Matt Sandstrom

david's advice is great. the reason for both of the problems you have is that they have no idea what they're trying to achieve. /matt

looks really good. very similar to fuji f-400 in 16mm is what first struck me. did you ask for this grading though? looks very dull. no clips? would be cool to see that tight grain structure dance... /matt

it depends on how you're finishing. if you're going to ntsc video 25p will be a pain. cf24 works out of the box but causes jerky motion. if you're doing a film out 25p is a good choice, but i suspect 60i through magic bullet is even better in that case and without the audio stretch problem. /matt

he's looking for uv lights. second that. uv lights too. i don't live or work in los angeles but just to prove that i tried to help ;-) here's a link to a swedish supplier that i often use: http://www.billebro.se/ both large uv lights and large strobes sell for around $500 so perhaps renting is a better idea? or even renting a real night club for an evening? /matt

i was ready to buy one of their fastbox kits until i realized that the "800" is only a 140, with the "equivalent output of 800w tungsten". i'd rather use kinos in that case, though at the great price i might still get one for car and mobile work since it would run great off a small inverter. i spend so much money renting small basic lights like rifas and kinos that i should really buy one or two. /matt

nah, dv uses almost exactly the same compression as jpeg, which is the format of these stills. the limiting factor with most dv is the lens and ccd, which both underperform compared to a still camera, not the compression. /matt

i know this is a lighting forum and all, but if you do that you miss out on a really (really) great beat. i just had to get on he floor for some six stepping before i could watch the rest. :-) if there was only a way to turn off the rappers only. /matt

sorry, i forgot to reply. i've seen the results of the first project now. it looks like a dv blowup, only much sharper. the colors and contrast aren't as good as for example hdcam, but it looks sharp and artifact free. much better than dv, not as good as "real" hd, as expected, no surpises. some have said that the interframe compression wouldn't work on the big screen but there were no such problems except some blockiness when the camera shakes or moves very fast, so it's better to avoid such shots. /matt not really. the limiting factor in those prosumer cameras is the lens. i've found the sharpness of the z1 to be about the same as high end sd (i.e. digibeta). a 720p camera with great glass will outperform both easily. /matt

first of all i see two glints in the eyes in the still images but only one in the video ones, leading me to believe that the lights aren't set up the same way, which changes the colors since skin looks different lit from different angles. other than that it just looks like a white balance issue. use the tungsten preset on the xl2 and gel the lights a bit blue and green? /matt

if it's a "little" shoot you can just rent some kinos. if you need the light for a long time and/or want to buy maybe the lowel rifas would be something to go for? i love those and they are just as easy to set up as kinos. /matt

you mean it seems underexposed, right? anyway, just use whatever asa setting that works. shoot a grey card and check the levels if you're uncertain. there's no mathematical formula that can ever give you the correct light loss factor of a 35mm adapter. also, a much better strategy for using such an adapter is to set the f-stop on the 35mm lens to a fixed number and adjust the camera aperture instead. much more control without any weird dof changes, plus at some apertures you may start seeing the grain in the ground glass. /matt

magic bullet produces vastly superior results if you need 24p. you'll get a pretty good film look from cf 30p, at a much better quality but it's not 24p if that's your mastering format. /matt

here's a frame. not one i'm extremely proud with but it shows a 650w raw fresnel key. it's emulating a street light that's in the wide shot, and yes i realize that it might be more a cross light than a key in your book. fill is another 650, filtered half blue iirc and bounced off a styrofoam sheet. /matt

i've shot a lot in white rooms. while it's not ideal it doesn't have to be disaster unless you've already designed a look and can't change the lighting to fit. the key (pun semi intended) is heavily draped/flagged overhead lighting and soft, near camera, fast drop off fill, in my opinion. keeping as much light as possible off the walls. i don't have a problem with white walls being boring as much as the problem they create by acting as bounce. hanging wallpaper "dry" is also an idea if you can't paint the walls. unless you're very close to it people won't notice. /matt

btw, to comment on the last paragraph, film is a color channel based medium that suffers from the exact same gamut restrictions as video. there are way more colors in nature that can't be represented than that can. i'm a film fan too, and i like the images of film better than video, but there's no reason to spread false information to prove it. /matt

hey, i read this article of yours a year ago or so. the problem is that you're solving a problem that doesn't really exist, while not solving the real problem which is how to keep things in sync. your method would be great if both the camera and recorder were crystal controlled and got to that speed in the exact same amount of time after you start them, but this isn't even very likely to happen even with professional gear. /matt

nope, they just started. it's you who's getting old. ;-) /matt

hey, here's a music video i shot and directed. some feedback would be nice. follow the link below and click "lisa lindal". http://www.familyplanning.se/ (this link was cross posted to the super 8 group, but with an emphasis on camera, stock and telecine used. hope that's ok) /matt

hey, i spend more time in "the other forum" these days, but i thought you guys might be interested in some k40 nostalgia. :-) i shot this the day before the deadline and sent it express to switzerland. shot with a canon 814e. flashscan telecine by kent at uppsala bildteknik. follow this link and click "lisa lindal": http://www.familyplanning.se/ /matt

rent a varicam? :-) seriously though it's the same as with sd video. just shoot interlaced with half the shutter time then slow it down in post. /matt

no, it doesn't. a real focusing ring has one position per distance, a scale that must remain constant as you zoom in and out, and it racks focus immediately when you turn it, not afterwards at a fixed speed using a servo. if these criteria are not fulfilled a follow focus isn't very useful. can you still focus accurately with the z1? sure, but that's another story. /matt

it doesn't focus very close, which could be a concern. to make a normal print fill the frame only a small portion in the middle of of the zoom can be used. /matt

that's just for the follow focus, not the matte box. why do you need follow focus? your camera doesn't even have a real focusing ring anyway. /matt

yes, but he doesn't want another camera, he wants a matte box. ;-) matte boxes are professional gear typically designed to be used with much more expensive cameras, and they're also marketed towards these users. so it's really just the z1 that's too inexpensive. :-) /matt

no, i said it was noisy. grain is a film term. noise comes from the electronics in your camera, like the ccd and a/d converter. a well lit scene shot with the z1 typically shows very little noise, but if the image gained there could be some. gain is the same thing as amplification, and it amplifies the noise as well. are you 100% sure you're not gaining? /matt