He's nowhere as good as his father.

If you can understand this* ( see below), everything else is a lot easier.

* taken from cinematography.com's thread on learning foot candles.

E=25fe2/S(T)

25 are the frames...

f= t stops or f stops....

s = iso

t= 1/50 if its video...

for films...

E= 1250fe2/s

1250 ... try imagine what does that means....

f = stops on the lens...

s = iso....

for example... if you have a tungsten arri 650 w... (we know 650 is the consumption) not how may foot candles per square meter does it delivers... but as I know it delivers round 52800 fc

LETS know how may foot candles do we need for a ISO/ASA 100 at 1/50 at 2.0

using the first equation...

E= 25(4.0)/2 = 100/2 = 50 FC we need to expose that iso with that speed and that t-stops...

so now that we know that... what else do we need?

lets put the 650w from arri...

to know how much distance do you need the 650 to deliver 50fc we use the next equation...

I= E/De2

I= 52800/32 = 52800/1024 = 51 fc...

so you need to put that 650 at a distance of 32 feet ...

use the data sheet of the light companies...

or use this... http://calc.arri.de/calculator

Except for some home movies and his daughter filming BTS of The Shinning and Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick never used 16mm in any of his films.

Very nice. What's the tech specs?

If that's the case, why don't the majority of directors camera op.Afterall everyone now shoots on digital. So it should be easy right?

Nothing has changed except for one thing: you don't use film anymore. Keeping an actor in focus is just as hard as it's ever been,

Actually, your title is not too far from the truth. Kubrick is on record saying he wasn't much of a Hitchcock fan, and although Hitch never commented on Kubrick, I can't imagine he would be too much of a fan of his films either.Of course, both are equal as far as I'm concerned.