Mattebox?

brock2621

brock2621

Well-known member
I've been looking at a Chrosziel matte box and was wondering if these are really necessary to get a film-like image?
 
no, not at all. and if you wanted one, make one from spraypainted cardboard (flat black) and it does the same thing. all a matte box is for is for is to block light from an unwanted area from getting on the lens. Shoot... a person standing next to a camera would achive the same principle... though that would be a little silly if you ask me. my friend (medialuke) is building a simple cloth matte box from home depot materials like dark, light absorbing fabric and some sturdy cardboard something or other.

(this way is also much cheaper!)
 
Sweet... that's basically what i got from it: A lens filter holder and to keep light from crossing the lense and produce unwanted glare. Do you know if there are any online easy to make instructions? Otherwise i'll just put together some cloth and wire frame.
 
yeah man, just draw it out on some large posterboard and get the design like you want. My friend based his on some Cinetactics models that are also cloth-based.
 
on that note, the formatt FM-500 is relatively inexpensive and holds two 4x4 filters, one of which rotates (for that sweet Schneider True-pol!), and as every one knows, the true function of a Matte Box is to impress the actors with your (now) y-cinema-looking DVX!


291205.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Formatt FM500 only fits lens sizes up to 72mm and would probably be in the way on the HVX200. ...Or am I missing something there? The Chrosziel is nice, but at $1500, I'll pass. I'd like to see the Vocas and some of the others that have been brought up in these forums. And I'm looking forward to what Cinetactics is working on.
 
ChrisLyon said:
home depot is cheaper lol. but yeah i see the filter holder thing maybe being an issue with some home-made matte boxes, but you can just get a cokin adapter ring and integrate it into your matte box...

http://www.warehousephoto.com/CAT/FILTERCOKADAPT.htm
Click to expand...

Recently attempted a DIY Mattebox and using a Cokin Adapter. Unfortunately, it doesn't do the job. The cokin is not a solid construction, and the plastic eventually looses it solid connection making it slip off the plastic holder, in turn making the whole mattebox gettup fall apart. The ring would also rotate freely, causing the filter set-up to turn with it.
Lastly too much light leakage from the sides, and the filter holder is not meant to hold square filter, the cokin filters have their own unique dimmensions, thus you can only use cokin filters, which aren't that good. Defintely NOT a professional solution.
 
AppliedVisual said:
The Formatt FM500 only fits lens sizes up to 72mm and would probably be in the way on the HVX200. ...Or am I missing something there? The Chrosziel is nice, but at $1500, I'll pass. I'd like to see the Vocas and some of the others that have been brought up in these forums. And I'm looking forward to what Cinetactics is working on.
Click to expand...

You can get an 82mm adapter ring for the Formatt (just check out B&H.) The only downside to the Formatt is that you have to rotate the mattebox to flip open the top filter protector. The lovely on-camera mic gets in the way.:(
 
Blocking the light is cool and all, but I want a Matt box for the ability to use filters. A 2 filter holder would work, but 3 would be ideal. How much is that Formatt? and who makes a good/cheap set of 15mm Rods, besides Cavison? Or are they the ones to pick up...


Will redrock micro have a complete package together though? They are supposed to be building a matte box, right?
 
KCFilms said:
The only downside to the Formatt is that you have to rotate the mattebox to flip open the top filter protector. The lovely on-camera mic gets in the way.:(
Click to expand...

Actually, all you have to do is slide your filters up from the bottom, not a problem.



Justyn said:
A 2 filter holder would work, but 3 would be ideal. How much is that Formatt?
Click to expand...

>> I can't imagine a scenario where I would need 3 filters given the amount of color and light correction that is now done in post.

>> The cost of the Formatt? Click the link I posted on page 1, it's just a link to a Froogle listing of prices.
 
>You can get an 82mm adapter ring for the Formatt (just check out B&H.) The only >downside to the Formatt is that you have to rotate the mattebox to flip open the >top filter protector. The lovely on-camera mic gets in the way.

They didn't fix this ""feature" w/ the HVX?
__________________
 
brock2621 said:
I've been looking at a Chrosziel matte box and was wondering if these are really necessary to get a film-like image?
Click to expand...
Yes, an expensive professional mattebox is absolutely critical in achieving the "film look." A lot of people try useless techniques such as 24 fps for a filmic cadence, or progressive scan rather than interlaced, or a 35mm adaptor to decrease DOF, or smooth fluid-head tripod with sturdy legs, or great audio and lighting. But these are just old wives-tales, and do nothing to contribute to the "film look." A mattebox with French flag and barnyard doors is what gives film its distinctive look. A proper mattebox should be at least half the price of your camera, for professional results.

I have to go now, because my DVX100B is making a clunking noise, and there is something loose rolling around inside of it. Also, I will be shooting HD with my HVX200 onto DV tape.

Good Luck!:)
 
LOL.

Seriously though, we all know the primary function of a mattebox is to impress the client. And I don't know about you guys, but my clients are not impressed by spray-painted cardboard and duct tape. I'm liking the prototype pictures for the Cinetactics mattebox and their ballistic nylon approach. Looks like it could be made available for a reasonable price too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top