why is a mattebox so expensive ? - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Open DV Discussion
For topics which don't fit into any of the other categories.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 21st, 2009, 08:43 PM   #46
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1
Thanks for the great discussion. I usually hang out at DVX user... and I have been researching a prosumer Rig for my canon 7D for at Least 5 Weeks! I really wanted to get everything for $1000, and so I was really tempted to buy the proaim, follow focus, mattebox, kit... But the Redrock stuff is just so great looking.

Anyway. I think my decision is spend $1000 on a support system, likely the eyespy standard. Which will still work well in 5 years and have a re-sale value. Then wait on the mattbox UNTIL I can afford $700 for the redrock mattebox. Screw the follow focus. you can easily make a $1 solution each for each lens.

I already dropped $3500 on camera and 4 lenses.
Jason Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2009, 09:27 PM   #47
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff View Post
I stopped using a clear/skylight filter quite awhile ago when I realized how it was degrading my image. But I generally only shoot in controlled situations where I'm not too worried about lens damage.

Each piece of glass you put between the lens and the real world takes a little away from your image quality, due to defects, dust, reflection and flare.
Which is only true in some situations, but entirely untrue in others. Try to film without UV filters at higher altitudes or without polarizer on water or snow. And no, you can't fix it in the post. I have seen cameras being knocked down during the events, going lens first. BTW, the same dust which gets on filters will get on lenses equally degrading the image.
Robert Rogoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2009, 01:31 AM   #48
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Robert, you're right to say, 'BTW, the same dust which gets on filters will get on lenses' but wrong to say, ' equally degrading the image.'

It's the fact that you've added two more (imperfect) air to glass surfaces and placed this in front of the lens and then shot at very short focal lengths that is the cause of much more flare damage. If you're shooting wide-angle with a 5D2 then 28 mm is quite a long focal length. But the same field of view on a typical camcorder is a minuscule 4 mm, and it's the huge dof at these focal lengths that causes the problems. That and the difficulty in effectively hooding the new front element.

I'm so pleased Sony and Canon have abandoned the VAP OIS in favour of internal vibrating elements. That vari-angle prism always held filters even further away from the front element, never a good thing.

Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2009, 11:56 AM   #49
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia
Posts: 155
David, I can't be entirely sure about anything that happed 20+ years ago :)

This was about the time Canon came out with their multi-coated line of still camera lenses, and as I remember it, Haskell had a couple of the MC high speeds adapted. Since they didn't seems to work out, I believe he just abandoned that whole idea.
Enzo Giobbé
Enzo Giobbé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2010, 10:19 AM   #50
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 52
Just my 2 cents on the matte box issue; I have a small Pelican case FULL of round Tiffen filters that rarely got used with exception to the polarizer (that always vignettes). I used these with my 3-CCD Sony broadcast camera, and now that I've purchased a new PMW-350, I'm afraid these are now worthless with the new Fuji lens.

A new matte box will, I assume, necessitate spending more money on glass filters to fit. However, I do tend to shoot an awful lot by myself, and it would be nice to have flags at the lens to quickly reduce or eliminate flares....that for me would be where I would get the most use....but I don't know if it's worth 3 thousand dollars. I also dislike having to put a lot of stuff all over my camera as 9 times out of 10, it just gets in the way.

There is a film camera rental place here in Houston and I could rent a matte box if the shoot required one. I guess I'll just put it on my wish list. I'd rather spend that money on a NanoFlash first.

I'm also the type that if the difference between a cheap matte box that is frustrating to use and a good one such as Arri is a thousand dollars, I'll pay the extra bucks. As far as "cool" appearance goes, I always revert back to the saying "need to have vs. nice to have" when considering anything for my camera system.

Patrick McLoad is offline   Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

Omega Broadcast
(512) 251-7778
Austin, TX

(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

(800) 238-8480
Glendale, CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:49 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2015 The Digital Video Information Network