David Mullen ASC

Only possible in-camera if the people move but the camera and car don't, then you can use a low frame rate and a 360 degree shutter angle to get blur.

Seems like a job for a post VFX supervisor. They can add more motion blur to just the moving people and not the car but first they'd have to roto the people to be able to isolate them from the car.

Changing the ISO on the Alexa does not change the dynamic range; however, it does shift the range and perhaps your real-world subject has more information at one end than the other, so it's possible to effectively reduce dynamic range because essentially you lost information at one end that you needed but didn't need more information at the other end. Pushing film increases contrast.

Sure, pushing will increase contrast.

Color charts are more for testing of cameras, LED lighting (to look for metamerism problems) and for LUT creation in prep, they don't have much day to day use on a film set. On the test day, you would still want an actual person as well to check skin tones. But a color chart could tell you if one camera has a noisier red or blue square than another, or of some colors were less saturated than others, etc.

"Vertigo" is particularly interesting because the first time you watch it, the story is about a man who finds out the woman he is dating -- because she reminds him of a dead woman he fell in love with -- is actually the dead woman and he was scammed --- but the second time you watch it, it is about a woman who knowingly deceives a man by pretending she is someone else, falls in love with him but fakes her death anyway, then meets him and again and cannot help becoming involved even knowing that eventually he will figure things out. So she become a more tragic figure even in her first scenes, but not a woman of mystery because we know all her actions are playacting to deceive him.

But also our understanding changes with time. There's a lovely moment in "12 Monkeys" where Bruce Willis' character is in a movie theater seeing "Vertigo" and he says he remembers the movie but that somehow it had changed, but then he says that the movie can't change so he must have changed over time.

The correct aspect ratio is the one the filmmaker’s composed for, so I’m not sure what “true” means. We had movies shot for decades on 4-perf 35mm, which is 1.33 : 1 full aperture, but that area hasn’t been projected since 1932 for the most part, ever since soundtracks were put on prints. So is the “true” aspect ratio of 1.85 35mm films actually 1.33? What about 1950s VistaVision films? That format has a full aperture of 1.5 : 1. If you actually projected that area, you’d things not framed to be seen, like off the tops of sets. As for IMAX, I don’t know why the inventors chose to crop the full aperture a little, more at the top & bottom. Since the film runs horizontally, maybe they wanted to leave the option for a soundtrack on the print, I don’t know. Maybe when they built their first theater, it just worked out that the projector gate had to crop a little to fit the screen that they could build.

Looks like the lens you need, the new 40x 25-1000mm Fujinon!

Yes, though there may be other factors. If your 7D recording is fuzzier, softer it may seem to have more apparent depth of field. It’s not really more depth of field but if your 5D image has more sharpness and edge contrast, the fall-off into the out-of-focus area may seem more rapid in comparison to the 7D. So if you feel 2-stops is a better match just to be safe, that’s fine.

Technically the difference is 1.5-stops in depth of field if comparing a 24mm wide sensor to a 36mm wide sensor, the same as the crop factor.

Same sensor in both, same dynamic range.

HBM is a combo filter of a mist diffusion (1/8 Black Frost) and a softening diffusion (degrees of HD Classic Soft). GlimmerGlass is a mist diffusion like a Black ProMist / Black Frost. The equivalent to a Schneider HBM is the Tiffen Black Satin filter, which is also a combo filter (light GlimmerGlass for mist diffusion plus degrees of Diffusion/FX). An interesting diffusion is the Schneider Radiant Softs. They basically use black particulates of a certain size to diffract (soften) detail but create almost no halation. Sort of like a particle version of a black net.

This is really a matter of taste. The horizontal field of view of 2-perf Techniscope is the same as 1.37 Academy and standard 1.85, but much shorter in vertical view. Because of the shorter vertical view, there is a tendency to compensate by going with a wider horizontal view. Sergio Leone shot a lot of his Westerns on a 25-250mm Angenieux but this was an era where movies generally did not use super wide-angle lenses. However, I'm sure he carried a few lenses that were wider than 25mm, like an 18mm. You could also think about the fact that the go-to wide angle lens for 4-perf 35mm 2X anamorphic is the 40mm, which is equivalent to a 20mm in 2-perf Techniscope. So I would probably carry an 18mm or 20mm for my wide-angle shots. But it also depends on your locations, if you're going to find yourself in small rooms. I think you're better off carrying five focal lengths than just three unless you can commit to a generally wide-angle look, like a 20mm, 28mm, 35mm.

Overexposing does not make the grain smaller since the grain size determines the sensitivity. What overexposing does is expose the smaller, slower grains in between the large ones, creating a tighter grain structure. You might also expect the overexposed 200T to look a bit lower in contrast than the 50D.