Michael Schroers Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Hi ! I'm interrested in the look of 'Carrie (1976)'. Does anybody know which lenses were used in Carrie ? I think it was a Mitchell Camera, which was used, wasn't it ? Did they use Super Baltar or Kowa lenses ? Which film stock was used ? Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 A lot of this type of thing can be had at www.imdb.com Just search for any movie you're interested in, and look at "technical specs". Here's what imdb.com says about Carrie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/technical Camera Panavision Split Diopter Lense Laboratory DeLuxe Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm Cinematographic process Spherical Printed film format 35 mm Aspect ratio 1.85 : 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 8, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 8, 2011 Most U.S. movies shot in 1975 would have used Kodak 5254 (100T). Back then, there weren't a lot of choices in stocks. This was during a transition where Kodak was trying to replace 5254 with 5247, but was having trouble getting U.S. cinematographers, labs, and studios to convert, while 5247 was being used already in Europe by then. But in 1976, Kodak came out with an improved version of 5247 and obsoleted 5254, so everyone had to switch at that point. I recall "Carrie" also using Fog Filters for some scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters. Very dated today, but certainly an effective, trend-setting look in this film that perhaps led to some less motivated abuse in the future. If I were to emulate the look of this movie, I'd try to dig up exactly what different filtration they were using. Camera, almost nothing to do with the look. Lenses a very small part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters. A number of DPs thought that the lenses then were too sharp... I'm not sure how they would react to the modern glass. Although, it's interesting that some people are using vintage lenses on the new digital cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schroers Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters. Very dated today, but certainly an effective, trend-setting look in this film that perhaps led to some less motivated abuse in the future. If I were to emulate the look of this movie, I'd try to dig up exactly what different filtration they were using. Camera, almost nothing to do with the look. Lenses a very small part. I want to generate a look which is very similar to this in a own film. (on Super 16) What would you recommend me to do to get this kind of organic, soft and a little bit strange look ? What would you do ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Use a fog filter! The film was shot 35mm, so I'd stay away from the 500T, no matter how many cool, big numbers, and attractive packaging it comes with ;-) David might be CLOSE to an ASC Magazine walking, talking encyclopedia, but I'd recommend you try to find that issue. I would assume there's an article in there on this film? As this movie far precedes the world-wide web, you'll have to really hit the periodicals to track down detailed information on it. I think it'll be well worth your effort though. Looking back through a big pile of '70s film and photography, I would strongly suggest you shy away from the level of filtration you see there, unless you want a dated '70s look. For instance, if they use a double fog filter, I'd use a single instead. Add to that the reduced clarity of 16mm film, and you don't want to go too heavy on any sort of filtration unless you can settle for a more severe loss in image clarity. To put it another way, shooting 16mm already adds a level of "diffusion" to the look, so I'd go even easier on any sort of sharpness-reducing filtration in the 16mm format than I would rolling 35. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 9, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 9, 2011 David might be CLOSE to an ASC Magazine walking, talking encyclopedia, but I'd recommend you try to find that issue. I would assume there's an article in there on this film? There was never an article on "Carrie" -- however, around the same period, the same DP (Mario Tosi) shot "MacArthur" and he discussed his use of filters and bounce lighting quite extensively in an interview with him about the movie in American Cinematographer, My index that I created for the 1970's issues -- the one that said that there was no article on "Carrie" -- says that the "MacArthur" article was in the July 1977 issue, so I dug through my boxes looking for it and couldn't find it. Then I remembered: I've collected those issues piecemeal over the years and the one key issue from that decade that I don't own is July 1977. Why? Because it's the issue on "Star Wars" and it's a collectors item outside of cinematography circles, so you can never find a copy on sale that isn't really expensive. Luckily, however, Tosi is one of the interviews in the book "Masters of Light" (Schaefer & Salvato, UC Press, 1984) and he does talk a little about "Carrie" in it, not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Peich Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Looking back through a big pile of '70s film and photography, I would strongly suggest you shy away from the level of filtration you see there, unless you want a dated '70s look. For instance, if they use a double fog filter, I'd use a single instead. Hello Karl! Actually it's the other way around. They are 2 different animals. The Harrison & Harrison Double Fogs were popular back in the '70s, especially in commercials, usually using the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 1. Seldom used anything over the 1 for 16mm. The Regular Fogs put too much "halo" around the highlights, and you couldn't get them in lower strengths, 1/8, 1/4, /1/2. They acted totally different than the Doubles. Then that "look" fell out of favor. If you've never used them, I would do some testing to see how they act with today's film and transfers. Here is a description of the Regular Fogs vs the Double Fogs as written by Hank Harrison: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Double Fogs i still love them i have a Harrison and Harrison No 1 . I use this now at certain times with my Canon 550d/ T21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Did I just fall into a classic trap? I think I read something about this in "Painting with Light" or "Cinematography" by Malkiewicz (sp? - as a Polock I should know this one). My apologies for the erroneous information. Double fog is actually less of an effect than a fog? Double fog is graded and fog is just one strength? Or did I still read it wrong? If you seldom used anything over the 1 for double fog, was there a 2 double fog? That is an unfortunate choice of filter names in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 9, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 9, 2011 A "Double Fog" is misnamed, as Vilmos Zsigmond said in one interview (it may be in "Masters of Light"). A Harrison & Harrison Double Fog was a combination of a Regular Fog and a Low Con filter in that the "mist" particles were finer than in a Regular Fog, creating less softening but more contrast-lowering veiling. It was Harrison's attempt to reinvent the Fog filter. They were first used by Vilmos Zsigmond in the early 1970's on movies like "McCabe and Mrs. Miller". Allen Daviau once told me that a lot of "E.T." was shot with the lightest grade of Double Fog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schroers Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 And which lenses did they use ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 10, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 10, 2011 I think Panavision provided the equipment so it could have been anything -- adapted Zeiss, etc. Their Ultra Speeds from the day were a mix of elements from Nikon glass and who knows what I believe, assembled by Panavision. If "Carrie" used a zoom, likely it was a Cooke 20-100mm or an Ang. 25-250mm. Baltar lenses were not being used much by the mid 1970's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 My cousin Peter told me a slightly humorous story when he worked for Mario. Mario came to the set one morning that had been lit the day before. He was about an hour late. He sat down in the auditorium where they were shooting and started to read the paper. Production gathered in what I like to call, "the circle of confusion" and wondered what to do. Everyone was whispering and nobody wanted to approach Mario and to tell him to get to work. Finally he dropped the newspaper and said, "Why are we waiting? Where are the actors? I was an hour late, I have been here for twenty minutes and you still aren't ready." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.