Kubrick

[Gary Lemson]

Hello,

 

I've been viewing the documentary, "Stanley Kubrick - A life in Pictures". In the sequence on "2001..." he is briefly shown carrying a rectangular hand-held Panavision camera. Any of you know what that camera is (was)?

[David Mullen ASC]

The movie was shot in 5-perf 65mm spherical Super Panavision. Sometimes in photos you may see a piece of equipment labeled Todd-AO (the original 5-perf 65mm format) or even Cinerama.

 

I'm not sure if all the 5-perf 65mm cameras on "2001" used were built by Panavision or by Mitchell, etc.

[Gary Lemson]

The movie was shot in 5-perf 65mm spherical Super Panavision. Sometimes in photos you may see a piece of equipment labeled Todd-AO (the original 5-perf 65mm format) or even Cinerama.

 

I'm not sure if all the 5-perf 65mm cameras on "2001" used were built by Panavision or by Mitchell, etc.

 

Okay, thank you.

 

Specifically, there was a small camera shown that looked similar to the Super 8 Leicina Special. Was that a 5-perf 65mm hand held unit?

[Joe Taylor]

Okay, thank you.

 

Specifically, there was a small camera shown that looked similar to the Super 8 Leicina Special. Was that a 5-perf 65mm hand held unit?

 

 

That could be the director's finder that he designed.

[Dan Salzmann]

I've seen pictures of Kubrick carrying a Mitchell finder that he used as a director's finder.

[Gary Lemson]

I've seen pictures of Kubrick carrying a Mitchell finder that he used as a director's finder.

 

Interesting...well, this was definitely a Panavision unit (whatever it was).

 

Thanks again,

 

GL

[James Steven Beverly]

Was this the camera?:

Edited January 2, 2009 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

Let's try tat again. Is THIS the camera?:

 

[Gary Lemson]

Let's try tat again. Is THIS the camera?:

 

Nope...it was a small hand-held unit.

[James Steven Beverly]

OK, now THIS camera is reportedly Kubrick's Super Panavision from 2001 so if 2001 was shot entirely on 70mm and the camera you described wasn't used for actual production, then perhaps it was either the "making of" 35mm camera or one he was using for test purposes but "making of" cameras were usually 16s at the time if I'm not mistaken and I don't know why he would test with 35 then shoot 70. I DO have a theory though, just outta curiosity, was this a still shot they cut into the footage with a voice over or was Kubrick actually directing with this camera in hand? The reason I ask is if it was just a still shot, it may not even be from the the 2001 set at all. They may have needed a good shot of Kubrick and pulled a publicity still from another film that they thought looked good and had the right feel for the voice over. Docs do that a LOT ya know. I SAW this doc a while back but I don't remember that particular scene. "Course they don't run it that often and I only saw it once. Personally, I'm waiting to see Hearts of Darkness. :D HOOO wait a minute, did some quick reasearch and found this on wikipeadia: In 1968, Panavision released a handheld 65 mm camera.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision

Edited January 2, 2009 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

That's it, had to be the Panavision HSHR 65mm 5 perf mos camera. Kubrick woulda had access to the newest stuff Panavision had at the time

Edited January 2, 2009 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

OK One Mo time, was THIS the camera:

 

[K Borowski]

Just wanted to add that 2001 is credited as being shot as a mix of 35- and 65mm in the book I have, so perhaps this accounts for a 35mm camera in some publicity photos. . .

[Gary Lemson]

"...was this a still shot they cut into the footage with a voice over or was Kubrick actually directing with this camera in hand?..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision

 

Darn...I had the DVD as a rental and I just returned it today (however, I am going to buy it). Anyway, I recall there was an actual motion shot on the set of the revolving space station. Kubrick had the camera in hand.

 

Hey...thanks for your insight!

[David Mullen ASC]

You can see some different Panavision and Mitchell 65mm cameras here:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingsp3.htm

 

Here is that handheld 65mm camera used in "2001":

 

I believe you can see the same unit on this page:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/emvf_in_65mm/gallery.htm

 

The Panavision 65mm handheld camera supposedly came out in 1968, too late for Kubrick on "2001", though either he got a prototype to use or this was built by Mitchell or someone (probably the Panavision version was just an adaption of that then.)

 

Photos from "2001" show a number of 65mm cameras used, including a Mitchell 65mm for non-dialogue shooting and efx shooting.

 

The movie itself was not shot in 35mm... but 35mm could have been used in various places for efx work or some footage for the rear-projected screens on the movie sets, and even in some of the miniatures that had projected elements. That's probably why 35mm is credited for some of the movie.

[K Borowski]

The movie itself was not shot in 35mm... but 35mm could have been used in various places for efx work or some footage for the rear-projected screens on the movie sets, and even in some of the miniatures that had projected elements. That's probably why 35mm is credited for some of the movie.

 

David, are you staying up late watching the "Twilight Zone" marathon? :P

 

From what I recall, it was just for a few supplemental hand-held shots where 65mm was too unwieldly. Despite the bulk of 65mm cameras, I recall a story where they came up with a way for Stanley Kubrick to hand-hold a 65mm and operate himself for the shot coming down the ramp of a lander on the moon.

 

All of the equipment readouts on Odyssey were actually hand-drawn animations that were rear-projected 16mm. And I recall reading that the background projection at the beginning of the movie was actually accomplished with 4x5" transparency projection.

 

I guess I'll have to dig up the book again. I am pretty sure they specifically talked about the use of 35mm somewhere in there. Don't think it was for any of the SFX either though.

[David Mullen ASC]

All of the equipment readouts on Odyssey were actually hand-drawn animations that were rear-projected 16mm. And I recall reading that the background projection at the beginning of the movie was actually accomplished with 4x5" transparency projection.

 

I guess I'll have to dig up the book again. I am pretty sure they specifically talked about the use of 35mm somewhere in there. Don't think it was for any of the SFX either though.

 

Douglas Trumball's article in American Cinematographer says that 35mm was used to shoot the movie playing on the monitor during the PanAm shuttle flight and the animation for the projected screen read-outs (which I believe were then reduced to 16mm for projection.)

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page3.html

The movie being shown on the TV set in front of the sleeping passenger was a little more complicated. Kubrick wanted shots of a futuristic car, and close-ups of a love scene taking place inside. A crew was dispatched to Detroit to shoot a sleek car of the future which was provided by, I believe, the Ford Motor Company. The exteriors were shot in 35mm, but the interiors were shot without seats or passengers, as four-by-five Ektachrome transparencies. Using these as background plates for a normal rear-projection set-up, on actor and actress were seated in dummy seats and Kubrick directed the love scene. Shot on 35mm, this was cut together with the previous exterior shots, and projected onto the TV screen using a first-surface mirror.

 

In the cockpit of the Orion spacecraft, during its approach to the space station we begin to see a few of the 35mm animated, rear-projected computer displays on multiple screens. Throughout the space sequences these displays depict the activities of computers on board the Orion, Aries, Moon Rocket Bus, Discovery, and Pod spacecraft.

 

To produce thousands of feet of continually changing graphic readouts to cover the multitude of screens in "2001" would have been an impossibly long job using ordinary animation techniques. We terminated work with the local animation camera service, set up our own 35mm Mitchell camera with stop-motion motor, and with the help of a very talented and artistically oriented cameraman, we began the job of pasting up and juggling around artwork under the camera as we were shooting. In this way sometimes as much as a thousand feet of active, colorful, diagram animation could be produced in one day. Specific readouts showing docking alignments taking place, testing procedures under way, and other specific story points were not as fast and easy to shoot, however, and the job of producing all of the read-outs for "2001" took nearly a year.

[Gary Lemson]

:rolleyes:

...I believe you can see the same unit on this page:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/emvf_in_65mm/gallery.htm

...

 

Are you referring to the camera behind? In that picture he is holding a Panavsion "something" :rolleyes: . That's the unit I was curious about.

[Patrick Neary]

:rolleyes:

 

Are you referring to the camera behind? In that picture he is holding a Panavsion "something" :rolleyes: . That's the unit I was curious about.

 

Hi-

 

That's an old Mitchell (or I guess Panavision-branded in this case) viewfinder.

[John Disher]

FYI...

[John Disher]

Let's try tat again. Is THIS the camera?:

 

I believe that image is of the Panavision SC that worked on "Lawrence of Arabia."

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The Panavision 65mm handheld camera supposedly came out in 1968, too late for Kubrick on "2001", though either he got a prototype to use or this was built by Mitchell or someone (probably the Panavision version was just an adaption of that then.)

 

 

 

Here's a May 1960 article from AC & posted in the Lobby section of the WideScreen Museum:

 

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/panavisn.htm

 

It's a progress report of new Panavision equipment, mostly 65mm.

 

 

 

 

"Still another (and perhaps the most revolutionary) 65mm camera model produced by Panavision is a hand held model with a hand-grip and form-fitting shoulder support. Carrying a 500 foot magazine, it is extremely compact in design. The camera with magazine and motor weights a mere 24 lbs. The motor operates from a lightweight wet or dry-cell battery pack.

 

 

While the most interesting feature of the camera is that it actually can he hand-held, producing a steady image under the most difficult conditions-its greatest advantage to the cameraman is that its extreme light weight and compact size permit it to be quickly set up in positions where other cameras could not be used. Let us consider, for example, a scene that must be shot from an almost inaccessible spot-like the top of a tree or telephone pole, the mast of a ship, or the front of a small rowboat. To shoot such a scene, even in 35mm, with a camera of the NC type would require a great deal of time spent in rigging and in many cases the shot could not be made at all.

 

The small portable 65mm Panavision camera can either be carried up to the remote vantage point and handheld by the operator, or it can be quickly- mounted with a clamp and tripod socket. It permits easy shooting in 65mm from cars and other moving vehicles and can be quickly rigged for automatic shooting by means of remote switches. When not actually used as a hand-held camera, the pistol-grip and curved shoulderbrace are readily detachable so the camera can be mounted on a tripod like any standard studio camera.

 

All three of the new Panavision 65mm cameras are being used for the first time in photographing Otto Preminger's production of "Exodus", which is currently shooting on location in Israel. To complement the new cameras the company has created a whole new series of lightweight anamorphic and spherical lenses, the new widest angle lens having an undistorted angular field of well over 100 degrees."

 

 

These 1960 hand held cameras were not reflex. 1968 might be when the reflex versions came out.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

 

From what I recall, it was just for a few supplemental hand-held shots where 65mm was too unwieldly. Despite the bulk of 65mm cameras, I recall a story where they came up with a way for Stanley Kubrick to hand-hold a 65mm and operate himself for the shot coming down the ramp of a lander on the moon.

 

 

 

When they're off the ramp, one can see Stanley and the camera reflected in the visor on an astronaut's helmet.

 

He also shot the flying bone shots, hand held.

 

 

 

[Freya Black]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/92/72/b4927225bad75593ab38806ce028737d.jpg

[Freya Black]

I think the camera might still exist and it ended up here although I don't think that is a picture of it in the link:

 

http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/technology-history

 

Freya

Edited July 10, 2017 by Freya Black