I use the Bescor battery...it was recommended by Steev Dinkins. I have had semi-good results with it. It's very convenient and not as heavy as those other V-mounts. However, it's hard to find a place to attach it to. Also the batter life doesn't seem to be very good. Sometimes it last for a while and other times it just seems to fizzle out and die. I don't know. But recently I have been contemplating getting a new battery or at least a back up for this. It's just not that reliable in my opinion. I am also going to get a new mount for the Marshall. Like you guys mentioned its just a headless bolt...but it's difficult to use it that why especially on location when you need to adjust it around. It's just temporary.

what type of matte box do you guys have? thanks!

hey Motivity,
fun footage to watch and great quality...
i too am looking into the Redrock M2, but the only major reservation i have is the flipped image - although to unflip in post is easy enough, my concern is it's at the cost of a render, and since every single friggin clip goes through the render and possibly a CC and what not... i have reservations... but i must admit on a little window, watching your footage just now, was nice...

would you please elaborate on whether you noticed any loss in quality with the render-flip and was any deterioration noticeable (and would you mind letting us know what format we watched - guessing 720pn)

great job and thanks for any info,
Lonnie

Hey Jason, we use this one...

http://www.indiesnap.com/?gclid=CPfN...FQfsSAodFg2VDA

I didn't notice any quality loss, when flipped in the final cut pro timeline you do see a green render line if editing with a powerbook or slower g4 processor, with a G5 your system is fast enough to display the flipped (180 degree) image in realtime. Logically it doesn't make sense that your image would lose quality if you flipped it. It's just an effect attribute to your clips turning them upside down, not decreasing quality. I'm kind of confused.

And yes that was 720pn... if anything I would say our quality increased!

We were only using my Nikon lenses, although good lenses... I am curious to see the results of what a really great lens would yield... like some ULTRA PRIME LENSES.

I´m realy impressed of what you guys are doing.. wow!!

Although we've all been wishing for more affordable matte-boxes like this one mentioned, it has two very (and in my opinion, serious) limitations that should be pointed out for those who've never owned/used a matte box:

Most matte boxes allow you to change the opening/angle of both the french flag and sidewings so that when you're shooting from wide to tele you can close down each side as much as possible to prevent any stray light hitting the front lens element.

The Indie Snap doesn't allow for any changes in flag/wing angle as they are all in a fixed position. Take a look at the image of their matte-box, second one down from the top on the matte-box page; this clearly illustrates the point - unless the stray light source is coming from a completely oblique/side angle it will easily hit the front of the lens - and you have no way to close the side wings to prevent it.

It's second major limitation is that is has no rotating filter stages - you must roatate the entire box to accomplish that. It's obvious that they did this so that you could reach in front and rotate screw-on type filters instead of the 4x4 drop-in type, however if you've purposely flagged out stray light and then have to rotate the box to accomplish a filter rotation then you've also ruined your flagging setup and rendered the flags useless.

If you look in the Image Gallery here on this forum, I posted pics of the HVX with the Century Optics/Vocas matte-box. You can clearly see that it allows for changing angles of all the sides, and it's not plastic, it's composite which has held up perfectly in Arizona mid-day summer heat. And it has one rotating and one fixed filter stage.

Yes, the Century/Vocas system is much more costly than the Indie Snap as are any of the well designed systems, but in my opinion the Indie Snap has no more usefulness than the standard lens hood supplied with the HVX.

I agree with Robert. All of his points are valid. And should listened too.

Cost was the big factor. I have forked out "a lot" of money already and this was one area where for me a Matte Box was take it or leave it. And if this is where any of you are at then go with an Indie Snap.

It was funny reading an article about how Keifer Sutherland couldn't perform in front of a camera unless it had a huge matte box. It had nothing to do with any filters being used. The matte box was simply attached to the camera. This was a psychological thing for him. He needed it to feel like a professional actor. And I will tell you how much credibility whether warranted or not a nice big ole' matte box lends. Sorry if people don't believe me but I get jobs because it makes the camera look professional. Especially with the M2 attached.

For me, I am confident in how my footage turns out. I don't need an expensive matte box to make a huge difference.

All that to say, if I felt like paying the money I would have definitely purchased a Chrosziel or century optics.

David

cassidy and those in the know,

it has been explained to me, and please correct me if i'm wrong, that any effect, transition, most anything other than a simple straight cut edit, involves a renderering (although today's g5's do it faster than real time), there's still mathmatical computations and truncating of data or rounding off of data - thus a minor loss in quality...

now my question is, cassidy's footage looked terrific, and obviously every frame went through the above mentioned hoops, bells, and whistles, so is the quality loss just negligible of this type of "effect" (an image flip)...

any Redrock Micro people care to chime in...

your thoughts would be appreciated,
Lonnie

Well I can't imagine that the loss in quality is anything to be worried about. If you are compressing video that is one thing for quality loss. But color correction, you would never be able to notice it with the human eye. Or else people wouldn't do it. So I don't see why it matters.

The image flip doesn't do anything to the quality. It's just upside down. The truth is that since you are shooting in HD you have so much more information to work with when it comes to color correcting etc. And it's wonderful how all effects hold up after filters etc.

All that to say, don't worry about quality loss. It's very very very small price to pay for the look you want.

Yes, I would say using the Magic Bullet filters actually make it look better...

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mabusu.html

The magic bullet filters in After Effects 7 actually use a 32 BPC (Bit Per Channel) renderer. It's HDR (High Dynamic Range) Which allow for more realistic lighting and deeper & richer blanks, plus whites aren't as blown out.

You can actually even use 64 BPC, but that would be for uncompressed 4:4:4 compression ratio.

cheers

I agree with the crane/scoup section. That was some nice footage. The editing was nice with the slow-mo to speed up transitions too. Good stuff guys.

Is the vignetting due to the M2? Or was that a post effect you guys used?

I'm looking into picking up one of these but I need to find a sturdy monitor solution first. Also, I heard that they are coming out with a version that auto flips the image so it's correct from the get-go. Have you guys heard anything about this?

Does Magic Bullet have to be used with After Effects or can it be used as a stand alone with FCP?

Thanks... no i haven't heard anything about the flipped monitor solution, are method seems to suffice for now though... but if our battery on the HD monitor went out we'd be screwed.

The vignetting was magic bullet vignetting, with the gamma up to help create a burn effect...

No it doesn't have to be used with AE, can be used with FCP...