why is a mattebox so expensive ?

Charles Papert · November 17th, 2009, 10:55 PM

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...!

Enzo Giobbé · November 17th, 2009, 11:14 PM

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 :)

Boyd Ostroff · November 19th, 2009, 07:41 PM

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.

Bill Ward · November 19th, 2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

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.

Brian Drysdale · November 20th, 2009, 04:06 AM

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.

Tom Hardwick · November 20th, 2009, 04:17 AM

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.

Brian Drysdale · November 20th, 2009, 06:28 AM

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.

Enzo Giobbé · November 21st, 2009, 12:06 PM

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.

Tom Hardwick · November 21st, 2009, 02:50 PM

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.

Charles Papert · November 21st, 2009, 03:05 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · November 21st, 2009, 03:08 PM

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.

Shaun Roemich · November 21st, 2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

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.

Brian Drysdale · November 22nd, 2009, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

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.

Enzo Giobbé · November 22nd, 2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

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.

David W. Jones · November 24th, 2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enzo Giobbé

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.

November 17th, 2009, 10:55 PM	#31
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	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 Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 17th, 2009, 11:14 PM	#32
Enzo Giobbé Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia Posts: 155	Arri flag? 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 :) __________________ Enzo Giobbé www.enzogiobbe.com

November 21st, 2009, 12:06 PM	#38
Enzo Giobbé Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia Posts: 155	Audience perception 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. __________________ Enzo Giobbé www.enzogiobbe.com

November 21st, 2009, 03:05 PM	#40
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	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. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 19th, 2009, 07:41 PM	#33
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

November 20th, 2009, 04:06 AM	#35
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	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.

November 20th, 2009, 04:17 AM	#36
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	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.

November 20th, 2009, 06:28 AM	#37
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	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.

November 21st, 2009, 02:50 PM	#39
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	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.

November 21st, 2009, 03:08 PM	#41
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.