Stephen Pruitt
Well-known member
Background
First, let me tell you a bit about our production and the way the matteboxes are being used, as it is clear that different people, working in different situations and using different methods, might possibly come to very different conclusions from those expressed here.
Like a lot of people, my wife, Mary, and I purchased the RED One digital cinema camera, the RED Nikon mount, and a host of Nikon lenses (mostly AI and AIS primes) to make our first feature film (“Works in Progress”—a G/PG-rated romantic comedy). Accordingly, we are not “run and gun” shooters. Rather, we are working in a traditional, slow, and highly-crafted way. Our cameras are almost always mounted on sticks (when they aren’t sitting on a hi-hat or on a dolly) and are completely disassembled and stored for movement from one location to another. Our main DP, Seth Iliff, is a film school graduate, and has experience in a number of digital and film formats. Mary and I purchased, and are using, two RED One cameras (“Lewis” and “Clark”) to make the film. We paid the full retail price for both of our matteboxes, and received both directly from their makers.
I think that the situation we were in wasn’t that much different than a lot of other RED owners: We absolutely needed a quality mattebox system, but we didn’t want to spend $3000 or more for an Arri or Vocas. (I have heard that those systems are amazing, but we just don’t have the coin to make those purchases and still pay our actors and crew a decent wage.) Further, we did not want a “non-native” solution. That is, we wanted a mattebox that would work with the 19mm rails system we already were using on our two REDs. As far as I was concerned, there were only two real options in the low-priced mattebox category: The Hyson Films X-Mattebox and the Redrock microMattebox. This review is a direct result of our experiences with these two units over the past month on our set.
The Contenders
Both the Hyson X-Mattebox and the Redrock microMatteboxnare are quite new to the market, and both sell for similar list prices ($795 for the Redrock and $681 for the Hyson, including the top flag and side wings). At this point in the game, I’m not 100% certain exactly what comes “standard” with each mattebox system, but I do know what’s in each mattebox we are using. Both systems feature swing-away arms, have three filter stages—two rotating and one fixed in the case of the Hyson, and three rotating in the case of the Redrock. As noted above, both have native 19mm rod support; adapters are not needed for use with RED’s standard rails system. In addition, the Hyson also has an integrated 15mm (lightweight) rails mount. This will no doubt be seen as a valuable feature to some individuals, who might want to use one mattebox on several different cameras. (The Redrock mattebox is also available with a 15mm rails mount system.) The height of both matteboxes is fully adjustable through a wide range. The units must weigh within a few ounces of each other. I do not have a scale handy to provide exact figures, but these hands cannot tell the difference between them.
The flag and side wings on the Redrock unit are made of metal, while those on the Hyson are plastic. The finish on the Redrock mattebox, both wings and the mattebox itself, is a slick, although not overly-reflective black paint. The Hyson is finished in a very roughly-textured black surface that attempts to mimic the unusual texture on the plastic flags and side wings.
The filter holders of both units are made of sturdy metal, and, as supplied, hold standard 4” by 5.65” filters. The joint facts that 1) the Redrock filter holders have an easy-to-load spring catch, while those of the Hyson do not (you have to hold the filter while tightening a screw to hold each filter in place), and 2) the Redrock filter holders have a much larger filter contact area around the edges (compared to less than ¾” on two sides in the case of the Hyson) are, in our view, clear advantages in favor of the Redrock. After all, it would only take the breakage of but a single filter to more than make up the difference in price between the two units.
Both matteboxes come with a number of donuts to fit lenses of different sizes. Both systems’ donuts are made of a foam rubber substance, but those on the Redrock microMattebox are vastly better engineered (if slightly heavier in weight). They are ¼” thick and much easier to pop into place than are the thin donuts on the back of the Hyson. Also, whereas the donuts of the Redrock are actually inset into the back of the mattebox, the donuts on the back of the Hyson are flush-mounted to the back, do not fit tightly in the five clip holders, and might, in certain circumstances, allow some light to leak into the back of the mattebox.
Aesthetic judgments are, of course, completely subjective, and there is no question but that a camera with a mattebox looks much more professional than one without. That said, however, to our eyes, the Redrock mattebox appears more professional than the Hyson. It is not that the Hyson is not a good-looking unit (it certainly is); rather, it is just that it looks like more of a collection of screwed together parts than a fully-integrated system. And, speaking of screws, the screws on the Redrock are inset and flush-mounted, while those of the Hyson are standard machine screws. We believe this minor difference adds to the more professional appearance of the Redrock, but probably has nothing to do with the overall functionality of either unit. Continuing along this theme, I would clearly be remiss were I not to mention that the support arm of the Redrock microMattebox is a work of art, complete with highly functional carbon fiber adjustment tubes. The Hyson support arm, in contrast, has more of a "Frankenstein" appearance.
In Use
Here’s where the real differences between the Hyson and the Redrock matteboxes were most clearly in evidence. Simply stated, the Redrock mattebox is a joy to use. Its simple swing-away arm mechanism (activated by lifting a single, spring-loaded catch on the top of the arm), made switching lenses a breeze. It was simply a matter of pulling up the catch, swinging away the arm, swapping out the lens, and then swinging the mattebox back into position (no need to lift the catch again). You’re ready to go in seconds! If you need to adjust the front spacing of the microMattebox, no problem. You just release one, large adjusting screw (with an easy to grip plastic head), slide the mattebox forward or backward on the carbon fiber posts, and you’re finished. Need a greater range of movement? Simply loosen two large plastic-headed adjustment screws on the bottom of the support arm and slide the entire mattebox forward or backward on the RED’s 19mm rails—simple, painless, and very, very quick.
The Hyson proved much more difficult to use in practice, and these difficulties lie at the root of our chief complaints about the X-Mattebox. First, there is the rails mount. This thing is a mess. The problem is that both the horizontal adjustment of the mattebox (across the film plane) and the movement back and forth on the rails (in line with the film plane) use the very same tighteners. Unscrew the mattebox to slide it back and forth on the rails, and you can also mess up your alignment across the film plane (however, the very rough finish on the Hyson does mitigate this somewhat). Worse still, when the screws are loosened, the whole mattebox becomes loose on its moorings. Without question, this integrated mount system is the biggest single issue we have with the Hyson, but it is one we have to deal with every time we set up. It doesn’t help matters that you have to constantly move from one screw to the other, tightening a little here, a little there, and keep your fingers on top of the machine bolts so that they will stay appropriately seated in their channel. It might be a two-handed operation for some, but we’ve found three hands were often required to get things anchored down tightly. Unfortunately, swinging the arm away to change a lens with the Hyson is no simple matter, either. It takes loosening two screw mechanisms—one at the back of the arm, and one underneath the arm—to loosen, move, and then retighten the arm. It certainly is workable, but it isn’t particularly elegant.
While the metalwork on the front of the Hyson is adjustable, and may come in handy for using exceptionally wide lenses, we haven’t yet really found a need for these adjustments, and believe the one-piece metalwork on the Redrock to be superior. However, it must be noted that the widest lens in our quiver is Nikon’s 16mm (which is not terrifically wide by RED standards). Other individuals, with exceptionally wide lenses, may really appreciate the Hyson’s great flexibility in this respect.
Conclusions
Having never worked with an Arri or Vocas mattebox, I probably do not know what we are missing by using the Redrock and Hyson matteboxes. How a simple product like a mattebox, however, could be worth almost $5000 is just beyond this economist’s imagination. Those two units (and others like them) may well be worth the money for cameras that are subjected to daily rental use. However, for those of us who are using our RED cameras ourselves on our own film projects, I think that the two "budget" (i.e., under $1000) matteboxes reviewed here—Hyson Films’s X-Mattebox and Redrock Micro’s microMattebox—are clearly the way to go. Both will provide you with functional light control, and both certainly can hold a filter. But, in our view, the Redrock mattebox, despite its slightly higher price, is the real bargain in bargain-priced matteboxes. It is better-engineered, much easier to use, and, to us, at least, looks better to boot. Indeed, we intend to purchase a second microMattebox just as soon as funds permit.
Stephen Pruitt, Ph.D.
First, let me tell you a bit about our production and the way the matteboxes are being used, as it is clear that different people, working in different situations and using different methods, might possibly come to very different conclusions from those expressed here.
Like a lot of people, my wife, Mary, and I purchased the RED One digital cinema camera, the RED Nikon mount, and a host of Nikon lenses (mostly AI and AIS primes) to make our first feature film (“Works in Progress”—a G/PG-rated romantic comedy). Accordingly, we are not “run and gun” shooters. Rather, we are working in a traditional, slow, and highly-crafted way. Our cameras are almost always mounted on sticks (when they aren’t sitting on a hi-hat or on a dolly) and are completely disassembled and stored for movement from one location to another. Our main DP, Seth Iliff, is a film school graduate, and has experience in a number of digital and film formats. Mary and I purchased, and are using, two RED One cameras (“Lewis” and “Clark”) to make the film. We paid the full retail price for both of our matteboxes, and received both directly from their makers.
I think that the situation we were in wasn’t that much different than a lot of other RED owners: We absolutely needed a quality mattebox system, but we didn’t want to spend $3000 or more for an Arri or Vocas. (I have heard that those systems are amazing, but we just don’t have the coin to make those purchases and still pay our actors and crew a decent wage.) Further, we did not want a “non-native” solution. That is, we wanted a mattebox that would work with the 19mm rails system we already were using on our two REDs. As far as I was concerned, there were only two real options in the low-priced mattebox category: The Hyson Films X-Mattebox and the Redrock microMattebox. This review is a direct result of our experiences with these two units over the past month on our set.
The Contenders
Both the Hyson X-Mattebox and the Redrock microMatteboxnare are quite new to the market, and both sell for similar list prices ($795 for the Redrock and $681 for the Hyson, including the top flag and side wings). At this point in the game, I’m not 100% certain exactly what comes “standard” with each mattebox system, but I do know what’s in each mattebox we are using. Both systems feature swing-away arms, have three filter stages—two rotating and one fixed in the case of the Hyson, and three rotating in the case of the Redrock. As noted above, both have native 19mm rod support; adapters are not needed for use with RED’s standard rails system. In addition, the Hyson also has an integrated 15mm (lightweight) rails mount. This will no doubt be seen as a valuable feature to some individuals, who might want to use one mattebox on several different cameras. (The Redrock mattebox is also available with a 15mm rails mount system.) The height of both matteboxes is fully adjustable through a wide range. The units must weigh within a few ounces of each other. I do not have a scale handy to provide exact figures, but these hands cannot tell the difference between them.
The flag and side wings on the Redrock unit are made of metal, while those on the Hyson are plastic. The finish on the Redrock mattebox, both wings and the mattebox itself, is a slick, although not overly-reflective black paint. The Hyson is finished in a very roughly-textured black surface that attempts to mimic the unusual texture on the plastic flags and side wings.
The filter holders of both units are made of sturdy metal, and, as supplied, hold standard 4” by 5.65” filters. The joint facts that 1) the Redrock filter holders have an easy-to-load spring catch, while those of the Hyson do not (you have to hold the filter while tightening a screw to hold each filter in place), and 2) the Redrock filter holders have a much larger filter contact area around the edges (compared to less than ¾” on two sides in the case of the Hyson) are, in our view, clear advantages in favor of the Redrock. After all, it would only take the breakage of but a single filter to more than make up the difference in price between the two units.
Both matteboxes come with a number of donuts to fit lenses of different sizes. Both systems’ donuts are made of a foam rubber substance, but those on the Redrock microMattebox are vastly better engineered (if slightly heavier in weight). They are ¼” thick and much easier to pop into place than are the thin donuts on the back of the Hyson. Also, whereas the donuts of the Redrock are actually inset into the back of the mattebox, the donuts on the back of the Hyson are flush-mounted to the back, do not fit tightly in the five clip holders, and might, in certain circumstances, allow some light to leak into the back of the mattebox.
Aesthetic judgments are, of course, completely subjective, and there is no question but that a camera with a mattebox looks much more professional than one without. That said, however, to our eyes, the Redrock mattebox appears more professional than the Hyson. It is not that the Hyson is not a good-looking unit (it certainly is); rather, it is just that it looks like more of a collection of screwed together parts than a fully-integrated system. And, speaking of screws, the screws on the Redrock are inset and flush-mounted, while those of the Hyson are standard machine screws. We believe this minor difference adds to the more professional appearance of the Redrock, but probably has nothing to do with the overall functionality of either unit. Continuing along this theme, I would clearly be remiss were I not to mention that the support arm of the Redrock microMattebox is a work of art, complete with highly functional carbon fiber adjustment tubes. The Hyson support arm, in contrast, has more of a "Frankenstein" appearance.
In Use
Here’s where the real differences between the Hyson and the Redrock matteboxes were most clearly in evidence. Simply stated, the Redrock mattebox is a joy to use. Its simple swing-away arm mechanism (activated by lifting a single, spring-loaded catch on the top of the arm), made switching lenses a breeze. It was simply a matter of pulling up the catch, swinging away the arm, swapping out the lens, and then swinging the mattebox back into position (no need to lift the catch again). You’re ready to go in seconds! If you need to adjust the front spacing of the microMattebox, no problem. You just release one, large adjusting screw (with an easy to grip plastic head), slide the mattebox forward or backward on the carbon fiber posts, and you’re finished. Need a greater range of movement? Simply loosen two large plastic-headed adjustment screws on the bottom of the support arm and slide the entire mattebox forward or backward on the RED’s 19mm rails—simple, painless, and very, very quick.
The Hyson proved much more difficult to use in practice, and these difficulties lie at the root of our chief complaints about the X-Mattebox. First, there is the rails mount. This thing is a mess. The problem is that both the horizontal adjustment of the mattebox (across the film plane) and the movement back and forth on the rails (in line with the film plane) use the very same tighteners. Unscrew the mattebox to slide it back and forth on the rails, and you can also mess up your alignment across the film plane (however, the very rough finish on the Hyson does mitigate this somewhat). Worse still, when the screws are loosened, the whole mattebox becomes loose on its moorings. Without question, this integrated mount system is the biggest single issue we have with the Hyson, but it is one we have to deal with every time we set up. It doesn’t help matters that you have to constantly move from one screw to the other, tightening a little here, a little there, and keep your fingers on top of the machine bolts so that they will stay appropriately seated in their channel. It might be a two-handed operation for some, but we’ve found three hands were often required to get things anchored down tightly. Unfortunately, swinging the arm away to change a lens with the Hyson is no simple matter, either. It takes loosening two screw mechanisms—one at the back of the arm, and one underneath the arm—to loosen, move, and then retighten the arm. It certainly is workable, but it isn’t particularly elegant.
While the metalwork on the front of the Hyson is adjustable, and may come in handy for using exceptionally wide lenses, we haven’t yet really found a need for these adjustments, and believe the one-piece metalwork on the Redrock to be superior. However, it must be noted that the widest lens in our quiver is Nikon’s 16mm (which is not terrifically wide by RED standards). Other individuals, with exceptionally wide lenses, may really appreciate the Hyson’s great flexibility in this respect.
Conclusions
Having never worked with an Arri or Vocas mattebox, I probably do not know what we are missing by using the Redrock and Hyson matteboxes. How a simple product like a mattebox, however, could be worth almost $5000 is just beyond this economist’s imagination. Those two units (and others like them) may well be worth the money for cameras that are subjected to daily rental use. However, for those of us who are using our RED cameras ourselves on our own film projects, I think that the two "budget" (i.e., under $1000) matteboxes reviewed here—Hyson Films’s X-Mattebox and Redrock Micro’s microMattebox—are clearly the way to go. Both will provide you with functional light control, and both certainly can hold a filter. But, in our view, the Redrock mattebox, despite its slightly higher price, is the real bargain in bargain-priced matteboxes. It is better-engineered, much easier to use, and, to us, at least, looks better to boot. Indeed, we intend to purchase a second microMattebox just as soon as funds permit.
Stephen Pruitt, Ph.D.
