Jump to content


another HMI vs Tungsten question - budgets


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 shane grace

shane grace
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2005 - 01:04 PM

Just finished shooting a video clip on 5248 and is the first time since film school (5 years ago) that i have used only tungsten sources (interior and exterior). I made this decision because my lighting budget was cut down. I thought i could get by with a 12k - it felt like a blonde - i had to have it so close to the talent to create a highlight it stung!!

But i was so impressed by the 'glow' tungsten fresnels had - much softer/flattering. HMI feels very harsh in comparison.

Am after some experiences from other dp's who get the shocked look from directors and producers when you say you want 1, 2 or maybe 5, 12k HMI's????? I feel like a doormat sometimes in pre-pro or post-pro when the clients complain at the result. i know myself it could have looked better with brighter light - or we could have shot it more quickly by not having to move lights every time the shot changed... but the client want champagne on a beer budget.

Thanks in advance

Shane
  • 0

#2 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2027 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 16 August 2005 - 05:04 PM

Yeah, tungsten is very nice. It does however get unbearably hot in small studios with big tungstens and they draw extreme amounts of power.

I'd like to go with tungsten all the time, but the gennys I normally work off prevent me from that. It's nothing to max out a 150kva (and that's a pretty big truck) genny on tungsten - that's done in a snap on a big setup. With HMI's you can go a bit further.

I've actually calculated the wattage/power from tungsten vs. HMI's and factored in the genny and it comes out at about the same, maybe with a slight advantage towards tungsten. And if you factor in rigging time for HMI's and their ballasts, cables, weight etc, there's a definite saving in using tungsten. HMI's take time.
  • 0

#3 gregory mandry

gregory mandry
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 17 August 2005 - 09:49 AM

can you not shoot on a faster stock 200 - 800t could save a lot of lighting costs
  • 0

#4 shane grace

shane grace
  • Guests

Posted 18 August 2005 - 09:40 PM

faster stocks - 200-800 - i have a fobia of :)

My day job is commercial still photography and as i have hardly ever shot above asa 100 in my life - i feel very awkward using anything above 100 for cinema work. I even shot a 15 second tv commercial last month on 50D for the interior - only with kinoflos - very close to the actors mind you....
  • 0

#5 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2027 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 19 August 2005 - 06:07 AM

That's the spirit, Shane. I tend to do the same - I'm a low ASA shooter. I even try to do nightscenes on low speed stock just to, well, just to do it.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Visual Products

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc