Hacker News Reader

Comment by photoGrant | Hacker News Reader

Us industry professionals that use these tools beg to differ

https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533

Thank you for the link. I am pretty sure following comment is more on the side of reality: https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540

But good there is awareness about using equipment with old, faulty hardware and the need for measuring uv levels as part of technical checks.

Think of production and rental companies like airlines. Some are the safest and well respected, some are a death trap. Most operate middle to right. A lot of salt has to be taken with a comment like that as it's more a legal response than a valid one. i.e. he worked for ARRI.

To clarify, ARRI can only speak on behalf of what they legally aim to sell. Not what the factory reality lets out the door, or what any production does with their equipment. They aren't evil, just a company.

I deem the chances Arri tinkering with their equipment to circumvent legal requirements to be zero. This "every company is having a big, mischievous plan" theme is very boring.

That's true, but there is such a thing as component variation and there is also aging. It may well be that the specified product is well within the safety limits but the aging border case is no longer and if there isn't enough margin that may well lead to trouble.

Depending on the amount of variation that trouble may arrive sooner rather than later.

I totally agree uv filter fitness should be part of the equipment checks happening before an extensive filming.

I wonder to what degree the UV filter coating wears because of the UV. After all it is made to absorb precisely the most energetic component, that can't be without consequences over the longer term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com