Matte Boxes: worth it OR waste of $$$
- Thread starter Steve Kahn
- Start date
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Are all ND filters like this (dichroic/color-balanced)? I've never seen anything like that mentioned in regard to Tiffen filters or others like that. Even the "Fader ND"... Rather they all seem to be perfectly suitable for use under any color light...indoors, outdoors, gelled lights, etc. Is this something that is more unique to filter wheels in video cameras? Or am I just missing something about ND filters - I always thought the "Neutral" basically meant that they weren't correcting for color...
Last edited:
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
The ND filters on the AF100 DO NOT cause a shift in white balance (or will be negligible at least).
The color shift controlled by the A through D color filter wheel on larger cameras is done electronically on the AF100.
If we are going to dumb it down significantly, ND filters are like sunglasses for your lens. No change in color, simply a change in light transmission.
The A through D color filter wheel on large format cameras can be equated to shooting outdoors with tungsten filmstock and putting an 85 filter in the mattebox to match color.
The color shift controlled by the A through D color filter wheel on larger cameras is done electronically on the AF100.
If we are going to dumb it down significantly, ND filters are like sunglasses for your lens. No change in color, simply a change in light transmission.
The A through D color filter wheel on large format cameras can be equated to shooting outdoors with tungsten filmstock and putting an 85 filter in the mattebox to match color.
Last edited:
I hope I'm wrong -- I must say tho -- the filter wheel on the side of the AF100 looks suspiciously like the filter wheel on my Panasonic HPX2000, which looks suspiciously like filter wheels on most Panasonic and Sony broadcast cameras produced the last 20 years. The question here is: are all 4 filters clear, or are 3 of them daylight-balanced? Anyone with an AF100 handy can solve this quickly.
Jesse Brauning
Well-known member
I'm sure they operate like the ones I'm used to, on cameras like the HMC150, HPX170, and HVX200 - They're neutral, meaning differing amounts of pure grey.
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
None of them are daylight balanced. They are ND filters.
This camera lacks a color filter wheel.
This camera lacks a color filter wheel.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There is no color filter wheel, and no problem. Position 1 is clear, position 2 is a 2-stop ND filter, pos 3 is a 4-stop ND, and pos 4 is a 6-stop ND. No color shift, no problem.
If you want to adjust for daylight/interior lighting, you do so by electronically white-balancing.
If you want to adjust for daylight/interior lighting, you do so by electronically white-balancing.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Good Lord, I hear that "this and that slows you down" BS all the time this days. What timespan are we talking anyway? 10 seconds? Wow THAT really slows you down.
I have a Chrosziel matte box and it´s not a swing away type. When I change lenses, all it takes is a half turn on two thumb screws and it slides along the rails away from the lens so I can change it. I guess if I would have a swing away matte box, I could save 2 seconds here. Than I change the lens (Jeeez - I really should get a zoom, changing lenses really slows me down), slide the box back in place (you have to adjust even a swing away box, cause the new lens is longer), secure it with an other half turn of the thumb screws and I´m all set.
Bleeding Christ! Even if you have to take the matte box of the rails, cause they are not long enough, it´s not gonna take 20 minutes.
Setting up dolly rails out in the sticks can slow you down, but a matte box? Come on.
Frank
Barry_Green
Moderator
Correct. The sensor is always covered.so barry, the frst filter is a clear one? its not blank/empty? ooh. so i was kinda right unintentionallyso we dont need to worry about dusts n the sensor
Yak
Well-known member
so barry, the frst filter is a clear one? its not blank/empty? ooh. so i was kinda right unintentionally
just dust on the filter
getting back to the matte box issue..I have been looking at the new oconnor o-box which looks like a good fit for the af100 and their soon to be released mini- friction follow focus.
abel has it featured on their blog.. can used on rails or clamped on the lens.. I would not clamp on using the 4/3 mount .. another new matte box is the shoot35 out of the uk, swing away
but smaller aperture and filters (4x4) but a few hundred cheaper.
abel has it featured on their blog.. can used on rails or clamped on the lens.. I would not clamp on using the 4/3 mount .. another new matte box is the shoot35 out of the uk, swing away
but smaller aperture and filters (4x4) but a few hundred cheaper.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Could I say that it amazes me that such a low tech piece of hardware such as this can cost $1100?
Now, mind you I don't mind spending $1800 on an Arri follow focus (which I think is plenty damn expensive) but there's a lot of precise engineering function in that piece of gear.
Or a lens: the Voigtlander M43 25mm f0.95 for $900. f0.95? What? Unheard of at this price. At any price!
Even the AF100. Think of all the years that went into the final product. A legacy of Panasonic camcorders, CMOS chip design. Software... on and on for 5k! What? So cheap.
But I'm having a little trouble swallowing the value/dollar cost of a matte box.
Now, mind you I don't mind spending $1800 on an Arri follow focus (which I think is plenty damn expensive) but there's a lot of precise engineering function in that piece of gear.
Or a lens: the Voigtlander M43 25mm f0.95 for $900. f0.95? What? Unheard of at this price. At any price!
Even the AF100. Think of all the years that went into the final product. A legacy of Panasonic camcorders, CMOS chip design. Software... on and on for 5k! What? So cheap.
But I'm having a little trouble swallowing the value/dollar cost of a matte box.
The OConnor O-Box actually looks pretty innovative to me. It's a hybrid matte box/cage design that functions as a load-bearing frame in addition to being a lens hood and filter holder. That makes it a versatile accessory holder strong enough to mount hand grips rather than a fragile light shade.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I thought it looked kinda cool. With that aperture it should be able to fit the Compact Primes even, and it's wide-angle enough to support 18mm. And the price is comparable to some of the others; look at an Arri mattebox if you want to see how high-priced these units get.
There are folks out there who think matteboxes are way overpriced and should be cheap, and for those folks, there are cheap matteboxes out there, such as from cinecity.
Probably the most intriguing new low-cost one is from shoot35. Looks pretty good and I think he said it would be about 400 pounds sterling, so about $600 US.
And, we've had plenty of DIY folks on here making lens shades out of foam core and gaffer's tape. Whatever floats your boat and meets your standards and works with your workflow.
There are folks out there who think matteboxes are way overpriced and should be cheap, and for those folks, there are cheap matteboxes out there, such as from cinecity.
Probably the most intriguing new low-cost one is from shoot35. Looks pretty good and I think he said it would be about 400 pounds sterling, so about $600 US.
And, we've had plenty of DIY folks on here making lens shades out of foam core and gaffer's tape. Whatever floats your boat and meets your standards and works with your workflow.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Agreed.
But what I'm saying is that an Arri follow focus for $1800 could really make your shot. An Arri Matte Box for the same price? I'm not so sure. Sure it could save it from glare but then couldn't a lens hood? I don't see may still photographers walking around with affixed matte boxes. They use lens hoods probably because they work.
Hi
I shoot everyday with dslr lenses.
One as to understand that to get the best image you really need to protect your lens from direct light and big amount of difused light (sorry for my english) due to strong daylight or spot lights. If you are in a darck situation, with no ligths directed towards the camera, chances are you don't need any of those solutions.
to avoid this you have diferent solutions : Matte box, lens hood, flag
I have worked with all of them
Matt box:
Too expensive
slows you down (defenately slows you down and specially when you use a very short 50mm lens and you have to stick a follow focus in between)
also slows you down when you need to change your lens.
Very good if you have a few square nd filters (in summertime you defenately need nd filters if you DOF)
very good protection from light
Looks cool (good for some clients who come on the set)
Best if you have an assistant
Stronger protection than lens hood maybe better for old and uncoated lenses.
Lens hood
cheap, usually comes with lens
very fast don't slow you down to fit or change lens
Its been a good enaugh protection for phtographers for decades , I would think it should be good enaugh for cinematographers.
You need diferent round filters of the size of your lens , will cost you a little (and unlike some say, circular filter lens are very easy to put on, don't slows you more than a square one in a matte box, I never droped one so far).
Flag:
Cost depends, you can make it yourself
You just move it around , very easy, fast
Here is a system I use without the Matt box , I have seen it on this picture from "Francois Truffaut"
So on a set I would prefer to use lens wood and a flag. Its a strong protection and a lot cheaper and faster than a matte boxe. On a documentary I just use lens hood (forget the matte box it's hell in a documentary situation)
I haven't seen much diference with a lens hood or a matte box.
That being said I wonder why people used and still use matte box:
Maybe because lens were not as well coated, lens hood were not as well build, filters were used more often (they didn't have color finess at the time
Maybe they are still used for some historical reason (great directors used them so I should)
people just didn't think of it or just want to look cool (I respect that cause it can be important sometimes) , makes a dslr look more like a camera and we just folloewed the exitment of buying equipment for the dslr's. there was not as much ofers of matte boxes before video dslr but there was just as much lenses to protect in movies??
However if I was in a big budget picture with at least 2 assistants, I would use them.
If I got very well paid by a client, I would use them just to inpress him but for small budget work (time is too important) or tv work, I don't feel the need.
I shoot everyday with dslr lenses.
One as to understand that to get the best image you really need to protect your lens from direct light and big amount of difused light (sorry for my english) due to strong daylight or spot lights. If you are in a darck situation, with no ligths directed towards the camera, chances are you don't need any of those solutions.
to avoid this you have diferent solutions : Matte box, lens hood, flag
I have worked with all of them
Matt box:
Too expensive
slows you down (defenately slows you down and specially when you use a very short 50mm lens and you have to stick a follow focus in between)
also slows you down when you need to change your lens.
Very good if you have a few square nd filters (in summertime you defenately need nd filters if you DOF)
very good protection from light
Looks cool (good for some clients who come on the set)
Best if you have an assistant
Stronger protection than lens hood maybe better for old and uncoated lenses.
Lens hood
cheap, usually comes with lens
very fast don't slow you down to fit or change lens
Its been a good enaugh protection for phtographers for decades , I would think it should be good enaugh for cinematographers.
You need diferent round filters of the size of your lens , will cost you a little (and unlike some say, circular filter lens are very easy to put on, don't slows you more than a square one in a matte box, I never droped one so far).
Flag:
Cost depends, you can make it yourself
You just move it around , very easy, fast
Here is a system I use without the Matt box , I have seen it on this picture from "Francois Truffaut"
So on a set I would prefer to use lens wood and a flag. Its a strong protection and a lot cheaper and faster than a matte boxe. On a documentary I just use lens hood (forget the matte box it's hell in a documentary situation)
I haven't seen much diference with a lens hood or a matte box.
That being said I wonder why people used and still use matte box:
Maybe because lens were not as well coated, lens hood were not as well build, filters were used more often (they didn't have color finess at the time
Maybe they are still used for some historical reason (great directors used them so I should)
people just didn't think of it or just want to look cool (I respect that cause it can be important sometimes) , makes a dslr look more like a camera and we just folloewed the exitment of buying equipment for the dslr's. there was not as much ofers of matte boxes before video dslr but there was just as much lenses to protect in movies??
However if I was in a big budget picture with at least 2 assistants, I would use them.
If I got very well paid by a client, I would use them just to inpress him
but for small budget work (time is too important) or tv work, I don't feel the need.
Multi-Media
Well-known member
For the Lumix 7-14, you can't screw a filter onto it... also it doesn't extend with zooming, so for that lens, you must have a filter holder on a mattebox otherwise you're going to get reflection coming from the backside of the filter into the lens. For interviews, I use a diffusion filter... I have ONE 4X4 version of this filter. The Mattebox allows me to use it on any lens. For Gradient 4X4 as well... I do have UV screw in filters for protection on each lens (except the 7-14). The screw ins with silver frames have to be removed as they also reflect on the backside of the filters in the mattebox frame... so there are pragmatic justifications for having one, but then there is the perception factor when it comes to the client. Our cameras are not the "big shoulder mount" type... so we need all the help in the perception area that we can get... that's just human nature. If I'm trying to be discreet... I didn't even have a lens hood on trying to look as "camcorder" as possible. It depends on the situation, but for keeping a clean picture free from light pollution, the flags help.
maranfilms
Veteran
Ticheli
Well-known member
Matte Boxes serve several purposes.
1. They hold your ND or effects filters. This is less important, at least the ND part, with the AF100 because it has built-in ND filters in the wheel.
2. They have, or should have, a rotating stage to hold and position polarizer filters. This is a vital requirement; without a Matte Box you must use a screw-in with it's own rotating mount.
3. The serve to block flares, especially when properly fitted with wings. Yes, you can get by with a lens hood and black wrap, but professional gear saves precious time on set.
4. They protect the lens from clumsy accidents.
5. They hold hard mattes!
Do you need a Matte Box? Probably. By the way, a top-tier Matte Box is a very complicated device, that's why they are expensive.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
1. They hold your ND or effects filters. This is less important, at least the ND part, with the AF100 because it has built-in ND filters in the wheel.
2. They have, or should have, a rotating stage to hold and position polarizer filters. This is a vital requirement; without a Matte Box you must use a screw-in with it's own rotating mount.
3. The serve to block flares, especially when properly fitted with wings. Yes, you can get by with a lens hood and black wrap, but professional gear saves precious time on set.
4. They protect the lens from clumsy accidents.
5. They hold hard mattes!
Do you need a Matte Box? Probably. By the way, a top-tier Matte Box is a very complicated device, that's why they are expensive.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo