Matt Sandstrom

i've recently started using jokerbugs and they are way more versatile than pocket pars in my opinion -- if you do decide to buy expensive hmi's rather than renting or investing in a bunch of cheaper used lights. /matt

santo you're fighting windmills. we (i love my canons) know they are not very sharp especially not wide open but we don't care and we love the look. who's shooting super 8 for sharp images anyway? there's always 35mm and hd for that. ;-) you've been trying to pick fights over this issue for years but the only resistance you'll ever get is defensiveness from people who feel attacked because of their choce of camera. very understandable of course and before your crusade (who's the fundamentalist again btw?) i'm sure all of them knew that there were sharper lens option but they just didn't care. so just to avoid any confusion in the future: santo is right, but i'll shoot my next film on a canon anyway. anybody got a problem with that? :-) /matt

i believe some purple filters might cut a broader band of green than the spike in fluorescents so you end up with dips in the spectrum instead of just removing a bump. filtering the light sources will always work better than a camera filter. /matt

is it the same that derann use to print features and cartoons by any chance? i heard that they print several copies simultaneously on 35mm and split it afterwards. /matt

this is just so sad i feel like crying. so where do we all go now that the small gauge trolls found this board too? /matt

judgemental? i was a little sceptical and thus asked you a question, which in my opinion was the best advice i could give you. surely you understand that it's not common practice to shoot features with this little preparation? (well actually it might be pretty much common practice in the indie world but it's still generally not the best way) ;-) and in case you didn't notice i did answer your specific question as well. for which you're welcome. let us know if you need any further help. /matt

you're shooting a feature and you're using stocks you've never used before in a camera you don't quite know how to operate? anyway, to answer the question we need to know what light you're shooting in. i'd probably leave the knob in the bulb position and use external filters as appropriate. /matt

i've never tested single 8, but i've shot a lot of fuji slides and compared them with kodachrome, if that counts for anything. all reversals usually look sharper when the frame is large enough, in my opinion, but in the 8 mm gauge the resolving power starts becoming the important factor rather than grain structure and contrast, and it's a fact that negative is better in that area. /matt

thank you. yes i'm sure. ;-) /matt

of course it's a matter of taste, but it's also a matter of realizing that reversal film underexposed by two stops gets really dark. and they did 20 years ago as well. believe it or not but i remember that too. ;-) /matt

i wouldn't rely on overhead lighting for my key if the shot was from above. maybe you can put some extra lights in the back and to the side or something, and gel it appropriately of course? or at least put flags and negative fill on the camera side. just thinking aloud here. i never shot any such large interiors. for night exteriors i like to use overhead jokerbugs in chinese lanterns. maybe that could work? again i'm just thinking aloud. ;-) /matt

http://www.mattias.nu/sisteni/ http://www.mattias.nu/venedig/ both k40 in a canon 814e. /matt

not so. the negative stocks are much sharper than kodachrome, i've tested it both with charts and in real situations. in fact in my opinion the reason kodachrome is so low grain is because it's so soft you don't see it. this is not to say the negatives aren't grainy, because they are, but then again i like grain. /matt

um, yeah that must be why i said it's "green and underexposed for sure"... ;-) /matt

the "corrected" version is blown out and has a pretty bad magenta cast. somebody needs to calibrate their screen. :-) (the original is green and underexposed for sure, but there's no need to overcorrect the other way?) /matt

seems like nobody's seeding that torrent... /matt

thanks, yes i'm going to forget fill for the wide shots. the ambient light should indeed wrap enough, even though i would have loved the extra separation, then when moving in closer i'm going to use a handheld 4x4 shiny boards as well as a battery powered eyelight on the camera or handheld. i'll post my results. /matt

i see your point but in this case i seriously doubt it. you noticed that this is a 320 footcandle magic hour shot with no direct sunlight to bounce, right? the only thing i can think of that could be bright enough is a mirror. any experience using those for reflecting diffused light? i've used them to redirect sunlight through windows and such a few times, but that's it. maybe a shiny board would be a little easier to aim since there's some spread, while providing almost the same output? my experience with foamcore or lastolite is that you have to be quite close to the subject for it to work. /matt i know. it's just that i'm looking for a highly portable fixture that runs off a battery. but maybe they do? a car battery only holds like 7Ah though, so a 250 watt light would only burn for 20 minutes and i'm planning on shooting at least 30 minutes per day. /matt

thanks. i don't think i'll get much eye glint in the wides either, but i'm worried that the eyes will become black holes without additional lighting. i measured the ambient light today and it's only around 400 footcandles so the "punch" i was talking about doesn't really have to be that punchy. :-) but i guess what you're saying is that the hmi is the minimum for a wide shot and that a small tungsten source, while useful for the closeups, will do nothing further away? i'll experiment a little with shiny boards. i'll let you know how it goes. (i'm pretty experienced in shooting film, but i've shot very little video and never hd, and i must admit it's probably scaring me more than it should) /matt

hey, i know this has been discussed several times, but i have a pretty specific question. i'm shooting a short on hdv (fx1) next week, all daylight exteriors "on the run" and i think i need a portable fill/eyelight since i love eyes and would hate to lose them. this time of year stockholm is pretty much magic hour all day long (short) so the natural light will be the soft overhead light from the sky (no sun to bounce either) and i was wondering what kind of cheap light would be strong enough to provide some fill for the faces and sparkle in the eyes. i'm thinking a 125w portable hmi would be great, but it looks like we can't afford it (yes, the budget is that low). would a sun gun, pro-light or similar tungsten source give me the punch i need after i've gelled it down to 5600k? many shots will be rather wide so it has to have some reach, which rules out kinos too i guess (?), and besides i like my eyelights to be hard. so, not very specific after all, but any suggestions? :-) what about 12v work lights? maybe i should buy one instead of renting pro gear? it should come in handy on more occasions. thanks, /matt

jukka, while your footage looks fantastic it's *not* rock steady. it's steady enough to look "dead", which is what counts i guess, but if you look at details near the edges you can see that they weave around as they always do in super 8. /matt

has anyone ever used a silk stocking in front of the lens on an fx1? normally i would of course place it behind the lens, but since i can't maybe it would work ok in front too? what i want to know is at what apertures and focal lengths the net is invisible. on some cameras, especially those with small front elements and even smaller ccd's you have to zoom in quite a bit before the net structure disappears. i won't have access to the camera until the day before we shoot so i can't test it. i've however tested the technique on another camera and it gives me the look i want... thanks, /matt

if you're editing/onlining in final cut pro you can use my free black and white filter plugin. it lets you select which channels to use for the black and white conversion, and how much of each. using the green only indeed makes the image much sharper although i like to mix in some red for better skintones. i usually drop the blue altogether. http://www.mattias.nu/plugins/ /matt

not really. theoretically you have a point of course, but it's not that. it was there before we turned up the blue, plus we did it optically on the scanner too (the flashscan has a quite clever variable color light source) so no electronical or digital gain was involved. /matt

if it says surveillance film it's probably the old vision, or even exr if it's more than five years old. is it pro8 perhaps? /matt