tupp

Certainly, if one's shoot takes a short time, then batteries can work. However, lots of shoots take all day (especially narrative work) and battery power is not practical in such situations. Of course, a lot of work (especially narrative) requires the versatility and control that tungsten fixtures offer, LED fixtures are not practical. The thing is, tungsten fixtures can work in most all situations. Tungsten can sometimes generate noticeable heat, but the versatility usually outweighs that potential problem. You hide cables? The only time I ever hid cables was when they were in the shot, but that was just basic dressing. Gloves are usually not necessary, unless one is perhaps removing scrims or wrangling a hot Fresnel with some problem. You stationed someone at the fusebox? Really? Generators are almost never necessary for fixtures of 2k or less. Again, LEDs also have less control, less versatility and a lower power-luminance density, when compared to tungsten units.

No, they're not -- not compared to LEDs with the same output and beam angle. Tungsten fixtures generally have a greater power-luminance density than LEDs, so tungsten fixtures are often smaller and lighter than LED fixtures with the same output and beam angle, especially when considering open-faced, focasable tungsten fixtures (which are non-existent in the LED world). Tungsten fixtures are hotter than LEDs, but with tungsten you get: more control; greater power-luminance density; better footcandle-per-dollar value; more versatility; and you almost never have to worry about color accuracy (CRI). For interviews, an LED fixture is not as good as a tungsten softbox. The usually larger tungsten softbox gives a more flattering light than the smaller, sometimes "metallic" looking light from an LED unit.

Don't get LED fixtures. Get straight tungsten. The footcandle-per-dollar is generally better with tungsten as is the power-luminance density. Plus, focusable tungsten fixtures are significantly less expensive than their LED counterparts. Straight tungsten fixtures are probably the most versatile source, so they cover most lighting situations.

Be aware that not all Nikkor lenses will work with the Metabones EF speed boosters. Metabones puts a flange around the front element of their EF speed boosters. This flange sits a little too far forward, presumably to prevent the use of EF-S lenses. This flange hits the rear protective hood on some Nikkor lenses, preventing those Nikkor lenses from being mounted in the Metabones EF speed booster. Of course, the Metabones Nikkor F speed booster has no problem mounting Nikkor lenses. It would be great if Metabones would make dummy EF Speedboosters without that forward flange, which would allow many more lenses to be mounted to a speedbooster.

Exposing skin tones by numbers can get one into trouble. In the first place, skin tone varies. Consider a shot in which an exceptionally pale skinned person and a very dark skinned person are standing next to each other in the same frame -- which one's skin do you set to 70% IRE? Secondly, what if the shot is supposed to be low key, with the subject darker than normal? Generally, the exposure should be as high as possible to reduce noise, without undesirably blowing out areas and/or without making it difficult to regain normal looking highlights. Use your eyes (and your lighting skills) to determine the relative values of the subject/set, and use the zebras to determine the highest feasible exposure.

Be careful when using zebras at 100%, because the zebras on some cameras are misleading in that they "sum" the color channel levels to determine if the threshold has been reached. In such scenarios, the zebras don't indicate when a single color channel has breached the threshold. So, if one sets the zebras to 100%, one (or two) of the color channels could be blown out, and you might not see a zebra. If the camera also has an RGB histogram, one can get a good idea of how the zebras handle individual color channels. Personally, I tend to set the zebra higher on raw and on some flat/log profiles. I often ETTR when shooting raw.

You can probably get your lenses "rehoused" with PL mounts, but it could cost up to US$1,000 per lens, depending on who does it. Here and here are some cheap PL lenses. Don't know if they qualify as "best bang for buck." Also, some of the Sony PL lenses for the F3 can sometimes be had for a deal

From the linked article: I'd take those sheets!

Beautiful. Must be nice to live in such a scenic area.

Yes. Not to mention that they merely could be licensing the encoder from a third party, especially if the OS/firmware is POSIX-based/Linux-based.

The camera plate clamp has a bubble leveler and so does the base of the head. So, if you start with both bubbles level (and with the tilt set around the middle of its range), you should be good to go.

@Inquisative posted a link to a video on the Acratech in a past thread. Later in that thread, @johnnymossville mentioned possibly buying the Acratech, and if he did, hopefully he will chime-in with his opinion on the head.

I am not an editor nor a post person, but one thing that I always hear from pro editors is that they never edit with a compressed, capture format. By transcoding all of one's footage to an uncompressed edit-friendly format, computer resources are saved for effects, filters and rendering, etc., instead of continually decompressing a resource-hungry camera format on the timeline.

If you can view the files in Resolve within the OS in question, then it is not the OS. Can you post a link to one of both 1:1 and 3:1 dngs?

It is probably not the fault of your OS nor of your image manipulation programs. Keep in mind that dng footage is essentially a bunch of raw still photo files (one for each frame of footage) consecutively named and located within a directory/folder. So, trying to view the folder might not work in Photoshop. However, you should be able to view an individual dng file as a raw still photo.

Don't over-think this job. You are not shooting "Lawrence Of Arabia." On the other hand there are a few things to consider in regards to how trade shows work and on how to optimize the video coverage for your client. First of all, do not contact to the trade show management directly about anything. As an exhibitor, your client is a paying customer of the expo, and he is the one who should deal directly with the show management on all matters. You are not with the independent "press" -- you are hired by an exhibitor, and he will probably get you an exhibitor's badge. I have been to a few trade shows, and I have never heard of trade show management prohibiting an exhibitor from shooting his/her own booth. So, unless this expo is the "Anti-Paparazzi Con" or the "Paranoid, Secretive Espionage Agencies Con," don't sweat the lack of official permission to shoot. Secondly, your idea of shooting a time lapse of the booth set-up is nice, but keep in mind when choosing your camera position that things move around a lot and unexpectedly appear and disappear during a trade show set-up: fork lifts; man lifts; push carts; carpet (will eventually cover any bare concrete that you see); signs (erected from the floor and hung from the ceiling); and, of course, big, opaque booth walls will appear. You might have to move your camera out of the way at some point. It is probably wise to shoot some live coverage in your client's booth during set-up, but most of that footage will probably be dull, so there likely is no need to spend the entire day shooting set-up. The first day/morning of a trade show is usually the most active and exciting. Your client will probably want some shots of his booth full of attendees. So, be ready to shoot at the start of the first day. Don't get too big with your rigs -- be nimble so you don't miss anything. A camera with a zoom lens and a monopod are probably all that you need, perhaps along with a shotgun mic plugged into your separate recorder (the camera sound will grab anything off-camera). Look for interesting/positive interactions. Be mindful that the last day is usually the slowest (that morning might be good for sit-down interviews) and that, at tear down, most exhibitors want to pack up and go home.

Don't know if the forum has ever discussed this Feelworld viewfinder (US$229) or this Feelworld monitor (US$139). Both of these items are spec'd to handle a 1080P, 60fps/59.94fps signal through HDMI, so they might work with the BMMCC's 60P output.

I think it's more of the look in his eye rather than the color from the C100, but Johnny looks like he could be part of the window display at the funeral home.

Nice look in the video. No discernible hint of English in the skin tones.

I appreciate the gratitude, but thanks/credit for the "hood>filter" stacking order should go to aldolega. Did you try trimming the rubber lens hoods back with scissors (or an Exacto knife)? That's a "French flag." I prefer a cheap matte box to French flags.

What version of VLC?

Sounds like a good plan! (Just don't want get the filters too far out in front of the lens.)

Does that filter have 77mm female threads on the front? If so, here are some options.

I am glad to be helpful. Please note that I have never used the meters that I linked. By the way, when you start using your incident light meter, it is generally best to aim the meter's dome directly at the light source (as opposed to aiming the dome at the camera). This is true both for taking lighting ratios and for getting exposure readings. Use your free hand to block light from other sources (including reflectors) that you do not want to meter. By aiming the meter at the directly at the light source, one avoids blowing out the highlights with that particular source, regardless of whether or not it is positioned to the side of the subject or more frontal to the subject. Aiming the dome at the camera can give a useful additive/average exposure reading in situations in which you have more than one frontal light source with a lot of overlapping coverage on the subject.

Incident light meters are great for learning and for recording lighting ratios. Recording lighting ratios is especially valuable in case you ever have to reshoot a scene or duplicate part of a scene at another location. Spot meters are not very helpful in this regard, as the subject's orientation and/or surface characteristics can dramatically change the reflective exposure reading, even though the incident lighting remains the same. Any digital incident meter with a fineness of 1/10 stop increments is more than enough for any lighting ratio needs. I have about five meters, but the one I use most is the discontinued Minolta Flashmeter IV. Kenko currently makes a knockoff of the Minolta Flashmeter V for US$249, which seems to have decent reviews. The Sekonic L-308S is US$161 on Amazon, and it has 1/10 stop increments. There is a more recent model of this meter -- the Sekonic L-308S-U -- priced at US$199.