Matte-box on Ebay

Kurth Bousman · October 25th, 2006, 09:34 AM

Carlos - if you get it , please give us a minireview. thanks

Carlos E. Martinez · October 25th, 2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

Carlos - if you get it , please give us a minireview. thanks

Certainly so.

I am also planning working on other things on the Z1, so I may do other minireviews.

But I will have to discuss with the moderators on my fee... :) :) :)

Carlos

Boyd Ostroff · October 25th, 2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlos E. Martinez

But I will have to discuss with the moderators on my fee... :) :) :)

We can discuss that as soon as we receive payment of the usage fees for all the info you have received here ;-)

Carlos E. Martinez · October 25th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

We can discuss that as soon as we receive payment of the usage fees for all the info you have received here ;-)

Let's see: one for you, two for me. Then two for you, five for me.

Well, it's easy... ;))))

Seriously now. I am getting some stuff that might be interesting to comment on. Just give it time for it to get here.

Certainly more than four weeks.

Carlos

Kurth Bousman · November 1st, 2006, 10:26 AM

obviously , comments made in jest - Carlos , does that mean that you purchased the mattebox ? I keep looking at the site and it makes me more interested . I think it looks nice. One spec they don't give is weight . Do you have any idea or did you ask them already ? I've always been a proponent of NOT using filters. Hey , that's what nles' are for. But the ability to use a rotatable graded polarizer would be very useful . At $1500 , I wouldn't even consider it , however at $300 , it becomes a different animal. And I've always thought , for what you get with a US made mattebox , it was sorely overpriced , even Centurys' . thanks

Carlos E. Martinez · November 1st, 2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

obviously , comments made in jest

I know. I was kidding too.

Quote:

does that mean that you purchased the mattebox ? I keep looking at the site and it makes me more interested . I think it looks nice. One spec they don't give is weight . Do you have any idea or did you ask them already ?

No idea, really. It will take some time to arrive here.

After my eBay purchase, I got a mail from their Canada rep:

http://www.camera-shop.ca/

They have all the same stuff. Fortunately I paid a bit less, or I'd be quite p....d off.

Quote:

I've always been a proponent of NOT using filters. Hey , that's what nles' are for.

Not really. NLEs are very powerful, but video cameras need some help to keep contrast down. And on that graduated NDs can solve that before the harm is done. Pola screens are also essential. You can't do that on an NLE.

Quote:

But the ability to use a rotatable graded polarizer would be very useful . At $1500 , I wouldn't even consider it , however at $300 , it becomes a different animal. And I've always thought , for what you get with a US made mattebox , it was sorely overpriced , even Centurys' .

I couldn't have said it better.

Carlos

Bas Ladru · February 21st, 2007, 07:59 AM

We here at Vocas are aware of this mattebox.
I can confirm that it is a cheap copy of our DVMB MKI mattebox and old rail supports.

This mattebox does indeed violate our patents, and our lawyers are on the case.

I would like to warn people that these matteboxes are not made of the same quality materials as Vocas uses, and would ask you to refrain from buying said copied matteboxes.

Stephen Deboo · May 5th, 2007, 05:50 AM

folks I have just recieved one of these indian matteboxes from an Italian supplier its working great on my V1, I think its great that a company has come up with a cheap solution to a piece of hardware which is only expensive due to the small audience it atracts. That is the only reason these companies charge so much. Its a small turnover so high cost. When you think you can go out and buy a cheap HDV camcorder for the same price as a well known brand Mattebox it makes me sick. We are all playing with high end stuff here and because of that we are expected to pay over the odds for add ons. WELL DONE you Indians for showing us how to enjoy our work/hobby. Keep up the good work. You big guys drop your prices. Lets face it, its not exactly breaking technology you are making here. Its not the latest RED or SI camera now is it.

OK it may not be quite as good as your top of the range MB but it was only 299 Euros. Providing it does exactly what it is suposed to do and takes my filters I dont give a Damm

The next maon is follow focus systems why the hell are these so expensive, well see above exactly the same reason Come on Indians jump on the band wagon and ripp off the big guys again and give us what we want.

As you can see from my setup below I have no problem spending the money on kit I just think that 200 bucks of hardware should have a a price tag of 200 bucks

Carlos E. Martinez · May 5th, 2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Deboo

folks I have just recieved one of these indian matteboxes from an Italian supplier its working great on my V1, I think its great that a company has come up with a cheap solution to a piece of hardware which is only expensive due to the small audience it atracts.

I am glad you are happy with the Indian matte-box. Perhaps you bought the new type, which improves some of the elements in the holding gear:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Universal-Rod-Su...QQcmdZViewItem

The former system, which is the one I bought and started this thread, had a different system to adjust to different cameras and to hold the sunshade.

There are some other things that could be improved on the sunshade, still not provided for

1) The securing screws for the filter holders, which are too close to each other and could be displaced 1cm to opposite sides, allowing better handling with your fingers. As it is they are too close to the sunshade and adjusting is difficult.

2) The front shutters that could be longer, particularly the upper one, making the French flag almost unnecessary.

3) The filter holders need some slight mods to securely hold the glass filters. I glued a small rubber piece to the springed holder to improve that, but some kind of securing lip should be necessary. The ones provided are not safe enough for the filters, and 4 x 4 filters are expensive if they slip out and break!

Another problem in the older matte-box holder was the short distance to move the filter down on the Z1, which affects the use of graduated filters. That can be improved by doing a slight mod to the filter holders frame, that would improve that. I will do that and report on it.

In any case both this matte-box along with my Philips PET1000 which I use as a monitor have been invaluable tools on my recent shooting.

Bob Grant · May 5th, 2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Deboo

folks
The next maon is follow focus systems why the hell are these so expensive, well see above exactly the same reason Come on Indians jump on the band wagon and ripp off the big guys again and give us what we want.

As you can see from my setup below I have no problem spending the money on kit I just think that 200 bucks of hardware should have a a price tag of 200 bucks

Spent a bit of time at NAB looking at matte boxes.
A man from Chrosziel at the 16x9 stand was kind enough to share his passion for what they do with me. Engineers with that level of drive to build the best don't come cheap, what they design isn't cheap to build, keeping every one of those custom machined parts available for decades as a spare cost money too.
I appreciate that not everyone can afford top shelf kit but to accuse those companies that build the best gear of price gouging is naive. Setting out to build the best that can be built is not the way to get rich quick. It's more likely to give you a modest return and a company that stays in business for generations.
Having seen the working conditions and what workers are paid in India first hand I'd hazard a guess that the guys who own the businesses in India churning out this cheap kit are way more likely to get rich quick than the Chroziels or Cartonis. That's not a sleight at India and it's craftsmen either, they have some of the best on the planet but even they are loosing ground to the ones who do it cheaper with no regard for quality.

Stephen Deboo · May 24th, 2007, 09:48 AM

OK one more thing to add, If the matte boxes are such a high development and that is why they demand such high prices. WHY did these clever engineers choose a 15mm rail system. It seems very strange that its about the only size of tubing that cant be purchased from a DIY store 12/14/16mm are the norm. Very lucky for them that they chose this unique size, I don't think so. Its just another way to increase profits. I know somebody is going to say that the rails denote the matte box size as they are a support system but why did this size be used. I think we all know the answer to that one.

Bob Grant · May 24th, 2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Deboo

OK one more thing to add, If the matte boxes are such a high development and that is why they demand such high prices. WHY did these clever engineers choose a 15mm rail system. It seems very strange that its about the only size of tubing that cant be purchased from a DIY store 12/14/16mm are the norm. Very lucky for them that they chose this unique size, I don't think so. Its just another way to increase profits. I know somebody is going to say that the rails denote the matte box size as they are a support system but why did this size be used. I think we all know the answer to that one.

As far as I know the diameter and spacing of the rails has been the same for decades. It's simply an industry standard that probably predates even video.

Say they were to choose a different diameter, then you'd be screaming that nothing else would fit. I'd also point out that the standard grades of aluminium sold as tubing is very soft, not a good choice for rails. Many rail systems have an internal thread and standard aluminium doesn't take a thread very well at all.

This is what you pay for with quality, careful choice of materials, not the cheapest that looks like it might work. These materials can cost a lot more than the off the shelf stuff.

Paul Izbicki · May 25th, 2007, 12:10 AM

While I tend to like finding a low cost solution to a need, I generally find that the high quality (cost) manufacturers have a reputation for a good reason, as already pointed out here-reliability, quality of materials, ergonomics, maintenance and parts availability, many others.

I am sorry, but I have to take issue with a previous endorsement of the Formatt matte box. I am exceedingly considerate of my gear, have been in the production and broadcast field for over twenty years, and have a fair share of experience. I don't like to criticize gear, but if a warning causes someone to take a long second look and prevents a mistaken purchase, then it is worth the potential negative backlash.

In my book, the Formatte 500 is not recommended. It is fragile, the countersunk mounts for the stand-off posts holding the platforms together are designed with insufficient material surrounding the screw holes, leading to frequent failures of the plastic material.

The tension block with thumb-screw for setting friction level on the French flag is made of plastic, and develops cracks when tightened with just two fingers. and the list goes on. It simply uses flimsy materials and insufficient mass in areas that call for robustness. I have modified and replaced parts on mine and have sufficient experience to say that it is not a professional grade of hardware. This is definitely a case of getting what you pay for. The attachment ring lens adaptor is also a poor implementation. The unit does not travel well. The first one I ordered arrived damaged in just the way my second failed after 6 months of light use.

If you own one and are happy with it, more power to you, disregard this post, and may your good fortune continue. On the other hand, their filter glass is quite good, and I have been very satisfied with the quality of the several filters I own. If I had it to do over again, I would restrict my purchase of filters to ND and polarized. These are needed to achieve contrast, DOF and exposure control, before the immage is captured. Virtually everything else is an enhancement, and can be effected in post.

Bob Grant · May 25th, 2007, 02:35 AM

Paul,
I have to agree with you, we have two Formatte matte boxes and so far we've had the french flag break off one and they can be a real beast to fit to certain cameras. I don't think they're actually badly made, just that what they're trying to do is not a good idea in the first place.

The idea of having something as big as these matte boxes hanging off the lens is a bit of a worry too. Whack them into something and all the impact has to end up going into the lens, perhaps it's a good thing they're so flimsy.

February 21st, 2007, 07:59 AM	#22
Bas Ladru New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 23	We here at Vocas are aware of this mattebox. I can confirm that it is a cheap copy of our DVMB MKI mattebox and old rail supports. This mattebox does indeed violate our patents, and our lawyers are on the case. I would like to warn people that these matteboxes are not made of the same quality materials as Vocas uses, and would ask you to refrain from buying said copied matteboxes. __________________ Bas Ladru Vocas Systems B.V. www.vocas.com

May 5th, 2007, 05:50 AM	#23
Stephen Deboo Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portugal Posts: 27	cheap works folks I have just recieved one of these indian matteboxes from an Italian supplier its working great on my V1, I think its great that a company has come up with a cheap solution to a piece of hardware which is only expensive due to the small audience it atracts. That is the only reason these companies charge so much. Its a small turnover so high cost. When you think you can go out and buy a cheap HDV camcorder for the same price as a well known brand Mattebox it makes me sick. We are all playing with high end stuff here and because of that we are expected to pay over the odds for add ons. WELL DONE you Indians for showing us how to enjoy our work/hobby. Keep up the good work. You big guys drop your prices. Lets face it, its not exactly breaking technology you are making here. Its not the latest RED or SI camera now is it. OK it may not be quite as good as your top of the range MB but it was only 299 Euros. Providing it does exactly what it is suposed to do and takes my filters I dont give a Damm The next maon is follow focus systems why the hell are these so expensive, well see above exactly the same reason Come on Indians jump on the band wagon and ripp off the big guys again and give us what we want. As you can see from my setup below I have no problem spending the money on kit I just think that 200 bucks of hardware should have a a price tag of 200 bucks __________________ Canon 5D Mark II, 24-105mm F4L, 50mm F1.4, 16-35mm F2.8L Flash 580EXII Manfrotto 701HDV Tripod. Apple Mac Pro Dual 3Ghz + 4Gig Apple Cinema display 23" Last edited by Stephen Deboo; May 5th, 2007 at 11:12 AM.

May 24th, 2007, 09:48 AM	#26
Stephen Deboo Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portugal Posts: 27	OK one more thing to add, If the matte boxes are such a high development and that is why they demand such high prices. WHY did these clever engineers choose a 15mm rail system. It seems very strange that its about the only size of tubing that cant be purchased from a DIY store 12/14/16mm are the norm. Very lucky for them that they chose this unique size, I don't think so. Its just another way to increase profits. I know somebody is going to say that the rails denote the matte box size as they are a support system but why did this size be used. I think we all know the answer to that one. __________________ Canon 5D Mark II, 24-105mm F4L, 50mm F1.4, 16-35mm F2.8L Flash 580EXII Manfrotto 701HDV Tripod. Apple Mac Pro Dual 3Ghz + 4Gig Apple Cinema display 23"

May 25th, 2007, 12:10 AM	#28
Paul Izbicki Panoramic Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 85	Matte box blues While I tend to like finding a low cost solution to a need, I generally find that the high quality (cost) manufacturers have a reputation for a good reason, as already pointed out here-reliability, quality of materials, ergonomics, maintenance and parts availability, many others. I am sorry, but I have to take issue with a previous endorsement of the Formatt matte box. I am exceedingly considerate of my gear, have been in the production and broadcast field for over twenty years, and have a fair share of experience. I don't like to criticize gear, but if a warning causes someone to take a long second look and prevents a mistaken purchase, then it is worth the potential negative backlash. In my book, the Formatte 500 is not recommended. It is fragile, the countersunk mounts for the stand-off posts holding the platforms together are designed with insufficient material surrounding the screw holes, leading to frequent failures of the plastic material. The tension block with thumb-screw for setting friction level on the French flag is made of plastic, and develops cracks when tightened with just two fingers. and the list goes on. It simply uses flimsy materials and insufficient mass in areas that call for robustness. I have modified and replaced parts on mine and have sufficient experience to say that it is not a professional grade of hardware. This is definitely a case of getting what you pay for. The attachment ring lens adaptor is also a poor implementation. The unit does not travel well. The first one I ordered arrived damaged in just the way my second failed after 6 months of light use. If you own one and are happy with it, more power to you, disregard this post, and may your good fortune continue. On the other hand, their filter glass is quite good, and I have been very satisfied with the quality of the several filters I own. If I had it to do over again, I would restrict my purchase of filters to ND and polarized. These are needed to achieve contrast, DOF and exposure control, before the immage is captured. Virtually everything else is an enhancement, and can be effected in post. __________________ Paul Izbicki i2inewMedia

October 25th, 2006, 09:34 AM	#16
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Carlos - if you get it , please give us a minireview. thanks

November 1st, 2006, 10:26 AM	#20
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	obviously , comments made in jest - Carlos , does that mean that you purchased the mattebox ? I keep looking at the site and it makes me more interested . I think it looks nice. One spec they don't give is weight . Do you have any idea or did you ask them already ? I've always been a proponent of NOT using filters. Hey , that's what nles' are for. But the ability to use a rotatable graded polarizer would be very useful . At $1500 , I wouldn't even consider it , however at $300 , it becomes a different animal. And I've always thought , for what you get with a US made mattebox , it was sorely overpriced , even Centurys' . thanks

May 25th, 2007, 02:35 AM	#29
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	Paul, I have to agree with you, we have two Formatte matte boxes and so far we've had the french flag break off one and they can be a real beast to fit to certain cameras. I don't think they're actually badly made, just that what they're trying to do is not a good idea in the first place. The idea of having something as big as these matte boxes hanging off the lens is a bit of a worry too. Whack them into something and all the impact has to end up going into the lens, perhaps it's a good thing they're so flimsy.