4 ms·

Duh. These lights are frightening to work around sometimes. The UV alone you'll get a sunburn working inside a studio lit by them. The black-body radiation is

Duh. These lights are frightening to work around sometimes. The UV alone you'll get a sunburn working inside a studio lit by them. The black-body radiation is the true heat coming from them

theyinwhy 3y ago
Of course no idea what you are using, but the industry's leader seems to have it figured out: https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-accessories/lamps https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-acces...
- photoGrant 3y ago
  Us industry professionals that use these tools beg to differ https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533
  - theyinwhy 3y ago
    Thank you for the link. I am pretty sure following comment is more on the side of reality: https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 But good there is awareness about using equipment with old, faulty hardware and the need for measuring uv levels as part of technical checks.
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      Think of production and rental companies like airlines. Some are the safest and well respected, some are a death trap. Most operate middle to right. A lot of salt has to be taken with a comment like that as it's more a legal response than a valid one. i.e. he worked for ARRI. To clarify, ARRI can only speak on behalf of what they legally aim to sell. Not what the factory reality lets out the door, or what any production does with their equipment. They aren't evil, just a company.
      - theyinwhy 3y ago
        I deem the chances Arri tinkering with their equipment to circumvent legal requirements to be zero. This "every company is having a big, mischievous plan" theme is very boring.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        That's true, but there is such a thing as component variation and there is also aging. It may well be that the specified product is well within the safety limits but the aging border case is no longer and if there isn't enough margin that may well lead to trouble. Depending on the amount of variation that trouble may arrive sooner rather than later.
        theyinwhy 3y ago
        I totally agree uv filter fitness should be part of the equipment checks happening before an extensive filming.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I wonder to what degree the UV filter coating wears because of the UV. After all it is made to absorb precisely the most energetic component, that can't be without consequences over the longer term.
atoav 3y ago
I have worked as a light guy on well above 20 film sets, this is wrong. All lamps that have a fixture which would be capable of emitting UV lights (mostly HMI lamps) must have UV filters in front of them. Typically they are part of the fresnel lense. For LED this is a non-issue. If you got a sunburn in a studio, that means they either used shit lamps (non-industry standard), or the filters have been removed. Either way this is a work safety violation and any study worth their salt wouldn't stand for it. The lamps are of course still something that you need to treat carefully. First because it is a ton of power and heat, but also because they are heavy. But if you use them in the way intended by the manufacturer they are not more dangerous than anything else. A typical Arri HMI will even have a diagram with safe distances for heat radiation engraved somewhere on the body of the lamp. So you don't even need a manual to know you are doing it wrong. I once had a HMI with a broken lense through which UV radiation would leak on a outdoor set. We noticed this because a fist-sized pile of insects started to accumulate right at the spot where the leak was. The smoke from that was quickly noticed.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 You'd be surprised what shortcuts budgets end up creating... Source: A decade+ on film/photography sets as DIT. p.s. Work on macro phantom stuff. You'll see.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    Both of your posts are informative. I think we go back to the parent comment that implies UV radiation is a general affect, versus a result of shoddy manufacturing, near these lamps. Is UV a standard thing to avoid at every case, or just in exceptional cases?
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      In every case bar working with infra sensors/aesthetics.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
petee 3y ago
They aren't (edit)carbon* arc lights, they are regular 1000w par bulbs, which should all have UV filtering unless its a knockoff. If you're too close you may get burned from the heat, but actors spend hours under them and don't get tanned. But yeah, 72000 watts is alot of heat to pump at an object for 9 hours
- photoGrant 3y ago
  Carry a UV meter and tell me they do their job!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - petee 3y ago
    Sure, when I'm back to work I'll definitely try carrying one. I'm not opposed to knowing for sure, though personal experience has shown it never to be an issue. I've never gotten burned, nor heard of anyone burned; and with the intensities we run you would at minimum expect eye burns, but doesn't happen even on 14hr days.
- loansindi 3y ago
  "Film lights" are pretty likely to be 5kW+ arc lamps. Lighting fixtures definitely include filters to keep the UV out of the beam, but film still loves giant HMI fresnels.
  - petee 3y ago
    I should have been more specific, i had mean to say carbon arc, as those were alot different that todays technology, though I'm not sure about the level of UV protection offered back in the 70-80s
    - loansindi 3y ago
      Carbon arc was definitely a whole different ball game. I'd think the fixtures were filtering at least most of it, or else everyone on set would have pretty much the same problems as someone doing arc welding without a mask and sleeves in short order.

Duh. These lights are frightening to work around sometimes. The UV alone you'll get a sunburn working inside a studio lit by them. The black-body radiation is the true heat coming from them

theyinwhy 3y ago

Of course no idea what you are using, but the industry's leader seems to have it figured out: https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-accessories/lamps https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-acces...

photoGrant 3y ago
Us industry professionals that use these tools beg to differ https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533
- theyinwhy 3y ago
  Thank you for the link. I am pretty sure following comment is more on the side of reality: https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 But good there is awareness about using equipment with old, faulty hardware and the need for measuring uv levels as part of technical checks.
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    Think of production and rental companies like airlines. Some are the safest and well respected, some are a death trap. Most operate middle to right. A lot of salt has to be taken with a comment like that as it's more a legal response than a valid one. i.e. he worked for ARRI. To clarify, ARRI can only speak on behalf of what they legally aim to sell. Not what the factory reality lets out the door, or what any production does with their equipment. They aren't evil, just a company.
    - theyinwhy 3y ago
      I deem the chances Arri tinkering with their equipment to circumvent legal requirements to be zero. This "every company is having a big, mischievous plan" theme is very boring.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That's true, but there is such a thing as component variation and there is also aging. It may well be that the specified product is well within the safety limits but the aging border case is no longer and if there isn't enough margin that may well lead to trouble. Depending on the amount of variation that trouble may arrive sooner rather than later.
        theyinwhy 3y ago
        I totally agree uv filter fitness should be part of the equipment checks happening before an extensive filming.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I wonder to what degree the UV filter coating wears because of the UV. After all it is made to absorb precisely the most energetic component, that can't be without consequences over the longer term.

atoav 3y ago

I have worked as a light guy on well above 20 film sets, this is wrong. All lamps that have a fixture which would be capable of emitting UV lights (mostly HMI lamps) must have UV filters in front of them. Typically they are part of the fresnel lense. For LED this is a non-issue. If you got a sunburn in a studio, that means they either used shit lamps (non-industry standard), or the filters have been removed. Either way this is a work safety violation and any study worth their salt wouldn't stand for it. The lamps are of course still something that you need to treat carefully. First because it is a ton of power and heat, but also because they are heavy. But if you use them in the way intended by the manufacturer they are not more dangerous than anything else. A typical Arri HMI will even have a diagram with safe distances for heat radiation engraved somewhere on the body of the lamp. So you don't even need a manual to know you are doing it wrong. I once had a HMI with a broken lense through which UV radiation would leak on a outdoor set. We noticed this because a fist-sized pile of insects started to accumulate right at the spot where the leak was. The smoke from that was quickly noticed.

photoGrant 3y ago
https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 You'd be surprised what shortcuts budgets end up creating... Source: A decade+ on film/photography sets as DIT. p.s. Work on macro phantom stuff. You'll see.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  Both of your posts are informative. I think we go back to the parent comment that implies UV radiation is a general affect, versus a result of shoddy manufacturing, near these lamps. Is UV a standard thing to avoid at every case, or just in exceptional cases?
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    In every case bar working with infra sensors/aesthetics.
- qingcharles 3y ago

petee 3y ago

They aren't (edit)carbon* arc lights, they are regular 1000w par bulbs, which should all have UV filtering unless its a knockoff. If you're too close you may get burned from the heat, but actors spend hours under them and don't get tanned. But yeah, 72000 watts is alot of heat to pump at an object for 9 hours

photoGrant 3y ago
Carry a UV meter and tell me they do their job!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- petee 3y ago
  Sure, when I'm back to work I'll definitely try carrying one. I'm not opposed to knowing for sure, though personal experience has shown it never to be an issue. I've never gotten burned, nor heard of anyone burned; and with the intensities we run you would at minimum expect eye burns, but doesn't happen even on 14hr days.
loansindi 3y ago
"Film lights" are pretty likely to be 5kW+ arc lamps. Lighting fixtures definitely include filters to keep the UV out of the beam, but film still loves giant HMI fresnels.
- petee 3y ago
  I should have been more specific, i had mean to say carbon arc, as those were alot different that todays technology, though I'm not sure about the level of UV protection offered back in the 70-80s
  - loansindi 3y ago
    Carbon arc was definitely a whole different ball game. I'd think the fixtures were filtering at least most of it, or else everyone on set would have pretty much the same problems as someone doing arc welding without a mask and sleeves in short order.