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.

Yes David! Thank you. That is exactly what I thought. I think we may do exactly that with the still lenses, testing and seeing what kind of differences we are getting with some of the longer lenses. Granted most of the final lighting will be with the aid of a monitor but I'll be gaffing and will be working without a monitor much of the time and to be honest I would rather know my values as exact as I can. Thanks again. This has been great. Its nice feeling reinforced in what you already knew, and yet still expanding it all at the same time.

You guys rock, very helpful. T and F stops are clear now, what you all have said brought all my other "knowledge" into perspective. So from lens to lens a 5.6 will always equal a 5.6 not because of physical size but because the ratio of focal length to diameter is the same, therefore the amount of light transmitted is the same from lens to lens. (ignoring light loss due to elements of course) Thats what the paper towel role is illustrating? So this is why T stops are more specific because its a fixed value, an actual amount of light, assuming equal ISO etc... its not a ratio. Thanks!

Ok, that makes sense, but how do you know how much light is lost if the lens is measured in F stops? If I have a lens and the actual transmission is not the stated F stop how do I know how to light and expose for it? Cine lenses are rated in T stops correct? Thats the problem, we doing something with an adapter and will be using still Nikon lenses. However I believe a PL mount adapter and some Zeiss is in talk....

Perhaps this is very basic, but my education on lenses is pretty much DIY and experiance, both mine and others. I was speaking with a DP friend today and we were on the topic of lens speed etc... It came up that his understanding was this; if you had a 50mm 1.4 lens verses say an 85mm 2.8 and you stopped them both down to 5.6 the 50 would still be faster and allow more light, though he never said how much. This does not make sense to me at all. How could you ever get consistent results? My understanding is that a lenses maximum aperture is just simply that, its maximum. It does not allow any more light, but that does not affect how much light is being let in at other apertures. F stops are known values right? How could a meter work otherwise? This was brought up on account of a shoot we are doing with a Brevis 35 adapter and EX1 and trying to determine what stop we are actually lighting for, or what the ISO is. T stops were brought up and it was clear that I am not all together clear on the difference between F stop and T stop. Can someone please help? Thanks so much! Phil

Well you have two different kinds of lights you want to emulate, the first pic is sodium vapor and the other two are mercury vapor. Clearly you will need different gels to mimic both. Please somebody correct me if I am wrong. I did a shoot recently and used full CTO and Bastard Amber, I liked it, pretty sure I got that mix from somebody on these boards. That will probably be my go to combo. Though I want to try straw in place of CTO as well. As far as the mercury vapor goes I did not quite get what I wanted. Depending on how green you want it, maybe start with 1/8 +green and half CTB. Thats a combo I will be trying next. I had some flexibility with believability on the last shoot and used 1/2 +green and a sheet of "Summer Blue" from Lee. It was interesting, a little too green and a little to "party" blue for me, however it looked pretty great considering the subject matter and the director was pleased. This all assuming a 3200 stock/white balance. Have fun, Phil

Hey folks, I may be gaffing an indie feature in April and as of now the plan is to use the new EX1 with a Brevis 35 adapter and a Nikon SLR prime set. I am curious as to what would be the best way to set up my meter in terms of a usable ISO rating. I understand that rating video like film is not a great idea in the sense that a video cameras effective ISO fluctuates at various light levels. Forgive me if that is incorrect I am still learning a lot about this area. Film is much easier in this regard. How useful is it to grab the camera setup, hook up to a scope, and shoot a grey card etc... I am not even clear on the process, but would that gain much? What it boils down to is that I would like to be able to be lighting while camera dept. is getting all squared away and I don't want to have to wait for a monitor to be up before I really do some work. Granted once a good monitor is up I'll tweak from there, but I want to at least be able to come close. Also, is it just as simple as combing the F stops of both lenses to get your actual stop? Seems like the math should be harder. The 35 adapter setup is still pretty new to me and certainly raises questions. We should have plenty of opportunities for testing and such and I know thats what is really important, but testing is a waste of time if you don't know what questions to ask. Thanks for any help, I hope this makes sense. Phil Gerke

Hey all! So I am trying to "reinvent" myself from a profesional standpoint. I have been doing sound for 5 years or so and have spent my fair share of time on sets, large, small, good, bad and everything inbetween. I am planning on moving to a larger market soon and want to get onto some camera crews. I have been shooting and directing for a while, but not at the level that I want to be working at. I am not clueless when it comes to cameras, lights and such, I just don't have ligitimate "higher level" work under my belt. I have a few contacts that would probably take me on as a PA or in some kind of assisting role. There is plenty I am capable of, but no where near an actual AC or 2nd for that matter. A friend is trying to help get me a spot as a PA for a pretty A list camera crew, but I am not holding my breath. So, my thought is to simply throw out some cold calls to local DPs and production companies. Emails and maybe phone calls simply introducing myself and what my intentions are. Is that cool? I am really at a loss as to what else to do. I expect to do some crappy bottom wrung work, but I don't care, I work hard and learn fast and am confident I'll advance quickly once I get a chance. Do I even mention my past experiance, or do I just approach people hat in hand lookin for work? I'd like to think that I have a lot to offer over many of the other FNG's out there. What do you all think? Is this an appropriate thread? Any input would be great. Thanks, Phil

Tell me if I am wrong, but her key looks a hell of a lot softer than his. Her whole face is nice and soft and purdy while he has the whole shadowed half of the face thing going on. Isn't that more indicative of a harder source? I think this setup is a perfect example of how lighting is used guide the audiances perception of characters.

I have a question on the wiring. Is it OK to strip back the jacket on a 16 gauge AC cord and run the 2 leads the length of the lamp rod into the base? Or do I need to just use an 18 guage cable so I can run it through the lamp rod. It really seems like the same either way because the 18 guage lamp cable I have is simply 2 wires glued together and it seems like a crappy way to do it. If I use 16 guage and strip the jacket and used a really good strain relief I would have a heavier duty cable and still be in good shape right? That being said, would those IPON strain reliefs work in this way? I was also planning on heat shrinking at the lamp rod. Thanks a lot. I'll post photos when they are done.

Not that I have experiance with Co2 dollies, but I do have experiance with Co2. Forgive me if I am way off base. Is there not an inherent potential of introducing liquid Co2 into the cylinders and controls? If it is cold out or if the tank gets discharged many times in a short period you could begin to shoot extremely cold liquid Co2 into the dollies guts. Also the thing about Co2 is that as it runs out, the output pressure drops. Are these things even an issue with such a dolly. Phil