559.jpg


And another angle;

IMG_1556.jpg
Click to expand...

could you use a FF with this box????
 
Ha Ha

For those of you guys complaining about prices being too expensive may not have a clue of how much work have gone in to a simple matt box.

Material cost 3.5 Euro per KG for good virgin Nylon or ABS. aluminum block would cost 2 Euro per KG.

Those guys making matt box will need to buy ( in zacuto case ) 3 or 5 axis CNC which cost about 1/2 mil Euro for the aluminum parts. each milling bit and pieces cost up to several hundred Euros. they don't last long if you need absolute quality.

Plastic moulding cost about 10000 Euros per design. machinery cost another 300000 Euros a pop.
At the end we will have help them pay for all production facility in some way.

Lucky me I have my own machine shop as part of my factory. I never have to pay Zacuto or letus for expensive rod system. I do have to pay for adaptor though. My last rod design cost me material and a bit of sleepless night doing DWG drawing.

Who would be interested in $100 matt box? I will design it when I need one. Filming is my hobby. Engineering is my job. I wish I could get in to this industry somehow. Maybe some good durable cheapo product.
 
Last edited:
philip bloom said:
Professional TV gear has always cost a lot of money. Is that justification? No...that's the way it is unfortunately...spend a small amount and don't expect it to last. Spent a lot of money and you should be guaranteed a long and happy life together...
Click to expand...

Can you than please explain you promoting Cine City's grip/shoulder mount.
I got it on eBay after seeing your recommendation on line, and after trying it (even with out EX1 mounted) it ended up in garbage. The design is so flawed, it hurts. On top of everything, the thing was broken out of the box...

About matte boxes?
I use Genus with my EX11 and Canon 5D MKII, and it's great...
 
Just my two cents, but in general, I see no reason to buy a mattbox unless you're trying to impress onlookers with "oooh, he's filming a moooooovie!"
For 90% of situations, the included lens shutter hood on the EX1 works equally well and for unusual situations, you can always hold up a sheet of cardboard to block sunlight at exteme angles.
Drop-in filters are a convenience. Filtering can also be done in post.
Verdict? I think mattboxes are an overpriced 'bling' accessory status symbol.
Buy a second EX1 with that money. ;-)
 
Where I live you get a lot of very strong sunlight. You can't achieve the best outcome for post grading and colouring without a good selection of graduated NDs, blues, oranges, etc. 10 stops isn't enough unless your willing to crush your blacks and/or whites flat. To maintain shadow and highlight detail you must use graduated filters. Then you have something to play with in post.
 
But if you use a grad filter, you can't move the camera or it'll become obvious... or you can only shoot and pan slightly across a FLAT, mountainless horizon. I've always thought of filters like that as cheating to make up for a deficient camera.
 
basspig said:
Just my two cents, but in general, I see no reason to buy a mattbox unless you're trying to impress onlookers with "oooh, he's filming a moooooovie!"
For 90% of situations, the included lens shutter hood on the EX1 works equally well and for unusual situations, you can always hold up a sheet of cardboard to block sunlight at exteme angles.
Drop-in filters are a convenience. Filtering can also be done in post.
Verdict? I think mattboxes are an overpriced 'bling' accessory status symbol.
Buy a second EX1 with that money. ;-)
Click to expand...


Matteboxes are entirely neccessary. That is why they are continually used in feature films. Don't be so quick to discount them.
 
Basspig said:
But if you use a grad filter, you can't move the camera or it'll become obvious... or you can only shoot and pan slightly across a FLAT, mountainless horizon.
Click to expand...

Only if you use the wrong one, or use it badly. A grad ND with the appropriate amount of feathering can be almost invisible (if you want it to). Unless the break between light and dark areas moves up or down the frame, the grad filter isn't any more obvious when panning than when stationary. I use a grad filter a LOT in the mountains. Maybe because it's less noticeable there because of the range of tonality.

Basspig said:
I've always thought of filters like that as cheating to make up for a deficient camera.
Click to expand...

I started using graduated ND filters with film still cameras. Transparency film only has about 4 stops of useful range. I guess you could call that a deficiency, but that was just life. It seemed natural to use them with my digital still cameras (which didn't have much more range than film) and video cameras. I am pretty amazed at the range of my EX1 (my first really good video camera). I still use ND grads with it, mostly because I like the look I get with them.

I strongly believe in the use of a REALLY good lens "shade". The one that comes with the EX1 isn't bad, but it isn't enough. I used to do product advertising photography on a 4x5 view camera. You should have seen the lens hood I used on that camera, even in a studio with complete control over the lighting. It wasn't an obvious difference, but if you took two identical shots, one with the mondo hood and one without, one first one just looked better.

I'm not talking about lens flare. A hood has to keep all non-image forming light from hitting the glass. A full tilt Arri matte box is probably (definitely) overkill for that purpose, but the EX1 deserves more than a simple lens shade.

Pete
 
So you're implying that by keeping all non-image light off the lens, you increase contrast? But then isn't the lens hood on the EX1 already calibrated to cut out non-image light over it's zoom range? I would think that it is a matter of the angle of incidence of the light coming into the lens. Making it narrower would help, but would also cut your wide angle abilities. The way I see it, the matte box just extends and enlarges the hood, but doesn't improve the selectivity of the light coming in. It's all about angles, not size, as far as I can tell.

I can see using a grad filter for aesthetic effect, but surely there are other ways to attach one without a $5000 matte box and rail kit?

Pardon my possible ignorance of the subject, but when a set of accessories costs more than the camera, I draw a line in the sand. I'd rather have 2 EX1s than 1 EX1 with a Zacuto rail/Arri matte box. The former is a LOT more functional and useful to me than the latter.

Perhaps some gracious folks here may want to chime in with their expertise and educate my bohemian mind on the non-obvious benefits of matte boxes. For now, I am of the opinion that they are all bling and very little real value.
 
Basspig,

The problem I have with the EX1 hood is the funnel shape. Some light, admittedly small amounts, reflect off the inner panels and onto the glass. (Plus, I can't use grad filters, or have easy access to the polarizer, with the stock hood.) Maybe I'm being anal, but I remember how much difference my SINAR's hood made to my images.

I agree completely that a mattebox-and-rail system is not necessary if your only point is to control the light hitting the lens. They also add a lot of weight, bulk, and complexity, not to mention the excellent job they do of catching the wind. Unfortunately, I haven't found what I want, so I'm making my own.

This shows what I had for my SINAR. http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/conventional/lsmp4.php Not exactly something to carry around in the woods, but I can come close to the same effect with a gizmo that's somewhere between a lens shade and a matte box.

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