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 :)

RED PRO Mattebox

Jarred Land said:
Matteboxes are done.. ironically waiting for the shipping box. Ships next week.
Click to expand...

I tried not to, but I gotta say it. "Man I hope my 64GB SSDs and 1.8 module aren't sitting there waiting on a shipping box." The wait is killing me.
 
Trigger, pulled.
 
Man, I just finished ordering the extra bits to clamp my MMB-1 to the Panchros. That's damn sexy, still though, the Arri gives me a little more functionality.

Anyone know where I can get carbon fiber looking contact paper?
 
Haha... Don't stress about the MMB-1, it's good for a compact system. I also have to tip my hat to the OConnor O-Box WM. It's built like a tank and you can mount O-Grips and other aks right to it.

The RED unit looks like a great alternative to the LMB-5 at the moment. Clip on, a bit cheaper, similar weight, includes the 110 and 114 mm rings I need right out of the gate. Also hoping it comes in a nice carrying case like the Bomb EVF does. I think it might based on a comment by Jarred some pages back. See what happens when it gets here. :)
 
No... I don't have a Bomb EVF. I placed my order for it somewhere about when it showed up in the online store. So I'm lost at sea somewhere like most everyone else.

If someone wants to send me one, I'll gladly review it. :)
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Also hoping it comes in a nice carrying case like the Bomb EVF does. I think it might based on a comment by Jarred some pages back. See what happens when it gets here. :)
Click to expand...

That would be so cool if it did. I'm having trouble finding a case that I like for my MB20. I'm not a big fan of huge cases with variable dividers. I want custom molded and compact as possible.
 
Greg Voevodsky said:
Jarrad, I'm sorry for starting this... well maybe not... I just wanted 2 stages that rotate like the industry standard. For RED to come out with two fixed stages for NDs or soft FX makes no sense! - Polarizers need to be rotated and do not work in digital post... and for exposures of skies, I use ND GRAD filters at angles to offset the polarizer's uneven skies and expose for clouds and waves correctly that again will not work in digital post.

Nobody has asked for more stages or a flip out matte box, which by the way saves time on set (thousands of dollars) and why most super high end pro matteboxes like Arri and Pani do flip out?!

So to insult those who want pro features, makes no sense. RED is no longer pro-sumer. Yet most pro matteboxes rotate 1 or 2 stages and flip open.

I don't mean to be a troll, I want a pro matte boxes from Red that ROTATES at least one stage standard. Most filters except for NDs and Polas can all be done in post anyway... Sorry, but I wish this forum would take constructive criticism... being yes men does not help improve products... some of us, are risking ridicule to TRY TO help improve RED.
Click to expand...

The Mattebox does look SEXY, and in some pro environments, to its credit, that helps with crew/client interface more than some of us would like to admit. It really is a beautiful piece of design.

On a slight side-note, diffusion in post does not look the same as diffusion on-lens, and there are specific technical reasons for this, some of which David Mullen gets into in his superb cinematography thread right here on Red User. It is a myth that you can fully replicate optical misting, for example - there is no real digital Pro-Mist equivalent, unless your standards on on the low side, and there is no hope of this ever changing, much like there is no hope of ever completely removing echo from sound. In both cases, the limitation comes down to something akin to physics. The explanation is too long to get into here, but you can look it up. There is a reason why DPs on all studio features use optical diffusion, and that reason is not because they lack awareness of post-workflow or are stuck in "old ways of doing things".


I come from a 3D animation background, and understanding VFX is not a problem, but part of understanding is acknowledging limitations, however inconvenient those limitations might be.
 
Last edited:
Rob Ruffo said:
On a slight side-note, diffusion in post does not look the same as diffusion on-lens, and there are specific technical reasons for this, some of which David Mullen gets into in his superb cinematography thread right here on Red User. It is a myth that you can fully replicate optical misting, for example - there is no real digital Pro-Mist equivalent, unless your standards on on the low side, and there is no hope of this ever changing, much like there is no hope of ever completely removing echo from sound. In both cases, the limitation comes down to something akin to physics. The explanation is too long to get into here, but you can look it up. There is a reason why DPs on all studio features use optical diffusion, and that reason is not because they lack awareness of post-workflow or are stuck in "old ways of doing things".
Click to expand...
Agree. I have the Tiffen DFX software and it works pretty well when these effects are an afterthought. But right now there really is no substitute for the real thing, at least not in all cases and I hate the rendering times. :-)

But at least with Tiffen they have the knowledge of how their filters work and they try their best to simulate them. I'm all for DPs getting the look in camera. Yes, it's a commitment but DPs have done it forever, long before plug-ins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top