Lectures > Lighting Companies

Contents

• Text of the letter sent to 42 Lighting Companies.
• Result of approach to Lighting Companies..
• Reply received from Michael Samuelson.

1. Text of the letter sent to 42 Lighting Companies.

Dear Sirs,

The Association of Motion Picture Sound (AMPS) recently undertook to look into extraneous noises on film sets. A survey asked Production Sound Mixers and Post-Production Sound Members to comment on what they considered the main noise problems. It became clear that lighting equipment is now the main source of extraneous noise. The introduction of cooling fans in HMI lighting equipment has been a major acoustic problem and the move to electronic control systems is also causing increasing electromagnetic interference in microphones and cables. The unnecessary use of flicker free HMI lighting operation and noisy dimmer equipment was also mentioned in our survey.

In the interests of reducing post-production costs of Film and Television Sound, AMPS would like these problems addressed by the lighting equipment suppliers and manufacturers. AMPS members wish to co-operate with you in improving the situation and can offer advice, experience and suggestions. Please discuss this with us.

AMPS can be contacted through the Honorary Secretary at the address below. We look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Bob Allen

Chairman

2. Result of approach to Lighting Companies.

In July 1996, copies of a letter explaining the sound problems encountered with present day lighting equipment and asking for comments and consultation were sent to 42 Film and TV Lighting Contractors and Equipment Manufacturers. We had three replies.

One from a Stage Lighting organisation who agreed that they too had had noise problems but overcame them by 'voting with their feet' and not buying the offending equipment, thus causing the manufacturers to address the problem if they wanted sales.

The second was from a manufacturer, Philips Lighting, who were unaware that equipment manufactured by them caused sound problems and agreed to look into our concern.

The third, printed herein, was from Michael Samuelson of Michael Samuelson Lighting. His remarks are quite illuminating (pun intended!), indicating that some of the problems could be eliminated with better understanding of the equipment by those using it.

Disappointed by the otherwise rather poor response, the AMPS Council is considering further action.

3. Reply received from Michael Samuelson.

Michael Samuelson Lighting Ltd
Pinewood Studios
Iver Heath
Buckinghamshire
SL0 0NH
Teléfono: 01753 631133
Fax: 0l753 630485.

23 de julio de 1996
Mr. Bob Allen
Chairman

Association of Motion Picture Sound
28 Knox Street
London WIH IFS

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your letter of July 18,1996. I applaud your association for bringing to the surface the problems with flicker free HMI luminaires.

It is a fact in Hollywood and many other capitals of the film making world that wire-wound ballasts are usually the standard equipment used in lighting packages, electronic ballasts only being used as extras on special occasions.

Virtually every film camera has an adjustable shutter so making the flicker free facility unnecessary even when they don't it is only when shooting variable speeds that wire-wound ballasts are not totally acceptable.

There are three reasons why the UK standardise on electronic ballasts.

They were invented here.

Standard speed for television in the UK is 25 fps which means that camera shutters have to be adjusted from the standard 180 degree setting (174.6 I think) and that is a problem for the few cameras which do not have adjustable shutters and for those that do there is a nervousness that it might be forgotten.

Electronic ballasts are much lighter and the electricians (who on every shoot seem to be are fewer and fewer) find them easier to carry.

None of the above reasons are good enough when the use of electronic ballasts screws up the soundtrack.

Unbelievably when film people shoot with electronic cameras they frequently still insist on flicker free ballast which are totally unnecessary when shooting on tape.

As a lighting company I would be delighted to follow Hollywood's example as the electronic ballasts are probably 100 times more unreliable and a quarter of the price. They are an electronic minefield and a maintenance horror story. They don't like hot weather, they don't like cold weather, they don't like humidity and they certainly don't like the wet or being thrown around.

If the most sophisticated piece of equipment in your own home was your VHS recorder, would you leave it out in the rain all day and all night and when at 3 o'clock in the morning somebody yells 'It's a wrap', chuck it on to the back of a lorry and then expect it to work perfectly the next morning? It happens in our industry.

Similarly, the emergence of single ended HMI bulbs (MSR's) had now made not only the ballast noisy but the head as well. There was a time when, because of the noise level, the lighting ballast was left outside the door now you have to put the lamphead out there too!.

I won't get on to the subject of dimmers as we all know what they do when fitted in the living room. They interfere with everything and buzz like mad.

Please let me know if there is any other assistance I can give you.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely,

Michael Samuelson.