Mark Kenfield

Thanks Kenny. Yep, splitting the exposure is simply taking a reading on the shadow side of the face, and another from the direct sun and then going halfway between them. Works a treat. I tried to keep almost the whole film between a T/2 and T/4 for depth (some shots wanted more depth of field, so I'd stop down to T/8 for those). on 250 ASA stock, it did require a LOT of ND upfront for the exteriors (which gets difficult with an optical viewfinder).

I use them all the time for broad key or soft fill lights. I've got a range of 7' wide Westcott ones. I think they're terrific - you can create a much neater setup off a single stand (than you can with conventional square frames of the same diameter). They're no good outdoors (to risky in the wind), but for interior, they're an excellent tool.

Old LEDs, and especially cheap old LEDs are pretty awful. I'd certainly avoid using them on talent. They are however, just fine as work lights, or for illuminating distant background features. So it isn't money completely wasted, but just know that they're not really appropriate (in most circumstances) for lighting actors or products with.

Hi Jules, Does the camera have either the Raw or Anamorphic licence?

Or better yet, your vfx supervisor. They'll know the specific path they want to take for the vfx pipeline (generally, they want to convert everything to .dpx anyway). For vfx work, I always start by finding out what will work best for the actual workflow they intend to use, and work backwards from there. Sometimes, that means shooting raw, but often it doesn't. Just ask them, they'll know what they want.

If it ain't broke?

I'm not really following you here guys. Red aren't selling $100,000 8k Vistavision cameras to 18 year-old dude-bros making skate videos. That's what their Raven camera is for. The big-boy Reds sell to the big boy rental houses who are outfitting big-budget Netflix series, Marvel movies etc. That's their approach.

Looks a little 'fresh'! Whereabouts is that Miguel?

I've never touched either of them, but I can't imagine 8-bit 4:2:0 out of the Sony, could hold a candle to 10-bit 4:2:2 from the Panasonic.

Thanks Dom, that's why you're my favourite! :D

Ah! Well we don't have many of those either! I've asked in Melbourne and received a 'who even are you?' look. And just last week I checked in with Panavision Prague while I was over there scouting, and when I asked if we could possibly get a few DXL2s for the shoot, I saw the most delightfully polite look of 'That's not physically possible' spread across the face of Vaclav the rental manager ?

I've heard good things about them, but the Varicams are (unfortunately) virtually non-existent down here.

I'll be interested to have a look, I've heard it's brighter and the resolution is higher, and that's great. Sony also (sensibly) allow you to use transparency masks for framelines (which is ESSENTIAL for any viewfinder or monitor IMO). I hope they've fleshed it out fully (especially for that price!). However, I highly doubt they'll have implemented the kinds of monitoring features that every monitoring tool should offer in 2018 - detailed 10+ step false colour; a clear, easily readable waveform, full 3D LUT capability (ideally the kind that doesn't require digging through camera menus to activate); 1:1 pixel zoom (and a clear indicator for when you're in 1:1 mode, so that you don't accidentally think that's your frame!); good focus peaking (Sony are the best in the world at this, so I expect their new EVF will do well for peaking); display space outside of the camera image for all information/waveforms etc. so that nothing covers up your view of your frame; and the afore-mentioned transparency masks for frame line purposes. Zacuto have come very close to an ideal setup with their Gratical Eye, but it still has some significant issues, which I hope other manufacturers will both learn from and emulate. Because a good viewfinder is a camera operator's most important tool when operating.

Baby pins are such a stupid invention. They're fine for grip, 4x4 frames and such, but for lights? What a nightmare! Nothing holds still, even tiny lightweight flex lights spin on the bloody things! I wish all lights had junior pins.

The F65 has a mechanical shutter, but not an optical viewfinder. The Alexa Studio and the earlier D20/D21 are the only digital cameras I know of with a proper spinning mirror. For me, it was shooting on film again (for the first time in almost eight years!) a little over a year ago, that triggered me on to how much I prefer to use an optical viewfinder (the immediacy of looking directly through the lens is well worth the flickering IMO). That put me on to testing the Alexa Studio for a feature (that sadly didn't go ahead), but then when the time was right to grab a German for myself, it was the Studio I wanted. It's certainly more money, but well worth it for the global shutter and the optical viewfinder I reckon. One thing that makes me sad about the Alexa LF, is that the shorter flange distance makes it impossible to fit a mirror shutter inside, that likely means the current Alexa Studio is the last camera with an optical viewfinder that we'll see. :( Which is sad because I'm really not a big fan of the Alexa's EVF (or Sony's, or Red's). I think electronic viewfinders have a ways to come in terms of resolution, user interface and latency before they'll make a better option than optical.

They've been going for that price (and even cheaper for used models) for a while now. It's one hell of a camera, but it's just too complicated workflow/size wise for most people to consider. I was sorely tempted by one when I made my last camera purchase, the image quality and feature set are superb. But I went with the Alexa Studio instead (and am glad that I did), it's an equally big beast, but the workflow is much more manageable.

Whatever they shot the latest Star Wars movie on! I've never noticed so much breathing in my life!

I get why people are asking the question, and why they're guessing what they are as the answers. I just think everyone's getting it wrong because the answer is so much simpler than they're expecting. Arri has a sensor that everybody loves, but not yet the means to upgrade it significantly enough for their tastes. They also have a huge swathe of customers who have very recently forked out a great deal of money on Minis and Amiras, and would understandably be pretty miffed with Arri if they suddenly obsoleted their shiny new cameras. They know that by simply increasing the size of their lovely sensor, they get (arguably) the most impressive moving picture camera ever created (Alexa65), with a form-factor and practicality that stomps all over an IMAX camera. They're also very aware that large format lenses have completely taken over the market, and lens manufacturers' focus, and that people want Vistavision sensors to put these things on. So the LF gets them the following: - A true 4K camera that their customers can purchase - Doesn't piss off any of their existing customers - Doesn't obsolete any of their existing cameras (though I doubt they'll sell another SXT) - Leverages their existing technology, allowing for a superfast 12 month development, and presumably a comparatively cheap development cost. So I just can't see a justifiable reason for anyone to complain. If you need 4K, and want to shoot on Arri cameras you can now, with a huge range of glass, and even your Ultra Primes will work just fine from 20mm onwards (which is ultra-wide anyway on a Vistavision sensor). If using some specific S35mm glass is non-negotiable for you, and you also need 4K, then you'll have to look elsewhere for a camera. But you can't complain about a lack of lens choices for Vistavision, so I just don't see what the issue is for anyone.

I'm a little confused by the ire around this. People banging on about needing the absolute latest in camera technology, but complaining that it doesn't allow older lens technology to keep up with it. Cooke S7s Leica Thalias Arri Signatures Zeiss CZ.2 Zooms Angenieux Zooms Hawk65 Anamorphics Panavision Primo 70s Panavision Sphero 65s Panavision System 65s Ultra Panavision 70 Anamorphics Super Panavision 70s P&S Technic 1.5x Anamorphic Zooms Sigma Cine Primes Tokina Vistas Schneider Xenons Canon CN-Es Zeiss CP.3s Celere HS Rokinon Xeens You could not (reasonably) argue that we're limited in high-quality lens choice for Vistavision-sized sensors these days. There are both pristine modern optics and coatings, and majorly funky vintage options available. And if you absolutely, positively MUST have S35mm coverage with 30% more resolution than Arri's S35mm offerings can give you - there's Sony, Red, Panasonic and Canon to turn to (all of whom have excellent offerings available). So surely we're spoilt for choice here... or is there something I'm missing here? As for the depth of field argument, the difference between S35mm and Vistavision is one stop. When you take into account that the LF sensor literally HALVES the size of the noise in your image, pushing the ISO one stop to compensate is unlikely to cause any issues whatsoever. We'll have to test that obviously, but I have a strong suspicion that's going to prove a baseless argument against the new camera. And as for sensor technology, I think people are forgetting that we work with images, not numbers. To me, the most startling aspect of Steve Yedlin's recent tests comparing various film and digital formats, was that the Alexa65 actually outresolves 15-perf 65mm IMAX... that's enough negative to sharply cover a screen that completely fills our field of vision (IMAX), and 6k worth of Alexa pixels is enough to actually best it. That's a big deal, and speaks to the significance of uncompressed image capture. 7 years after its release, there still isn't a better image available for cinematography than that put out by the Alexa's sensor. Its dynamic range and highlight rolloff STILL trumps everything else out there. I think we all get a little too caught up in the notion that everything has to keep changing with digital technology, but when you have a technology that delivers the images you need, for the available mediums that you have to display them, the need to keep pushing changes. The reality is, that all technology has limits, and I suspect we're already pushing up against them with CMOS technology. Arri will come out with a new sensor eventually, but it'll come when they can take a quantifiable step forward, not just to add 30% more resolution to existing sensor width because some people are caught up on numbers.

Would explain why the Sonys yield nicer images with the more limited Sgamut3.cine

Well I guess it's lucky that the beer is literally cheaper than water here!

40º to 45º?! They told me high-20s to mid-30s! ?

I'm rather a long way from home at the moment, scouting locations in the Czech Republic for a feature we'll be shooting later in the year. I don't know what all this white stuff is, but it's making it a little hard to picture how things will look in the summer!

Nets and double fogs! It don't come mistier than the Excalibur combo.