Helge Abrahamson

You wouldn’t need a ground glass – there really is no need for an optical VF system. Ground glass should be replaced with CMOS sensor – would give you MUCH better video assist, plus all new viewfinder options (like easily customizable guidelines, multiple de-squeeze options and LUT’s simulating the film stock being used).

Stepper motors are being used for lots of high precision applications - they are really fast, relatively noiseless, strong and mind bugging precise - don't see why they couldn't be used for a film movement... But you are right, it would take a couple of million euros (possibly even more) to design and build a completely new film camera using today's technology - but imagine how great it could be. Question, I guess, is if there's a demand for such a camera, or if the current "popularity" of the celluloid media is really only the last nostalgic swan song, before eternal oblivion.

I get you point, even though I think it must sometimes be more nerve wracking than fun for the director. But think of it a bit like composing a piece of music with the comfort of using a good synthesiser and then later, having it played back to you on a Steinway concert piano.

It's a really interesting question. Imagine if a completely new camera was designed, using modern technology, what a radically different camera it would be possible to make. Imagine that the ground glass of the optical viewfinder was replaced with a CMOS sensor. One would not only get a much better viewfinder and assist system, but it would be possible to actually use the videotap for focus and exposure. And by having predefined profiles on the CMOS sensor, it would be possible to exactly imitate the sensitivity, colour balance and grain structure of the selected film stock. One could also select simulation of different development and processing methods on the assist system, making it truly a "what you see is what you get" system. Imagine how much less mechanically complicated a film camera would be, if mirror, movement and magazine drive was made with highly precise digitally controlled, direct drive, stepper motors, all being kept in perfect sync electronically. Imagine using a stepper motor for the movement and a gate that was electronically adjustable. One would be able to select 2, 3 or 4 perf by the push of a button. Imagine how much lighter it would be, if structural components and magazines was made of carbon fiber instead of metal. I would love seeing someone having a go at designing a modern film camera from the ground up.

Since display is on and out of sync sound is working, I don't think it's a power problem. My guess would be a broken drive belt - does inching knob feel different than usual?

In my experience and as a rule of thumb, the larger the front lens element, the better depth separation (nothing to do with shallow focus depth). This is caused by the lens looking "behind" foreground objects, kinda the same way as a 3D camera setup... The light enters the front lens element from a bigger separated angle, making background, behind foreground objects, visible - causing better depth separation. P.s. if above makes absolutely no sense, it's probably because of my poor english... Sorry...

Remember Minolta? - Bought by Sony because they needed fast lane access to making SLR lenses - No more Minolta. Nikon need fast lane access to making usable video in there SLR's - No more RED.