Matteboxes: Yea or Nay?

Ted Ramasola · March 3rd, 2010, 08:52 AM

I'm a person that don't buy accessories for form but lots of times I make them for function.
I didn't believe matteboxes were important in the early stages of my career, thats almost 20 yrs ago, thinking I can make do with lens hoods and tape on flags, in short just do it guerrilla style.

However, when I made my lens adapter in 2004, and began using still lenses, I realized how hard it is to flag the wide lenses from flare, the hoods were definitely not big enough. I sat back in the shop and began looking hard at why the film industry uses the MB, I began making measurements and experimenting with flags to simulate the depth of the shade provided by an MB.
I then realized that a typical mb with a top flag can stop flares from light sources or the sun even from relatively low angles not just the high ones.

But one mostly overlooked benefit which I don't see mentioned often is contrast.

In my tests the deep recess provided by the MB adds contrast to an image as compared to a lens protected by a hood.

This is profound on wide lenses, now for those new to this, take note that flares are not just the "common" looking flares that we sometimes use for effects, were you see a series of flare elements whose number depends of the number of glass elements in your lens.

Some flare are so huge that it covers the entire image like haze, you wont know its there since it covers the entire frame. This removes contrast which is subtle in some scenarios.

The MB in combination with a flag and side flaps cuts this down.

This process can be done by flags and an umbrella! But when your out in the field running and gunning doing landscapes, panning shots, moving a lot the MB is essential.

I learned through hard knocks the reason why its important.

I didn't buy one though, I made one. -actually I made two.

So to Charles question, its a Yea for me.

But not in all situations is a mb necessary.

Brian Brown · March 3rd, 2010, 09:37 AM

Holy cow, that is really slick, Ted. Thanks so much for documenting your efforts for everyone.

Chris Barcellos · March 3rd, 2010, 09:49 AM

Thanks to Charles Pappert for starting this thread. It is a question I have had for some time. I actually brought it up again in a thread yesterday about the Rodriguez music video...

And Ted, another fantastic DIY project you have forced on my list.....

Manus Sweeney · March 3rd, 2010, 12:59 PM

Seems like its split between those who use them for their technical advantages and those that use them for how they look.

Those that use them for how they look are then split between those who are open about it and those who insist it's for the technical advantages!

Chris Barcellos · March 3rd, 2010, 01:28 PM

On the technical advantage side, I can see ease of filter use as positive. But the idea that a matte box provide better shading to the lens element than a simple hood, I don't get.

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 ?

Liam Hall · March 3rd, 2010, 03:26 PM

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:)

Ryan Avery · March 3rd, 2010, 04:05 PM

We here at Schneider have teamed up with Lee to offer this version of their holder for DSLR and video shooters that don't want a bulky matte box. This certainly won't replace a matte box for shading purposes but gives you the ability to hold 4mm glass filters in front of your lens.

Available three ways:

4" FILTER HOLDER - Schneider Optics

CENTURY 4X4 5-FLTR KIT W/HLDR - Schneider Optics

4X5.65 LANDSCAPE CONTROL KIT - Schneider Optics

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Jon Fairhurst · March 3rd, 2010, 04:23 PM

4mm? Those are tiny filters! ;)

Ryan Avery · March 3rd, 2010, 04:26 PM

4mm thick. It can accommodate 4x4 or 4x5.65 size glass filters which are 4mm thick. Most if not all versions I have seen to date like the Cokin or traditional Lee holder offer 2mm holders for resin filters.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Mike Peterson · March 3rd, 2010, 05:51 PM

I think I can add some valuable insight into this question after thinking long and hard and weighing all the pros and cons...
mattebox shmattbox

Jon Fairhurst · March 3rd, 2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Avery

4mm thick.

I was wondering if that was the case. :)

Jack Tran · March 3rd, 2010, 09:11 PM

How come no one has mentioned that the mattebox could be used to protect the lens?

I for one keep my 'built rig' of mattebox + 7d + 20mm together. Its perfectly aligned and balanced once, so if i need to fly it, its ready.
If i need to go from one location to another quickly, i can just throw it in my bag and run (dont have to worry about damaging the lens).

My mattebox has take some abuse...

PS. If i need a different focal length, i just pull out another camera.

Charles Papert · March 4th, 2010, 01:15 AM

Fair enough!

Whenever there is a possibility of something hitting the lens, we will drop in an optical flat (clear glass). One could argue that a screw-on filter does the same thing, but the increased proximity to the lens may be a liability if the filter shatters.

Liam Hall · March 4th, 2010, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

But now that we are shooting video with still cameras and their lenses, why would we need matteboxes--the still guys don't seem to use them?

Yes they do. Well kind of:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/...e9ceb3bed9.jpg

One reason few stills shooters don't use a matte-box and accessories is they don't have 2 ACs fetching, carrying and giving the camera TLC. Another factor is the design of stills cameras being very front heavy - it's not like you can pop it on your shoulder if you want to go hand held.

Jon Braeley · March 4th, 2010, 07:48 AM

Actually Cokin do make glass 4mm thick filters that fit matteboxes - and they are high quality - the new released M-Pro series.
Due to the DSLR's and mix with my EX cams, etc, I am moving to this set up mainly for ND's and PLs. The Cokin Pro filter holder is only $60 and you can use a bellows or small matte box made for SLR cams.
When I travel to save space I use screw in filters and large rubber hoods which collapse - great space savers.

March 3rd, 2010, 08:52 AM	#16
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	I'm a person that don't buy accessories for form but lots of times I make them for function. I didn't believe matteboxes were important in the early stages of my career, thats almost 20 yrs ago, thinking I can make do with lens hoods and tape on flags, in short just do it guerrilla style. However, when I made my lens adapter in 2004, and began using still lenses, I realized how hard it is to flag the wide lenses from flare, the hoods were definitely not big enough. I sat back in the shop and began looking hard at why the film industry uses the MB, I began making measurements and experimenting with flags to simulate the depth of the shade provided by an MB. I then realized that a typical mb with a top flag can stop flares from light sources or the sun even from relatively low angles not just the high ones. But one mostly overlooked benefit which I don't see mentioned often is contrast. In my tests the deep recess provided by the MB adds contrast to an image as compared to a lens protected by a hood. This is profound on wide lenses, now for those new to this, take note that flares are not just the "common" looking flares that we sometimes use for effects, were you see a series of flare elements whose number depends of the number of glass elements in your lens. Some flare are so huge that it covers the entire image like haze, you wont know its there since it covers the entire frame. This removes contrast which is subtle in some scenarios. The MB in combination with a flag and side flaps cuts this down. This process can be done by flags and an umbrella! But when your out in the field running and gunning doing landscapes, panning shots, moving a lot the MB is essential. I learned through hard knocks the reason why its important. I didn't buy one though, I made one. -actually I made two. So to Charles question, its a Yea for me. But not in all situations is a mb necessary. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Ted Ramasola http://ramasolaproductions.com Last edited by Ted Ramasola; March 3rd, 2010 at 09:39 AM.

March 3rd, 2010, 09:49 AM	#18
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Thanks to Charles Pappert for starting this thread. It is a question I have had for some time. I actually brought it up again in a thread yesterday about the Rodriguez music video... And Ted, another fantastic DIY project you have forced on my list..... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

March 3rd, 2010, 01:28 PM	#20
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	On the technical advantage side, I can see ease of filter use as positive. But the idea that a matte box provide better shading to the lens element than a simple hood, I don't get. 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 ? __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

March 3rd, 2010, 03:26 PM	#21
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	The Kiefer Test 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:) __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

March 3rd, 2010, 04:23 PM	#23
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	4mm? Those are tiny filters! ;) __________________ Jon Fairhurst

March 3rd, 2010, 09:37 AM	#17
Brian Brown Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Estes Park, CO USA Posts: 426	Holy cow, that is really slick, Ted. Thanks so much for documenting your efforts for everyone.

March 3rd, 2010, 12:59 PM	#19
Manus Sweeney Major Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Amsterdam, NL Posts: 217	Seems like its split between those who use them for their technical advantages and those that use them for how they look. Those that use them for how they look are then split between those who are open about it and those who insist it's for the technical advantages!

March 3rd, 2010, 04:05 PM	#22
Ryan Avery Sponsor: Schneider Optics Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 387	We here at Schneider have teamed up with Lee to offer this version of their holder for DSLR and video shooters that don't want a bulky matte box. This certainly won't replace a matte box for shading purposes but gives you the ability to hold 4mm glass filters in front of your lens. Available three ways: 4" FILTER HOLDER - Schneider Optics CENTURY 4X4 5-FLTR KIT W/HLDR - Schneider Optics 4X5.65 LANDSCAPE CONTROL KIT - Schneider Optics Ryan Avery Schneider Optics

March 3rd, 2010, 04:26 PM	#24
Ryan Avery Sponsor: Schneider Optics Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 387	4mm thick. It can accommodate 4x4 or 4x5.65 size glass filters which are 4mm thick. Most if not all versions I have seen to date like the Cokin or traditional Lee holder offer 2mm holders for resin filters. Ryan Avery Schneider Optics

March 3rd, 2010, 05:51 PM	#25
Mike Peterson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Posts: 85	I think I can add some valuable insight into this question after thinking long and hard and weighing all the pros and cons... mattebox shmattbox __________________ www.insectula.com

March 3rd, 2010, 09:11 PM	#27
Jack Tran Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Houston USA Posts: 90	Protect My Lens How come no one has mentioned that the mattebox could be used to protect the lens? I for one keep my 'built rig' of mattebox + 7d + 20mm together. Its perfectly aligned and balanced once, so if i need to fly it, its ready. If i need to go from one location to another quickly, i can just throw it in my bag and run (dont have to worry about damaging the lens). My mattebox has take some abuse... PS. If i need a different focal length, i just pull out another camera.

March 4th, 2010, 01:15 AM	#28
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Fair enough! Whenever there is a possibility of something hitting the lens, we will drop in an optical flat (clear glass). One could argue that a screw-on filter does the same thing, but the increased proximity to the lens may be a liability if the filter shatters. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

March 4th, 2010, 07:48 AM	#30
Jon Braeley Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 528	Actually Cokin do make glass 4mm thick filters that fit matteboxes - and they are high quality - the new released M-Pro series. Due to the DSLR's and mix with my EX cams, etc, I am moving to this set up mainly for ND's and PLs. The Cokin Pro filter holder is only $60 and you can use a bellows or small matte box made for SLR cams. When I travel to save space I use screw in filters and large rubber hoods which collapse - great space savers.