Alan Gerhardt Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I finally got the cables made to allow me to use my ERX1TCD to feed audio and timecode to the Arri Alexa on a shoot that started today. The camera man, however ripped the receiver off his camera saying that he did not want wireless equipment close to his head all day as it could lead to brain damage! Is he 'brain damaged' or is he right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 He might be right! Although, I don't think there is any scientific proof. He probably gets more RF from his smartphone and he definitely gets more RF from a video transmitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Isn't that just a receiver? Or does it transmit back to you? If it is just a receiver, he has no worries. (except his personality, haha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I finally got the cables made to allow me to use my ERX1TCD to feed audio and timecode to the Arri Alexa on a shoot that started today. The camera man, however ripped the receiver off his camera saying that he did not want wireless equipment close to his head all day as it could lead to brain damage! Is he 'brain damaged' or is he right? He's "brain damaged" it's a receiver not a transmitter and assuming the rx is on the right side of the Alexa where the 5 pin XLR is he's got 6" of camera body between him & the rx. OTOH he believes that he'll get a semi-fatal dose of RF from the rx so there's nothing you can say or do that will convince him otherwise. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewFreedAudio Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 The ERX1TCD does not emit any RF so he shouldn't worry. His camera radiates more RF than any 2.4 ghz receiver. Not to mention the video transmitter and his cell phone as has been mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I say raise the stakes! Tell him he's still about 600mhz away from the "microwave auditory effect" zone, and that you'll be sure to: a)-vouch for him if he reports any "internal stimuli". - and/or administer a dose from your personal stash of atypical antipsychotics. Best(wink), Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Does he realize that a digital video device like the Alexa is causing a cloud of RF hash around itself all the time? The Alexa is a VERY busy box.... And your device is a RECEIVER..... phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Quinn Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I assume you are only putting receivers on the camera not transmitters thus no transmission .I once had a cameraman do exactly as you have described pulling all radio gear off the camera and making a big fuss about cancer . He did look like a bit of a tit when it was explained to him that what was on the camera were just receivers.And they get the big bucks can someone explain that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pverrando Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 The real challenge is to get what you need while not making him look bad, stupid, or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 " PITA " We are describing the excesses of cameramen in another thread... " while not making him look bad, stupid, or wrong. " s/he is already doing that quite well ! Even without the receivers on the camera, the dreaded evil waves are still going there! (perhaps Crafty or the caterer has some metal foil??) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Heath Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Charge the production for the receivers and use a cable, Easy done, no body gets hurt. Baddabing baddaboom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I dare you to go up to the cameraman and say, "Being more concerned about the well-being of the D.P. than anything else on this show, I did some research. It turns out that, measured at three inches on axis, an Arri Alexa generates forty-seven times more spurious RF than a Zaxcom receiver. Just thought you might want to know." Then sit back and watch with some amusement as he tries to keep his head a safe distance from the camera for the rest of the shoot. (Keep in mind that 87% of all statistics are either seriously flawed, or fabricated -- including the Arri Alexa statistic as well as the statistic that 87% of all statistics are either seriously flawed, or fabricated.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Sounds to me that he's already suffering from some dame bramage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Make him a tin foil helmet, he should be happy to wear it if he's so concerned. Has the side benefit of keeping the aliens and the government out as well. Sounds like an ass.. Some of those multi watt video transmitters however I actually would be worried about. The puny RFs we use... Not so much. Tell him his nads are getting a stronger dose from the iPhone in his pocket than your gear. ..I did have talent tell me this week that she didn't want a mic anymore because she thought the pack would give her cancer. She was just looking for an excuse not to wear a mic though. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BVS Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I'd say its too late for you mate, you've cooked yourself with your camera already. BVS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I'm not sure how you would explain the physics of a RECEIVER... and that it was only going to pick up RF that's already being pumped out by your sound cart (after protecting your sound cart from a kick-over). Does he have a bubble so actors stay far away from him when wired? Does he use a cell phone? Does he live on Earth? In all seriousness, maybe he was having a crappy day and just didn't want any more stuff on his camera that he didn't think he needed. I'm not saying he was right, but knowing the reason he got mad may help settle things. If he's just irrational, then run a bunch of cables to camera, or warn production that post is going to be really angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 " the physics of a RECEIVER. " you really wouldn't want to go there, as there are oscillators in RX's that emit a minute amount of RF, These are some of the causes of intermodulation issues (requiring frequency coordination) in our wireless systems.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gerhardt Posted September 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I've spoken to him since and he is suffering from the effects of three consecutive shoots with handheld Alexas. Welcomed him to the world of "video" and reminded him of the old days when we used to shoot on film. A plus for us sound guys is that we don't have to put repeated notes on our report sheets saying: 'Camera noise!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfvid Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 WHO signals mobile phone cancer fears Financial Times FT.com By Clive Cookson and Andrew Parker in London Published: May 31 2011 21:49 | Last updated: May 31 2011 21:49 The World Health Organisation has for the first time classified radiation from mobile telephones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. The landmark announcement on Tuesday night followed a week-long meeting of 31 scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the WHO’s cancer arm. The experts reviewed details from dozens of published studies, going further than the agency’s own Interphone study which concluded last year that there was no clear link between phones and cancer. The scientists said their classification was based partly on an association between mobile phones and glioma, a particularly dangerous type of brain cancer. One study showed a 40 per cent higher risk of glioma among the heavier users, though the IARC panel did not itself quantify the overall risk. Jonathan Samet of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the working group, said: “The evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the classification [of a possible carcinogen]. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.” The GSMA, which represents the world’s leading mobile phone operators, said the IARC’s cancer hazard assessment for radiofrequency signals, including those from mobile communications, suggested “a hazard is possible but not likely”. “We recognise that some mobile phone users may be concerned,” said Jack Rowley, GSMA director of research and sustainability. “Importantly, present safety standards remain valid and the result should be understood as indicating the need for further research,” he said. The GSMA said more than 30 scientific reviews over the past decade had concluded safety standards for mobile phones and base stations provided protection against all established health hazards. John Cooke, executive director of the UK Mobile Operators Association, added: “It is important to note that IARC has not established a direct link between mobile phone use and cancer. It has, however, concluded that there is the possibility of a hazard. Whether or not this represents a risk requires further scientific investigation.” The IARC working group said the increased risk of cancer “has relevance for public health, as the number of [mobile phone] users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children”. Besides the link with glioma, studies also showed a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma, a less dangerous tumour. In 2008 there were 238,000 new cases of brain cancer worldwide, according to IARC. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5bn. The scientists declined to make any policy recommendations on the basis of their new classification, beyond the need for further research. Actions and specific advice to phone users would be up to the WHO and national governments, they said. Output power compared: Cell Phone 1 Watt Hybrid 1/10th watt Modulus ½ watt CanaTrans 1 watt FIZ 1/10th watt Computer WiFi 1/100th watt Walkie Talkie 5 watt TV station 1 million+ watt ( distance consideration and inverse square law) Interesting article in the NYT: http://well.blogs.ny...he+brain&st=nyt May 18, 2010, Questions About Cellphones and Brain Tumors By TARA PARKER-POPE not really relevant to the nutty cameraman's ideas but associated cellphone use. wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 " the physics of a RECEIVER. " you really wouldn't want to go there, as there are oscillators in RX's that emit a minute amount of RF, These are some of the causes of intermodulation issues (requiring frequency coordination) in our wireless systems.... If the RX was velcro'd to the right side of the camera, I'm sure the Alexa's own RF would block the evil RF of the IFB. Perhaps some specially placed tin foil would also do the trick? Maybe you can put the ERX on a stand and run cables to the camera. That way you enjoy the benefits of being wireless, and he avoids the RF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikewest Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 Report the conflict to the producer and send the email complaints from post to the cameraman. Takes you out of the battle zone. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.