Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Best 4x.5.65 mattebox

I use two that have served me well for a decade. Have never considered anything (unless it's bigger than 138mm.) Arri's MB16 and Arri LMB5 (for run and gun.)
 
Matthew J said:
Hey Jim, is there a chance that OConnor will ever make metal trays for the OBox? I understand that the plastic will probably never break, but metal trays have smoother and easier action to lift the tab to put in/take out the filter. I know other makers trays fit (at least my chrosizel ones do), but they aren't as thick.
Click to expand...

i have an obox, and the trays (the frames that hold the filters) are metal. they slide into a very hard sort of plastic in the actual matte box.

paul
 
I'm looking at 4 different ones.

Arri MMB-1: Basically 3 stages. Dual top-loading 4x4/4x5.65 available, 138mm rear filter holder, ring adapters and flexible light prevention for moving lenses (I have Zeiss ZF right now). Only 1 square and the 138mm filter rotate.

Oconnor O-Box WM: Basically 3 stages. Dual top-loading 4x4/4x5.65, 138mm rear bellows, ring adapters. Only 1 square and the 138mm filter rotate.

Chrosziel 450W-R20: 2 stages only. Dual top-loading 4x4/4x5.65 filters that both rotate. No rear 138mm filter holder. Probably the lightest of them all. Made of carbon fiber. The top flag folds in half.

Chrosziel 450-R30: 3 stages, top-loading 4x4/4x5.65 filters that all rotate. No rear 138mm filter holder, but they do make a 138mm filter tray that slides into a 4x4/4x4.56 slot. Made of carbon fiber. The top flag folds in half.

Still not sure which to get.
 
We don't have it listed on the website but you can contact our Sales Dept. in NY, LA or Chicago to get a quote.
 
Matthew J said:
Hey Jim, is there a chance that OConnor will ever make metal trays for the OBox? I understand that the plastic will probably never break, but metal trays have smoother and easier action to lift the tab to put in/take out the filter. I know other makers trays fit (at least my chrosizel ones do), but they aren't as thick.
Click to expand...

Hi Matthew, we'll be in touch regarding looking at your trays. They definitely shouldn't have a problem with the retainer action.

In any case, we switched from metal to our "O-Fiber" composite (same as the sunshade) on many O-Box components because we were getting pressure from all sides to reduce weight as much as possible. It was a hard decision because it required a much more substantial investment in complicated tooling and thus we had to add a goodly amount of time before we break even, but it did allow us to reach an unprecedented weight-to-stability proportion.

Regarding questions I've gotten about carbon fiber: there's definitely many good structural applications for CF. But for mattebox sunshades, O-Fiber is better on strength AND is way easier on your pocketbook. If you ever damaged your O-Box sunshade, the replacement has a list price of... $70. Our salespeople originally wanted CF because that "weave look" can be hip, but are total O-Fiber converts now that they see what O-Boxes are standing up to in the field.

But if you still feel the CF urge, just make sure that you're not getting faux carbon fiber. There are several manufacturers out there now using this, it's usually a weak-ish substrate with either a single layer of carbon or a layer of carbon-patterned paper.
 
Ned Wilson said:
My only suggestion for the O'Box in future designs would be to perhaps tap another 3/8" O Grip mount as low as possible. This would make a more relaxing arm position for handlheld when using one O'Grip per side.
Click to expand...

Hi Ned, we'll look at this but it might be difficult to achieve in such a way that it doesn't cause undue bulk. Do you use mainly LWS or studio rods? If studio, you can also get adapters from us that allow you to interface the O-Box directly with the O-Grip bridge, which will give you attachment points down at the rods while still conserving rod space.
 
Does it make sense to use a Mattebox with Canon lenses on a Scarlet? Is the Obox compatible with these lenses?
 
Jack Shanahan said:
Does it make sense to use a Mattebox with Canon lenses on a Scarlet? Is the Obox compatible with these lenses?
Click to expand...

Yes, it makes sense to use a mattebox for MANY different reasons. It's much more than just wanting to eliminate lens flare. With the appropriate adapters, I'm sure it's compatible with just about any lens.
 
Does it make sense to use a Mattebox with Canon lenses on a Scarlet? Is the Obox compatible with these lenses?
Click to expand...

I'm using Canon lenses with the O-Box on my 7D, so not exactly Scarlet, but they're same lenses I'm going to use when my Scarlet arrives. It definitely works and is definitely worth it. If you have lenses that are 77mm in diameter, the 80mm rings will cover that. The only downside (for some) is that it isn't a swing-away design.

The only common Canon lens that's really a problem with matte boxes is the 24-70mm, with its telescoping design. It almost defeats the purpose of using a zoom lens. I have to use it as a "variable prime:" I set it to whatever focal length I'm using for a shot and then slide the matte box back.

Anyway, as far as the best 4x5.65 matte boxes, I'm happy with my O-Box. It's convenient in that it's rail compatible and also can clip on to the lens. It may be a bit on the heavy side for Canon lenses, but I think it's alright. And the Arri LMB-5 is probably the lightest clip-on. Haven't used the MB-19 and don't know much about it.
 
Jeremy Wiles said:
Yes, it makes sense to use a mattebox for MANY different reasons. It's much more than just wanting to eliminate lens flare. With the appropriate adapters, I'm sure it's compatible with just about any lens.
Click to expand...

Other than lens flares and filtering via trays the only other reason I could think of using a mattebox is to impress commercial clients....what am I missing?
 
Jack Shanahan said:
Other than lens flares and filtering via trays the only other reason I could think of using a mattebox is to impress commercial clients....what am I missing?
Click to expand...

Being able to control the amount of light that enters the lens is important, not just for the purpose of reducing or eliminating lens flares which help control contrast, but to also create a more shallow depth of field. If you can cut the light a few stops by adding several ND filters, then you can open your aperture and create a more shallow depth of field. There are also alot of filmmakers who prefer to use some kind of filtration that manipulates color. I'd rather do this in post since we're now shooting RAW. Gradient filters are going to help when the sky is too bright and you can't expose for a subject's face without over-exposing the sky. The Epic's HDRx certainly makes it much easier to deal with dynamic range issues. The blue 85D filter was great to use with the RED one camera when shooting greenscreen, since the blue channel recorded a bit low.

I could go over a dozen other benefits of using different filters in a mattebox that allow you to cut reflections on glass, reduce atmospheric haze, etc. I'd never leave for a shoot without one, regardless if I'm shooting for a client or my own projects.
 
Some of my favorite Canon lenses are 72mm or smaller. (such as the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2)

I'm guessing this means that the clamp-on option won't work? I think the Arri LMB-5 also only offers 80mm rings....

I've actually been pretty happy with variable ND's but I'm not opposed to moving up to a matte box considering that I'm going to purchase an epic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top