David Mullen ASC

It won’t be coming out soon if by soon you mean Summer 2019...

So what are the state-of-the-art 2/3" field cameras today, and have they increased the ISO past the 320-400 base range of previous 2/3" cameras?

There is a Canon 50-1000mm (T/5.0-8.9) zoom, and a faster Fujinon Premier 75-400mm (T/2.8-3.8) for Super-35 sensor cameras. The Fujinon with a doubler could get out to 800mm, which of course isn't as telephoto as you might like, though it gets hard to operate smoothly when the lens gets super long, there is some jiggling if you aren't careful.

I don't think the 2/3" broadcast cameras have changed much in sensitivity over the years, they are all limited by the photosite size, overall sensor size, and prism block design. They tend to be a base of around 320-400 ASA at 0 db.

Don't know if any rental houses have converted a 9-light Maxi to something like this.

Just watched the 1937 "A Star Is Born" so that's one more off the list.

It's a lot of work to maintain a web forum so I generally don't complain unless there is a real problem, like the spam that keeps flooding some other sites.

OK, if its a stage, then a diffusion frame with the lights behind is a good idea, but a large bounce would work too. Youd have more room if you used the diffusion frame with the lights behind on stage especially if youll have people waving flags or panning lights to create some movement and flicker.

If you see the front row, I would probably bounce the lights off of the movie theater screen.

It looks like 3200 ISO is the highest you can set the camera to, so maybe that's another reason to do it in post if he wants to go "several stops" beyond 1280 ISO.

OK but if you want realism, your vfx compositor will have to be really good to add the imperfections of reflecting something in glass, racking focus, etc. I would suggest shooting this shot on a digital camera or 35mm because a chattering matte edge from 16mm grain is going to detract from the realism. I guess you have no choice but to composite if you want to start full frame inside the mirror on the view before pulling back and revealing that it is a reflection, and adding the surface imperfections of the glass, etc. Also, it would help if the mirror was as rigid as possible rather than actually being handheld.

Yes, I'm not sure why they don't use use a higher ISO rating if they want more noise from underexposing. Maybe however they are compensating for the rest of the underexposure in the post house is more flexible than just letting the camera do the correction.

I'd almost suggest doing it live with a big photo blow-up of the mountains on posterboard to reflect into the mirror, that way you'd have the correct focus rack from reflection to mirror. As the reference shows, when you focus on the reflection you are also focusing on the deep background behind the mirror though a photo blow-up won't be as far away.

You can at least use a higher ISO rating to get the noise, can't you?

I dont why that Panavision page shows an example of an anamorphic lens (maybe its a 1.25X Ultra Panavision lens image or their new 1.6X lens for the DXL).