Matt Sandstrom

i would have bounced the flash off a white surface above her, probably a little to one side. and i would have tried to warm up the flash too. not easy with limited gear but a piece of half cto is good to always have taped to your flash. here's a similar shot. it's hdv and he's behind the glass but i had the same problem. just a small camera light and a nasty window that reflected everything. i handheld the light in a position where i liked the shadows on his face and where it didn't reflect in the window. it's not a great shot but it worked and made its way into the finished film. /matt

yes, you will see no difference on the screen because both are 16:9 formats and the screen is 16:9. /matt

somebody should sell a chimera for those. i might build my own. thanks for the heads up. /matt

create a medium grey image or a greyscale in photoshop or whatever. take readings. et voila. /matt

kinoflo makes a small battery powered ringlight called the kamio. you can rent one for maybe $30/day. it takes regular ring shaped flo bulbs so if the kinoflow one is too well balanced for you you can use one from home depot. or one of the included filters, i.e. plus green. http://www.kinoflo.com/sales_catalog_2004/...s/kam6_kit.html /matt

actually they're not. the dirt cheap reflector bulbs throw an ugly pattern. the "real" spotlight bulbs, which use a small halogen bulb with an external reflector, throw a perfect almost fresnel like circle but they cost like $20. not expensive but not exactly dirt cheap either. i'll get a couple in either case though. a small spotlight that fits a regular socket will often come in handy. /matt

wait, 99% of all c-stands i've seen have been chrome plated and had spring loaded legs while 99% of all other stands i've seen haven't, so i'd say they qualify as unlike all others. i'm not sure what we're talking about though. /matt

or attached to an arm and moved around on a shot by shot basis? that's what i'd do. at least for tracking and handheld shots. in "eternal sunshine" the spot was pretty far from the camera but still attached to and moved with it, iirc. /matt

just a reflection. in the kelis video the shadows cast by the camera light are very sharp. i did a quick test using an ikea reflector bulb spot and i got the basic look right but the shadows were much softer, plus the pattern wasn't as even. i've used ring lights for a similar look before but i really like the flash photography look with the light slightly topped and the shadows that creates. perhaps a "real" spotlight or even a focused light is needed? i've found this, which might do the trick screwed into the ikea fixture? http://www.velleman.be/ot/en/product/view/?id=353936 /matt

that sounds fine. i'd recommend you use cineframe though. my tests show you lose a tiny bit of sharpness, 100 lines at the most, on stationary frames compared to a "smart deinterlace" but frames in motion actually turn out sharper and with less artifacts since the codec doesn't have to compress the redundant information. whenever people say "cineframe sucks" they're referring to the fake 24p mode, which does suck. cineframe 25 is great. /matt

i'd put nd and cto on the windows, but there seems to be more than a few and not that small either. something i have never tried but would love to is to use mirrors to reflect hard sunlight through the windows which can then be bounced to where you need it. good luck. /matt oops, no windows. i guess i stopped reading at "inside". :-) well even more reason to use mirrors then, or just foamcore since it's so open. /matt

if i write a novel and save it on a cheap hard drive will it introduce spelling mistakes? and wouldn't my words become more powerrful on a better drive? i hear maxtor's are great. ;-) /matt

thanks, that helps. i was actually thinking the same but all evidence pointed elsewhere. /matt

one more thing just for fun: the light it casts on something one foot away is of course one footcandle, which would give you approximately 3 stops underexposure at t2.8. in pure theory. don't forget your light meter. :-) /matt

only around 1500K i think. if that's too red for you i'd rather suggest filtering the artificial light to a lower kelvin and grade to taste in post. mixing color temps will only make the difference more obvious. as for the exposure if you stop down so the flame won't burn out (absolutely no pun intended) you won't have to worry about color temperature either since the light it will cast will be next to none. /matt

do you have a source for that? all encyclopedias i've checked as well as all google hits i've checked state that it comes from photography. /matt

arri sr2, angenieux 12-120 (iirc), fuji f-400, telecine on an ancient rank mk3. for sure. they deserve all the fame they're getting, which in japan is quite a lot. ;-) /matt

i think we all know what it means, the question is why is it called that? your suggestion doesn't sound right. wouldn't 8:1 be a high key to fill ratio, while 2:1 a low one? the music analogy and the height of the light theory both sound more likely to me. /matt

cool. yes, we did that one (anders rune was the main director). funny though, the reason we took it out was that we didn't think the editing was up to par. :-) /matt

for sure, but i was thinking of ease of editing. for music videos i like to sync up every take on a separate track and edit multi camera style. having to sync up every edit manually is a pain, especially if you have a director and a client next to you asking for quite major changes while they're watching. the fastest i've ever edited a video was in four hours and the slowest took over a week. and the first was better paid too and got way more airtime. if you value your time that crystal sync unit will pay for itself in no time. :-) /matt

how do you figure? i always thought wild syncing dialogue was a piece of cake while music videos shot without crystal are a pain to edit. perhaps you didn't have any lip sync? congrats on your nice setup though. looks great. great stills. fantastic location. did you use diffusion or is that the lens flaring slightly? i like it. /matt

i think you missed the word "originally" in the first sentence, and the two following altogether. to me it seems like you're in almost complete agreement!?! :-) /matt

while i agree 64t has its problems this last statement of yours just doesn't make sense. if there's anything in this strange world of super 8 that everyone seems to agree on it's that kodachrome is never perfectly sharp and clear. in fact it often looks just like it's been "shot through a net curtain". 64t is much clearer in my opinion. its biggest asset in any comparison. /matt

i've used bright, reddish and colorful makeup for material that was going to be destaurated and tinted blue in post. it worked great. i've also experimented with dark makeup on parts of the face to create deeper shadows, which also worked great. i read somewhere that they did this on pulp fiction and this was the time in my filmmaking career that i everybody goes through where i just had to copy everything tarantino did... ;-) /matt

it was funny, but since you're obviously religious we must hate you for saying it. only atheists can make such jokes, ok? /matt (?ti gniwollof txet cinatas siht htiw yllaicepse ,dekrow msacras eht fi rednow i)