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

[David Mullen ASC]

Matteboxes in general are incredibly over-rated.

I see people who have older lenses use big matteboxes to pimp up their cameras. Mostly it's just about showing off. Rather stupidly, I might add.

For Cooke Speed Panchro, Zeiss Standard Speed and Superspeed (and other older glass), regular 4x4 filters do the job just well. Yet I keep seeing people use big filters and big matteboxes, spending thousands of dollars in the process.

It's not only their fault, 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.

Heck - I used 3x3 filters with Zeiss Superspeeds with absolutely no vignetting. Both 3x3 matteboxes and filters are dirt cheap. However, for some reason, people are afraid to show up on set with "cheap" stuff like that. Not to mention screw-on filters and shades, which do the job equally well.

Of course, newer glass (which is much bigger in size) needs big filters. But my advice - don't spend thousands and thousands of dollars if your glass doesn't require it. Forget about showing off, and concentrate on telling your story.

You're forgetting that a typical lens package includes primes and zooms, and generally the 35mm cine zooms (such as a Cooke 20-100mm) need the 4x5.6 mattebox even if the primes can get away with a 4x4 or 3x3.

This is why most people invest in 4x5.6 filters, they want to be covered in case they have to use the bigger optics.

 

[David Rasberry]

A matte box and a single set of filters large enough for your largest lens can save money too. You don't need multiple sizes of screw on filters for different lenses.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's easier to just start with a matte box than to find out later that you want to drop in a filter or are getting a flare you can't control otherwise.

Sure it's larger and less convenient. But if it isn't going to be handheld who really cares? Better to be ready with a quick fix than go barebones and have to add extra gear while everyone is standing around waiting.

I would rather have too much than too little most of the time. Just like I would rather have too large of a matte box than too small. Might cost a little more up front but it's cheaper than having to buy it later *and* a smaller option.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think that a 4x5.6 mattebox is that large, but I guess it all depends on what you are used to.

6.6x6.6 matteboxes, however, are huge... I only use them when I need to use an ND grad filter so I have flexibility to raise and lower the grad. There are a few zooms, however, that need a mattebox that large.

 

[Cail Young]

There are a few zooms, however, that need a mattebox that large.

Below 12mm you start needing 6x6 filters as well due to the huge field of view.

We bought an MB-20 and some 5.65x5.65 grads along with 4x5.65 NDs, works great for most lenses without needing 6x6 filters.

 

[Shawn Booth]

In regards to motion photography - screw on filters? On set? That's too much time lost screwing...

Anyway, one unmentioned reason for using a matte box, even for INT work, is they make great handles. The ARRI MB series not so much (although I do it all the time) but Panavision MB's and their style of "attaching" to the camera body make them to most used "handles".

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Below 12mm you start needing 6x6 filters as well due to the huge field of view.

In fact 14mm needs 6.6"x6.6" if you want to use 3 stages, 4x5.65 it is fine with up to 2 stages.

BTW, I always use hard mattes, but not for matting. It is to reduce flare.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...screw on filters? On set? That's too much time lost screwing...

ummm, that would be an advantage, no? :ciappa:

 

[Philip Allister Anderson]

Matteboxes are an important piece of gear. The reason some guys seem to have large matteboxes is that Arri matte boxes are expensive. You can use bellows to fit to a variety of lens sizes, so, having a 6x6 mattebox gives you the ability to fit a mattebox to something as large as an Optimo and then switch to old zeiss standard speeds. I've been on shows where we've done this. it was nice to have a bellows sitting in the lens case that I can switch instead of having an additional matte box. Having that adaptibilty increases speed as well as convienience.
Some operators like to grab the sides of a matte box when going handheld. Cheap matte boxes don't stand up to the abuse that can be delivered in the field when that happens. I agree that a MB-14 does look a little silly with a Zeiss standard speed behind it.

 

[Mitch Gross]

The need for a sunshade of some sort to prevet flaring is the same as wearing a hat with a brim. Keep the sun off the front of your lens (or your eyes) but out of your field of view.

 

[Lee Saxon]

My biggest problem with matteboxes is that screw on plastic lens hoods are $20, screw on filters are a few hundred dollars at most, and matteboxes cost thousands of dollars.

honestly.. Im laughing at the comments that say "to make your camera look awesome"..
I know your joking, but I think some people actually think like this..
the guys who want to "look" like they are the real deal.

Depends on the situation, man. "Looking pro" really does change how some people treat you. I can tell you from experience that getting onto the field at an NFL game with a big professional DSLR is much much easier than with a little prosumer DSLR, for example.

Of course I wouldn't really buy a new camera or a mattebox for this reason, I'm just bein' difficult

 

[16x9 Inc]

Chrosziel 456-Academy

Chrosziel 456-Academy

In fact 14mm needs 6.6"x6.6" if you want to use 3 stages, 4x5.65 it is fine with up to 2 stages.

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.

 

[16x9 Inc]

It's True

It's True

Because they make the camera look extra awesome.

Seriously.

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

 

[Mitch Gross]

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

Yes, and a lot of people buy them to make their cameras function professionally.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I hate that this matters to some clients, but it's my observation that it does matter, a lot. So I say exploit that little quirk of human nature to your benefit, and go buy a huge mattebox.

That's kinda like stuffing a roll of quarters down your shorts, isn't it? > Once she finds out that you don't know how to use your junk to deliver the goods you will become a laughing stock. Worse yet she's going to be pissed and tell all of her hot friends to avoid you.

It's better to spend your thousands on a photography class.

 

[Mitch Gross]

The moment you need to quickly transition between filters and adjust a shade to prevent a light from flaring the lens, both while a producer or assistant director stands over you looking at their watches while you sweat bullets, well that's the moment you will recognize the value of a proper production tool such as a mattebox.

If you're a hobbiest, if you set your own shooting schedule, if you value traveling extra light over more-completely equipped, then there is certainly the argument that a production mattebox is unnecessary. But do not negate the value of the tool itself. You might not need the tool, but there certainly are good reasons for it.

 

[David Rasberry]

My biggest problem with matteboxes is that screw on plastic lens hoods are $20, screw on filters are a few hundred dollars at most, and matteboxes cost thousands of dollars.

I had to use my Tilley hat for a french flag on a construction doco once because the little plastic sunshade wasn't big enough. A modest clamp on matte box setup with a french flag would have been very welcome that day.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I had to use my Tilley hat for a french flag on a construction doco once because the little plastic sunshade wasn't big enough. A modest clamp on matte box setup with a french flag would have been very welcome that day.

Ha, ya got me there! Actually that's happened to me too, especially at football games where I end up on the 'shooting-into-the-sunset' sideline. I'm just a cheapskate

 

[mjeppsen]

That's kinda like stuffing a roll of quarters down your shorts, isn't it? > Once she finds out that you don't know how to use your junk to deliver the goods you will become a laughing stock. Worse yet she's going to be pissed and tell all of her hot friends to avoid you.

It's better to spend your thousands on a photography class.

I appreciate the humor in your response, but to be clear about my point...it's my experience that there are situations where a professional (who is fully capable with the tools) doesn't have a technical need for things like a mattebox in a given setup...but chooses to use them to help inspire confidence from the client/agency/talent. In my experience, this is particularly true with corporate video work. Obviously you still have to deliver the goods.

If you read my post on this topic, I also cite 24 DP Rodney Charters anecdote about Keifer, namely:

"... we were testing more small cameras for drama use and he said again that he doesn’t feel he can perform as intensely in front of a small camera as when he faces a large Panaflex. So I’ll start by reiterating a point I made last time: it’s a good idea to use large matte boxes if you intend to use HDV for drama, so that the actors feel there is something of substance there they can address..."

To reiterate, not once in my post have I suggested that adding a mattebox will conceal inexperience or ineptitude. I'm simply noting that to some clients, appearances really do matter. As noted by Charters, they can also affect the talent's performance. And we should not be naive and just assume that our professionalism and experience will automatically elevate us above that game.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Fair enough Matt. I'm clear on your point. I know that sometimes, you have to pander, but what I am suggesting is that your reel be the primary sales tool, not the size of your lens. I've seen guys use a rig to help close a deal, and it has always left me feeling a little dirty, you know? It's smoke and mirrors and cheap salesmanship IMHO.

I want clients who are sophisticated enough to make choices based upon the value of what they are getting, rather than foolish dreamers signing on with stars in their eyes. Those types are often more trouble than they are worth. They are the ones who want The Matrix look on a DV budget. Sure, if you get enough of them together it can pay the bills, and I've been guilty of similar whoring on occasion but it's never the kind of work that I'm proud of. I do my best to avoid it.

If an actor has an ego problem working with a small rig, then what are you going to do? You may confront them with a big mattebox, but they still know if it is HDV behind the windshield. I'm accustomed to referring those sorts of things to Directors to handle anyway. Seriously though, I don't think Keifer would be telling Storraro his camera was too small, he'd simply say "It's a pleasure to work with you." I sure wish I was a Storraro.

A big mattebox doesn't inspire real trust, it just dazzles them with bullshit. I'm really a no bullshit kind of guy. If there is a chance that I'll need it, and it won't get in the way... if the benefit out weighs the trouble... then I'll put it on. With a mattebox, there's always a chance that you'll need it.