An Arri matte box for the JVC GY-HD200?

[Simon Glidewell]

Hello everyone!

This is my first post on the forum, even though I've been reading threads here for some time. Anyway does anyone know if there is a suitable Arri matte box for 4x4 filters (preferably) and 16:9 aspect ratio ready for the JVC GY-HD200/201 camera and its stock Fujinon lens? I would like to use 15mm bar support and possibly a follow focus. If someone has a set up like this on their camera it would be great to see a photo or two. Any suggestions about a suitable follow focus unit/gearing for the Fujinon lens would also be helpful plus info about what donut size the Fujinon lens takes (I don't have the camera yet so I'm unsure what the diameter the lens is).

Many thanks
Simon

[Andy Shipsides]

Hey Simon

I'm a big fan of the Arri MMB-1 Mattebox and MFF-1 Follow focus system. Which goes on 15mm rods and can be quickly setup to work with the stock Fujinon Lens with a ring adapter. Check out the links below:

Arri MMB-1 Basic Mattebox Kit :: Mattebox Systems :: Matteboxes & Sunshades :: Equipment Sales :: Abel Cine Tech

Arri MFF-1 Follow Focus Kit :: Follow Focus :: Follow Focus & Bracketry :: Lens Components :: Equipment Sales :: Abel Cine Tech

Andy

[Claude Mangold]

Simon, I use a Vocas Mattebox, flags and Followfocus. While the mattebox is really satisfactory (with just a minor issue about the adapter ring) and has those great eyelids, the followfocus is not.

The biggest issue is the counter-intuitive rotation with many lenses, including 35mm primes. This is not just Vocas but also the very expensive double-sided Chrosziel FF etc.

The Arri FF Andy suggests looks like a much smarter unit because one can reverse rotation (this supposedly also works with the Vocas FF but in practice its build makes it impossible to reverse)

The stock Fuji lens diameter is 82mm

[Robert Rogoz]

Just out of curiosity and totally off the topic: would someone (logically) explain why do these companies charge so much for these items? Matte box or follow focus aren't complicated or hard to make as far as manufacturing process. Even if you use 7075-T6 aluminum or something similar there is probably 10 bucks worth of materials and any machine shop will produce the parts literally for pennies.

[Andy Shipsides]

Arri produces everything in house and they spend a great deal of time developing new products. If you buy an Arri product you can be sure it will out live your camera. Abel worked with the designer on this Mattebox and Follow Focus and we saw all the steps that goes into producing a quality product. I agree that the actual materials aren't that expensive by themselves.. however the time put into each unit and the number of products they can plan on selling are what determine the price. There are companies out there that produce cheaper products but either they aren't well made or they are ripping off another manufactures design.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Just out of curiosity and totally off the topic: would someone (logically) explain why do these companies charge so much for these items? Matte box or follow focus aren't complicated or hard to make as far as manufacturing process. Even if you use 7075-T6 aluminum or something similar there is probably 10 bucks worth of materials and any machine shop will produce the parts literally for pennies.

Having had stuff made in machine shops, I can assure you it's not pennies, it's quite expensive if you're used to mass produced prices. Any savings tended to be professional camera agents mark ups and even then the pieces I had made didn't involve any complex machining like making gears etc, just more basic machine work.

[Simon Glidewell]

Many thanks for all your replies fellas! Much appreciated and very helpful.

All the best
Simon

[Robert Rogoz]

Again- off the topic. Andy and Brian, I have to respectfully disagree. Having worked in a facility with a machine shop for a few years I think these items are overpriced. As far as any engineering/production process your biggest expense would be strength testing and implementation of ISO 9000. None of the items have any structural implementation therefor the biggest cost can be avoided. Even more: a lot of parts are simply stock (like the rods, bolts, fittings and such), which require no manufacturing cost at all.

[Scott Erlinder]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Again- off the topic. Andy and Brian, I have to respectfully disagree. Having worked in a facility with a machine shop for a few years I think these items are overpriced. As far as any engineering/production process your biggest expense would be strength testing and implementation of ISO 9000. None of the items have any structural implementation therefor the biggest cost can be avoided. Even more: a lot of parts are simply stock (like the rods, bolts, fittings and such), which require no manufacturing cost at all.

Robert,
While I do agree the units are expensive, they are VERY well made by people like Arri or Chroziel. After running a Panavison/Arri rental house for 10 years and being a DP for about as long, I can tell you they make the Cadillac and Mercedes of equipment.
If you ever work with the POS design/machining of the RED camera, you'd know what I mean right away- that's one of the ways they kept the low body price...lousy aluminum, poor alignment of clearance/threaded holes- it's missing a lot of subtlties that Arri, Panavison and Chroziel have R&D'd into equipment that lasts 25 or 30 years.
I own2 Chroziels but bought a Cavison for a school I teach in- the Cavison was the same as the RED, parts were poorly made, poorly engineered (i.e., screws that should be "captive" weren't) and it fell apart very quickly.

Sicne her has just recently been an interest in mateboex for video cameras (it was just "ring and shades" for years), maybe we'll see the quality go up in the more numerous market of "prosumer cameras"....

Scott

[Robert Rogoz]

Scott, while I agree with your post I would hope that these companies will start seeing the strength in numbers. I know the time spend in R&D is costly, but the point is that I would be one of the buyers if the cost of these items was down. There is always a room to make things more efficient and cost effective and market a product to a broader group, while maintaing quality. If you bring the analogy of the cars let let me point out the fact that Mercedes is not #1 car manufacturer- Toyota is. Great cars in mostly moderate price range. You will never convince me that 20 matte boxes are worth as much as Corolla, regardless how great they might be.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Again- off the topic. Andy and Brian, I have to respectfully disagree. Having worked in a facility with a machine shop for a few years I think these items are overpriced. As far as any engineering/production process your biggest expense would be strength testing and implementation of ISO 9000. None of the items have any structural implementation therefor the biggest cost can be avoided. Even more: a lot of parts are simply stock (like the rods, bolts, fittings and such), which require no manufacturing cost at all.

Any machine shop has to pay their skilled staff, plus cover overheads, deprecation on the machine tools etc. The actual raw material is cheap, making one off's and paying people for the work can be expensive. Even the quality of the rods can vary, you do need a high standard of finish if the accessories aren't going to stick and the rod mounting do need to ensure the rods remain parallel throughout out their working life.

If you wish to DIY a matte box system, just cost out your time if making an economic comparison. If you're doing so as hobby that's cool, but as a business unless it's down time you could off running other aspects of your business.