Stuart Brereton

I don't know how much help this will be, but you could try contacting Panalux in London. They are a very big Movie Lighting company, and a few years ago they took over another much older company called Lee Lighting who have been involved with the British movie business for many years. It's possible that someone there may be able to help you, assuming that any of the older electricians are still working there. http://www.panalux.biz/ You could also try the Electrician's branch of BECTU, the union for movie and tv workers. https://www.bectu.org.uk/home

Footage shot at 12fps will have twice the motion blur of footage shot at 24fps. That additional motion blur may well be very noticeable depending on the material.

I've done a few shoots over the years with various types of animals, and have never heard the animal trainer express an opinion about what kind of light the animal would prefer. Any domestic animal is more than likely well used to tungsten light, because that's what we have in our homes. It's usually excessive noise and activity around the animal that are the main worries.

There is a Facebook group call Buy & Sell / Grip & Lighting. It's run by Wooden Nickel lighting in LA. A lot of it is California based, but they have items for sale all over the country.

I wouldn't get too hung up on 32mm vs 35mm. The proliferation of non standard sized sensors means that the actual field of view is something of a moving target.

If you're expecting to see huge differences between modern lenses i think you'll be disappointed. The Cooke 'look' could be defined (depending on who you ask) as a slight warmth to the image, with some very subtle softness. You could emulate both of these with filtration or white balance. I'd start with an 812 Filter, and a very light BDFX Diffusion. The real difference for me is in the way that Cooke lenses reproduce space. There is a sort of curved feel and depth to them that gives a different dimensionality then you would see from Leicas, for instance, which look much flatter. That 'look' is impossible to reproduce, as it's all down to lens design.

I don't see how stabilizing the image will remove breathing, which is a change of magnification at different focus distances. Is there something about the stabilizing tool in Resolve which is designed for this purpose?

But Richard, how will you ever have the latest, coolest, hippest lighting if you don't? :)

Grips would usually use C Clamps and ratchet straps to fix a hi-hat to the top of a ladder. Don't forget to add plenty of sandbags to the bottom rungs of the ladder for stability.

I remember hearing from someone who has worked with him that he has a collection of bits of glass & plastic, mirrors, and all manner of other translucent objects that he uses. I've messed around with similar looks in the past, and got some interesting images from shooting through an empty plastic water bottle and a clear plastic spoon.

We used insect foggers on a show in Belize a few years back. Vey effective for getting that misty jungle look. I would not recommend using them indoors, even with the mineral oil used in the video. It looks to be the same sort of heavy oil that was used in cracked oil hazers, which are now banned on sets.

Vancouver is a 2 hr flight away. Surely it's worth spending a couple of hundred dollars to be able to check out the camera in person?

There seems to be a bit of a myth that when you use a certain manufacturer's equipment, you are somehow beholden to them, and that restrictive contracts are signed. If you rent from Panavision, you sign a standard rental agreement, just like you would anywhere else. They might ask you to put their logo in the credits in return for a discounted rate, but they are certainly not going to specify what other equipment you may or may not use. Matching the look of different lenses is something that's done all the time. How difficult it is depends on the lenses in question. Matching a Master prime to a Super Baltar is going to be harder than matching it to a Primo, for instance, but it's certainly possible.

Assuming that they are a reputable company, and obeying the lending laws of whatever country you are in, I'd say it's no more risky than getting a bank loan and buying a camera. Being able to afford the payments each month is obviously an issue, but that has nothing to do with who lent you the money. If you're intending to rent the camera to others, then you should thoroughly research your market to make sure there is enough demand for you to be able to recoup your investment in 18 months or so. Any longer than that, and your camera will likely be obsolete and be harder to rent out. If you're purchasing just for personal use, then only you can know if you can afford the repayments.

I think the movie world has arrived at the same place that the stills world did a few years back. 4k seems to be the sweet spot. You can increase resolution, but people can't see the difference, and you can make screens larger, but then people just sit further away.

Maybe you should contact Arri, who are also in Burbank, and ask them?

I remember there being a substantial difference between BECTU rates and what the BBC (or anyone else) actually paid. Has that changed?

In 2007/8 the Varicam was 720p. Not sure if they ever made a 1080p version

I was shooting with Sony DVW790s (Digi-Beta), DSR450s (DV-Cam), F900s (HD-CAM), Panasonic Varicam. Did my first RED One shoot at the tail end of 2008.

Assuming you mean the s35mm version of the Weapon sensor, it has a diagonal of 33.8mm. The smallest image circle of the Mini S4i is 34mm, so the answer is yes, they will cover. Obviously, you should test before shooting.

Mitchell base is industry standard. Rock solid, will not slip. Only downside is that you have to level the head by adjusting the legs of the tripod. It's a little fiddly, but easy once you get the hang of it. Ronford-Baker are also an industry standard, the tripods particularly. You'll see them on every professional set, although usually in the US, the heads will be O'Connor.

Nikkor lenses suffer from the same problems that all adapted stills lenses suffer from; Short focus throw, breathing, lack of color matching between lenses, clicked iris, and small physical size. In addition they focus 'the wrong way' which can be confusing if you're not used to it. Optically, they're great, and there's a huge range of different glass to choose from.

Subject to the provisos that Dom mentioned above, there is no reason why the Xeens wouldn't work just fine. This particular set might not be the most useful, though, as the focal lengths are rather long. Shooting 2 perf generally makes use of wider lenses because of the field of view in 2.40:1. When shooting for a 2.40:1 crop, you're more often using lenses in the 18-35mm range.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the first 'Film vs Digital' debate of 2019. Enjoy! :)

Would Robert Rodriguez please come to the white courtesy phone...