Adrian Sierkowski

The red one renders obsolescence obsolete.

Honestly; I would say go with Litegear. It's known and people will use it.

I would say the one downside on the BM side -v- the Arri side is reliability. That isn't to say that the BMs are less reliable; rather it is to say that an Arri is perceived as being far more stable of a platform.

You're right! Sorry I'm thinking of https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shot-designer/id556342711?mt=8 Shot designer. Still dislike it. Mostly because I really want things to be to scale-- at least as best as one can. Didn't they use to make stencils?

Shot Put Pro, I think is the name of one of the programs. Personally, I hate it. I spend more time fiddling in it then if I had pen and paper. I use LxBeams if I have to for lighting plots-- but even then I prefer pen and paper and a good binder. Many people, these days, it seems are going into full on 3d renderings-- stuff like Maya which will also give you a quick and dirty pre-viz.

There are also a plethora of battery powered book lights: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Battery+Powered+Book+Light I'd look for one with AA or AAA batteries, as they're easier to find than the watch ones. I actually keep one or two of these in my cine-bag so I can light up the inside if needed.

Depends on the camera; but honestly you won't really get more "film like" noise; you'll get more noise-- which may not be what you want. As for the highlights; again it depends, but yes, it does generally move more of your dynamic range into the highlights at the expense of shadow information. The native of your sensor generally means that you have an equal amount of dynamic range above and below middle grey. If you up the ISO; you shift more stops into the highlights. if you lower ISO you shift more into the shadows. Pushing it results in more noise; generally, and lowering it can clip your highlights badly. As for stop on the lens you'd set your exposure to compensate for you having changed the ISO. For example, if you were at a T2 @800ISO and went to 3200 ISO you'd close down the lens to a T4 OR use a ND.6 to keep your exposure the same.

I wouldn't over think the technicalities on color channels. The same was true for film, to a certain extent that you could over-expose (or under) certain color layers-- and in truth that's part of the effect. As for the advantage; well 1, keeping control of your images is VERY important. It's often easier and more consistent to throw a filer on (costs less) than time spend in post doing it. Optically, any glass will chance the optical characteristics you're recording. You can see how the effect is being rendered "In real time" (granted you can kinda do this with a LUT; but you'd need to have made that LUT before hand and keep it around forever in-case of reshoots). If you have a reshoot, you don't need the LUT/correction you made on set, you can just use the same filter (will be pretty close). Many filters come in varying densities. You can see how exposure choices can change the effect on the day (or better in prep). And most importantly, because, well, you really want to do all you can to make the rest of the film process easier for those down the line. What I mean is, you have limited time and budget for EVERYTHING on set and so often the job is really about finding that happy medium where you choose the most effective path to the look you want.

Films a little bit of a different animal than digital-- with film you almost certainly would run the basic tests on the mags and lenses. This would be budgeted for since with film you can't see the problem before hand (and any producer who didn't want to do this is just, honestly, not fully familiar with film -v- digital shooting). But we are increasingly in a digital world-- for better or worse.

I think the real problem is that, on the whole, budgets are going down, and with the whole "what you see is what you get" mentality, it's often hard to convince producers that you need to run camera tests/make up tests/wardrobe tests. Sometimes, it's even hard to get a full prep day for the 1ACs around to make sure everything is working well-- and as for marks lining up, these days, it seems, there's more a want to rely on monitors for focus vs measurements. All this, really, comes down to money, and the fact that while there is much more content being made now than probably ever before; there really hasn't been that much more money injected into filmmaking. Now, I would say, for any well budgeted shoot, sure, you certainly can and should do camera testing-- but let's be honest here, when was the last time you really had enough budget for what you needed (as you planned) to shoot.

I mean; the real thing you need it a DoP and crew who are familiar with the camera-- that's how you get the professional look, you hire professionals. But, beyond that, you really have to be cognizant of your production design since the camera can only record what's in front of it. As for the Alexa, specifically-- hopefully you're working with LogC 4444 Pro Res clips, else you're really not close to what the camera is capable of (to say nothing of ArriRaw, though to be honest, I can't think of a time I've ever used it, LogC is plenty). And you also need to have a colorist whose used to dealing with the footage. Just throwing a LogC to REC LUT on in Resolve will get you an image that isn't flat, sure, but there's more to the final finishing touches than that. And I don't mean this at all to disparage your skills with the camera, or as a whole, but rather just to impress upon people it really is not what camera or lenses were used-- evne less so anymore-- and more about the people using them having the experience and resources to use them to the best of the technology's ability.

Fraizer lens/ Trex system lens comes to mind which would give focus basically from the front of the lens to infinity. If memory serves, the fraizer (from previously panavision) was something like a t 7.1 at it's most open.

Could always do it like the long slow dolly shot in Good Will Hunting.

This sounds like a discussion you should be having with the director; who in the end, is the one to put their name on the scene especially in terms of the edit. And no matter what time of day you can almost always play with shadows in one form or the other.

indeed.

Normally I'd just run them through Resolve to DnX or ProRes if you can.

All but one of the Prequel Star Wars was 1080p. But nothing to feel stupid about. Generally, always better to down-rez, but to be honest, I don't think most people would notice 1080p or 2k footage being any different than anything else out there-- especially if the story itself is engaging enough.

You really want a Mini or an Amira-- if only for the build in ND filters! Now the Mini- no problem, can hand-hold all day long, so long as you get it balanced pretty well. The others-- well, Sure, you COULD, for a day, maybe, but parts of you will really disapprove as soon as wrap out. As for lenses, honestly, I'd look into a S35mm Zoom. They are expensive, sure, but they will have a lot more longevity (well, maybe not, depending on how this race for lager formats plays out) than an ENGHD Zoom. Though if price is an issue, yes, there are adapters. Make sure you get an optical one as the old HD zooms were designed to work with a prism block which, of course, the Alexa is missing. This causes some---- interesting--- artifacts on single chip cameras as you open up and if you're wide. Worked fine when I did it with an SD zoom on a Pocket camera but they were going for an ethereal (e.g. screwed up looking) look.

I'd recommend 3Pin XLR. Just easier, honestly and still a beefy cable.

Hair conditioner smells better. . . Just keep it out of your eyes.

if you're gonna dim a Tungsten or Incandescent (halogen) bulb- no worries; it'll warm up orange as normal. LED, well it'll depend on the LED but I'd not be worried about using any of the "main" professional LEDs (Arri, LiteGear, Quasar, Digital Sputnik, or Kinoflo). Generally i'm not a fan of dimming HMIs (though Of course I have when it's faster/easier on myself or the crew to get a few points off a 4K or what have you)

Also of note; the chances of damage increase not only with the number of times X Rayed but also with the film speed. e.g. a 500ASA stock will be much more likely to eventually show some build up of the base fog layer -v- a 50ASA stock. That said, in all my years carrying film (even 1600ISO stills film) I've never had an issue with it being x-rayed. Hell technically the higher up you are in elevation the more gamma rays you're exposing it too as well and technically that too could build up base fog-- but in reality, the effects are so minuscule its really a non-issue in all but the most extreme situations.

Well; when you think that film is "deposited" on top of the base-layer as "some gunk" in essence; it can happen. But; man, those were the days. I miss hearing "good gate moving on." Also we used to lube the film pressure plate/gate with the grease from the inside of your eyes/nose area ;) Or so the ACs I've had in times past have done.

Certainly relevant if you happen to be shooting film; though it's more an AC thing than a cam op cinematographer thing. I still have some in my bag-- though anymore I use them to clean myself up at the end of the day.

https://www.filmtools.com/celoflex48x50.html