Stephen Whitehead

One will power a 4k just fine, it's done all the time. You need a few things to do it though. First of all you need an electronic ballast for your 4k capable of 220v power, but most are. You then need a breakaway cable that adapts the 220v twist lock plug on the generator to cam lock, then run two hots into a bates line, and a ground instead of hot, neutral, ground. You run the light in 220v power. You won't have flicker issues with an electronic ballast, although the system sometimes is a little unstable and can shut down from time to time. It's a common setup though, often used in remote locations where it's hard to get full size generators.

Hello, I have a question. I have been producing a Doc which was shot on the RED in eastern Europe. I may need to go back and shoot some pick-ups on the cheap with-out a full crew. I was considering using a 5D or 7D to do this. I have seen footage from both the DSLR's and the RED ofcourse, each with their own look. But I have never cut them together. For a documentary do you think the DSLR's would make an acceptable "b-cam" for pick-up shots?

Not Colimation, I am referring to the streaking caused by the shutter being out of sync with the movement.

Hey, just a random question, if you were to use a tighter shutter like 90 degrees or something is the likely hood the streaking caused by bad alignment would diminish? It seems to me it would, but what does everyone think?

I want the most shallow DoF I can get on an HVX200. I don't want to resort to using a mini35 adapter because I feel the images are too soft. I am thinking of Using a 1.6x converter. All the shots are designed to have that super compressed long lens look anyway. Is this a good way of getting a shallower DoF out of this camera?

Hey, I wanna create shafts of light pouring into a smallish room. I am debating either using a 12k fresnel fixture light a silver bullet, which works fine, or trying a Xenon spot, like a 4k Xenotech. I've never used a Xenon spot for this purpose. I like the idea of the extra defined shaft of light. Does anyone care to comment? steve

I am not sure if they are the k35's but I know it is not rehoused glass. They are lenses specifically built for 35mm motion picture use. They are BNCR mount... that probably doen't help. steve

Now how do those lenses compare to a Cooke 20-100 3.1t varotal zoom in terms of sharpness? I have heard people say they think the zoom is sharper than the canon cine primes. I have shot with both and they both look pretty good, but again, they were printed to video. Does anyone have the experience to compare these lenses?

Hey I just shot a few shorts on old Canon cine lenses (late 70's early 80's), they looked pretty good transfered to video, But now I am considering shooting a feature on the same lenses. Do you think they would be too soft for doing a 2k DI? I shot a comparison between those lenses and ziess t2.1's. The 2.1's seemed to be a little more snappy in terms contrast. I would prefer to use the canon's because I have easier access to them then a set of ziess lenses. Any DP's with experience using these lenses care to comment on their viability as a lens for the big screen? steve (oh and happy holidays everyone)

What do I need to attach a 6k to a zoom boom? here in Toronto Dwight crane's booms come with a yoke to take a junior peg, but I intend to use a construction crane, and am not sure the best(safest) way to rig that. Any with more grip experience want to shed some light on that? steve

I wouldn't want to stop down past a 4, at that stop would it be sufficiently sharp? also, how would it cut with Zeiss t2.1 standard speeds? steve

Hey can anyone comment on the Cooke Varotal 20-100mm t3.1 zoom? I am shooting a period piece in the next few weeks and am considering using that as my work horse lens. Any thoughts on whether that would look good, or be too soft? Also has anyone used Canon Cine lenses? steve

Was all of "Saving Private Ryan" shot at 45 degrees? or just the battle scenes? Steve

No I understood what he was saying. but what I mean is that if you were to draw an isoslies triagle from the subject to the edge of a source, you could theorhetically determine its softness based on degrees. for example a 4x4 frame with grid cloth at say 6 or seven feet might give the same softness as a 12x12 frame from oh say 20 feet (That math is not correct). now obviously you'd need more light going through the 12' frame to get the same exposure, but the softness would be the same... providing you did the math. steve

That statement perked my interest. Now clearly a light's softness is determined by its relative size to the subject it is lighting, but I have never known DP's to actually measure softness in terms of degrees. What did you have in mind when you said this? How is the 'degree' of a soft light calculated? Is it sort of like drawing a triangle between the subject and the size of the soft source? Cheers, Steve