Why do you need a matte box if you're not using a matte?

[Satsuki Murashige]

... many vendors/sellers/manufacturers say you MUST ABSOLUTELY use 4x4.5 filters or 6x6 or sizes like that, when in fact you only need smaller sizes.

In a lot of cases, the prevalence of 4x5.65 filters on set is because:

a) You want one filter set to cover all of your lenses, even the wide ones.
b) They are available in much more variety (hard to find that 4x4 Smoque 1 or Glimmerglass 1).
c) You want more vertical control over grad effects.
d) They cost practically the same to rent.
e) They're yours and you'd rather get the kit rental on it than give it to the rental house.
f) You want to use a swing-away matte box (don't know of any 3x3 or 4x4 swing-aways).
g) You want to use more filters stages (most 3x3 and 4x4 are limited to 2 filters).

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Hhmmm. I take it you haven't met the Chrosziel 456-Academy. It is a Three Stage 4x5.65 system for lenses up to 14mm.

Indeed I haven't and I do not understand how it could not vignette because it is the outer filter frame that starts vignetting, not the shade.

Have you put it on a MP14 on a projector?

 

[Tim Hole]

It's True. You have no idea how many people purchase full-blown matteboxes to make their camera look "professional".

Not forgetting the Kiefer test...

But you do get some very strange looks turning up onset with a pixelvision camera and loading audio cassettes in it.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Off topic but I thought Kiefer chose film over digital because He #1 didnt like the way he looked on HD,
and 2# is a owner of the show and felt that film gave the show a distinct look that he didnt want to change.

 

[16x9 Inc]

Chrosziel 456-Academy

Chrosziel 456-Academy

Indeed I haven't and I do not understand how it could not vignette because it is the outer filter frame that starts vignetting, not the shade.

Have you put it on a MP14 on a projector?

Are you referring to a Lens Test Projector? The Lens Projector shows more than the camera actually sees. We have done exhaustive tests with the mattebox; in fact, one of our first tests was with the RED One. And, our tests have concluded the Chrosziel 456-Academy mattebox to work with (3) 4x5.65 filter holders when using lenses up to 14mm (in 35mm Academy).

p.s. Don't mind the gaffer's tape on the lens; I did not have the appropriate step-down ring with me that day! :biggrin:

 

[Mitch Gross]

Coverage of a 14mm Ultra Prime on a RED One was the first thing I tested when Chrosziel handed me one of these. It does indeed just barely cover. Can't rotate the filters without clipping when that wide, but that's not the fault of the mattebox.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Coverage of a 14mm Ultra Prime on a RED One was the first thing I tested when Chrosziel handed me one of these. It does indeed just barely cover. Can't rotate the filters without clipping when that wide, but that's not the fault of the mattebox.

According to my tests three filter frames in front of MP14 (not UP) WILL vignette on a full width (4.5k) of RED One Mysterium Sensor. It has nothing to do with the mattebox, just physical dimensions of the filter frames alone. On 4k it is marginal. On MX sensor the vignetting will be quite severe.

Yes, if you want to see whether and how much vignetting there is, you put a lens with the mattebox on a lens projector. Otherwise you are only guessing

 

[Pawel Achtel]

p.s. Don't mind the gaffer's tape on the lens; I did not have the appropriate step-down ring with me that day! :biggrin:

Have fun cleaning the goo off when it gets its way to the state of the art T* coating

 

[JonathanF]

The distance between the front element and the front of the lens is smaller on the UP than the MP. For this reason I believe you can get the rear most filter in a three stage MP closer to the front element on the UP's.

Mitch, I bet if you pull out the 14MP you'll find it vignettes. That little extra length of the lens is enough to do you in.

J

 

[Mitch Gross]

I'm not disagreeing. I tested it on a 14mm Ultra because that's what I was told it would clear. When i get around to it I'll see about testing on a Master.

 

[16x9 Inc]

Chrosziel

Chrosziel

Coverage of a 14mm Ultra Prime on a RED One was the first thing I tested when Chrosziel handed me one of these. It does indeed just barely cover. Can't rotate the filters without clipping when that wide, but that's not the fault of the mattebox.

Following are the Rotation Degrees:
Stage 1: 0º
Stage 2: 20º
Stage 3: 190º

According to my tests three filter frames in front of MP14 (not UP) WILL vignette on a full width (4.5k) of RED One Mysterium Sensor.

The Red One M-X Sensor upgrade began on 1/22/10. The 456-Academy was introduced in 2009. Ergo, the testing was done on a Red One w/ no M-X Sensor.

On MX sensor the vignetting will be quite severe.

Once a Red One M-X becomes available we will test our Mattebox/Sunshades.

Yes, if you want to see whether and how much vignetting there is, you put a lens with the mattebox on a lens projector. Otherwise you are only guessing

Familiar with Chrosziel Lens Projectors? Yeah. We know a thing or two about Lens Projectors. :biggrin:

Have fun cleaning the goo off when it gets its way to the state of the art T* coating

Fortunately for me, the barrel has no T* Coating.

I bet if you pull out the 14MP you'll find it vignettes. That little extra length of the lens is enough to do you in.

Looks like we'll be doing more tests in the upcoming days.

 

[mjeppsen]

Fortunately for me, the barrel has no T* Coating.

ROTFL

 

[JonathanF]

I'm not disagreeing. I tested it on a 14mm Ultra because that's what I was told it would clear. When i get around to it I'll see about testing on a Master.

I'd be curious to know Mitch. I shoot MP's more than any other lens these days so having a matte box that would allow me to get 3 stages in front without issue on the 14 would be nice, although I rarely have any need for any more than 2 stages.

J

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Following are the Rotation Degrees:
Stage 1: 0º
Stage 2: 20º
Stage 3: 190º

The Red One M-X Sensor upgrade began on 1/22/10. The 456-Academy was introduced in 2009. Ergo, the testing was done on a Red One w/ no M-X Sensor.

Once a Red One M-X becomes available we will test our Mattebox/Sunshades.

Familiar with Chrosziel Lens Projectors? Yeah. We know a thing or two about Lens Projectors. :biggrin:

The point I was trying to make was that you do not need the MX or full M sensor or even a camera to properly work out whether or not a matte box will or will not vignette a lens. All you need is the lens, the matte box and a projector, espacially if you know a thing or two how to use one

Fortunately for me, the barrel has no T* Coating.

If you make the barrel filthy with goo, the goo will make its way to other parts of the lens, including the glass. By handling the lens you will spread tiny amounts of goo all over and likely contaminate the glass. Another way is by using a wet wipe on the glass and picking up the dirt from the rim of the lens. Professional lenses should be cared for...well professionally and kept clean, including the barrel.

But, I gusess, it is a rental, so it doesn't matter ...

 

[16x9 Inc]

Chrosziel & MPs

Chrosziel & MPs

I shoot MP's more than any other lens these days so having a matte box that would allow me to get 3 stages in front without issue on the 14 would be nice, although I rarely have any need for any more than 2 stages.

We do so much testing, it's kind of a hard to remember all the specifics. This much I know, the Chrosziel 456-Academy works with the UP14 using 3-stages.

I will do an additional test with the MP14 on a Red One. Hopefully, I will be able to get my hands on an R1 M-X.

 

[JonathanF]

The point I was trying to make was that you do not need the MX or full M sensor or even a camera to properly work out whether or not a matte box will or will not vignette a lens. All you need is the lens, the matte box and a projector, espacially if you know a thing or two how to use one

I always do these tests on the projector.

I don't think it's fair to paint all rental houses with the 'I guess it's just a rental' brush.

Some rental houses are more diligent than others when it comes to maintenance, any reputable one is likely doing a good job of it. Abel is one of the best, right up there with CSC and Panavision NY/Hollywood. Another good one is Oppenheimer. I've had equipment out of all of them and the gear was always VERY well maintained. I'm sure Clairmont and Otto Nemenz are just as diligent, I just can't say first hand as I have never dealt with them.

I know some private MP owners who should not be allowed to touch, let alone own, their own MP's (let alone any quality cine lenses). I'll take a good rental house of the private owner almost any day of the week.

J

 

[Mitch Gross]

There should be absolutely no difference in coverage on a RED One sensor with either a Mysterium or a Mysterium-X sensor. The photosite size is the same and the camera allows the use of exactly the same number of them. On future model cameras the technology of the sensor will be the same, but greater coverage will be functional.