the lens used in BARRY LYNDON

[Michael Ryan]

Hello All,

 

The other night I watched a documentary on Stanley Kubrick. For me, his films were an odd mixture of hit and miss, but there can be no doubt that his films have left a big mark on the history of cinema.

 

During the documentary they showed the lens he used to film many of the scenes in BARRY LYNDON. I was amazed to find out that all the candle lit scenes were in fact, only lit by candles. The look was incredible.

 

Is it possilbe to shoot candle lit scenes of that quality with more normal lenses? Would this be easier with a digital camera?

 

Kubrick also knew a lot of the inner workings of the cameras that he used. Are there any other filmmakers (popular) that pay the same kind of attention to this aspect of filmmaking?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[John Holland]

1/ iam stunned you have only just found out about the candle lit scenes after all this time . 2/ I think Kubrick was a bit of a one off glad to say other wise would put me out off work .

[Robert Houllahan]

Is it possilbe to shoot candle lit scenes of that quality with more normal lenses? Would this be easier with a digital camera?

 

Mike

 

 

With Superspeeds and 500ei stock shooting by candlelight works today, the stocks available when barry Lindon was shot were considerably slower. Imagine new stocks with the 0.7t stop lenses today, I believe the Mitchells and Zeiss 0.7 lens(s) kubrick used are available to rent in London. And I think it would be easier and look far better on emulsion than digitronic.

 

-Rob-

[Max Jacoby]

Considering that he shot on 100ASA stock (there was no 200 out by then, was there) at T0.7, you can use the same lighting setup with 500ASA and T1.3 lenses. If you use the Zeiss Master Primes it will look considerably sharper too, with more depth of fiels and you will actually be able to pull focus.

 

As far as JDC (who are renting out the lenses and camera) told me, Kubrick did not have just one lens, but 3: a 35mm, 50mm and 75mm.

 

Obviously using these T0.7 lenses today with 500ASA stock will open up a whole new set of possibilites.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Details of the lens' production:

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

[John Holland]

Max , Kubrick and Alcott did push the 5254 a stop and never used a 85 for daylight scenes .

[Max Jacoby]

John

 

What was the stock initally rated at?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Is it possilbe to shoot candle lit scenes of that quality with more normal lenses? Would this be easier with a digital camera?

 

Interiors in 'The Libertine' were lit with candles. They were quite grainy, the depth of field was fairly decent so they were stopped down. The warm candle light was timed out, so the flesh tones were very pale and shadows were blue.

[John Holland]

Max, 5254 was 100 asa.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Interiors in 'The Libertine' were lit with candles. They were quite grainy, the depth of field was fairly decent so they were stopped down. The warm candle light was timed out, so the flesh tones were very pale and shadows were blue.

 

Keep in mind that at times they were also underexposing quite a bit, sometimes by 2 to 3 stops...it was intentional of course to achieve that grain.

[David Mullen ASC]

5254 was pushed one stop and rated at 200 ASA for "Barry Lyndon", therefore at 800 ASA with a T/1.4 lens, you would get the same exposure as T/0.7 at 200 ASA (it would be easy to rate a modern 500 ASA stock at 800 ASA, whether or not you pushed it).

 

However, note that Kubrick had special candles made with three wicks in them for a bigger flame.

[Max Jacoby]

There was an Arri add for the Master Primes that show a couple sitting at a table lit with just one candle. That is the only source of illumination I think, so it definitely is feasable.

[Matthew Buick]

5254 was 100 asa.

 

And nowhere near as nice a 5247 (The Shining).

[David Mullen ASC]

And nowhere near as nice a 5247 (The Shining).

 

A lot of people would disagree. Many think that 5254 was probably the best-looking color negative stock Kodak ever made. 5247 got a bad rap because it had contrast problems and a tendency to go green in its early years, being coupled with the new ECN-2 process. It all got worked out eventually but a lot of people were unhappy to see 5254 go. Many great-looking movies made from 1968 to 1976 were shot on '54 (in fact, most 35mm movies period were shot on this stock during that time span). It had the most neutral skintone response of any neg stock until the Vision-2 line-up came out.

[Alessandro Machi]

However, note that Kubrick had special candles made with three wicks in them for a bigger flame.

 

Never heard that before, cool.

[Jon Kukla]

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

 

JDC has these lenses now, but I don't know if they've been adapted for modern mounts. My guess is probably not.

[David Mullen ASC]

They can't be mounted on modern reflex cameras because of the flange depth -- Kubrick had to adapt a rack-over non-reflex Mitchell just to use these lenses.

[Natalie Saito]

faster film makes it possible. in the old days they had to have a moving key light..which sucks. kubrick and alcott were just smart to use 3-wick candles.

[Michael Campanella]

However, note that Kubrick had special candles made with three wicks in them for a bigger flame.

 

I never knew that part ... pretty clever.

[John Holland]

David i think Matthew is trying to wind me up he knows my affection for 5254.

[Mark Dunn]

Joe Dunton rent Kubrick's BNC and a 25, 50 and 85. Sounds like they don't have the Kollmorgen-adapted wide angle but the shorter Zeiss which Kubrick didn't like!

Reading John Alcott, apparently '54 was discontinued, but Kodak reintroduced it in time for Barry Lyndon. I wonder if it was FOR Barry Lyndon.

[John Holland]

It was reintroduced over here because many top cinematographers refused to use the first 5274, Ecn 2 which had very bad colour and contrast problems it stank .

[Hal Smith]

Another fascinating link with "Barry Lyndon" info. They placed a video camera at right angles to the action and used a monitor calibrated with a distance grid to be able to focus the non-existent depth of field!

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/bl/page1.htm

[David Mullen ASC]

5254 wasn't obsoleted until 1976, well after "Barry Lyndon" wrapped production; however, in the U.K. as I understand it, ECN-2 and the early version of 5247 was sort of forced onto cinematographers sometime around 1975 when "Barry Lyndon" was finishing production. I think most of the movie was shot around 1974 actually, edited in 1975 and released in December 1975.

 

I only say that because in the AC article on "The Deep" (1976), the U.S. producers asked the British D.P. on that movie whether he wanted to use 5254 or 5247 and he was surprised to learn that in the U.S. 5254 was still an option in 1975-76.

 

So I suppose it's possible that if U.K. labs had to switch over to ECN-2 in 1975, Kubrick had to arrange to shoot pick-up shots on 5254 stock and get those processed the same way (ECN-1?) as the rest of the movie. But in terms of manufacturing 5254, Kodak didn't stop making the stuff until 1976; Kubrick would have just had to get it shipped from the U.S. possibly. Besides, back then it was common to place a large advance order of a stock made from the same run for the entire show, although more than likely Kubrick shot more footage than anyone planned on.

[Max Jacoby]

Besides, back then it was common to place a large advance order of a stock made from the same run for the entire show, although more than likely Kubrick shot more footage than anyone planned on.

I remember reading somewhere that he exhausted the initally budget quite quickly and Warner had to give him more money. They said that didn't mind, because they knew he was going to make something really good.