Matteboxes: Yea or Nay?
 

I think this subject is a pretty fascinating one. Of all the camera accessories you can get for a camera that shoots moving images, few have had as much mystery surrounding them as this. When the indie world started dressing up camcorders ten or so years ago, a lot of people were pissy that matteboxes made by the "establishment" (Arri, Chrosziel) cost $4000 and up. After all, it's just a box. Thus, newbie manufacturers started coming out with ever-cheaper ones to satisfy the hunger for this thing. What was interesting was what percentage of users actually weren't quite sure what they were used for--mostly they wanted to dress up their cameras, either for the fairly logical reasoning that they needed to impress clients who were used to and perhaps expecting a much larger and more impressive camera, or perhaps because the mattebox just made the camera look "cool". I even heard arguments here at DVI that actors somehow gave better performances because they took the production more seriously--because there was a mattebox on the camera.

So what is a mattebox used for? The name of course comes from mattes that were placed in front of the lens to create an effect, like a keyhole, but in modern times those trays are more traditionally used to hold filters. While filters seem to come in and out of vogue (a few years ago I was hearing "never use them, do all my looks in post", it's become clear that the newer breeds of camera need some help if you want to capture the cleanest image possible. IR, hot mirror, ND's (surprise surprise, DSLR's don't have the built-in ND's that 1/3" cameras do), diffusion--these are making more appearances in the indie world and it's a lot quicker and more efficient to stack them in a mattebox than to screw them on a lens. "Swinging a lens" needs to be as fast as possible when nothing else is changing on set but the focal length, and having to play the screwing/unscrewing game each time you swing the lens is, I'm sure we can agree, a cluster frak.

Outside of filters, the mattebox helps eliminate stray light from hitting the lens. While the box and bellows (if present) do a certain amount, an adjustable eyebrow and siders augment this considerably, also hard mattes if your system allows for them. Shooting outside into backlit sun or interiors with low backlights is trouble without a mattebox, unless you are looking to play the flares, which is certainly a valid choice but needs to be exactly that--a choice.

OK, fair enough. 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?

Canon still lenses in particularly are coated to reject flare to a high degree, for one thing. And if your concern is to keep the camera as minimal as possible, it's not the first thing you are likely to add. It's dead weight right at the front of the camera, which makes the already fully-front heavy aspect of shooting handheld with these cameras only worse.

However, all of the reasons given above are still relevant. I've been working with Vincent Laforet over the past few months and until recently, we never had a mattebox on the camera and somehow we got away with it. I figured that it was only a matter of time though--we were mostly shooting controlled environments and using virtually no backlight which helped a lot.

I think for the individual user, it's going to be a judgement call whether its needed or not. If you previously had a mattebox just for show and never really used its various features and functions, maybe you can sit this round out. Save some bulk, save some bucks (certainly, screw-on filters are cheaper than 4x5's). Just today I was feverishly number-crunching lens heights of each body against distance to mini-rods to make sure they all line up properly, as I design my new production rig to handle all of the Canon DSLR's--I'm looking forward to dusting off my Chrosziel mattebox and having that control back again.

What say you?

I think that's a very good question? And your point about stills guys not using them is understandable. If I had to guess though the difference might be that it's easier to prevent glare for stills than it is when filming moving objects (while you yourself are moving). But I always found them to be unecessary myself.

I use it because it's very easy to add/remove filters within seconds. You can only use one screw on filter - vs several drop ins.

As far as still lenses that reduce flare - is exactly that. They help reduce flare, but it doesn't remove it. Matte boxes don't remove flare either - though, couple a mattebox with flare rejection technology on stills and you have yourself even less glare. Regardless of it's technical benefits - I'm sure a lot of people who've filmed with and without them (who've used them in the past) will agree that clients and actors alike tend to be in more /serious mode when you're using one.

My 2 cents.

It's all about the Kiefer Test.

I'm a fan of the matte box but it depends on the situation. The biggest plus that I don't see mentioned much is you can use graduated filters. You can also pick how much of the grad you want to use by sliding it in or out of the filter channel, you can rotate it as well. This is great for nailing exposure in situations like shooting outside, where the sky may be a couple stops brighter than anything else. Comes in real handy for windows too.

It's also real easy to rent a bunch of 4x4 glass filters and they work with any lens. You can rent a nice set of Tiffen nd's and grads for pretty cheap and they give you a ton of control with the 7D.

That and the Kiefer factor!

You can stack round filters if you use a step up ring and larger sizes. It's only the super wides where you will run into trouble.

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...

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

No, the Kiefer test has been mentioned a couple times now...

whats the kiefer test?

Kiefer Sutherland, the actor in 24 didn't want to be filmed acting in the 24 show with an HD DSLR

Ha ha...no...I don't think that's quite it. He is used to working with larger cams that used really big matte boxes (I guess it felt more professional to him). I don't think it mattered if it was a DSLR or not...he just couldn't concentrate when there was a small cam in fron t of him.

maybe basing a decision whether or not to buy and use a mattebox on the comment one particular actor once made in one situation is a little bit over the top though?!

(unless of course you have a shoot with kiefer sutherland!)

For me they are a waste of money and more important, I travel a lot and have to limit my accessories.

I do use a matte box on my EX3 and 4x4 filters, but then I shoot on a tripod 100% of the time. But even here, I could easily use a small hood and screw on filters. I doubt it ever made a difference to my work if I did - and I would have saved $1,500! Last trip I left the matte box at home - only one time I worried about flare (in the Himalayas) and I just shaded the lens manually.

For my 7D, a matte box adds too much weight in the worst place - on the lens. I am looking for extra large soft rubber hoods which I favor. Most shooters only use ND's anyway, so why not get screw type and step down rings. Save yourself $1,000 and buy all the rest of the stuff you really need - a good recording set up for instance.

Burk, thanks for the note on the grad filters--that was somewhere in the back of my mind and I forgot it. I think that a lot of people haven't had the chance to experiment with these yet.

At this stage of the game, I feel like color grads (sunset etc) are probably best left to post where you can dial the effect in more carefully, track it as needed. But ND grads are still valuable to bring skies under control, certainly with the DSLRS that aren't noted for their highlight management.

As to this so-called "Kiefer Factor"--I can't speak to the reasons behind that gent's concerns but over the years, I have never yet encountered an actor who has had problems acting to a small camera. In fact, I've often found just the opposite. Actors generally don't care for the sturm und drang that can go hand-in-hand with filmmaking, particularly if they are in their moment just before the take begins and the camera requires attention. The process of shooting film required constant reloads and slating each take; with the advent of digital some directors have opted to just keep the camera rolling so that the moment becomes all theirs and the actors, and I've talked to a few that really like that they can move to the next take without interruption. There's a lot of things that make this bad for crew, and especially if you are operating handheld or Steadicam, trust me! When DV filmmaking first came in, a lot of actors responded favorably to the smaller camera because it felt more intimate to them and less "fussy".

In all of the projects I directed I never had an issue with actors taking things less seriously because the camera didn't have a mattebox. It's a little confounding to me how many stories I've heard to the opposite. I can only imagine that it involves actors who haven't spent much time on larger sets feeling a little self-important. But I also think it might speak to the tone that a director establishes on set, what kind of confidence he/she projects that makes an actor feel comfortable and that they are in good hands.

You don't need a matte box to use drop in filters. There are several ranges with Cokin perhaps being the best known COKIN Creative System - The Holder System

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.

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

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.....

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!

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 ?

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:)

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

4mm? Those are tiny filters! ;)

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

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

I was wondering if that was the case. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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'.

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

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 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!

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...

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.

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!

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.

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.