Matte Boxes

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I'm guessing it's time to start investing some money into my film career. And I was looking to buy a matte box, bunch of step up rings and a nice set of Tiffen/Schenider filters. (Or possibly any cheaper options that sell square sized filters, as far as I know Hoya don't sell them)

 

The thing is, I have no idea about these matte boxes. What sizes I might need e.t.c.

 

What I really want is something that will go wide enough (15mm or lower if possible in 35mm terms), without seeing any vignetting (spelling?).

 

Are these things expensive? What brands do you guys recommend? I'm not looking to splash out big time here, all I want is something fairly robust that will hold 2 or 3 filters and that will last me a life time, if taken care of, naturally. Possibly some barn doors?

 

Honestly I've searched the internet and most of what I found was complete crap. (Mostly matte box rentals e.t.c.)

 

Thank you for any help.

Dan.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Thomas Worth]

Are you intending on using the matte box with a video or film camera? Video cams usually have some type of bayonet mount sunshade that fits onto the front of the camera for light blocking. You can usually use cheaper, circular filters with these setups with the same result as a matte box in several situations.

 

Don't buy a matte box to use with a pro film or HD camera. The cameras are usually are equipped with a rod system that holds the follow focus device on the camera. The matte box will attach to that rod system, and typically employ a "swing away" feature for quick lens changes. These types of matte boxes are usually accept 4x5.65" filters and cost several thousand dollars. Not to mention the filters, which are like $250 a piece.

 

Rent. Don't buy. There's really no point to it.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Rent. Don't buy. There's really no point to it.

Err, yeh well by looking at the cost you quoted for a descent mattebox, I think I'll take your advice.

 

Tnx.

 

This is so frustrating. I don't know what the hell to save up for. I want to save up and invest money in my film career, but there just doesn't seem to be anything realistic. About the most recommended idea seems to be to save up for that HD project I might be shooting in the summer, trouble is, that could cost me big time and it?s not as though I will have anything in hand to show for it. Apart from experience and a superb show reel, but then again, coming across superb show reels isn?t exactly hard. Perhaps it won?t be worth it.

 

Many people are saying I am wasting my money with that idea, but then again lots of other people are saying it's a good way to invest and I should go for it.

 

I was thinking of saving up for something like an XL2 instead of doing that film. To be honest before I go ahead and shoot my own HD project, I think I want to try and get involved in other peoples first. Atleast if I have an XL2 I have a pucker quality camera to play around with any time I like, make films, make pointless but interesting documentaries e.t.c. anytime I wish.

 

My only fear then is that the XL2 will become as good as useless in time to come.

[Thomas Worth]

My only fear then is that the XL2 will become as good as useless in time to come.

I own a PAL XL1, and will challenge anyone with a DVX100 or an XL2 to a shootout. Sure, the sensors in those cameras are superior resolution-wise, but the XL1 will give you a 720x576 progressive image at 25 fps, and the ability to change lenses. That's quite a bit to work with, and I'm not sure that when in the hands of an experienced DP, that footage from the DVX100 or XL2 will be that much more compelling to the audience. The average person, I believe, won't be able to tell nor really care about the difference between a DVD of footage from a PAL XL1 or a DVX100.

 

I put more emphasis on the abilities of the camera from a photographic standpoint than how many pixels the CCD has. I'm a photographer, so my main concern is that the composition and lighting looks good. After that's under control, I look at the "number of pixels." You see what I'm getting at? Don't worry so much about how current the camera is. For god's sake, Robert Rodriguez shot el Mariachi on an Arri 16 S, and turned heads. There's no reason why you couldn't do the same.

 

Whatever you get, just make sure you shoot, shoot, shoot! And test like crazy!

[Joachim Hedén]

Hi,

 

Being new to the forum, please forgive me if I speak out of place, but I know where the original poster "is comming form"...

 

I read somewhere this really insightful quote: Film (cinematography) is the only artistic field where the artist can't afford the medium (media?).

 

So, with a not too impressive fistful of cash, your options are really limeted.

 

But there are things you can do, depending on what you want to accomplish. If you are:

 

a) wanting to "get into the business" - as in "getting set time" - putting together a small but well thought out light/grip package and learning how to use it will get you days on smaller independent productions as grip/gaffer if you keep your prices low and adopt a friendly, positive and service minded attitude. A decent light/grip package can be put together for 3-4.000 GBP. Buy PROFESSIONAL (not still photo grade) second hand stuff in good condition, and make sure you get some kinos in your package (everybody and his mother has a few tungsten lights laying around, but not kinos).

 

B) trying to persue a career as a cinematographer - buy a used 35mm still camera, fully manual no AF, no Auto exposure (you should'nt have to spend more than 100 GBP) - and buy a brand spanking new top of the line light meter (seconic 608 maybe - I've been using the 508 for many years, but I'd love to have the spot readout in the wiewfinder). Get together a minimal cheap but working light/grip kit (no flashes!!!! - go tungsten) And then - start shooting stills!!!!! And, even more important - buy a 35mm neg/slide scanner and get a copy of Photoshop and really learn what happens to the image in the digital realm. As a director, I'd be more inclined to pick a DP that can demonstrate visual litteracy and a good eye, than someone who owns a mattebox. Your total here (assuming you have a computer) should be around 2.500 GBP (about the price for a nice new matte box)

 

c) just eager to burn some cash - well, there are a few tools you could spend money on... Get a top of the line Light meter (se option "b"), maybe get a viewfinder, if you don't have it already, get the AC manual (I think the 9th ed is the current one), get a subscription to AC Magazine and read it cover to cover - and if you still have money to spend, find and buy every back-issue of AC magazine for the last 10 years, and read those cover to cover. This should be somewhere around 1.000 GBP

 

But, most important - build your network

 

Once again, being new to the forum, please forgive me if I have spoken out of place.

 

Kind regards

 

Jack

[Joachim Hedén]

P.S.

 

One other thing you sould do if you are serious about this:

 

Spend 100 GBP on:

 

1.000 clear plastic A4 "pocket" thingys that go in a binder.

1.000 black A4 papers

1 bottle of spray mount

A few nice strurdy binders

 

And then, whenever you see a picture in a magazine, a paper... whereever, one that speaks to you (good AND bad) - rip it out, spray mount it to a black paper, stick it in the plastic pocket, and put it in the binder - build a reference library of images. This will take years, but it will help you really think about images, and this will be a tool for you to communicate with directors in the future.

 

Seems silly, but this will be the best 100 GBP you will ever spend.

 

Once again, If I have spoken out of place - sorry.

 

Kind regards

 

Jack

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I put more emphasis on the abilities of the camera from a photographic standpoint than how many pixels the CCD has. I'm a photographer, so my main concern is that the composition and lighting looks good. After that's under control, I look at the "number of pixels." You see what I'm getting at? Don't worry so much about how current the camera is. For god's sake, Robert Rodriguez shot el Mariachi on an Arri 16 S, and turned heads. There's no reason why you couldn't do the same.

THANKYOU. Someone FINALLY pointed it out, it doesn't matter a huge amount about the equipment, it's how you frame, adjust the aperture, use different lenses for different effects.

 

Sorry but a lot of people around here seem to think it's all about the resolution e.t.c. Obviously that has a huge amount of importance, but it won?t get you great looking shots by itself.

 

Once again, If I have spoken out of place - sorry.

No I happen to agree with what you said. Currently I am shooting stills, using the Canon T70 with some manual lenses. Built like a brick house that camera, if only it had a few more features I'd choose it over any camera on the market. I hate to sound like some kind of an old man here, but the old cameras really are better than the new ones.

 

The only pain about shooting stills is one, obviously it's not moving picture, secondly, you are shooting 8 perf as opposed to 4 or 3 perf so the DOF will differ.

 

 

To be honest I think I'll just go ahead and save up for a light meter. Reflective and incident all in one.

 

seconic 608 maybe - I've been using the 508 for many years

Does that do both video and film? If so I may end up going for it. Seems to be popular, I made a "reccomended light meters" post some time ago and I'm sure that one came up several times.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

Someone FINALLY pointed it out, it doesn't matter a huge amount about the equipment, it's how you......adjust the aperture....

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:D adjusting apertures does not really make someone an artist or a craftsman..

It does howerver change the amount of light and DoF in camera :D

Edited March 20, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

:D  adjusting apertures does not really make someone an artist or a craftsman..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhh, yes it does. If I were to take a portrait shot of someone I would probably open up the iris to blur the background, attracting more attention to the subject. Making it look more "arty".

[Filip Plesha]

Uhh, yes it does. If I were to take a portrait shot of someone I would probably open up the iris to blur the background, attracting more attention to the subject. Making it look more "arty".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that was so, then all you have to do to make art is read some book with instructions.

It is up to you to give meaning to shallow deph of field, it does not have meaning on its own.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

If that was so, then all you have to do to make art is read some book with instructions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No not atall. I might want a lot of DOF for a portrait shot.

 

If I want to blur the background, then that's how I will paint my picture. It's all art.

 

Look at this picture:

 

I wanted to get the end of the rifle barrel in focus, so your eyes would lead from the subject, down the rifle to the end of the barrel.

 

It's an artistic shot. I altered the aperture to achieve this.

 

I didn?t read any instruction manual, I knew that was how I wanted the picture to look so I made it that way.

 

If I just took the picture willy nilly I would have just pointed the camera, set it to auto and snapped away. Now that wouldn't have been art.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

Set me get this straight...

 

You think that art is when you use open apertures? And it's less art if you use closed ones?

 

What if your vision was to shoot everything very flat, everything in focus from background to forground?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

What if your vision was to shoot everything very flat, everything in focus from background to forground?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if that's your vision, if that's what you want, then it's still art. Don't expect me to be a fan of it though.

 

You think that art is when you use open apertures? And it's less art if you use closed ones?

No, you alter the DOF to exactly what you want. Personally if I were doing outdoor landscape shots I would use a high DOF to try and get everything in focus. If I was to shoot a couple walking through a landscape, I would set the DOF to something that only blurs the background by a slight amount.

 

But that's my personal artistic views. Other people might want to get both the couple AND the scenic view entirely in focus. Some people might want to blur the couple, and get the scenic view in focus.

 

If THAT'S what you want, if that's the look you want, then go for it. It's your artistic view.

 

Either way, adjusting the aperture to certain levels DOES count as an art form. That picture I sent, that was art. That's exactly how I wanted it to come out. Are you going to disagree?

Edited March 20, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

For a moment there, I thought that you think aperture dictates what is art and what is not.

 

 

As for what is art and what is not...well who am I to say that. This is a difficult and controversial question that was there ever since people invented the word art.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

Maybe Art is whatever an "Artist" claims is "Art"...... Whether it successfully portrays it's intentions is another question?

 

Olly

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

As for what is art and what is not...well who am I to say that. This is a difficult and controversial question that was there ever since people invented the word art.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Art is whatever you make to be art. And in film, you can use different methods to paint your picture, like using different paint applicators, i.e. sponges, brushes, spray e.t.c.

 

Controlling the depth of field allows you to either have everything in focus, or you can blur some parts if you wish. It's entirely down to you; it's YOUR work of art.

[Filip Plesha]

Yea, but a lot of the times you don't have much choice regarding what aperture to use, specially in motion pictures.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yea, but a lot of the times you don't have much choice regarding what aperture to use, specially in motion pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hows that work?

 

Too much light, ND. Too little light, over light and then underexpose.

 

Personally I'd rather use a polarizer instead of an ND. Any reflection is somewhat distracting, in using a polarizer you will both cut down light levels AND improve the picture.

 

One thing I'd be interested to know is how Greg Tolland used such deep focus on indoor shots. Did he over light and then underexpose?

Edited March 21, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

Controled light gives you more options. With even a medium speed film you have choices if you have adequate lighting. In controled environment, there is no too much light or too little light, you have what light you put on the set.

 

I was refering to natural lighting: twilights, storms, heavy overcast in difficult places, nightime streets etc.

 

Allso if you are shooting stills handheld, usually you can't go over 1/60 for even wideangle lenses (even thought the rule of thumb states otherwise) if you want sharp images. That limits you.

 

By the way, what do you mean by "over light underexpose"?

You are refering to simulation of low light levels?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

By the way, what do you mean by "over light underexpose"?

You are refering to simulation of low light levels?

Over light the setting, but then underexpose on the camera. Creating the same look, only with more DOF or higher shutter speed.

[Filip Plesha]

yes, but I was still talking about natural lighting

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

yes, but I was still talking about natural lighting

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah well, yeh I agree. Cutting down light levels isn't a probem but yeh if there sin't enough light you've pretty much had it.

 

Obviously you can use faster lenses e.t.c. but then you're cutting down the DOF.

[Filip Plesha]

Faster lenses only alow you to open the aperture even more than usual.

[Jonathan Spear]

There is actually one thing worse than not having enough money to make your movie or not knowing what to buy with the little amount of money you've managed to save up...

 

Having enough money, gear, a finished screenplay, actors and lighting equipment is worth JACK $HIT if you deep down inside, you honestly don't know what you're doing.

And i'm not saying that you don't know what you're doing, but you have to ask yourself (and be honest) - AM I REALLY READY FOR THIS? AM I READY TO INVOLVE OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS PROJECT? IS THIS PROJECT WORTH THEIR TIME?

 

Imagine setting everything up; you've blocked your scene, lights are set and the actors are ready to begin. You've spent weeks - months... =years= on setting this project up - but when the Gigli hits the fan - all eyes will be on you.

Imagine thinking everything went great becauseyou acted as if you knew what you were doing the whole time and managed to gain your novice cast and crew's trust and respect... but when your film comes back - it's brutaly underexposed, out of sync, out of focus, etc.

 

Imagine spending 2,000 pounds on a film you may be embarressed to show your friends because you forgot to take the damn cap off the lens.

 

Dude, you've got cash to blow and you want to buy a mattebox? why?

sure, they look cool and they're useful but why buy a 50 pound bag of dog food if you don't even own a dog?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Dude, you've got cash to blow and you want to buy a mattebox? why?

sure, they look cool and they're useful

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm, well, got to buy some kind of equipment. The director I worked with on a project owns a fair bit of equipment, reflectors, lights, c-stands, PD-150, and a thousands of pounds worth of sound gear.

 

He can use that equipment anytime he wishes to make films. That's why a matte box.

 

I know I will never be able to afford a 35mm camera or HD camera, but what I can afford is equipment for it.

 

I've gone off the mattebox idea now anyway. I'm after a lightmeter. And after that, possibly a camera, XL2 or something.

 

 

For that project I'm doing in the summer, I know I said I was going to be the DP but now I'm considering hiring a camera operator.

 

Since as I'm producing it, directing it, DP'ing, and now possibly acting in one of the small scenes, I need all hands on deck (The scene where I act is great, I get to drink beer, smoke and yell out profanities, I'll just try not to get arrested for disturbance of the peace, but hey were shooting in London so they should be used to it)

 

I know it looks as though I'm taking on quite a lot, but at the end of the day it's a small project, which just happens to be shot on great equipment. I mean everyone involved is being paid travel expenses only. (Which could still work out quite a lot)

 

Either way I've got most of the storyboards drawn up now, and it's looking great. If it goes the way I picture it in my head, then it will win awards no doubt. It's just getting it to look like what I imagine.