Matte Boxes: worth it OR waste of $$$

Mac, I don't know you but if that's the way you shoot I want to work with you. You have balls! That is a totally legit reason! Save the lens - kill the matte box!!!
 
Screw on filters are a bit limiting, as they can cause vignetting if you stack them (depending on the lens and what kind of imager it is designed for). It also sucks when the filters you've invested in are too small for a new lens!

If you're into buying gear, 4x5.6 filters and a good matte box may be a better investment. Buy well, buy once.


At the end of the day, I think we can all agree - Built in ND will be awesome.
 
Matteboxes arent just for filters.. its for glares. i've been screwed and annoyed by glares when shooting with really bright light source
 
Dont spend too much on a matte box if you dont even know really how to use it at first ...
I agree that if you have a limited budget spend more on the tripod, follow focus and put the rest on the mattebox, I worked whit ... I think its called the jumbo mattebox ( around 300$ ) and the red rock mattebox ... the red rock is just really huge and kinda annoying whit shoulder mounted rig.

Clients like to see mattebox, they feel like you have a 100 000$ camera set up.
 
I use the RedRock Deluxe, and it's save me in several ways, several times.

I mostly use it for a couple grads, but more than that I use it with a couple light NDs to nail exposures.

Plus, I'm not much of an editor/colorist, so I like to hang a black pro mist in there - I probably over-use it.

And, of course, it's very handy for knocking down lens flares.

More often than not, tho, it slows me down..especially on my 7D/Tamron 17-50 where the lens length changes with zoom.

Necessary? For me, yes.
 
Whoa: I take it back - after spending part of the evening looking up available/affordable zooms that will work with the AF100, I've found that they all (as far as I can see) change length dramatically when zoomed from wide to telephoto. I'm not a still photographer, so I wasn't aware of that little fact.

That means a matte box on rails is virtually unusable unless using a prime or a cinema lens. In the 90's Chrosziel's had a rubber donut on the back that allowed for about an 3/4 inch of variance, but these 4/3 lenses vary way more than that... Matte box mounted to lens? Maybe, but I'd worry about the weight with two 4x4 filters.
 
Mac, I don't know you but if that's the way you shoot I want to work with you.
Click to expand...

Steve. that was nearly 40 years ago when I was young - at an an anti-war rally in LA, but (while following someone and not paying enough attention) more recently I've also run into a door frame once and an overhanging boom on an industrial milling machine... Both those times the matte box saved me too.
 
Mac said:
Whoa: I take it back - after spending part of the evening looking up available/affordable zooms that will work with the AF100, I've found that they all (as far as I can see) change length dramatically when zoomed from wide to telephoto. I'm not a still photographer, so I wasn't aware of that little fact.

That means a matte box on rails is virtually unusable unless using a prime or a cinema lens. In the 90's Chrosziel's had a rubber donut on the back that allowed for about an 3/4 inch of variance, but these 4/3 lenses vary way more than that... Matte box mounted to lens? Maybe, but I'd worry about the weight with two 4x4 filters.
Click to expand...

The RR MatteBox has rubber donuts, too. So, as long as I'm within 15-20mm of my ideal focal length, the MB allows enough play that I don't need to move it around.

There are some older primes that change the physical length of the lens when they FOCUS. Cine lenses are ideal, but keep an eye out for those older primes, too.
 
With a mixed bag of lenses I'm not sure there is a matte box versatile enough to remain locked down on rails in place when one affixes their next lens - worse in some cases with some lens focuses or zooms. Swing away or not.
 
With regards to the AF100, the filter wheel supplied is the brain-dead version Panasonic puts on their entry-level cameras. The better version is what's commonly known as the "split" filter wheel, which is really 2 wheels, the first controlling color temperature, and the 2nd controlling neutral density. This split version is clearly superior as it allows rolling-in ND over the "clear" filter. Meaning, if you are shooting out of doors with the filter wheel supplied with the AF100, you have 3 different options of ND to choose from; indoors is a different matter, as you have one option only. This plays itself out as shooting indoors in a "bright" situation, with an iris that's F8 or F11. The only fix here is ND over the lens, be it screw-on filter, or matte box. Very annoying, as I have the non-split filter wheel version on my Panasonic HPX2000 and I'm constantly having to drag along a matte box to knock down the amount of light pouring in thru the lens when indoors. The split version also has some better pre-sets: it has a 4300K, which is great for shooting in a fluorescent environment, and a 6300K outdoor preset, which warms things up nicely. So, yes, in the case of the AF100, a matte box becomes necessary.
 
A cheap alternative to matte box for square filters might be the Cokin P system, the new wide holder and filters are a decent size, you just get an adaptor ring for each lens you use and the system slides off easily. There is a basic square sun shade for the front that looks kind of like the front of a dvx, add some velcro for flags and wings and you're golden. There is a cheap chinese version on ebay that might be worth trying out. The chinese filters may not be as good, but at $5, instead of $30, you can add some exotics or effects that might not use very often, and the holders and rings are supposed to be compatable with the real thing so you can always pick up parts at a camera store if you need something in a pinch.
 
Since when is the HPX2000 an entry level camera? I'm pretty sure that the HMC40 is the cheapest HD camera from the broadcast division.
I'm pretty sure that either way, the AF100 has the kind of white balance control you're looking for, without this "split" filter wheel.
I'm not familiar with Panasonic's cameras over $10 grand, so someone will have to explain what you're talking about to me.
 
OK, Jesse -- let me try again. With the filter wheel on the AF100, there are 4 settings -- 3 outdoor and 1 indoor. This enables the operator to "roll in" 3 different levels of ND when shooting outdoors. So far so good. The problem is indoors. Since there's only one filter, there is no way to roll ND in to control the iris. So, if, for instance you wish to throw the backround out-of-focus -- say a stop of F4 -- there's no way to accomplish that other than dim lighting. If you are shooting an interview in a well-illuminated office, for example, the camera might "see" the exposure there as F8. The only way to "knock-down" the exposure to F4 would be with some neutral density. Hence the need for a matte box. With the split-filter wheel, you'd have 3 levels of ND to roll "in front of" the clear filter.
My older SD Panasonic camera, the SDX900, has a split-filter wheel. I have no idea why Panasonic chose not to offer it on the HPX2000, but it's not there. If nothing else, the split-filter wheel is a tremendous time-saver in the real world. I suspect Panasonic's reason is $$$$; I don't blame them, but it would have been great to have had the split-wheel available as an option I would have gladly paid for. Same for the AF100 -- if it were an option -- it would be embraced by anyone who wishes more control over the iris of their camera.
 
I'm sorry Ken, I don't understand either.

Why couldn't one use the NDs indoors? After all they're ND - not colored. Right? What am I missing here? Does the dual filter wheel take the place of white balancing? (Sorry for my naivete. Never used those cams)
 
I agree Ken, that the split filter wheel would have been a boon, especially to those shooting without a matte box. Luckily, most tungsten lit scenes are not very bright, and I always shoot daylight balance whenever daylight windows are in the shot; in fact, I almost always shoot daylight on all locations, and tungsten in the studio. Even if it's a night scene, I like the look of daylight balance and key because it make the practicals in the scene nice and warm.

I wonder if dropping the ASA would cause a noticeable shift in the image such that it could not be used as a "ND filter." That would be handy.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Think about it like this, guys. The 3 "outdoor" filters (on the AF100) are color-corrected (called dichroic) for 5600K. The sole "indoor" filter is clear, and balanced for 3200K. The way this shakes out is that you'll have 3 different ND filters for shooting out of doors, which generally works great, meaning you probably won't have to resort to adding additional ND. But indoors, you only have one filter balanced for 3200K. Can you use one of the three outdoor filters and "over-ride" it? Yes, but it's not advised. With my HPX2000, I have taken a 5600K filter, and balanced it to tungsten lighting. But I'm always nervous doing it.

The big-ticket attraction of the AF100 is the large sensor/ability to create a cinematic look -- that means fuzzy backrounds. The only way to accomplish this indoors is: #1 low-levels of light, or #2 slapping some sort of ND over the lens. Pain in the butt.

With the split-filter, you would just set the outside filter to 3200K, and then you'd have 4 ND filters to choose from. It's a simple and elegant solution.
Most of the "big" cameras have this feature -- Sony's F900, Panasonic's Varicam, etc. etc. Once you've worked with it, you never want to go back.
Sorry if my descriptions here have been lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top