Chad Terpstra

This one has piqued my curiosity. It separates the gear box from the focus gear and the build quality seems like it might be alright. Anyone have experience with it? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/992626-REG/ikan_ff_to5_tilta_single_sided_cinema_follow.html

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I've spent enough time with sub-par follow focuses to last me the rest of my life so build-quality means everything. I haven't seen anything outside of Arri/Oconner/Chroisziel that really made the grade but I'm always willing to take a look at new places (for example Bright Tangerine was founded by a former Arri designer and they make great matte boxes http://www.brighttangerine.com). For now I've concluded that the only real options are the studio configs such as the FF4/5 or Cine Focus One by Oconner. They separate the gear box with an arm that extends to reach the lens. I guess I'll have to save my pennies for one of those. Keep posting options if you find anything interesting though!

I'm looking for a mini follow focus that works well with short lenses and allows room for a matte box. All of the top options from Arri and O'conner have gear boxes that are too long and collide with either the camera or the matte box. - In other words they can't reach the lens gear from behind the lens because they hit the camera body and when placed in front of the lens ( away from the camera) the gear box interferes with the matte box. The only options I've seen that work are the studio units like the Arri FF4 and the CFF-1 by O'conner. They arm out the gear away from the gearbox and take up a tiny amount of space once they reach the lens. Does anyone know of a lightweight follow focus that has a slim gearbox and works well with short still lenses?

Thanks for the reply, Guy. That makes sense and the link has a lot of great info for what to expect with a color meter. I've done a bit more testing and the digital setting seems to be tracking really well with my 5D's white balance settings when viewing a white card on a vectorcsope. As far as the +/- green gel I think the best thing to do is just meter different strengths of gel and make your own table you know and trust with your meter. That's the best way to be sure. It's too bad about LED sources not being accurate. According to Konica/Minolta their CL-200A meter can read LED. Once you find out the price though you'll second guess the worth of it though - $3,400! http://sensing.konicaminolta.asia/products/cl-200a-chroma-meter/ The only thing left that has me puzzled still is that I often get a reading that says "Under" which I've figured out means it's too warm or under the sensor's Kelvin range to accurately measure. This is odd though because it seems to happen to incandescent bulbs that are even slightly dimmed (i.e. a bulb starts at around 2800K and as soon as you dim it the meter can't read it). This is in either range setting -high or low. I'm going to call Sekonic and confirm this is normal because it seems like it should be able to read a little lower than that. My friend's 20 year-old Minolta meter was reading them with no problem.

All types of light ideally. Tungsten, HMI, Fluorescent LED, etc. I've heard some meters aren't compatible with LED but I don't know about this one.

I just recently purchased a Sekonic C-500 color meter in order to know how much CTO, CTB or +/- Green to add to lights to match different environments. I'm wondering how to directly interpret the readings of the meter into the most common denotation of gel strengths - i.e. 1/8,1/4, 1/2 and Full (Color). I can figure out Kelvin with some quick math but where do you find what strength of +/- green to use? The meter reads 0-50 Magenta and 0-50 Green. Also the readings in digital mode are very different than in film mode. For example a reading in digital mode of CC filter 5M will be CC filter 25M in film mode. Anyone using this meter that could lend me some incite?

Yeah we used a 2mm streak filter which was plenty strong for my taste. I probably would have gone with less if we had it but I don't dislike the intensity. Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the editing was very well done.

We MAY have used Blade Runner as an reference for this piece. Epics with Master Primes. Color done in Davinci Resolve. What do you think? https://vimeo.com/42477796

I'd go with good quality Nikons for adapter work. I've gotten great results with even E series Nikons. One thing to keep in mind for the Brevis is that you won't see any light gain in any lens faster than a 2.8. It's a strange phenomenon unique to it's design but the light loss is non-linear. So anywhere from a 1.2 - 2.8 is the same - a total of .5 stops as compared to no adapter. Then F4 is another 1/2 stop loss, and 5.6 is almost a stop. From there it is about stop for stop loss but the grain will show too much above a F5.6 so You'll want to stay away from that (same goes for all vibrating adapters). What I usually do is leave the prime lens at F2.8 and get my ASA rating from there (ASA 160 for the Brevis + lens + JVC HD100 combo) and adjust only the back (stock) lens for exposure. This means of course that the bokeh remains the same regardless of stop so if you need to split focus or deepen it you can stop down to 5.6 and adjust your light meter to match the new ASA rating. That's the best system I've come up with for adapter work. I'm usually surprised by how good shooting with an adapter can look. I've tried going without mine a few times but with a 1/3" chip there's no amount of set dressing and careful attention to lighting (which is usually the norm anyway) that can fully alleviate the video look IMHO. The definition and sharpness are still there. What remains is the camera behind the setup and that's where the quality goes down most steeply to me. If you can find a prosumer camera with great color, latitude, resolution and motion, then put an adapter in front of it and you'll have a great little rig on your hands. The EX1 might be getting closer to that camera but I haven't used it yet so I don't know. Still for under $10,000 altogether (including a modest set of primes) it's probably nice setup for side projects. Feel free to take a peak at my reel (mostly adapter footage) and let me know what you think: CineVera Pictures Thanks!

Because he was the one actually doing the job of the gaffer. He was giving feedback on what would be the best units, how things would be rigged, assigning jobs to G&E crew, and before we had a best boy for the last two days, he managed the power. It was a very small crew -just myself, the gaffer, and two grip/electrics for most of the shoot. I was functioning as the DP but just on the lighting side. And of course since I had no camera department to worry about, after I decided on the look and the plan was laid out I helped set lights and wrap gear. But I asked our gaffer what he wanted help with. I know it's a weird situation and I knew that going into it. We agreed ahead of time that I'd be in charge of the light portion of the image and would have suitable credit. I just don't know what's the most legitimate. Is there anything that people would see and say, "Oh, they're half responsible for the way this picture looks. Neat." Anything? Lighting Consultant seems a bit weak but if that's the only thing people use in this situation I guess I'm stuck with it. What would you think if it were Lighting Cameraman? Splitting DP credit seems silly also. Thanks again, guys. I'd love to be able to salvage something from this besides the paycheck. ;)

Hi there. Recently I was hired to light a higher budget, 7-day short film. We had a DP, camera operator, gaffer and myself. In our conversations before the shoot we determined that I would be making creative lighting decisions to create the mood they were after (Director & DP). So on the shoot I had control over the lighting and worked with the gaffer to make it happen, discussing motivation and mood with the director. The camera operator, DP and/or director found the frame, we (gaffer and myself) lit the scene how we wanted, then the DP would come back and sometimes make a tweak or two, then they shot it. What was I? Going off the English System I gave myself the title of Lighting Cameraman and they were cool with that and I can use the footage on my DP reel. Is this what best describes the role? Another idea tossed around was Lighting Director but I haven't heard of that being used in film very much. I appreciate your knowledge and insight.

Rupe, now that you've shot your first feature with the F900 are there any pearls of wisdom you've learned from the experience? I'd love to hear how it went both in terms of the camera and your day-to-day experiences.