Not at all. I’m in landscapes of non-profit information by birth, it seems.
Wax is nice because cheap and easily removable. Redoable
Motion-picture cameras are designed, uhm, were designed after deliberations a little different from still photography’s. They must withstand bigger temperature changes in shorter time, should be demountable and remountable within an hour, and should not yield to transport shaking. Film movie cameras are relatively rugged. Stories have been told of Mitchell cameras blown from tripods downhills and put back to service after recollection, Eyemos dashed about, and so on. Prisms therefore are preferred to glass plates. Those who make prisms simply leave out the polishing on desired surfaces. Same with planoconvex lenses, a widely used form of the frosted element, cf. Bell & Howell.
Let’s never forget what beautiful films were shot without sophisticated viewfinder equipment. Once fully acquainted with his camera a cinematographer begins to rely on other components such as raw stock, lab and development, and lenses. Sure is it nice to be able to follow a character or whatever with a TTL reflex system but some decisions lying at deeper levels, say, do I move the camera at all, what focal length has which effect, and the like must be taken with every camera. I’m having an 8mm camera on the slab right now that has a big spring. By that spring it runs for almost a minute, about triple the length most 8mm cameras are capable of working. So an owner of such a model can plan for longer continuous shots. Would s/he need a reflex finder then, a ground glass or a video tap? I don’t think so.
My 200 unnecessary words