Phil Rhodes

I don't know enough about F23 to directly compare, but I've always felt Viper has very, very nice colour under the right conditions. It had a very minimal processing scheme that can be thought of as being fairly close to raw, it has that nice multi-subpixel sensor (block).

Hi folks I have some IDX CUE-D95 batteries. I have an Anton Bauer LP2 charger. When I attach a flat IDX to the LP2, it flashes green and red for a few seconds, as you'd expect, goes red for a minute or two, then flips back to green, indicating charged. Has anyone seen this? Same charger charges Anton Bauer Cine 90, Titon 150, and Core SWX Hypercore 75 quite happily. P

His joy at that camera is hilariously unbridled.

What I don't quite get is that they'll push for this blockbuster-based business model on one hand, let it fail, and then complain that they're risking failure on the other hand. I think the reality is that many of these films are a lot more profitable than is being let on, and those profits are being disguised for tax purposes. They're certainly being disguised for the purposes of not paying anyone any royalties.

When I was a projectionist - which was twenty years ago - we would build up 2000' reels onto larger reels which went on the projector, or very large reels on a long-play system for particularly long films. We did not use platters, although that's possibly because we were not a conventional first-run cinema. On no account would our approach (or anyone else's approach, as far as I know) have entailed losing any material, as we'd make tape splices that were simply peeled apart when breaking the thing down again. Usually the prints were supplied with the leaders taped one side only on the assumption that the next user would be pulling that tape off to make up the print. If you actually did want to show it from the 2000' reels, you'd want to go through a double-tape those joints or they'd have a fair chance of pulling apart on projection. P

I note that the one in the picture is an Alexa Plus, which is pretty unusual for $6k. And the lens is... more.

Much as I'm aware of the fashion factor in film and TV equipment, I'm bound to point out that acrylic or polycarbonate sheet is not an exotic material and there is unlikely to be any detectable offset in surface quality between the cheapest and the most expensive. If the surface becomes rough for any reason it will become harder to clean and that may happen with use, but the idea that paying more for a piece of plastic sheet is likely to yield any detectable dividend is fanciful in the extreme. P

I'm not so sure. Stills zooms are not really built much like movie zooms. Movie zooms have precision-made components to ensure that various pieces of glass move in very precise relationships. Stills zooms are more like variable primes that rely on the camera's autofocus to sort things out. Most of them attempt to maintain approximately correct focus for framing purposes - generally the better ones. That's why Sigma finds itself making zooms that are almost parfocal, and why things like TLS's Morpheus rehousing of that Nikon 80-200 can happen, but at least some stills zooms have a wildly different optical layout to a movie zoom. It's not comparable technology at all. When people try to do what we're talking about here, you end up with something like those Sony E-mount zooms that are endlessly sold with FS-series cameras. There's a 28-135 f/4, an 18-110 f/4, and and an 18-200 which ramps from 3.5 to 6.3. None of these really have the specs to replace an ENG-style lens, and they're a hybrid design where the focus servo hunts visibly for half a second if you snap the zoom in. It's vastly better than a non-parfocal stills zoom, though it's also vastly more horrible than a real zoom. Given that the 18-110 is £3k to begin with it seems likely that any attempt to improve this approach to make it into a professional tool that feels like a real zoom, using better, faster servos, is likely to cross over price-wise with an LWZ.3. It's a really big deal. When I first got into camera gear I was able to buy an outfit with a 6.4-128mm f/1.4 lens including body, tripod, battery system and glass for under £20k. There is nothing that provides that amount of capability for that kind of money now, even on super35, let alone full frame. People in this position are left with the mediocre Sony stuff (and a resulting requirement for an E-mount camera, of course) or saving up for the bottom end of Zeiss or Fuji. This situation sucks and has sucked for years.

Power consumption on the F5 body alone (no EVF, no recorder, etc) is about 25W, which is reasonably frugal. Things like the AXS-R5 and a viewfinder might be more or less permanently installed, though, so figure, eh, double that? I'm guessing.

People like the colorimetry, which is a combination of (to some extent) the sensor, particularly the oversampling, and (to some extent) the internal colour processing. All Alexa and related cameras have this and this is what people covet. At least some of it is down to Arri's rather brave decision to stamp a look into it. Happily it was a look everyone was willing to find a way to like. Frankly it's just a look and some of the best low-cost modern cameras (FS7, Ursa Mini 4.6K) are capable of doing similar things with careful handling, especially if you leverage the oversampling for lower noise floor. But Alexa is the only one that does it easily, out of the box. If you wanted to be dismissive, you could say it's not so much a nostalgia thing as a fashion thing. It has come to define the gold standard, and that's a fairly arbitrary distinction. P

I certainly wouldn't use acetone, toluene or xylene. The latter two are hazardous. Acetone isn't non-hazardous, but it will have a terrible effect on the plastic. Strongly suspect alcohol (which might just be "surgical spirit" and is not drinkable) or petrol will work.

I'd be worried that rigging things from the trees would create a rather patchy light, but if you're careful it might be fine. It depends how much area you're looking to cover; an 18K will create a rather bright backlight which might take a large number of panels or china balls to balance. What camera system are you using? Do you have a preferred shooting stop or sensitivity level? Nice location, though! P

Tony Scott is great. My first serious camera had a 6.4-128mm lens, and I existed at the long end of that (though not in the last tiny bit because it was awful) because I was endlessly shooting stuff in terrible locations.

I've done this half a dozen times, not much more. Once was with super-8! The least willing people were at LAX, with much grumbling, although they did agree to hand-inspect in the end. Heathrow were downright rude but again, did as they were told in the end.

One of the best camera operators I ever worked with was a five foot tall woman who probably weighed 100 pounds with her biggest boots on, so I'm not sure it's that much to do with raw strength. I am 6'3" (1.9m) and have a BMI around 22, which is quite tall and quite slim without being an exceptional example of either, and I am constantly embarrassed by the fact that if I started eating more protein and spent half an hour a day running, I'd probably be able to improve my cardiovascular fitness quite easily. Possibly one day I will rue the fact that I haven't done that, but I'm not sure it's really that important for camerawork unless you're dealing with Alexa LF all day, and now I'm basically a writer that doesn't seem to be very likely.