Matte Box Woes

[CVB]

So are you volunteering to start the off-topic mattebox filter size/multi matte box poll then?

 

[Ken Willinger]

I have about 20 4X4's that I'd like to keep using. From what I saw of the 18-50 zoom at NAB, I'd say I'll still be able to use the 4X4's with it. It would be great to intergrate a tray that could accomodate all sizes (or most sizes). I know that is asking a lot but nobody thought a 4K camera was going to be possible either!

 

[Finner]

Boothba

A larger matte box can take both the 6x6 and a 4x4 so everyone can use it. Many would not buy a matte box that could not take 6x6. So what you are saying is screw the people who need 6x6 even if it was a matte box that worked for you just a little larger? It should not scare off people from the electronic world because they are moving up to a higher quality camera that takes cine lenses. Lenses that are far superior to the glass they slap on the front of f900 or varicams. Like it or not cine lenses are better and bigger. Bigger just transfers over to everything on the rig. You might think the matte box is a little big until you get the chance to throw on a cooke or angenuix zoom and see how benificial it is to have a matte box that will work with all lenses.

 

[Finner]

I have about 20 4X4's that I'd like to keep using. From what I saw of the 18-50 zoom at NAB, I'd say I'll still be able to use the 4X4's with it. It would be great to intergrate a tray that could accomodate all sizes (or most sizes). I know that is asking a lot but nobody thought a 4K camera was going to be possible either!

The 18-50 was fairly small as far as cine lenses go but I think 4x4 would cut it very close on the second stage.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I have about 20 4X4's that I'd like to keep using. From what I saw of the 18-50 zoom at NAB, I'd say I'll still be able to use the 4X4's with it. It would be great to intergrate a tray that could accomodate all sizes (or most sizes). I know that is asking a lot but nobody thought a 4K camera was going to be possible either!

You'd be safer with 4x5's. It may be time for an upgrade sadly.

 

[JD Holloway]

4x5 for clip on only

 

[Alex Boothby]

A larger matte box can take both the 6x6 and a 4x4 so everyone can use it.

At the cost of size and weight. There is a trade off.

So what you are saying is screw the people who need 6x6 even if it was a matte box that worked for you just a little larger?

No, I actually think your idea of making a larger 6x6 MB AND a smaller (perhaps with clip on) MB is the best idea. I just think that many people looking for the perfect (general use) Red matte box will be looking for a mid-sized MB in keeping with the scale and weight and aspect ratio of Red itself. I don't think it was an accident that Red chose to demo their camera at NAB with the MB-20.

You might think the matte box is a little big until you get the chance to throw on a cooke or angenuix zoom and see how benificial it is to have a matte box that will work with all lenses.

Absolutely true. But on many sets I've been on the MB-14 only comes out of the box when necessary. I wonder how large Red will go with their own line of lenses (hoping that they offer a longer zoom down the road). Does anyone know the front diameter of the Red 300mm?

 

[Alex Boothby]

btw: Jorge Diaz-Amador (now a reduser member) has a useful matte box summery here:

http://cinematechnic.com/products/matte_box.html

snip:

"Tips on picking the right filter size:

4x4 in [102mm] filters are the minimum for professional film or electronic cinematography. All smaller sizes are considered obsolete. 4x4 size filters are only really suitable for standard 16mm and non-widescreen electronic cameras. The are also well suited to small electronic cameras with integrated lenses such as the Canon GL-2 / XL-1 and Sony PD-150.

4x5.65 in [102 x 144mm] With the dominance of the 16x9 aspect ratio, Super 16 instead of standard 16mm, and HDTV instead of NTSC, we reccomend you consider 4x5.65 in filters for Super 16 or 16x9 HDVS or other professional electronic cameras (CineAlta, Varicam, Viper, 1080p, 720p, DVCAM, Beta SP and DigiBeta widescreen). 4x5.65 is also the smallest practical size for 35mm cinematography. The 4x5.65 size is also referred to as "Panavision" size and was originally developed by Panavision as the most compact size that would cover their widescreen anamorphic lenses.

5x6 in [127 x 152mm] filters are not very common, and will only fit the ARRI MB-14 and MB-15 Matte Boxes.

6.6x6.6 in [168mm sq] Is the largest size commonly produced. Choose 6.6x6.6 for 35mm format shooting with graduated filters (grads) and for covering extremely wide angle lenses, or lenses with very large front elements such as the Angenieux 17-102mm.

There are also a few circular sizes in use. These are commonly used for polarizers, star filters, diopters and split diopters and other filters that need to rotate. 138mm round diameter round filters are the most common. This is the minimum size that will cover most of a 4x5.65 filter. 138mm is the most compatible size, and is the size we reccomend for most uses. 138mm holders are available for the ARRI MB-14, MB-15, and MB-18 Matte Boxes. There is also a 6 inch [152mm] round size that is used to cover 35mm format lenses with very large front elements, or wide angle anamorphic lenses. 6in round filters are required for the Angenieux 17-102, and the Cooke 18-100 and 20-100 zooms. 6in round filter holders are compatible with the ARRI MB-14 and MB-15. 4.5 in [114mm] round filters are only compatible with the ARRI MB-14 Matte Box. These small filters will vignette on wide angle lenses in 16mm and we do not reccomended them for Super 16 or 35mm cinematography, or 16x9 widescreen electronic."

 

[Finner]

Does anyone know the front diameter of the Red 300mm?

Thats the big question. I would be suprised if a 4x5.6 worked with it as a 300 needs big front glass to get enough light.

The way I see it is down the line Curt will have to offer at least 2 matte boxes or more and I would end up needing both and I am sure at his price point many would own both. It just does not make much sense to me that the first one he comes out with would not be one that would accomadate everyones ability to use it. As well a 6x6 does not have to be the size of a MB14, it can be a fair bit smaller.

 

[Alex Boothby]

Thats the big question. I would be suprised if a 4x5.6 worked with it as a 300 needs big front glass to get enough light.
.

Yup - Red's glass seems to be right in line with Cooke's.

 

[Finner]

Yup - Red's glass seems to be right in line with Cooke's.

So you can see why I see a MB that takes 6x6 filters as the best choice first and then add a smaller one to the line up. I think to cover the 300 a 5x5 would be minimum so if you need that size anyway you might as well have a MB that is a little bigger and takes the more common 6x6 filters.

 

[Alex Boothby]

I'm not buying the 300mm. :biggrin:

.. seriously though, my arguments try to take into account the wider range of Red users and lenses, including Nikon & Canon glass, B4 and super-16 cine glass. Not sure how the demographics break down.

Question: if Red shoots 16x9 aspect ratio, what are the advantages to 5x5 filters over 4x5.6? I assume it's for polas and grads?

 

[M Olsen]

Hi Paul 6x6 is actually short slang for 6.6x6.6, they are the same thing.

Hey Finner, many years ago when I worked at the Govt Film Studios we put in a big 6.6 x 6.6 order. The purchasing clerk liked a a couple of beers at lunch and he took the .6 off the order. Tiffen made a huge bunch of "custom" 6x6 which of course did not fit. Luckily the machine shop rose to the challenge and modified the trays.

BTW the Canon 300 2.8 is fine with 4x4 and a 50mm mask without restricting light. A tighter mask will then create a "secondary aperture".

Bootha, I think Curt answered your question to me, the circular rear filter was available in either 4.5 inch or 138mm depending on the Matt Box and in my experience whilst usually used for a polariser it was also handy to put the 85s or NDs in to keep the front trays clear for grads.

 

[Finner]

Question: if Red shoots 16x9 aspect ratio, what are the advantages to 5x5 filters over 4x5.6? I assume it's for polas and grads?

I really wouldn't look at RED as a 16x9 camera as it limits what the camera actually is. The sensor is almost an exact match to 35mm film and I would say that is how it should be looked at.

The 5x5 would be needed to adjust grads and I think you would probably need it for the larger diameter of the 300. so like I said if you need 5x5's why not get a 6x6 version because that filter size is much easier to find.

 

[Alex Boothby]

So are you volunteering to start the off-topic mattebox filter size/multi matte box poll then?

A bit late - Just started a poll here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2359

Unfortunately I don't think I did a good job of phrasing the question. Maybe I can edit the thing...

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I really wouldn't look at RED as a 16x9 camera as it limits what the camera actually is. The sensor is almost an exact match to 35mm film and I would say that is how it should be looked at.

The 5x5 would be needed to adjust grads and I think you would probably need it for the larger diameter of the 300. so like I said if you need 5x5's why not get a 6x6 version because that filter size is much easier to find.

I agree with Finner.

I also like the Idea of two matteboxes. A smaller 4x5.6 and a full sized production mattebox for 6.6x6.6 trays.

Perhaps its would be possible to build a modular system (two matteboxes in one) in which you could use 4x5.6 modules along with 6.6x6.6 ones fitting on one box. If this is the case you don't need 5x5 grads. You could use 6.6x6.6 grads instead. I'ts good to have only two filter sizes since filters are very costly. 4x5.6 and 6.6x6.6 will cover all needs.

As mentioned above: A 6.6x6.6 mattebox does not need the size of the Arri MB14.

Hans

 

[JD Holloway]

6.6x6.6 should be the basis for REDbox
But only b/c 5x6 is less common, and its increasingly harder to obtain these sizes.

The even if you don't need the larger size for the 300 (boothba, hot in TO right now eh?), you may very well need it for off-the-shelf super-wides and rectilinears; important with 1.6 crop factor cameras.

One of the cool things about larger MBs is they allow the partial rotation of smaller filters with a bit of work. 4x5.6 will get a fair bit or rotation, even in a non rotating filter holder if you need it to in the field. Lets say when you leave your 6x6s in the hotel room, in Rome, 3 days ago, cuz you was hungover like a bitch, and puked on the American embassy and now you're in Malta and its like...48degrees C in the shade, and you cant control your bowels and and and.....

 

[Dan Blanchett]

I agree with JD and Finner, but I really don't want to buy two MBs. I'd prefer an "all purpose" matte box that can take 6.6X6.6 on down. If I had to choose one size, it would be the size that accommodates the most lens options, and that would be 6X6. If you can make this smaller and lighter than the competition, then it's a no-brainer.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I prefer the smaller profile of a 4x5.6 mattebox on a 35mm cine camera; I only drag out the 6x6 mattebox for shots using grad filters (or I guess some monster zooms). But if I had to use only one, it would be a hard choice. I don't know how you can really make a 6x6 mattebox smaller physically considering the size of the filter trays, etc. Plus since one of the main reasons for using one would be to move filters up & down, or rotate them, you'd want those features.

 

[JD Holloway]

David,

If you only had one, what size would you use given your percieved demographics of the RED user base?

Assume that a smaller clip-on box could follow one year later (or conversly a larger one follows one year later).

J