Jump to content


Photo

matte boxes and super 16


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 10 January 2006 - 05:21 PM

What's the deal with Matte boxes and super 16? I've seen some with 4x4 matte boxes on them and I've seen some with 16:9 matte boxes. I've read that 4x4 is not suitable for super 16 and that the 4x4 filters with vignette, but I've also been told that 4x4 is fine for super 16. There seems to be alot of mixed information about this. Perhaps it has to do with whether you are using big zooms or primes?
I know that a 4x4 matte is not cut to the same ratio as super16 but the matte box should still shield the lens, shouldn't it?
I'm just a little confused and I can't find any clear answers. Also, 4x5.65 matte boxes usually have slots for 4x4 filters and just one for 4x4.65 filters and 4x4 matte boxes often include slots for 4x4.65 filters.

What matte boxes do you all use with super 16?

What should I avoid?

Why are there no 16:9 matte boxes with bellows? Do all super 16 camera's use hard mattes only?

thanks,

Edward
  • 0

#2 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 January 2006 - 05:31 PM

This is a great question and one I have been wondering about for a long time too. Is a 4x4 matte box workable with Super 16? And are there only problems with lenses like 9.5mm primes and the like?

-Tim
  • 0

#3 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:40 PM

It's all about what lenses you have, what lenses you plan to have or are likely to rent, and lastly how much you can afford to spend. Not all matteboxes are created equal, and even though some hold 4x4 filters they may be shallower and therefore able to hold those filters closer to the lens, so they will not block the frame on a given lens while another mattebox with the same filters would. Most decent 4x4 matteboxes will cover S-16 down to a 9.5mm lens. I have a Canon 8-64 zoom and it comes with a Canon clip-on mattebox that hold two 4x4 filters. The replacement the 7-63 does as well. But when I stick my Chrosziel 4x4.56 mattebox in front I can get away with a 4x4 in the rear slot but must use a 4x4.56 in the front, and even then I better shove it up tight against the lens. The difference? The Chrosiel has a rear adjustable ring for accepting different sized lenses and it is a rubber bellows design to accomodate older lenses that change in physical length as the focus is adjusted. That rear ring can also house a round filter and the rear tray is rotatable, all of which adds a lot of hardware and depth to the design. And by the way, my front bellows is 16x9 and has a bellows within it as well.

It is important to know that not all lenses are the same either. A 9.5 of one brand may be clear with a given 4x4 mattebox but another brand of 9.5 may not. This is because the physical housings may be different with the optics seated closer or further from the front of the lens housing. The only way to know what will truly cover is to test it out. For years people had 4x4 filters for 16mm because it would usually cover just about everything, even the Zeiss 8mm, in standard 16mm. But then with Super-16, a lot of 4x4 matteboxes would cover MOST but not all, so people starting switching over to the wider 4.56. But the rear tray is closer to the lens and would usually cover so people didn't want to reinvest in a bunch of filters so they kept one tray 4x4.56 and one 4x4. It's a lot cheaper to just buy a few 4x4.56 filters and mix between the two as opposed to replacing everything. I must have $4k in filters alone!
  • 0

#4 Robert Edge

Robert Edge
  • Sustaining Members
  • 401 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:51 PM

So if you were buying a matte box for a super 16 camera today, new and without regard to backward compatibility, what would you buy?
  • 0

#5 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 11 January 2006 - 06:29 PM

Thank you Mitch. that is a very helpful reply to a subject that, for some reason, is very hard to find information on.

For now, my poor man's camera package starts with a zeiss 12mm MK1 super speed and ends with an 85mm zeiss contax still lens (with c-mount to contax adaptor). So, as soon as I find a 25mm MK1 that I can afford, I'll have the following Zeiss lenses:

12mm MK1 superspeed

25mm MK1 (probably) superspeed

50mm Contax still

85mm Contax still

I am wondering about the Cavision 4x4's for their affordability but I don't think they house 4x5.65 filters.

Can anyone tell me if the latest Cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox would cover a 12mm superspeed lens for super 16?

Given the list of lenses above, and the mattebox budget of $500 or less, are there any other recommendations?

thanks again,

Edward
  • 0

#6 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:22 PM

Thank you Mitch. that is a very helpful reply to a subject that, for some reason, is very hard to find information on.

For now, my poor man's camera package starts with a zeiss 12mm MK1 super speed and ends with an 85mm zeiss contax still lens (with c-mount to contax adaptor). So, as soon as I find a 25mm MK1 that I can afford, I'll have the following Zeiss lenses:

12mm MK1 superspeed

25mm MK1 (probably) superspeed

50mm Contax still

85mm Contax still

I am wondering about the Cavision 4x4's for their affordability but I don't think they house 4x5.65 filters.

Can anyone tell me if the latest Cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox would cover a 12mm superspeed lens for super 16?

Given the list of lenses above, and the mattebox budget of $500 or less, are there any other recommendations?

thanks again,

Edward

I would be very confident that any decent 4x4 mattebox would cover a 12mm. That is not so very wide. The question before you invest in the box and the glass is if you may be buying a wider lens down the road. That is when you may run into issues.

Also, check the Formatt mattebox. It is a very straightforward and simple design, but it is built much sturdier than the Cavision gear I've seen.


So if you were buying a matte box for a super 16 camera today, new and without regard to backward compatibility, what would you buy?

Depends on what I want in FORWARD compatibility, as in what lenses I'd want to use with it in the future. I personally try to resist anything as huge as a 5x6 mattebox, because that is a real beastie on a 16mm camera and those filters are both heavy and very expensive, but if I wanted to use certain large zooms I would have no choice. But for most modern systems a 4x4.56 mattebox will do me just fine. And there are many brands out there with various features and capabilities, especially in how well they cover the S-16 frame in given sizes. Some people swear by Arriflex matteboxes, some live by Chrosziel, other prefer Cinetech or Petroff, etc., etc.

If there were a perfect mattebox then all the other companies would be out of business.
  • 0

#7 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 January 2006 - 01:02 AM

damn. a nice older model 2 stage 4x4 Petroff bellows just sold on ebay for $224.50. I missed it.

Thanks for your advice I'll take a look at the Formatts as well.

take care,

Edward
  • 0

#8 Mike Welle

Mike Welle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:34 PM

damn. a nice older model 2 stage 4x4 Petroff bellows just sold on ebay for $224.50. I missed it.

Thanks for your advice I'll take a look at the Formatts as well.

take care,

Edward


One little known matte box that I admire is the Defoe Technical brand. I am considering purchasing it and it costs about $1,350.00 with a step down ring from 95mm to 80mm. It has two 4X5.65 filters. I have a link to his site:

www.defoetech.com
  • 0

#9 Sandy Thomson

Sandy Thomson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 14 January 2006 - 09:33 AM

ns and would usually cover so people didn't want to reinvest in a bunch of filters so they kept one tray 4x4.56 and one 4x4. It's a lot cheaper to just buy a few 4x4.56 filters and mix between the two as opposed to replacing everything. I must have $4k in filters alone!
[/quote]

I adapted a Chosziel 4X4 to my SR2 S-16 with Canon lens (11.5-135). Initially I had problems with vignetting but it was not the box but the adapter ring which fits to the bore of the lxtended cylinder of the lens. This was a plastic ring which basically adapted the bore of the matte box to the lens. I machined a taper to the inside of the adapter to reduce interference and not it works perfectly at 11.5 with no vignetting.

sandy
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Opal

Technodolly

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

CineTape

Opal

Glidecam

The Slider

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products