Matte Box rip off scandel ?

4

4mat

Well-known member
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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".
 
Last edited:
For sheer functionality nothing beats black wrap and gaffer tape, may not be pretty but it gets the job done.
 
Steve Shovlar said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
Last edited:
John_Hudson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stabwound said:
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.
Click to expand...
???????: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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
R Gale said:
???????: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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stabwound said:
Unless I'm wrong,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

"You cannot be serious!"

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
John_Hudson said:
That you are.
Click to expand...
--

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!"
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I love it, John. You're just an old softy. You growl, then bark, then listen, then chill. :grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top