tom meyer

Hello all Today, I had a chance to play around with an Elemack RS 2+2 dolly fitted with an Elemack Mini Jib. While I could figure out how to lock the jib so as to inhibit the arm's up/down motion, I couldn't figure out how to lock the arm, so that it won't rotate about the vertical axis. Near the fulcrum, where the arm is attached to the dolly, there's a screw-in type knob that looks like it ought to do the job - except it doesn't. As a matter of fact, the knob looks exactly like the one used to lock the up/down motion, so I'm pretty sure it's the right knob I'm messing around with. This dolly is brand new and might not have been set up properly (long story). Is there anyone out there who has experience with this type of setup? Any help appreciated. Best, Tom Meyer PS: I tried locating a user manual from the Elemack site. Sadly, there is no such document available.

Hello all I will be processing some 5222 at a somewhat sketchy lab (no way around that). I'm planning to test their processing extensively. At least that will give me a some insurance in terms of the final outcome. As part of these tests, I'll push process the stock by one stop. I'll be drawing the HD curve myself and from that I'll calculate the resultant gamma. What I need at this point is some information on two key points: 1) If nominal gamma is "0.65", what is the gamma for one stop push? I've had some trouble getting an authoritative answer on this. Some sources mention "0.75". Is that accurate, and if so, what would the gamma be for a two-stop push? 2) How should I go about calculating gamma? I.e., should I use the "straight-line", or the "average gradient" method? Some sources state that the latter is to be used for "modern emulsions" - and 5222 is definitely not modern. For that matter, what method is Kodak referring to (in the context of 5222), when they state gamma values? Thanks for your help. Tom

Hi all I'm a guy just starting out in cinematography - this causes me to ponder all sorts of issues that old hands probably don't lose any sleep over ;) Bear with me if you will: The issue at hand is that I feel quite uncomfortable metering with my incident meter's dome. (I own a Spectra IV for that matter.) The reason for this is that I consider the dome nothing less than a Voodoo device that manages to provide one with a reasonable *interpolated* exposure - but at the loss of precise control over the placement of tonal values on the characteristic curve. Now I know that above statement is strictly true only in the case where the dome is used as prescribed (point dome towards the camera from the subject position). I also know that precise, non-interpolated readings can be obtained by pointing the dome more or less towards the light source while shielding light sources that aren't exposure relevant from striking it. But, I ask myself why I would want to to all this shielding when metering with the flat disc will give me a precise reading of the light incident on a given plane (let's say the key side of a face) without me having to shield backlights and whatnot from the meter? From a physical perspective (law of cosines and all that) metering with the flat disc seems the way to go... As I'm pretty convinced of being on the right track (at least for myself) with this, I will start shooting using this metering technique. While doing this, I'll obviously gain experience and I'll see what works and what doesn't. Nevertheless, I'd love to know what some of the more experienced people on this site have to say about this issue. Not to belabor the point, but as I see it right now, I'd slap on the dome if I were *really* pressed for time and it were necessary to come up with an exposure without the luxury of carefully considering what's going on in the scene in terms of individually metered light levels. Under those circumstances, the dome and its integration/interpolation properties would be a blessing, of course, as it could be expected to deliver a reasonable exposure under duress. Finally, one last question: The flat disc on my Spectra inexplicably reads up to 1/3 stop lower than the dome - this in a situation that should read identically (head on and homogeneous illumination of the metering cell). Can anybody suggest why that is so and what I ought to do about it? I figure, I'll just "get used" to it and learn to interpret exposure from this new baseline, right? Thanks a lot for any insights! Tom