Matte box recommendations?

Gabor Lacza · April 30th, 2004, 11:01 AM

Jon,
here are those z-pro filters I talked about.
http://www.2filter.com/cokin/cokinzpro.html

Thanks
Gabor

Gabor Lacza · April 30th, 2004, 08:03 PM

One more thing...how come nobody mentioned the 4x4 Matte Box from Century Optics....??? Is it any good ???
Gabor

Gabor Lacza · May 4th, 2004, 08:22 AM

Anybody can comment on this Century optics matte box??Anybody ever used this ??

Jon Fordham · May 4th, 2004, 11:19 AM

Gabor,

I have not worked with the Century matte box. In fact, I've never run into anyone using one either. But I rarely work in the small format circles where I would encounter one. So I'm sure someone out there is using it. I just haven't run into them.

Like I said, I have not work with this particular matte box system. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like a bad option. Though for my applications, I think it could become a bit limiting. Specificly, it looks as if you may have to mount the 15mm rods on a third party manufacturers rod support plate should you need to mount the matte box on a lens other than a small DV type camera system. Century does advertise a variety of rod support plates for many cameras including the 1/2" DV500/5000. But for larger lens/cameras such as 2/3" models, you may need a third party plate. The other issue that I see with the Century is what appears to be a lack of side wing options. I believe they have a french flag option, but side wings are invaluable to me in many lighting situations. I must say that I do think the Century's integrated eyebrows are rather unique and could be pretty useful.

Bottom line for me is that I'm partial to the Chrosziel that I already have and know for a fact that I can adapt to many, many lenses and camera systems for years to come. But the Chrosziel system comes with a hefty price tag for that adaptability. And as I stated previously in this thread, it's not usually wise to purchase some big fancy system manufactured to the particular camcorder du jour. Technology moves fast. If you can't adapt your mattebox and filter system to other cameras and lenses long after your DV camera is dead and gone, then...

IF you already happen to have a collection of 4x4 filters and you simply require a quick, easy and more economic system to simply attach those 4x4 filters to your HD10 (or comparable camera), then Century (and others) have a simple 4x4 Sunshade that clamps onto a filter ring without the rod support. This type of system goes for anywhere between $250 to $500 depending on the brand. They usually hold two 4x4 filters but do not rotate.

I've been busy and haven't had the time to check out the new Cokin Z's. But I'll take a look at that link when I get a spare moment.

Bill Piedra · May 5th, 2004, 02:00 PM

Can anyone tell me why Matte Boxes are so expensive? Is it the filter frame? Seems to me that there isn't much to one of these things. I understand their 'photographic' value, but I just don't understand why they cost so much.

Has anyone ever heard of someone building their own mattebox. If it didn't need to have the filter stages, I would think this would be pretty easy to do.

Gabor Lacza · May 14th, 2004, 11:55 AM

Jon,
did you had a chance to take a look at those Cokin Z`s??
Gabor

Jon Fordham · May 14th, 2004, 12:19 PM

Gabor,

Sorry. I've been working non stop. Today is my first day off in awhile and I've been in a meeting with InDigEnt all morning. I plan on catching up with all my internet "must reads" this afternoon or this evening. I'll post something as soon as I get a chance to take a look at them.

Heath McKnight · May 15th, 2004, 01:14 PM

Jon,

InDigEnt? Lucky...

heath

Jon Fordham · May 15th, 2004, 04:25 PM

Gabor,

I took a minute to look at the link you provided. Not a lot of info on the Z's. It looks like they are just the same standard line of Cokin filters in a 4x4 size. Also, resin. I suppose for anyone who owned a 4x4 mattebox and really liked the look of a particular Cokin effect filter, then they would be a huge blessing. And I guess it doesn't hurt to start out working with the Z size since they are still vastly more economical than glass filters and should continue to fit most standard mattebox systems for many years to come. Though they are certainly more expensive than the smaller sized Cokin's.

Heath -

I don't know about luck. Just the right resume in front of the right person at the right time. Oh wait, I guess that it is luck! Not as lucky as I'd like to be though...

May 4th, 2004, 11:19 AM	#34
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Gabor, I have not worked with the Century matte box. In fact, I've never run into anyone using one either. But I rarely work in the small format circles where I would encounter one. So I'm sure someone out there is using it. I just haven't run into them. Like I said, I have not work with this particular matte box system. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like a bad option. Though for my applications, I think it could become a bit limiting. Specificly, it looks as if you may have to mount the 15mm rods on a third party manufacturers rod support plate should you need to mount the matte box on a lens other than a small DV type camera system. Century does advertise a variety of rod support plates for many cameras including the 1/2" DV500/5000. But for larger lens/cameras such as 2/3" models, you may need a third party plate. The other issue that I see with the Century is what appears to be a lack of side wing options. I believe they have a french flag option, but side wings are invaluable to me in many lighting situations. I must say that I do think the Century's integrated eyebrows are rather unique and could be pretty useful. Bottom line for me is that I'm partial to the Chrosziel that I already have and know for a fact that I can adapt to many, many lenses and camera systems for years to come. But the Chrosziel system comes with a hefty price tag for that adaptability. And as I stated previously in this thread, it's not usually wise to purchase some big fancy system manufactured to the particular camcorder du jour. Technology moves fast. If you can't adapt your mattebox and filter system to other cameras and lenses long after your DV camera is dead and gone, then... IF you already happen to have a collection of 4x4 filters and you simply require a quick, easy and more economic system to simply attach those 4x4 filters to your HD10 (or comparable camera), then Century (and others) have a simple 4x4 Sunshade that clamps onto a filter ring without the rod support. This type of system goes for anywhere between $250 to $500 depending on the brand. They usually hold two 4x4 filters but do not rotate. I've been busy and haven't had the time to check out the new Cokin Z's. But I'll take a look at that link when I get a spare moment. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

May 14th, 2004, 12:19 PM	#37
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Gabor, Sorry. I've been working non stop. Today is my first day off in awhile and I've been in a meeting with InDigEnt all morning. I plan on catching up with all my internet "must reads" this afternoon or this evening. I'll post something as soon as I get a chance to take a look at them. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

May 15th, 2004, 01:14 PM	#38
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Jon, InDigEnt? Lucky... heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

May 15th, 2004, 04:25 PM	#39
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Gabor, I took a minute to look at the link you provided. Not a lot of info on the Z's. It looks like they are just the same standard line of Cokin filters in a 4x4 size. Also, resin. I suppose for anyone who owned a 4x4 mattebox and really liked the look of a particular Cokin effect filter, then they would be a huge blessing. And I guess it doesn't hurt to start out working with the Z size since they are still vastly more economical than glass filters and should continue to fit most standard mattebox systems for many years to come. Though they are certainly more expensive than the smaller sized Cokin's. Heath - I don't know about luck. Just the right resume in front of the right person at the right time. Oh wait, I guess that it is luck! Not as lucky as I'd like to be though... __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

April 30th, 2004, 11:01 AM	#31
Gabor Lacza Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Budapest , Hungary Posts: 194	Jon, here are those z-pro filters I talked about. http://www.2filter.com/cokin/cokinzpro.html Thanks Gabor

April 30th, 2004, 08:03 PM	#32
Gabor Lacza Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Budapest , Hungary Posts: 194	One more thing...how come nobody mentioned the 4x4 Matte Box from Century Optics....??? Is it any good ??? Gabor

May 4th, 2004, 08:22 AM	#33
Gabor Lacza Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Budapest , Hungary Posts: 194	Anybody can comment on this Century optics matte box??Anybody ever used this ??

May 5th, 2004, 02:00 PM	#35
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	Can anyone tell me why Matte Boxes are so expensive? Is it the filter frame? Seems to me that there isn't much to one of these things. I understand their 'photographic' value, but I just don't understand why they cost so much. Has anyone ever heard of someone building their own mattebox. If it didn't need to have the filter stages, I would think this would be pretty easy to do.

May 14th, 2004, 11:55 AM	#36
Gabor Lacza Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Budapest , Hungary Posts: 194	Jon, did you had a chance to take a look at those Cokin Z`s?? Gabor