David Mullen ASC

But is it enough of a difference to be worth the cost plus the inconvenience of a bigger, heavier camera?

Works out to be a 1.4X difference in 4:3, assuming 4:3 on the LF is 4117 x 3096 versus 2880 x 2160 on a regular 4:3 Alexa. So assuming it's the difference between shooting at f/1.4 on a regular Alexa or f/2 on an Alexa LF, that's about a .4-stop difference in effective depth of field for a 1.4X increase in pixel count. Maybe better dynamic range in the shadows due to less noise on the LF, more due to the smaller degree of image enlargement. Best thing would be to shoot a comparison test with a ARRI Master Prime at f/1.4 on a regular Alexa versus a Cooke 7i at f/2 on an Alexa LF.

Usually the editor works with, collaborates with, the director, just like the cinematographer works with the director. Unless the director is a trained editor, their "director's cut" is the work of the editor working the actual machine and the director supervising that editor to deliver what both of them agree should be the final edited form. A "director's cut" is usually not a situation where the director goes off and independently cuts the project without an editor. Sometimes if the director is busy during production while dailies are coming in, they will let the editor do a rough assembly and then a first pass without too much supervision, but then once post-production begins, the director comes and works closely with the editor to create their preferred cut. If this is for a television show, the director is given a certain amount of time to create their director's cut after the editor's cut, which then gets delivered to the showrunner / producer for their notes. After that, the network or studio will probably want some changes for the final released or broadcast cut.

It’s the same sensor just cut bigger, so I guess about 1.3X as many pixels.

Only about 1 1/3-stop difference in depth of field compared to a 4x3 regular Alexa... Cheaper to find some f/1.4 lenses.

Yes, there is a lot of wind when driving around so you have to secure everything that might get blown around. It helps to pick diffusion that rattles less for sound reasons.

You’re taking into account that you only use a .89 : 1 area of the sensor for a 1.78 : 1 frame if there is a 2X squeeze?

If you’re talking about a standard Edison screw-in socket the only thing is that above 60W you should probably install a porcelain socket if there is a plastic one. Definitely if you are talking about 250W and 500W photofloods.

Just as with the F900, turning off the Rec.709 color matrix probably won't create a big difference, some colors might fall differently on the vectorscope, maybe the gamut is slightly bigger in some directions, smaller in others. Mostly you see a difference in the saturation and shade of certain colors -- red is more orange in Rec.709 than in P3, for example. I remember I had some odd color clipping artifacts with purple neon on the F900 that went away when I turned off the Rec.709 color matrix so I assume the matrix was increasing the saturation too much in that color.

A 25mm LF lens on a Super-16 camera will give you the same field of view at the same distance to the subject, the same depth of field, etc. as a 25mm lens made for Super-16. BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME FOCAL LENGTH. The frame won't look any different other than any particular lens personality like contrast, flare, edge distortion, etc. You wouldn't change the camera position just because you switched from a 25mm LF lens to a 25mm Super-16 lens. Yes, of course a 25mm LF lens on a larger format camera will be different than a 25mm lens on a Super-16 camera because now the format sizes are different, the 25mm LF lens on a larger format will have a much wider field of view.

Actually it is the same as using a tighter lens other than the depth of field difference and loss of resolution from cropping. But if you crop a 25mm lens by half the view, it is identical to a 50mm lens other than the depth of field / resolution issues. There are mechanical differences in building a 25mm versus a 50mm so it is never exactly the same distortions but they are close. See this: http://yedlin.net/lens_blur.html Field of view is field of view, the how much view the lens sees within the frame -- if you're using the term in some other non-standard manner, then people are going to be confused.

More or less, Film Rec is designed to work within Rec.709, sort of like Sony's HyperGamma, though technically Rec.709 describes a color space, not just a display gamma. So I guess it is possible to turn off the Rec.709 color matrix in the camera and yet shoot Film Rec? Certainly you could turn off the Rec.709 color matrix in the old F900.

"Lighting Director" is more of a title for live theater lighting situations like for a concert show -- "Lighting Designer" is the more common title though. If the live show was being photographed, there would be a separate cinematographer or videographer or Director of Photography. If this show was a scene in a movie, then the Gaffer / Chief Lighting Technician would be in charge of the lighting department though that person might hire a theatrical lighting designer to handle the stage lighting since that's such a specialized skill. There used to be an old designation in U.K. cinema for "Lighting Cameraman" -- who would be the cinematographer -- as opposed to "Operating Cameraman" (the operator).

He said he was comparing the 18mm LF lens put onto the S35 camera, so yes you get a narrower view compared to being put onto a LF camera, but the same view as an 18mm S35 lens. 18mm is a physical measurement of a lens, it's independent of the format size it is going onto, other than the coverage (image circle) issues. Yes, a 50mm Master Prime on a S16 camera would have the same view as a 50mm Ultra16 prime -- it's a 50mm!

The focal length is a constant, so an 18mm is an 18mm whether on a Super-8 camera or an IMAX camera, it's just going to have a narrower field of view on a smaller format. It also may not cover a larger format. So an 18mm designed for FF35 but put on a Super-35 camera will look the same in terms of view, depth of field, etc. as an 18mm designed for a Super-35 camera, but the 18mm designed for the Super-35 camera might vignette on a FF35 camera. Yes, you can argue that in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. that the design compromises depend on the format size. On the one hand, a lens designed for FF35 but put onto a Super-35 camera will be using more of the optical sweet spot in the center of the lens since the sides will be cropped to a narrower view, but on the other hand, sometimes larger format lenses are designed with a lower MTF simply because if your format physically has more "millimeters" overall, then a lens does not have to resolve as many lines per millimeter, which is the advantage of oversampling.