Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Are night shoots getting cheaper?

David Ellison

David Ellison

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Manchester UK
With current sensors getting more and more light sensitive are night shoots in movies getting cheaper to do and will this trend continue?

For instance say shooting a movie set in a forest at night ala wolfman or something. in comparison to the pre red days I'd like to know just how much more cost effective it is becoming.

Thanks
 
No. You still need light and power.

A generator requires an operator. Cable still needs to be run and wrapped.

From my experiences, you actually need more light shooting digital than film.
 
Yes and no.

Yes, where there is some available light, you can use less lighting overall in the background, and smaller units in general in the foreground (if any), thus pulling less power. Where there is no light, yes, just in the sense that you can use the next smaller unit, pull less power, for the same area to be lit.

No, in that with more sensitivity, directors get more ambitious, shots get wider at night, see more area that needs some light, though smaller lights can be used, or the same big light now lights more area from farther back... also, with more sensitivity, more people are opting to use slower lenses (like zooms) and keep the light level the same, just now they can shoot at T/2.8 instead of T/2.0 or wider.
 
Thing is that often lighting issues are driven by the script, which is not always budget-friendly. It may describe a prom held inside a gymnasium with a lot of nightclub lighting effects, or someone running through the woods in moonlight with only a flashlight that is slowly dying, or a large room that transitions from one type of lighting to another, etc.

Also, lighting can be schedule-driven -- you've got a 7-page day interior scene to shoot with an actor that is only available for one day, and it's winter and you have less than 12 hours of daylight. Are you really going to call it a day after the light has faded inside the room, even if the work is incomplete? I've even been in locations for day scenes that were only available to us at night.

And these issues are MORE likely to hit the low-budget filmmaker, not less likely.
 
I agree with David, yes and no.

My reasoning is different, not that I disagree with David's reasoning, its just not how I thought about it.

Power level is all that you really alter with better sensors. Its just the space you have to light and the technical/creative lighting objectives that determine what lights, and thus lighting power you need.

Compared to film, where ASA 500 has been available for at least a decade, digital is just getting there.

So, if you look at the lighting gear list and budget for a scene for a RED One (at EI 250) versus the same scene using Kodak Vision 3 (at ASA 500), you need half as much lighting power for the film shoot. That means renting enough light for the film shoot will be cheaper by about 45% in my market. I'll come back to this.

The Canon DSLR's, RED MX and Alexa are the first digital systems that can deliver in low light, by which I mean EI 500 or faster performance with low noise.

Based on what I have seen on these forums, I can safely shoot RED MX at ISO 2000, and routinely use ISO 800 for a lot of work. I have not followed Alexa as closely, but I expect it to deliver similar performance to the RED MX.

I can routinely shoot the Canon DSLR's at ISO 800. I can push a Canon Seven D to about ISO 1600 if I'm willing to compromise the image. Sometimes that can be worth it to deliver a special effect.

So, going back and answering the question:

NO, this is not really changing how we light films in professional work.

We are looking at close to the same difference in relative lighting levels at EI 800 with the new digital sensors vs, ISO 500 on film with no push. In reality a lot of night scenes shot on film are pushed to 800 or faster, so its a break even with film and digital now.

Now, on low end pictures, these high sensitivity sensors are enabling technologies. This is where the answer is absolutely YES.

Let me walk you through the net difference for a tiny show like that.

One of my current projects is an indie science fiction show called Polaris. Its a very small micro-budget thing. Labor on the show is effectively free. The producers are providing food, and sometimes lodging/travel expenses.

I had a RED One available- but we literally couldn't afford to light for it. I ended up shooting the first part, "the main shoot", at f/2.8 ISO 400. Had I shot the RED my lighting budget would nearly have doubled for that shoot. I'll take you through the numbers

I did push the camera to ISO 800 f/4 for a green screen shoot. Since I really wanted f/4 on this section of the shoot, if I had chosen RED I would have had to deliver a bit more than three times the light. My decision to use ISO 800 for that was based on increased experience with my DSLR camera and updated keying software.

On the main shoot, as I said, my main technical lighting objective was centered on holding exposure at f/2.8. That meant I was looking to deliver 25 candles illumination as my midpoint. As a side note, ISO400 was selected because its the most lighting I thought we could afford and still meet both our technical and creative objectives. (If you care, you can look up photometrics and figure out how far away I was placing these fixtures.)

Here was my instrument list for the main shoot, which was a week long:
(I am ignoring grip, dolly and delivery for the shoot, because I feel they would be identical)

1200w HMI fresnel with flicker free ballast.
6 650w fresnels
2 300w fresnels
1 KinoFlo DivaLite 400
1 KinoFlo Divalite 200
2 source 4 750 watt lights
24" Chinaball with two 13 watt compact flourescent bulbs (about 200 watts tungsten equivalent) which I owned.

That's a total of 7530 watts. This comes to a total of $1828 rented locally.

Before I move on, I'll say that in hindsight, I wish I had brought a 1200w HMI Par fixture instead of the fresnel and two more 300w fresnels. I also would have hired in four 150 watt fresnels and if I could stretch the budget I would have swapped the DivaLite 200 for another DivaLite 400. All that would have run me an extra $400 or so for the week. I would have left one of the source fours back at the rental house- I only ever used one at a time, saving $60.

So, if I had shot the RED One (non M-X), my lighting objective, would have been to deliver 40 candles to provide for exposure at f/2.8 ISO250. At the distances I had to use them this is just out of the capability of the fixtures I selected- which has a cascading effect on my budget.

I would have selected (ignoring the benefit of hindsight)

1 2500w HMI fresnel
6 1000w fresnel
2 650w fresnel
1 KinoFlo parabeam 400
1 KinoFlo DivaLite 400
2 source 4 750 watt lights
24" Chinaball with two 85w CFL bulbs (about 650w tungsten equivalent)
That's a total of 11910 watts.

Now my location had 80 amps of power available. I could usually run the package I actually used there off mains power. Using a RED I would have needed 40 extra amps.

That comes to $3368 rented locally, including the generator. I'd additionally have had to come up with another $70 for globes for the chinaball.

That teensy difference would have shut down that project before we shot frame 1.

Coming back to professional work, and looking at my gear list, you can see tis intended to be run by a small crew. The number of instruments I selected was driven by the lighting effects the director and I wanted. Even so... both gear lists require the same crew... so my labor costs would have been identical.

Now that was a studio shoot of course, but the savings in lighting rental scale roughly linearly. That same kit can serve as an exterior nightime kit for a lot of projects. I'd probably replace all the tungsten fresnels with HMI's if there was budget, but that's about it.
 
Shawn Booth said:
No. You still need light and power.
A generator requires an operator. Cable still needs to be run and wrapped.
Click to expand...

Having gaffed a number of low budget “Digital Cinema Projects” lately, my answer would be a resounding “Yes” for that segment of production. But, as can be expected of a “Cinematography” forum, the reasons given thus far are camera-centric. Of no less importance has been recent advances in the design of lighting, power generation, and distribution equipment.

Anyone who has followed these discussion threads in the last year, should be aware of these advances:

- More efficient and compact HMI, Quartz, and now Fluorescent Par Lights.
- Brighter and more efficient "short arc" HMI bulb designs.
- The incorporation of Power Factor Correction in smaller HMI and
Fluorescent ballasts.
- Cool burning, energy efficient LED Lighting Fixtures.

Add to that, new power generation and distribution technology that enables the powering of HMI lights up to 6kw or Quartz lights up to 5kw off of wall outlets or the new generation of portable inverter generators, and you have what has been described in these forums as a paradigm shift in lighting for low budget movie making. Here is a list of a few of the threads that I have bookmarked on this topic:

Powering HMIs & Kinos with batteries for Night Shoot
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38785

Gaffers/Electricians: Can I run my 6K HMI off a dryer outlet?
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34381

What is Power Factor Correction in HMIs
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40275

I would summarize the content of these threads as follows: until recently, to power HMI lights over 1.2kw or Quartz lights over 2kw required a large diesel movie generator. Now it is possible to take advantage of new technological to power HMI lights up to 6kw or Quartz lights up to 5kw off of wall outlets or the new generation of inverter generators.

The primary factors limiting the use of HMIs on portable generators has been their inefficient use of power and the harmonic noise they throw back into the power stream. Power Factor Correction in lights and the nearly pure power waveform of low impedance inverter generators results in virtually no power waveform distortion - making it possible to create clean stable set power that is capable of operating larger lights (HMIs up to 6kw or Quartz lights up to 5kw), or more smaller lights, than has ever been possible before on a portable gas generators.

Without a doubt faster image sensors and lenses in “pro-sumer” cameras has made a big difference on many of the low budget productions I have worked on recently. But, I have also found that smaller brighter lights, that consume less power and generate less noise, have resulted in new and more cost effective production techniques. These new lights and associated techniques have greatly reduced production costs by eliminating the need for large diesel generators to get feature style production values.

Movie generators are not only expensive to rent, but they come with hidden costs that usually break the budget of independently funded digital cinema projects. Movie generators require special tow equipment not found on Ryder or Penske rental trucks. For that reason, movie generators require that you rent a more expensive grip truck from a lighting and grip rental company in order to tow them. Lighting rental companies will not send out a grip truck without a company driver - further adding to the expense of renting a movie generator (driver rates run about $400/10hrs with overtime after 10hr). By eliminating the need for a tow generator in order to have feature style production values, this new technology saves the expense of not only the generator, but also the added expense of a rental house grip truck and truck driver.

Now that we don’t have to pull a generator we can set up a Ryder or Penske rental box truck with lumber shelving and several Backstage rolling grip carts and we have all the same amenities as a rental house grip truck. So that we can record sound without picking up the noise of a portable generator, we leave a slot at the back of the truck for an inverter generator. Using one of the new transformer style distros we are able to run the generator from inside the rental truck while keeping our power plug in points conveniently on set and without appreciable voltage drop.

While these new lights tend to be more expensive to rent than older ones, the additional expense is more than offset by the savings of not having to rent an expensive movie blimped tow generator with all of its’ hidden costs. Really cash strapped productions can even use the more affordable to purchase or rent HMIs with magnetic ballasts since according to this thread - Magnetic ballasts with RED? http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29952&page=4 - inverter generators do not require crystal governors to operate magnetic ballasts flicker free (at certain frame rates.) Not only are magnetic ballast flicker free but they draw less power than comparably sized non-Power Factor Corrected electronic ballasts.

Substituting some of this newer technology for older in Alexander Ibrahim’s instrument list, and the load for his main shoot package for the Red One can be brought down to just under 70 Amps. In other words he would have been able to use nearly the same package without the expense of renting a generator.

1 2500w HMI Fresnel w/ PFC electronic ballast
6 Arri 650w Plus Fresnel (they have the output of 1ks)
2 Arri 300w Plus Fresnels (they have nearly the output of 650s)
1 KinoFlo Parabeam 400 (they are Power Factor Corrected)
1 KinoFlo Parabeam 200 (they have nearly the output of a Diva 400)
1 source 4 750 watt light (he only used one in the end)
24" Chinaball with two 85w CFL bulbs

If he were to take this package out in the woods, all he would need is a couple of portable inverter generators. He would not need to rent a diesel movie generator, a rental house grip truck to tow it, and a grip/driver to drive the truck.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH.
 
Isabelle Landers said:
Substituting some of this newer technology for older in Alexander Ibrahim’s instrument list, and the load for his main shoot package for the Red One can be brought down to just under 70 Amps. In other words he would have been able to use nearly the same package without the expense of renting a generator.

1 2500w HMI Fresnel w/ PFC electronic ballast
6 Arri 650w Plus Fresnel (they have the output of 1ks)
2 Arri 300w Plus Fresnels (they have nearly the output of 650s)
1 KinoFlo Parabeam 400 (they are Power Factor Corrected)
1 KinoFlo Parabeam 200 (they have nearly the output of a Diva 400)
1 source 4 750 watt light (he only used one in the end)
24" Chinaball with two 85w CFL bulbs

If he were to take this package out in the woods, all he would need is a couple of portable inverter generators. He would not need to rent a diesel movie generator, a rental house grip truck to tow it, and a grip/driver to drive the truck.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH.
Click to expand...

I apologize for my imprecision, the instruments I used were 650 w Arri plus's.

I find their practical output is very much the same as the older Arri non plus fresnels, provided the old gear has been maintained.

Generally speaking though I agree with your assessment of the value of new lighting technologies and their impact on power, there is a minor issue.

A lot of these new technologies cost more to rent or buy.

For example a Parabeam 200 costs nearly twice as much, for sale or daily rental, as the Divalite 400 which it can replace. Net wattage savings: 110.

There are other new lights- I am articularly interested in LitePanels Sola series. The Sola 6 is a daylight temperature fixture that is equivalent to a 650w tungsten in output, but only draws 75 watts. The Sola 12 replaces a 2k tungsten, but only draws 250w. They include touchpanel dimming.

Awesome power savings.

For the price of one Sola 6 I can buy 6 ARRI 650w Fresnel Plus.

It will be a while before I can replace all my tungsten fresnels on these super low budget shoots.

Your point is well taken, and on a better funded project it makes a huge difference. I hate big genny's- even when I can afford them, I just don't like them.

What I am looking forward to is the future when a tungsten fresnel and a fixture like the Sola 6 are the same sale and rental price. That'll be a revolution as big as Scarlet and the current DSLR's
 
Last edited:
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Generally speaking ... I agree with your assessment of the value of new lighting technologies and their impact on power, there is a minor issue. A lot of these new technologies cost more to rent or buy. For example a Parabeam 200 costs nearly twice as much, for sale or daily rental, as the Divalite 400 which it can replace.
Click to expand...

Which is why the really cash strapped productions that I have worked on use HMIs with magnetic ballasts. Of course, with a mag ballast Alexander will be restricted to shooting at only safe frame rates and shutter angles. But according to the thread “Magnetic ballasts with RED? “(http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29952&page=4 ), they also draw less power than comparably sized non-power factor corrected electronic ballasts because they are also power factor corrected. According to this post, a 2.5kw mag ballast operating on a 6500W generator with a 240-to-120V step-down transformer/distro will draw 7 Amps less than a non-PFC electronic ballast. And, since Diva Lights are also power factor corrected, Alexander will be able to operate four additional Diva 400s for the savings in power from using a 2.5kw mag ballast instead of a non-PFC electronic one. That is a major improvement in production capability and at a cost savings as well since 2.5kw HMIs with mag ballasts are dirt cheap to buy or rent.

Unfortunately it will be a while before the latest LED technology, like the Sola, becomes affordable for independent digital cinema productions. However, substituting an older mag ballast for the PFC electronic ballast and Diva 400s for the Parabeams on Alexander Ibrahim’s instrument list, keeps the load for his main shoot package for the Red One under 80 Amps and in the budget range of his independently financed production because he still won’t have the expense of renting a generator.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH.
 
Isabelle Landers said:
Which is why the really cash strapped productions that I have worked on use HMIs with magnetic ballasts. Of course, with a mag ballast Alexander will be restricted to shooting at only safe frame rates and shutter angles. But according to the thread “Magnetic ballasts with RED?"http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29952&page=4 ), they also draw less power than comparably sized non-power factor corrected electronic ballasts because they are also power factor corrected. According to this post, a 2.5kw mag ballast operating on a 6500W generator with a 240-to-120V step-down transformer/distro will draw 7 Amps less than a non-PFC electronic ballast. And, since Diva Lights are also power factor corrected, Alexander will be able to operate four additional Diva 400s for the savings in power from using a 2.5kw mag ballast instead of a non-PFC electronic one. That is a major improvement in production capability and at a cost savings as well since 2.5kw HMIs with mag ballasts are dirt cheap to buy or rent.

Unfortunately it will be a while before the latest LED technology, like the Sola, becomes affordable for independent digital cinema productions. However, substituting an older mag ballast for the PFC electronic ballast and Diva 400s for the Parabeams on Alexander Ibrahim’s instrument list, keeps the load for his main shoot package for the Red One under 80 Amps and in the budget range of his independently financed production because he still won’t have the expense of renting a generator.
Click to expand...

I agree with many of your facts, but disagree with several of your conclusions as you reason through it.

Your steps would have done a lot to bring the budget more under control. In fact it might save a few hundred bucks on the shoot as well as keep the power requirements under control.

To accomplish this, you are compromising the image. Its a reasonable compromise- you get what you pay for after all. The better answer was using gear that could meet creative objectives while holding the lighting budget down by "brute force" in this case simply being more light sensitive.

I did not find restricting myself to safe frame rates and shutter angles acceptable. I required a flicker free ballast. I did tests to confirm my conclusions. The frame rate for acquisition was pre-determined at 23.976 fps. That meant I could only manipulate the shutter, and it was determined that 180 degrees was the appropriate selection for the look we wanted, but we found "rolling bar" artifacts unless we used a shutter of 144 degrees. These artifacts were subtle, so it was a judgement call. I found them unacceptable and the director deferred to my judgement.

I do know others have made different judgments in the same circumstances- and I also know some people can't see the flicker at all. One DP I shared my test with absolutely refused to believe it was there when looking at the picture, but it was visible on the waveform. I stand by my judgment.

Flicker free ballasts were mandated, by me, for any HMI with RED. This in fact is a general rule with me when using digital cinema cameras.

On the other hand the DSLR I ended up shooting on left no judgment- it was absolutely unacceptable, and there was no way to correct it in camera. I'll say again: there is no shutter and frame rate option that is flicker free on these cameras. Another reason they suck despite making great pictures.

It turns out that this is a wash on these cameras- both needed flicker free ballasts in my opinion. If you can offer me a more cost effective or lower power solution that's awesome- but it must be flicker free.

All that is academic however. The lighting budget was already more than the producers wanted. Adding $100 would have been a fight. Adding $1000 was out of the question.

There is still a marked increase in the lighting budget for using the RED, because of its light sensitivity, that was not acceptable.

That is my central thesis: It is only at an ISO of 500 or higher that a lot of micro budget productions are enabled. Part of this is that lighting budgets are extremely constrained.

I actually think there is another market where ISO of 1600 or higher will be needed, and that this will result in a resurrection of the "Dogme" styles of production, i.e. not introducing any artificial lighting as a cinematic principle. (A state of affairs I would lament!)

RED M-X is a better choice for both these market segments, and Scarlet stands to clean up if it hits the market fast enough. If the RED I could arrange was an M-X I'd definitely have shot on that, and quite probably at ISO 800.

Budget dominance over production capabilities stretches further than just lighting though.

One huge weakness of RED in these low end productions is the post workflow. I don't care how good REDCODE is if my post workflow can't handle it. Drive space and processing requirements are overwhelming to micro budget productions.

Remember that for acquisition in these markets the standard is DVCPRO HD and XDCAM EX. AVC Intra is coming. All of these are far easier to handle than REDCODE, and they are all "good enough."

I continue to ask RED for 1080p 10 bit 4:2:2 h.264 at 10MB/s (80Mbps) and 2K 10 bit 4:4:4 h.264 at 25MB/s. (200Mbps) I'd like these in .mp4 containers. I am also hoping for a 1080p 8 bit 4:2:2 h.264 .mp4 at about 1MB/s (8Mbps) recorded simultaneously for dailies and live streaming over WiFi. My fear is that the RED h.264 module will only satisfy the low bitrate option suited to dailies and streaming- although I've read on these forums that ProRes and DNxHD modules are in the works. (classify that as a rumor. And yes I'd be thrilled with multiple modules!)

On reflection, RED has done a very interesting thing. They have made technology and ways of working typically reserved to feature film affordable to the crowd that used to shoot on HVX200 and low end ENG cameras. They haven't changed the way of working or thought processes- and certainly not the budgets.

Its an interesting collision of cultures as well as capabilities.
 
I don't care if you only need 20 amps total, if you are out in the woods away from a household socket or anything else you can tie into, you're talking either batteries or generators. And batteries are not a great way to deal with lights that have to be powered all night long. And if you are recording sound, it has to be a very quiet generator.
 
Maxi Brutes and 9 lights are a hell of a lot cheaper than HMIs and Kinos. If you are already renting a genny, going tungsten is a great way to save money on a budget night ex.

Nick
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't care if you only need 20 amps total, if you are out in the woods away from a household socket or anything else you can tie into, you're talking either batteries or generators. And batteries are not a great way to deal with lights that have to be powered all night long. And if you are recording sound, it has to be a very quiet generator.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

I think that people are making more out of my position than I intended.

Low ISO cameras require more light than high ISO cameras.

The difference in rental/purchase budgets for lighting can make the difference between being able to shoot or not being able to shoot for very low budget shows.

That's it in a nutshell.

Compare RED at ISO 250 to Kodak Vision 3 at ISO 500, pushed a stop.

If I have to hire in a 30 Amp Honda for $100/day its a whole different game than needing 120 Amps, which in my market means I have to rent a 500 Amp crawford at $425/day. (Plus an operator)

(Why no one in DC seems to have anything between a 50 Amp generator and 500 Amps is another issue entirely, and utterly baffling to me. I could rent 4 30 Amp Honda's... but that starts getting loud, why not just spend the extra $25? Oh yeah, operator.)

I don't think a feature film would balk at that 500 Amp crawford & huge pile of power hungry lights- or even expensive HMI lights. An entire G&E budget can get lost in the salary of one or two above the line talents on these shows. I'm not talking about those shows. I don't think any current or upcoming technology is going to alter how they work except in special circumstances.

A micro budget indie might easily be unable to shoot because of the difference between a 20 Amp Honda, and a 50 Amp Honda at $175/day, which my local rental house parenthetically describes as "(Loud)"

Now we have DSLR's, RED M-X and Alexa.... more fast cameras are on the way.

Those very low budget shows are the ones that may see a revolution in what they can accomplish.

In the future we'll get lots of very low power lights at affordable prices. That'll be another revolution.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
...with more sensitivity, more people are opting to use slower lenses (like zooms) and keep the light level the same, just now they can shoot at T/2.8 instead of T/2.0 or wider.
Click to expand...

I gave this a shot for a film I DP'ed in Orlando in October. I had a 17-85mm T2.9 lens and 3 12K's to play with. The scope of our widest shots were still slightly too ambitious. I only wonder now what it would have been like with the M-X.

David, the majority of my demo reel is from that shoot, so tell me what you think for the few wide exterior night shots I do have.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
If I have to hire in a 30 Amp Honda for $100/day its a whole different game than needing 120 Amps, which in my market means I have to rent a 500 Amp crawford at $425/day. (Plus an operator) (Why no one in DC seems to have anything between a 50 Amp generator and 500 Amps is another issue entirely, and utterly baffling to me.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why, but every time someone mentions movie quiet generators, everyone immediately assumes the only option is a Crawford. This conventional wisdom makes you buy into the additional expense of a rental house grip truck to tow it, and the company driver to operate it, to record sync sound on location. The point I am trying to make is that this conventional wisdom is no longer true. For instance, Multiquip, the company that makes the Crawford Studio Units, also makes a line of attenuated tow plants they call the “Ultra Silent” series. Designed for the construction trades, they are not tricked out like the Crawford Studio Units. They don’t have redundant fuel filters and voltage regulators. And they don’t have camlock on their output panel. But, they do use the same frequency governors and boast sound specs nearly as good as the Crawford studio units and are available in 180A, 300A, & 450A sizes. We have used these successfully on many low budget productions – but you still need a tow vehicle.

I don’t know which model 50A portable generator Ibrahim’s rental house referred to as “loud”, but the Honda EU6500is is dam quiet. According to Honda’s literature it operates between 34 to 44 dBA at 50 ft. depending on load. That is half as loud as the Honda EM7000is and ES6500 generators you also find in rental houses. Ibrahim’s rental house probably has one of those two. The EU6500is is comparable to some Crawfords I have worked with. I think putt-putts have an unjustified bad rep because of how they have been used in the past. Because there is no “real” distro available for them, they are always used too close to set because of the voltage drop you get over a long run of stingers. If you were to park a Crawford just 100’ from set, your sound guy is gonna complain. Where you wouldn't try to park a Crawford right on set, you shouldn’t expect to record sound with a putt-putt right on set.

I have found that using a distro system like the one ScreenLight & Grip makes for their modified Honda EU6500is is all you need to record sound without picking up generator noise with putt-putts. It enables you to move the generator off set (like you would a Crawford) yet have plug in pockets on set where you need them. Running it out of the back of a van or truck parked around a corner is all the additional blimping I find these gennys require to record sound without hearing them on your audio tracks. To minimize voltage drop over a long cable run their system uses a heavy-duty 250V cable between the generator and the transformer. And the 60A 240-to-120 step down transformer they use in their distro slightly boosts the voltage on the load side to compensate for any line loss You are sure to have 120V on set. With the generator inside the truck, and 200’ of high voltage extension cable between it and the transformer/distro, you don’t hear the generator at all. A couple of low budget productions I have gaffed, rented this system after I read about it in the post I mentioned above. It works great and no I am not getting paid to say that. They also have a really good newsletter article about using putts-putts in production that is worth checking out at www.screenlightandgrip.com/html/emailnewsletter_generators.html.

As you can see, there are plenty of options between a 30A Honda and a 500A Crawford that will enable you to record sync sound on remote locations.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH.
 
Isabelle Landers said:
I don’t know why, but every time someone mentions movie quiet generators, everyone immediately assumes the only option is a Crawford...
Click to expand...

Isabelle,

None of the options you mentioned are in Washington DC. Go read my post again. Since you are talking about specially modified gear in New England, gear that is not available in DC, your entire post is ... not helpful.

I don't care if you have a Mr. Fusion sitting around that can generate 1.21 gigawatts and runs truly silent at 0dBa at 0 feet.

I am not renting a generator from New England, New York, or LA for a shoot in Washington DC. Heck I'm not even likely to rent gear from Baltimore.

Well... OK. If you really do have a Mr. Fusion I suppose I want to hear about that.

Finally the herd of extras grazing the craft services table will be contributing to the production. (Apologies to my SAG friends)

Otherwise in DC its VERY easy to end up in a situation where you need to hire a Crawford. That is in part because we have poor choices in rental generators.

I think everyone knows there are other options, and they are widely used elsewhere. They are not available in DC... that is both baffling and lamentable- and a constraint of MY project.

I am very sorry I included any of that information from my shoot.

All I really wanted was to illustrate the choice I made and why because that choice was germane to the OP's question.

Had it been taken as I intended, others would only have looked at it only as a model for their thinking.

It is definitely not a gear list anyone should order for their shoot. Different shoot different gear. I probably won't order that particular gear list ever again, in fact if I had to reshoot the whole show on the same set I'd order slightly different gear.

What I've done instead is create a tempest in a teapot that buried the relevant parts of my thought in discussions about generators I couldn't rent and lighting instruments I couldn't have used.

I should have said that at the start instead of arguing.

Back to the original question:

No higher sensitivity cameras make little difference to budgeted professional productions.

Yes higher sensitivity cameras make a huge difference to lo/no budget shows that otherwise could only do radio. To make a difference here the camera must be able to shoot at ISO 500 or faster in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Flicker free ballasts were mandated, by me, for any HMI with RED. This in fact is a general rule with me when using digital cinema cameras.
On the other hand the DSLR I ended up shooting on left no judgment- it was absolutely unacceptable, and there was no way to correct it in camera. I'll say again: there is no shutter and frame rate option that is flicker free on these cameras. Another reason they suck despite making great pictures.
Click to expand...

Alexander,

Can you (or anyone else elaborate) on your comment that there are no shutter and frame rate combination that eliminates the roll from magnetic HMIs on DSLR cameras. I have no first hand experience shooting with DSLR cameras, but find it hard to believe there is no combination that eliminates the roll. According to this post - Magnetic HMI ballasts at 23.98 (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=46571) - in cinematograpy.com the Canon 7d exhibits a rolling bar at 23.98 at 1/50th, but not at 1/30th, 1/40th, and 1/60th.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH
 
Alexander, last year on Deadlands II we used nothing but tungsten lights and I rented a towable Isuzu 20K diesel generator from SunCoast for less than half what it would cost from a movie rental house. 165 amps, single phase 120v used less than a gallon of diesel an hour.
It was quieter than the Honda 2K inverters we had been using earlier. We ran 8K of lights off of it.
Modern industrial gens have to meet much stricter noise requirements than they used too.
Also..it didn't require a dedicated operator. Totally a simple switch on or off.
Along with the Gen, a couple of large power cables and 2 spider boxes.
SunCoast provided the ring towing connector that fit into my towing reciever.
Anyway, that's how we kept our lighting costs down. Should work for lights with electronic ballasts too.
 
Isabelle Landers said:
Alexander,

Can you (or anyone else elaborate) on your comment that there are no shutter and frame rate combination that eliminates the roll from magnetic HMIs on DSLR cameras. I have no first hand experience shooting with DSLR cameras, but find it hard to believe there is no combination that eliminates the roll. According to this post - Magnetic HMI ballasts at 23.98 (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=46571) - in cinematograpy.com the Canon 7d exhibits a rolling bar at 23.98 at 1/50th, but not at 1/30th, 1/40th, and 1/60th.

Isabelle Landers, Gaffer, Nashua, NH
Click to expand...

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, I was away on a shoot.

I didn't consult a table or the internet, I did a test.

When I pointed my 7D at a white wall lit with an HMI with Magnetic ballast and took video I got rolling bars at every shutter the 7D offers at 23.98fps. I tested every shutter the camera offers from 1/30 to 1/500 and had unacceptable rolling bars at all speeds. Flicker free ballast was free of problems at all shutter speeds.

Then there is the minor fact that the only shutter speed I wanted to shoot at was 172 degrees, and 1/50 was the closest to that the 7D can manage... so even if 1/40 or 1/60 worked fine, I probably would have elected to use flicker free ballasts anyway so I could use 1/50 shutter.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top