Hey,
Anyonea an idea why a mattebox is so expensive ?

I'm buying a DSLR and I'm looking for a kinda cheap mattebox.
Anyone an idea where to get it ?

Thanks,

How do you define "kinda cheap"?

I must say that I also find 2000 dollar seems a bit overpriced for what you get. On the other hand this is not a huge market that sells tens of thousands or even millions of products. So the production and development costs are relatively high. If a good mattebox including the options (french flag, side flags, filter holders and rails) would cost around 250 dollar I would surely buy one. The nearest set that I like (Vocas MB250) costs 1000 dollar, without sideflags.

There is no way that I would pay 400 dollar for a set of sideflags (like the Chrosziel cost).

Hey,
Anyonea an idea why a mattebox is so expensive ?
,

Now isn't that a good question! I've always thought they were insanely priced.
I think the engineers would point to the fact that a lot of the parts take a lot of machining to make, and the sales reps would point to small volume of sales.
Formatt filters make a nice one, really professional looking and works well, and it's "only" about £180 I think including top flag. I had to return mine due to vignetting though so you'd need to check that it was wide enough for your lens.
Another alternative is the Lee filters "wide lens hood" which is a bellow lens hood with several filter slots. No flags though, but only about £140.
Steve

Mario's right - the tiny market for such devices makes the unit cost higher, which in turn ups the price and so on. The good news for us filmmakers is that manufacturers are bothered to make a niche product that they believe in so enthusiastically and rate so highly.

I've got a Century mattebox with rails etc for my Sony V1. It's worth $2k, but I was fortunate enough to be able to purchase it ex-demo for $390.

Just sayin.

Andrew

I saw that Indifocus sells for example a mattebox for about $349 and the guys from dvcity one for about $325.
Then I see other companies selling matteboxes that look the same for about $2000
Then I wonder what the difference can be and if you can see this difference in your footage. :D

I'm buying a DSLR and I'm looking for a kinda cheap mattebox.

Why do you feel you need a matte box for the camera if you have not shot with it yet?

I've seen Matteboxes run the gamut from $400-$2k. But you really have to assess your needs. The indifocus one does not have side flags. To me, that's pointless. Even if you don't need the side flags all the time, the box should come with them. So they look to cost around $1k for the non-pro one's and $2k for the pro ones. When you're putting these on a $2k camera they seem expensive. When you are putting them on a $200k camera, not so much.

We are borrowing a lot of things from the film world. We're playing their game, and sometimes, we are going to have to pay for that.

yeah I always thought the same thing, I mean I would only buy the mattebox because it looks cool, and because as some of you know part of doing the job is putting on a show for your client who wants to feel that they are really getting their money's worth in something that looks kinda like in the movies you know!

Well, for me, the mattebox is a nice way to buy standardized filters. Unfortunately, I just haven't been able to get there. I am ordering rails this week finally, and the mattebox next summer.

For the folks I need to put in front of the camera, the mattebox is more intimidating than anything else. Many are already camera shy. Putting something in front of them that looks as imposing as a camera on rails with a huge mattebox is scary. I wouldn't even dream of buying a full-sized camera for my work. I'd never get anyone to stand in front of it!

One of the reasons I would see for buying a good quality mattebox would be the same reason I buy good quality lights with good quality barndoors - after a while, hinges begin to "work in". On barndoors, sooner or later the ability to stay where you put them gets compromised. On better quality items, this is MUCH further down the road. The same MAY be true of flags on pro level matte boxes. The last thing you want is your top flag slowly creeping into your frame... ASSUMING you're using flags and didn't just buy the box for "cool factor".

I have the Chrosziel matte box...and at nearly $4K to replace it, the unit is still largely plastic. I don't get it. The unit for the EX-1 is nearly the price of the camera!

As was pointed out earlier, the rule of thumb for film industry products was relatively few units sold to offset R&D, overhead, distribution and all of the other costs involved. Since the explosion of the indie and prosumer market, there are many more potential buyers but they are insisting on less expensive gear. The $4K Chrosziel mattebox was originally designed to work with $60-100K broadcast or lightweight film cameras, so the numbers made sense then. Advances in electronics, sensors, processing and software has made it possible for manufacturers to make cameras in the sub-$10K range that now produce beautiful images, but that doesn't mean that manufacturers of accessories will now suddenly be able to make their products that much cheaper when all of their material costs are at least as much as they ever were. We've seen a certain amount of this out of many of the manufacturers but they simply can't compete with the overseas knockoff market (India, China) who are much leaner and have little overhead and drastically reduced labor costs.

As far as needing a mattebox: the two functional purposes are to control flares (via eyebrow and siders) and to mount filters. It takes a lot longer to manage flares with any other method than simply tweaking a sider or eyebrow, as anyone can attest who has messed around with pieces of blackwrap or setting flags. Likewise, using screw-in filters is a cumbersome process. If neither of these are crucial to your workflow, the only other reason is to dress up the camera and make it look impressive, in which case you might as well buy the cheapest one you can find and not be concerned with its performance.

That all said, you might want to take a look at Redrock's Micro-mattebox; at around $700, it's rugged, full-featured and works well with their DSLR accessories which I think are also fairly priced.

I'm shoot wedding videos.
At this moment I always shot with a Canon XHA1 and a Brevis 35mm adapter and this all mounted on a shoulder rig and an external tv.
This all looks really cool and I have received some projects by people who just saw us at work and they were impressed with that material.
But now I'm switching from that whole system to just a Canon DSLR on a shoulder mount.
So to be really honest.
For me a mattebox is not that important. I just take into consideration the coolness factor.
If we charge a lot of money for a wedding video and they just see us filming with a photocamera, their first reaction can be : Why are we paying that much money for just having someone film with a little photocamera.
So if we have a shoulder rig, with a mattebox, follow focus, D7 and a Zacuto Z-Finder, it will look totally different. So this is my opinion and maybe the professional people will call it or me dumb or stupid, but for the wedding couple, their day is an adventure and maybe a once in a lifetime experience so if I can help them to give them a great feeling with a little extra show. Why not ?
I'm also not going to tell the children that there is just a man hidden inside Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. :D It's all part of the magic. :D

There's nothing "dumb or stupid" about making a client happy, so if that means adding an accessory for pure looks, so be it. However I think you've answered your own original question--the differences between an inexpensive mattebox or an expensive one are not much of a concern if your needs are simply based on looks. Probably all that you should be concerned with after that is build quality, so that it doesn't fall apart on you--and generally the cheaper the item, there more likely that is to happen (some of the cheaper eBay type have a good chance of showing up on your doorstep in that condition)!

Couldn't agree more.

As the sales rep told me .... half the reason you buy these things is for using filters, the other half of the reason is to make your camera look better.

Andrew

It is true that a mattebox has a limited (but for some indispensible) function, but man does it make the camera (and perhaps the cameraman behind it, look good.

The first thing I did when I got my little super 8 camera when I was 13 years old (a GAF 64XL) was buying a large rubber sunhood which made the camera look so much more professional and even at that age I was looking at kompendiums (as matteboxes where called then) but could not afford them of course.

Well I finally bought my first real mattebox last summer, and the main use is with graduated ND filters for outdoor landscape shots. I don't think there's really any other way to accomplish this.

I got the Century/Schneider wide angle mattebox (which is actually made by Vocas) and it's a really nice product. The only plastic is the mattebox shell itself, and that is a very solid piece of PVC which looks and feels professional. It wasn't cheap - I agree that it seems like a lot of money for what you get. But I am not disappointed. And yeah, it does look cool as well.

If you're just going for the look, or the ability to use 4x4 filters, Century makes a lens shade/filter holder which looks pretty much like a mattebox but only costs $150: Century Precision Optics | VS-SS05-00 4x4 | 0VS-SS05-00 | B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/376587-REG/Century_Precision_Optics_0VS_SS05_00_VS_SS05_00_4x4_Sunshade_Filter_Holder.html)

Hey guys, thanks for all the answers.
Yeah, I just think I have to look for a kinda cheap mattebox if its for the looks.
The reason why I won't buy it, is because if it gives more trouble then doing good.
For example if it takes a lot more time when changing lenses if the mattebox is attached to the rig-rails.
I'll keep you informed and will post some pictures of it when I have it all put together. ;)

You get what you pay for.

I used the DVCity one recently (not my choice) it was the biggest waste of time piece of crap poorly designed camera accessory I have ever seen. Totally useless.

Arri is the best. Everything about it works, and will continue to work for years. When you look at the life you get out of it, you can justify the money.

One of the things I was disturbed to discover with my Chrosziel mattebox (and I'm guessing this may be true with most others) is that to use them for shooting sunset/sunrises, you generally have to take off the clear glass filter on the front of your lens. Otherwise, you get a science-fictiony double sun in the shot, as the specular image of the giant nuclear furnace in the sky gets bounced back from the protective lens element and projects onto the glass filter in the mattebox.

I generally am loathe to take the clear/skylight filter off the camera. I know there are others who always shoot naked, but I've replaced too many pitted filters over the years to want to have to do the same with my HD lens.

But, if you are shooting land/waterscapes without pointing directly at a low-level sun, the polarizing and ND grad filters can provide some killer effects.

Oh, and the matte box looks really cool on the camera...

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.

Oh well said Boyd! Can't count how many posts I've made on this subject over the years. Of course there will be shooters like Bill who keep pitting their front elements (what ARE you shooting, Bill? but for most of us 'protective filters' are just a low-grade front element that serves to reduce the hood's efficiency and give you 'double suns' - the most perfect example of total internal reflection (flare) as I've seen.

I got a matte box for my HPX301 mainly for using filters but I have to say it makes it look like a proper camera and the focus wheel was a real help during a drama shoot last week:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/JGN_1556.jpg

I always get a good laugh out of the "why is it so expensive" threads. Other than material cost, manufacturing costs, engineering and whatnot, it's that expensive because people will buy it at that price.

Think of it this way, if you could triple your rate tomorrow and your customers grumbled about it but continued to come back then why wouldn't you?

Great point Ethan!

Brings to mind: Q: "Why do you charge so much for..." A: "Because I can".

Very few (if any) DPs even use a matte box for what it was originally designed for. The last time I actually used a matte, it was on a show that Al Whitlock was doing the background plates for.

Today it's pretty much a glorified lens shade, but the important thing to look for in a matte box is if you are changing lenses quite often, get one that swings away, if not, the next most important thing is that you can change filters very quickly (frameless filter stages are best) and that you can adjust the filter(s) in the stage(s) in very small incremental degrees (and have them keep that setting).

Tip: Put a thin strip of white tape on the inside of the top and side flags, so they don't creep into the frame on very low key shots, and NEVER use the side flags unless you actually have a flare you have to door off. The top flag will control 99.9% of the light spilling into the front element.

Clipping on the side flags just to make the camera look "KeWL" is just another possible element in the chain of disasters that are always lurking around a movie set.

Oh well said Boyd! Can't count how many posts I've made on this subject over the years.

Indeed. And I should really have given you the credit for this Tom, since your posts on the subject caused me to look more carefully at my footage and realize just how right you were. Thanks!

The top flag will control 99.9% of the light spilling into the front element.

In natural light or toplit (aka TV studio style) sets, probably. In a feature/commercial/narrative environment, it's quite possible to have edge lights that would do their damage below the reach of the eyebrow, and this is where the siders come in. Sometimes it's as seemingly benign as a hot window out of one side of the frame. But yes, you do need to be careful and keep an eye out for incursion into the frame. A casual user may well bone the shot this way. But then again there are many other ways to do just that (such as insisting on shooting with super-shallow depth of field when you don't have the ability to consistently maintain focus on the subject).

Patrolling the edges of the frame for unwanted objects such as eyebrow/siders from the mattebox, booms, light stands, reflections and flares is the job of the camera operator. When one also happens to be the DP and the director and who knows what else, it's an extra burden to be sure. But for those who can't imagine why you would possibly need so many people on a "Hollywood" set, all it takes is a few mistakes like this to understand the need for delegation of responsibilities.

Charles,

Yes, or course you are right on, side flags do have their place, and I do use them, just not that often. I have several matte boxes that I use depending on the widest angle of the lens I have up. If the CA sees a flare on the lens (best checked by actually looking at the front element or filter up), I usually have the CA flag it with a camera flag. I find that a camera flag gives me much more options in precisely controlling flares than just the side flags. I'm talking about a box mounted on sticks or a dolly, not a Steadicam rig, and a matte box that does not have a slot for lens angle specific hard mattes.

Most of the features I work on would probably be considered noir, so my lighting is pretty low keyed, working thin stops. I use a lot of flags, gobos, and scrims when I light a set. I also tend to favor shallow rim and thin backlighting for depth, with little punch lights in the "black holes" so that the director gets the look he wants, and I keep the lab happy at the same time. You're not likely to find much errant light on one of my sets, so my suggestions were given with that in mind.

I too use lensers on stands more often than not, but of course these are of limited use for dolly shots. And of course hard mattes are a good start but may not be able to get everything (and talk about something you need to keep an eye on--nothing can kill you like a hard matte on a zoom, then a last minute "tweak" of the focal length resulting in easy-to-overlook vignetting).

I would love it if I always had the time and manpower to set as many lensers as I'd like, but so often these days, it's the final touch that I have to compromise on. And of course I see more than my fair share of Steadicam shots...!

Charles, I was referring to what I call an Arri flag (a camera French flag on an articulated arm).

I also put that white tape on the inside of my hard mattes. A quick shine in with a penlight makes sure the Op has not changed the aspect ratio inadvertently when using a zoom.

On a flying rig, we are at the mercy of the DP and the actors hitting their marks when we hit ours :)

I was just watching one of the extra features on the new Star Trek disk and it made me think of this thread. Abrams was in love with anamorphic flares and did all he could to intentionally create them. There are a couple crew members in the BTS footage just out of frame with big flashlights pointed right at the camera lens to create flares.

O Of course there will be shooters like Bill who keep pitting their front elements (what ARE you shooting, Bill? but for most of us 'protective filters' are just a low-grade front element that serves to reduce the hood's efficiency and give you 'double suns' - the most perfect example of total internal reflection (flare) as I've seen.
LOL. Tom: I've spent a lot of time with blacksmiths and metalsmiths and craftsman with lots of bits of hard/hot objects in the air. Not to mention all the renovation shows with power tools and saws. And don't get me started on the food fights at food competitions!

Oh, and I live in the land of perpetual winter rain...

I try to buy as good a protective element as I can and change it out every year or sooner, as needed.

Motion picture cameras commonly have a 85 series filter fitted when shooting daylight scenes. Using a single high quality filter shouldn't have a noticeable effect if you have have your matte box fitted (zoom lenses have loads of internal reflections anyway), but some matte boxes do allow you to angle your filter(s) to avoid double reflections when you're building up a filter pack.

A clear protective glass does make sense in those environments with dirt, metal particles, blank gunshots, rain etc.

Motion picture cameras generally have gates a whole lot bigger than our (typically) 1"/3 chips Brian. We might well be shooting at a focal length of 4 mm, and it's at these tiny focal lengths that filters become a big problem because of the huge dof.

Shoot at 12 mm and your filters will be a lot more invisible, even with non image forming light hitting them.

tom.

That could explain why it is an issue for people. Certainly you'd need to ensure that any filters you use are kept clean.

BTW I've seen rental 2/3" cameras with protective filters, but given that some people clean their lens with their shirt tails that could be understandable.

Audience perception is also a very important factor in lens flares.

A number of years ago, Haskell Wexler, ASC (a die hard Eclair CM3 user - most of "American Graffiti" was filmed with his CM3) adapted a set of 35mm Canon still lenses to his CM3.

While I favored the Nikon system for my 35mm high fashion work (better box, more esoteric lenses: the 28mm PC and 13mm ultra wide linear), I also used the Canon system on occasion, and I have to admit that the Canon lenses were much better as far as flares and inner lens reflections go. That's why Haskell decided to go the Canon route.

Haskell shot a night for night scene with that CM3 / Canon lens combo - where an automobile with headlights on was driving toward the camera, and when the dailies were ready, the scene just didn't look right. The cars headlamps were not flaring in the lens as most viewers were accustomed to seeing, so they had to scrap the shot.

I think that's why directors and we DPs purposely add controlled lens flares to shots. It makes the scene look "more real" because movie audiences are used to it.

I think the only audience members that are 'used to flare' have to live with scratched corneas Enzo, and for them it would indeed look more real.

Degrading a lens' performance in this way is akin to adding barrel distortion in post. Maybe fishes see this way, but I've not met a human who does.

Don't think we were talking about reality, but about the cinematic look that we have all grown up with. We certainly don't see anything like 24p; 60i is much closer to human perception but few want to shoot a narrative on it. Likewise, flares are one of the little touches that may potentially add to the character of a scene. Having the option to preserve or eliminate them is simply one of the desirable options available to a cinematographer.

Many love the classic anamorphic flare and distortion probably best demonstrated by the Panavision anamorphics--that horizontal streak, those oval out-of-focus highlights. There are various filters out there that attempt to recreate this look with spherical lenses. Certainly there's nothing "real" about this look; quite the opposite and therein lies the flavor.

When it comes to headlights, I've never liked the double image you can sometimes get where a duplicate set of headlights appears elsewhere in the frame. Filters are usually the culprit. Many time we will ND or spray the lenses of the headlights with streaks and tips to avoid this or too much flaring. Personally, I think that headlights should only flare if they are a story point, i.e. you are cutting to someone reacting/squinting to the strong light, so the flare becomes a subjective effect in that character's POV. For a standard shot of a car pulling up I'm less interested in seeing excessive flare.

Tom - I agree with the sentiment, but have you seen the new Star Trek movie? It is filled with all kinds of intentional flare. As I mentioned above, Abrams was very keen on this and didn't want to do any of it in post because it wouldn't be "organic" enough. He insisted shooting anamorphic and on film.

In the BTS footage you see them shooting on the Enterprise bridge with no mattebox and two crew members just outside the frame shining lights right into the lens. He also personally hugged the camera and shook it around for every scene in a spaceship. It's a riot to watch him do that to the steadicam guy.

I could have done without all this myself, but... maybe that's more of a subject for the "how to tell if you're an old fart" thread.

I could have done without all this myself, but... maybe that's more of a subject for the "how to tell if you're an old fart" thread.

Amen, brother! Not a fan of flares or shaky cam myself. Every time I see shaky cam, I think of watching the ORIGINAL Star Trek as a child and actually asking my parents why people were throwing themselves at the walls. The OPPOSITE walls...

BTW, I'm 38.

When it comes to headlights, I've never liked the double image you can sometimes get where a duplicate set of headlights appears elsewhere in the frame. Filters are usually the culprit. .

At least one of the standard Canon 2/3" zooms does a terrible double image of any bright light sources when being used at the longer focal lengths.

Don't think we were talking about reality, but about the cinematic look that we have all grown up with.

EXACTLY my point Charles!

You have 5 actors walking down a hallway (cave, tunnel, etc., take your pick) holding flashlights. Now in reality, probably no one would be waving those flashlight all around, but purely for its dramatic effect, I will have them moving them around rapidly and aimed at the lens, sometimes even adding a bit of very light fog to the scene so the light beams stand out as well.

I usually balance out the headlights to achieve an audience comfortable natural look (streaks and tips, etc.), but HID lights are sometimes a real pain to work with, and I usually shoot the lens bare.

BTW, that car headlight scene that Haskell shot with the Canons was a dramatic/suspense scene of a car going up or down a hill (forget which). The camera was on the car (in master and CU's at the curves) a lot. So it was sort of a story point.

My wife hates that shaky cam work that is so popular today, but it can sometimes be used to great effect. A camera is just a tool, it's how you use it that can can add impact to a scene.

Besides the Steadicam, I have a couple of tricked out Figs (one that rotates on a ball bearing race that I can fly with), plus some other trick odds and ends. The point is, that when the director asks "can you do this?", I like to say, "I can try".

Its all about getting the shot.

A number of years ago, Haskell Wexler, ASC (a die hard Eclair CM3 user - most of "American Graffiti" was filmed with his CM3) adapted a set of 35mm Canon still lenses to his CM3.

While I favored the Nikon system for my 35mm high fashion work (better box, more esoteric lenses: the 28mm PC and 13mm ultra wide linear), I also used the Canon system on occasion, and I have to admit that the Canon lenses were much better as far as flares and inner lens reflections go. That's why Haskell decided to go the Canon route.

Haskell shot a night for night scene with that CM3 / Canon lens combo - where an automobile with headlights on was driving toward the camera, and when the dailies were ready, the scene just didn't look right. The cars headlamps were not flaring in the lens as most viewers were accustomed to seeing, so they had to scrap the shot.

I think that's why directors and we DPs purposely add controlled lens flares to shots. It makes the scene look "more real" because movie audiences are used to it.

Are you sure Haskell used Canon still lenses?
I pretty much copied his personal kit years back, and used Canon K35 lenses with my Eclair.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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