Phil Gerke

Wow, what a great resource. Thanks for that link. Kind of depressing, but not suprising either. The ZF lenses are not cheap, compared to the Nikkons you can get all day long all over the place. Lets see how long and how many they manufacture. Cheers!

Hi Tim, I wish I could offer more of an opinion as far as lenses go. I have yet to see footage through some really good glass. Mostly its Nikons and FD Canons. Damn near had some of the Zeiss Nikon mount lenses, but that fell through. I'd love to see what some good cine lenses look like, I can only assume they would offer an improvement. If nothing else for the speed. Would it be worth the cost? Who's paying? I would be inclined to go with the Nikon glass and put the money into another aspect of the film, but thats me, at least as far as low budget shorts are concerned. Wish I had more experience. Let us know if you ever get your eyes on some footage shot with some fancy glass. I'll do the same.

Hi Edward, One thing I can tell you about the Brevis and the EX1, make sure you have the appropriate acromat! I was involved with a feature that was to be shot with the EX1 and a Brevis, however at the time, Begining of April, Cinevate did not have an acromat that would accomodate for the EX1. We tried the one that works for the HVX, but no luck. The edge sharpness is just crap with out a proper acromat. My guess is that Cinvate has fixed the issue by now, but definately check. We ended up using the Letus Extreme. As far as low light, the EX1 is a pretty sensitive camera. I assume the Nikons are anywhere from a 1.4 50mm to a 2.8. 28mm, I don't know about the zoom, probably slow. I found that light package for video still worked fine for most setups. Not sure where I would rate it as far as ISO goes. Supposedly the Brevis actually ads a half stop of light, read their site for reasoning. So maybe 500 ish? Never did get to do a waveform test. Is it better with or with out? Well do you have an AC? If you have a work flow and a crew that can accomodate then sure go for it. If you want to do some run and gun type shoot or if you have to do all the lense changing, cleaning, focus pulling yourself, well... People want the look and they seem to think that the adapter itself is the only investment you have to make, but in reality there are other "costs" involved with an adapter. So can you guys afford it? I think the Brevis is fine. Its light, does not lose light and does its job. I am not the biggest fan of 35mm adapters in general however. The word "adapter" is the first clue, but it is a look and it looks pretty good. I am not willing to say "profesional" but a fairly cheap way to get a better than "video" look I suppose. Have fun! Phil

Hey everybody. There have been a few open crew calls in my area that I have been thinking about submitting a resume to. I have never responded to one of these. Is a cover letter a good idea? Any other advice? The positions are mostly local G&E as well as general PA's. Should I tailor a resume specifically for this? Seems like these companies pretty much just cast a net and see what comes up. A crap shoot. Thanks a lot! Phil

Thanks for that! Meeting this week I am pretty sure, should not be an issue really. Besides once I mention the risk of fireball nobody will want to OK that:)

Thanks so much for the feedback. When tie-in was first uttered I should have put my foot down, but I did not. And popping in some breakers is a far cry from tying in and as said before still not a great idea. To be honest I am a little embarrassed, I appreciate the concern and matter of fact-ness in your responses. There is a reason that info like this is not readily available (and illegal) it keeps people from getting electrocuted. This is not a good idea no matter how I look at it. At the risk of losing some of the producers confidence in me, its just not right to be screwing around with this. I was on the fence before, needed to get chewed out a little:) We will be house power and putputs only. I've done more with less. The tech scout is in a couple weeks, they alloted a day, but I will push for 2. Just curious, how often is this really done? It seems foolish, if a production cannot spring for a genny then they sure as hell can't risk an "accident" of any type right? Thanks a lot guys! Phil

Hi everybody, I'll be gaffing a feature next month and yes a low budget. We don't get a real genny, a couple Honda 3000's is all, not a huge deal, mostly smaller fixtures and no need for 240. I expect to have to tie-in at several of the locations. Mostly my experiance in this is for simply adding additional breakers to the box and wiring for install. Can anyone point me in the direction of some good recources, books, websites, etc... that can provide some more film specific info. Harry Box's book is wonderful, but does not go into it enough. For instance, I'd like to build a box that will tie in and give me a couple 30 amp 120 circuits. Is that not feasible? Worst case I'll just install a couple breakers (if there is room) however I'd like to have my own distro box with its own breakers. What do you think? Thanks a lot! Phil Gerke (Who clearly does not spell check)

Right:) Got mixed up a bit. Should have read before I posted. Michael thanks for the info. Basically what it boils down to is that you really have to go by experience and knowledge on a per fixture basis. Not every 1.2K is going to behave exactly the same, from manufacture to manufacture at least. 85%, thanks for that figure. So assume about an increase of 50% at the strike and operation at about 85% efficient when running. Though I will be most likely using electronic ballasts, what do you think? Can you use P=IxE for the heads? At least in their relationship with the ballast. In the instance of the 800, is the head pulling 6.6 amps from the ballast, and the ballast being less efficient pulls more from the power source? Or is it not that simple? HMI (and flouro for that matter) don't quite work that way do they? Great tip on the voltage loss! I could see that certainly happening. Oh, one more question. In your example of the 3 575's. You added the 3 and got your 85% by multiplying by .85 right? Now, that is just for the sake of determining a draw, the fixtures total is still only 1725 right? The inefficiency of the ballast is not causing a greater output (lumens) right? Thanks a lot for the help! p.s. I realize there are about 5 questions in there, tackle what you wish.

Hey all, I have been getting mixed info on how many amps HMI pull. The standard deviding volts by watts to get amps does not exactly work with HMI does it? How does the strike factor in? K5600 states their 800 joker (which I love) pulls 12.5 amps. Is this factoring the strike, which is higher than the running draw right? Is there an equation for quickly determining current? I don't believe Mr. Box gets into in his book either. Thanks a lot! Phil

Please correct me if I am wrong in my thinking. Gelling that 650 full CTB would reduce it to around 100 watts and then bouncing that would really knock it down quite a bit, certainly less than your Kino. Sound right? Phil

Ah ha! I thought that was it. I was watching Heat the other night and noticed some out of focus lights in the background that were quite oblong I thought. Why is it that flares go horizontal and the out of focus stuff goes vertical? Thanks!

The egg crates that you put in your chimara serve only to add directionality to your soft box. It does not change the quality of light and only marginally decreases output. Basically it is a way to "spot" in a large soft source. As apposed to a mass amount of flags that would be in order to try and contain the light to the same degree. I believe they offer 30 40 and 50 degrees of directionality, at least there abouts. Have fun with it. I'd go on but I gotta get out of town:)

Can someone comment on the distorted bokeh? I am aware of the horizontal flares, but not the effects on the bokeh. Also, thought I have no experience with the redrock, I found that I liked the Brevis quite a bit and considerably less light loss, but cannot comment on sharpness between the two. Thanks!

Hi Brian. First off I am by no means a seasoned pro, I'll offer my observations and opinions but look forward to hearing what others have to say. You ask 10 DPs how to light a room and you will get 10 different looks so with that in mind... I feel like you have too many lights. The 2K straight down is unnecessary I think, all it will do is further flatten the scene and cast unwanted/unbelievable shadows. If you want that toppy flouro look why not use your soft light gelled and with an egg crate directly over the subject? Or centered in the room may work too if you find you want more fill. I think you are right that the practical will not read how you want it too, but I disagree as to where to put your #4 light, in your diagram you are pointing the light right at the fixture which is going to cause the practical to cast its own shadow on the wall and won't serve to kick anything on the subject, certainly not from the right angle. I would hang above and to the left of the practical at about 11:00 from the camera keep the light off the practical and hit your subject serving as a kind of grease light, if you like that look. Another observation is that from a logical standpoint it seems odd that this person who is bathed in sunlight still requires both an overhead light and a practical beside his desk. Maybe if he was really spartan it would be the sunlight and a desk lamp for the days when he has to stay long. That may be too much contrast for you. What stock and stop are you going for? Key to fill ratio? Well thats my two cents. Take it for what its worth and by all means if anybody spots any holes in my logic by all means... Phil

Not to high jack the thread, but couldn't an incident reading at the window be misleading? What if the light is only serving to increase ambiance? I know you are supposing the window to be in the shot, so I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to meter for a window in the shot? Would not a spot reading of what is out side serve as a better means of determining how to expose or ND for detail through the window? An incident will only give a reading of the light coming through the window and not necessarily what is falling on the objects outside. I realize we are probably talking about a very small difference generally, but just for the sake of asking. Its kind of outside the realm of the original question, but it caught my attention. Thanks a lot. Lots of questions from me today.