Matteboxes: Yea or Nay?

Nigel Barker · March 4th, 2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

I think it was my comment in the other thread on Matteboxes that started the, "can Kiefer perform with the lights on?" comments.

Just so you know I wasn't making it up, here's a direct quote from Rodney Charters, DoP on "24", as it appeared in Showreel Magazine in 2006:

“I told Keifer we were testing more small cameras for drama use and he said again that he doesn’t feel he can perform as intensely in front of a small camera as when he faces a large Panaflex. So I’ll start by reiterating a point I made last time: it’s a good idea to use large matte boxes if you intend to use HDV for drama, so that the actors feel there is something of substance there they can address obviously not for taking an eyeline down the lens, but at least to act as an audience.”

You see, I wasn't making it up:)

The actual quotation doesn't make Keifer sound such a pretentious dick as do various re-tellings of this story. For one thing he doesn't mention matte boxes at all just compares a small camera to a large Panaflex

Dennis Murphy · March 4th, 2010, 11:42 AM

Kiefer refuses to drive small cars, and his trailer is twice the size of everyone elses.
It's also rumoured that his women have to have matte 'boxes'.

Carlo Zanella · March 22nd, 2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Brown

Since no one's said it yet, I will: a big matte box can make a little DSLR look like a "real" camera.

Add rails and a follow focus and my clients would think they've died and gone to Hollywood. At any rate, they always enjoy the slate for my double-sound since I've moved from the XH-A1 to the 7D on most of my shoots.

OK, now back to talking about practical reasons to use one...

Practical reasons?
I haven't read the entire thread but I don't think anybody has mention the fact that a matte box at times could save you lens or camera...If you watch the end of the
www.santafetvshow.com/html/e1.html
the Sommelier at the end of one of his takes spilled a glass of wine right in front of my beloved EX-1...Well, all the wine drop ended up on the uv filter, french flag, side flaps. Camera was "untouched" by the wine. It may sound like a silly reason to put a matte box in front of your expensive camera, but if it happened to anyone of us, we would surely appreciate it's value. It will not be a primary reason to spend the money and get one, but it is a "prectical" reason, especially in field production, where "anything" can happen!

Carlo Zanella
The Santa Fe TV Show

Steve Oakley · October 11th, 2010, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I have one of those $ 6.00 rubber shades that I can fold back for wide angle lens, and completely unfurl for a telephoto. I don't see that a matte box can provide any better lens shade. On a wide angle lens its just matter of whether the apparatus impinges in the field of view-- a matte box can't magically change the physics of light..

Am i missing somthing about how the matte box works its magic over a simple lens shade ?

a matte box, especially with the french flag on top does a vastly better job then a generic rubber lens hood. before I owned a MB, I'd be using a FF rig from the camera handle ( big sony's ) or using a small flag in a C stand to fix it. when the light source gets closer to your lens's view, the shorter shades just don't work. I'll normally pull the FF down until its just inside of the frame, then nudge it back. I've also come to use the side flags as well quite a bit because a side back light would be making problems, or even a softbox lighting the subject from the front if its at, say 45 deg from center. there is enough light leaking out to make for flare. intense amounts of stray light are hitting the lens. this is true even for wide angle lenses with the tulip lens shade on - you just get too much spill or even direct light shining on the lens surface, even though the light source is out of frame

Joe Batt · October 12th, 2010, 12:35 AM

I think it's all about looks. I don't know anyone who uses filters while shooting. everythings done in post. It's just that they look super cool. they are so overpriced it's disgusting. waist of money!

Liam Hall · October 12th, 2010, 01:07 AM

Joe,

I use filters all of the time; ND, ND-grads and polars especially.

You can't do everything in post and much of what you can is better achieved in-camera.

There are plenty of affordable solutions around - you just have to look...

Charles Papert · October 12th, 2010, 02:08 AM

Joe, remember that once you let details in an image clip, there's no getting them back...in this light, being able to control the contrast of a scene selectively via grads or pola (as Liam patiently noted) should start to make some sense. And if you want to shoot a DSLR in broad sunlight at a wide aperture, you'll definitely need ND's. And then there's the good old optical flat, very helpful when working around squibs or effects or water that might hit the front element of the lens.

Arguably the wide selection of classic color filters may not be as relevant in the digital post era as they were with a photochemical finish. I tend to shoot clean these days more often than not.

There's nothing particular cool about using filters. They are a pain in the ass to be honest; they are slow and inconvenient and can create double reflections at night. I can guarantee you that most cameraman in the industry think of them as anything other than "cool", but they are a necessary part of the process.

Robert Turchick · October 12th, 2010, 02:14 AM

Ditto on the use of filters. Had cheaper nds that I stacked but then bought a Singh ray variable with some adapter rings so all my lenses could play and it's an absolute must for controlling DOF.

That said, I have chosen the "lightest possible" rig for my 7D as opposed to a buddy who has a beautiful mattebox setup on his 5D. I nearly fell over when I picked up his fully assembled shoulder rig...had to weigh 20-25 lbs. I then handed him mine (with one hand) and I'm pretty sure he cracked a floor tile when his chin hit it! I'd have to guess mine is in the 10-12lb range. And I do have the battery grip, a zoom h4n, rode ntg3 and a sennheiser g3 receiver on my rig. I generAlly have my 24-70 L on the camera and he uses a 16-35 L so there's really only the rail system structure and matte box that make the difference. Because of the mattebox he has a two handlebar front and counterbalance weights on the back. And as mentioned before, the matte box is adding weight at the worst possible area for comfy shoulder mount work. He's admitted that he got it for the looks as he doesn't use filters. Funny thing is he can't even use the 16mm end of his lens because of the mattebox! (I think he worked it out but it was a problem for a while!)
So, while I understand the technical reason for using matteboxes and flags, my priority is with keeping the rig as comfy as possible so I can curse about the 12 min limit for having to stop takes, not my shoulder, back and arm pain!

Jon Braeley · October 12th, 2010, 06:18 AM

You can simply buy all the filters you need at your most popular size - say 77mm and a few generic lens hoods (if you don't use L glass) and it would still be a fraction of the cost of a mattebox - and a lot easier to travel with.
As a doc maker the last thing I need is a big mattebox to deal with. I have one on my EX3 with 4x4 filters but the 7D for me is about being stealthy.

I watched a Nat-Geo program about their photographers working and shooting on the streets - none of them had even a lens hood and if you looked closely - no filters.

Ted Ramasola · October 12th, 2010, 06:36 AM

In controlled environments and also in some not so controlled, matteboxes or "ITS EQUIVALENT" is an important tool. It might not be essential to some, but when I was starting out almost 20 years ago, i had the same attitude.

Later on as my career got better and projects got bigger, I had situations that really need precise control, where my "excuses" are not acceptable.

I decided to make one instead of buy one. Its not only cheap buts its much lighter at 12 ounces.
Can take 2 filters. and can be rotated. See post #16

Its never about looking cool. That was never my motivation, i just "grew" and "learned" why its better in controlling flare on wide lenses, holding my filters and maintaining contrasts.

The angle that flares come in is simply difficult to stop with a generic hood, unless flags are used, which will bring us back to the convenience of a mattebox with flags.

The photos shown in post #16 shows only the top flag, later on i added side flags as well as i always use wide lenses in my projects.
I made a couple of these and I also made use of cokin modular hoods in previous versions, as the base to hold the main hood.

Steve Oakley · October 12th, 2010, 08:48 AM

actually shooting around water / lake a few weeks ago, a BOTTOM flag suddenly became needed - the sun at a low angle was reflecting off the water and flaring the lens from the bottom. problem is my box doesn't have a mount for it... tape & cardboard again :/

outside I shoot with ND's most of the time.there is no way you can simulate in post what a ND does on the lens. I'll also add here - skip the resin / plastic ones. they WILL soften your image, maybe more then you want. I also have a bunch of 138mm rounds I use - 2 black nets, fog & dbl fogs. ya I know old school stuff, but there are cool.

there is a sample of the black net shooting at nite

Stillwater to Minneapolis Lens & Filter Shoot

Liam Hall · October 12th, 2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

I watched a Nat-Geo program about their photographers working and shooting on the streets - none of them had even a lens hood and if you looked closely - no filters.

It's not so important for stills. Not least because you can shoot at high shutter speeds, though even shooting stills I still use a hood - maybe it's a catholic thing...

George Strother · October 13th, 2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

a matte box, especially with the french flag on top does a vastly better job then a generic rubber lens hood. before I owned a MB, I'd be using a FF rig from the camera handle ( big sony's ) or using a small flag in a C stand to fix it. when the light source gets closer to your lens's view, the shorter shades just don't work. I'll normally pull the FF down until its just inside of the frame, then nudge it back. I've also come to use the side flags as well quite a bit because a side back light would be making problems, or even a softbox lighting the subject from the front if its at, say 45 deg from center. there is enough light leaking out to make for flare. intense amounts of stray light are hitting the lens. this is true even for wide angle lenses with the tulip lens shade on - you just get too much spill or even direct light shining on the lens surface, even though the light source is out of frame

I do the same for stills. I already have the Chrosziel, no big deal to add it to the still shoots. Lots of flair control with less setup time. Fewer stands on the set too.

Phillip Palacios · October 13th, 2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Batt

I think it's all about looks. I don't know anyone who uses filters while shooting. everythings done in post. It's just that they look super cool. they are so overpriced it's disgusting. waist of money!

You are right. It is all about looks. The look you create in camera. And teh look on the clients face when teh footage looks right, right away.

I have found that the more experience the DP has (myself included) the more you appreciate filters and what they can do. ESPECIALLY ND Grads and Polorizers. You cannot take reflections away in post, you can make a sky more blue, but then consider render and color correction time (budget) go up. The less you have to touch the footage in post the better, and the more the client appreciates your skill as a DP.

Can you make great images without a Mattebox and filters? Of course.
Does having a Mattebox and filters automatically make you images better? Nope.
Expensive? Not in my opinion.
Waste of money? Absolutely not.
Experience and Knowledge in using these tools is what makes the difference.

Gabe Spangler · October 15th, 2010, 11:02 AM

A matte box is generally not needed with stills because the photographer has the option to expose with both aperture and shutter. Whereas a videographer is generally keeping his shutter speed near as possible, or at, 1/48. A slow or fast shutter is an artistic choice in video. In stills, you can shoot in direct sun at f2.0 with a really high shutter to get shallow DoF and correct exposure. Yada, yada, yada ... we all know the technical side.

I don't like matte boxes either. And find them to be big, clumsy and overpriced. But being able to drop ND's in really quick is both nice and necessary. Screw-on filters are garbage, or so my experience has been. Never had one that didn't eventually ruins shots with nicks, dust, glare, etc....

March 4th, 2010, 11:42 AM	#32
Dennis Murphy Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Whangarei, New Zealand Posts: 396	Kiefer refuses to drive small cars, and his trailer is twice the size of everyone elses. It's also rumoured that his women have to have matte 'boxes'. __________________ http://www.dmvideostuff.co.nz

October 12th, 2010, 01:07 AM	#36
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	Joe, I use filters all of the time; ND, ND-grads and polars especially. You can't do everything in post and much of what you can is better achieved in-camera. There are plenty of affordable solutions around - you just have to look... __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

October 12th, 2010, 02:08 AM	#37
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Joe, remember that once you let details in an image clip, there's no getting them back...in this light, being able to control the contrast of a scene selectively via grads or pola (as Liam patiently noted) should start to make some sense. And if you want to shoot a DSLR in broad sunlight at a wide aperture, you'll definitely need ND's. And then there's the good old optical flat, very helpful when working around squibs or effects or water that might hit the front element of the lens. Arguably the wide selection of classic color filters may not be as relevant in the digital post era as they were with a photochemical finish. I tend to shoot clean these days more often than not. There's nothing particular cool about using filters. They are a pain in the ass to be honest; they are slow and inconvenient and can create double reflections at night. I can guarantee you that most cameraman in the industry think of them as anything other than "cool", but they are a necessary part of the process. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

October 12th, 2010, 02:14 AM	#38
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	Ditto on the use of filters. Had cheaper nds that I stacked but then bought a Singh ray variable with some adapter rings so all my lenses could play and it's an absolute must for controlling DOF. That said, I have chosen the "lightest possible" rig for my 7D as opposed to a buddy who has a beautiful mattebox setup on his 5D. I nearly fell over when I picked up his fully assembled shoulder rig...had to weigh 20-25 lbs. I then handed him mine (with one hand) and I'm pretty sure he cracked a floor tile when his chin hit it! I'd have to guess mine is in the 10-12lb range. And I do have the battery grip, a zoom h4n, rode ntg3 and a sennheiser g3 receiver on my rig. I generAlly have my 24-70 L on the camera and he uses a 16-35 L so there's really only the rail system structure and matte box that make the difference. Because of the mattebox he has a two handlebar front and counterbalance weights on the back. And as mentioned before, the matte box is adding weight at the worst possible area for comfy shoulder mount work. He's admitted that he got it for the looks as he doesn't use filters. Funny thing is he can't even use the 16mm end of his lens because of the mattebox! (I think he worked it out but it was a problem for a while!) So, while I understand the technical reason for using matteboxes and flags, my priority is with keeping the rig as comfy as possible so I can curse about the 12 min limit for having to stop takes, not my shoulder, back and arm pain! __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

October 12th, 2010, 06:36 AM	#40
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	In controlled environments and also in some not so controlled, matteboxes or "ITS EQUIVALENT" is an important tool. It might not be essential to some, but when I was starting out almost 20 years ago, i had the same attitude. Later on as my career got better and projects got bigger, I had situations that really need precise control, where my "excuses" are not acceptable. I decided to make one instead of buy one. Its not only cheap buts its much lighter at 12 ounces. Can take 2 filters. and can be rotated. See post #16 Its never about looking cool. That was never my motivation, i just "grew" and "learned" why its better in controlling flare on wide lenses, holding my filters and maintaining contrasts. The angle that flares come in is simply difficult to stop with a generic hood, unless flags are used, which will bring us back to the convenience of a mattebox with flags. The photos shown in post #16 shows only the top flag, later on i added side flags as well as i always use wide lenses in my projects. I made a couple of these and I also made use of cokin modular hoods in previous versions, as the base to hold the main hood. __________________ Ted Ramasola http://ramasolaproductions.com Last edited by Ted Ramasola; October 12th, 2010 at 06:44 AM. Reason: added text

October 12th, 2010, 12:35 AM	#35
Joe Batt Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Forest Ranch, CA Posts: 106	I think it's all about looks. I don't know anyone who uses filters while shooting. everythings done in post. It's just that they look super cool. they are so overpriced it's disgusting. waist of money!

October 12th, 2010, 06:18 AM	#39
Jon Braeley Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 528	You can simply buy all the filters you need at your most popular size - say 77mm and a few generic lens hoods (if you don't use L glass) and it would still be a fraction of the cost of a mattebox - and a lot easier to travel with. As a doc maker the last thing I need is a big mattebox to deal with. I have one on my EX3 with 4x4 filters but the 7D for me is about being stealthy. I watched a Nat-Geo program about their photographers working and shooting on the streets - none of them had even a lens hood and if you looked closely - no filters.

October 12th, 2010, 08:48 AM	#41
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	actually shooting around water / lake a few weeks ago, a BOTTOM flag suddenly became needed - the sun at a low angle was reflecting off the water and flaring the lens from the bottom. problem is my box doesn't have a mount for it... tape & cardboard again :/ outside I shoot with ND's most of the time.there is no way you can simulate in post what a ND does on the lens. I'll also add here - skip the resin / plastic ones. they WILL soften your image, maybe more then you want. I also have a bunch of 138mm rounds I use - 2 black nets, fog & dbl fogs. ya I know old school stuff, but there are cool. there is a sample of the black net shooting at nite Stillwater to Minneapolis Lens & Filter Shoot Stillwater to Minneapolis on Vimeo __________________ Steve Oakley DP • Audio Mixer • Editor • Colorist http://stevenoakley.com

October 15th, 2010, 11:02 AM	#45
Gabe Spangler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 69	A matte box is generally not needed with stills because the photographer has the option to expose with both aperture and shutter. Whereas a videographer is generally keeping his shutter speed near as possible, or at, 1/48. A slow or fast shutter is an artistic choice in video. In stills, you can shoot in direct sun at f2.0 with a really high shutter to get shallow DoF and correct exposure. Yada, yada, yada ... we all know the technical side. I don't like matte boxes either. And find them to be big, clumsy and overpriced. But being able to drop ND's in really quick is both nice and necessary. Screw-on filters are garbage, or so my experience has been. Never had one that didn't eventually ruins shots with nicks, dust, glare, etc....