Kubrick's f0.7 Zeiss lenses available for rental

[Max Jacoby]

I just had a conversation with the people over at Joe Dunton Company and they said that they will be renting out Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lenses. These are of course the lenses that were used on 'Barry Lyndon'. They come in 3 focal lenghts: 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, together with the adapted Mitchell (you can't mount them on any other camera).

 

They shot already some tests with the lenses and in the night sky you can see the clouds which are not visible to the eye. Someone tell Michael Mann so he can make good-looking films again...

[Jordan Brade]

Holy Crap! F0.7?

 

How can you get a lens with that kind of speed? Would you have to modify it? If so, how would one go about doing that?

[Wendell_Greene]

!Sweet barry lyndon! How much is the rental? And what is the conversion rate for first born children to british sterling? Not that I have one, but just asking? :)

[Guest fstop]

I'd love to see them used with nets, thick promists and any other type of hyper diffusion. Maybe that could be the new fad: dropping f0.7 Zeiss with mega-diffusion on for close ups of the leading lady? ;)

 

It'll be interesting regardless to see if this catches on.

[Patrick Neary]

are focus pullers all across the UK breaking out in cold sweats?

[Nate Downes]

Holy nightshot batman!

 

*prays to the camera gods for a movie idea that could use those lenses*

[James Visiano]

That is impossible, Kubrick had the camera and the lens (a 50mm) copyrighted. That is why no one else all of these years were allowed to use them.

[Nate Downes]

How could Kubrick copyright a lens he had nothing to do with the creation of? The Zeiss Hasselblad 0.7 lens was built for NASA, not Kubrick. He might have a patent on the modifications made to the Zeiss, but you cannot copyright a lens.

[Dan Salzmann]

Kurick was not able to use todays fast filmstocks either, when Barry Lyndon was filmed.

That Mitchell is a bear of a camera. I would prefer to have mercy on myself and 1st AC and stick with modern cameras. A Zeiss or Cooke PL mount lens of that speed would be welcome, however.

[Dan Salzmann]

Kurick was not able to use todays fast filmstocks either, when Barry Lyndon was filmed.

That Mitchell is a bear of a camera. I would prefer to have mercy on myself and 1st AC and stick with modern cameras. A Zeiss or Cooke PL mount lens of that speed would be welcome, however.

[Max Jacoby]

That is impossible, Kubrick had the camera and the lens (a 50mm) copyrighted.  That is why no one else all of these years were allowed to use them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He owned the lenses and the camera and simply never wanted to rent them out. Since NASA were the only other people to own a set of these lenses there was no way to get hold of them otherwise.

[Stephen Williams]

That is impossible, Kubrick had the camera and the lens (a 50mm) copyrighted.  That is why no one else all of these years were allowed to use them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

Go to www.joedunton.com and see for yourself!

 

Stephen Williams DP Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Rik Andino]

That is impossible, Kubrick had the camera and the lens (a 50mm) copyrighted.  That is why no one else all of these years were allowed to use them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can't copyright a lens--you can patent it though...

But a patent will only last for so long

And then the rest of us folks can have access to the technology.

 

Copyrights are for books, scripts, movies, blueprints, logos stuff like that

They're not for inventions.

 

Just stating the obvious :rolleyes:

[Alessandro Machi]

Dear Mr. Dunton,

 

I am a film student with a minimal budget and was wondering if I could try your f0.7 lens on an extreme skateboarding movie I will be shooting on the cobblestone streets of my village. Rest assured I will do everything within my power to ensure your lens are treated well.

 

Sincerely, Joe A. Filmmaker.

[Rob van Gelder]

Please make a picture of that rig with the Mitchell and lens mounted to the scateboard :D :P :D

Oh, don´t forget the batterypack/power supply!! B)

[andrewbuchanan]

I think you could maybe put a saddle between the two humps in a 1000' mitchell magazine, add an additional gear tp the worral for steering, use the video tap as a foot-brake... and when you want to stop, just drop the battery off the back of the rig.

 

I really like JDC. They are unquestionably the nicest rental people in my area (the NC office).

[Matt Pacini]

Patents run out after 25 years, so it's irrelevant.

Besides, I seriously dought he owned the patent, if there even was one, which I doubt.

The patent would exist on the original lens, which he had nothing to do with creating.

If I modify my Toyota, that doesn't negate Toyotas patents on the original design. There are instances where you can CREATE something based on existing technology, and it will qualify as a new patent, but it's ridiculous to think he would do this, especially if he was going to hang onto that lens, and never let anyone ever use it. What would be the point?

Even if he applied for a patent, it would most likely be rejected.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter; The person who owns the lens can rent it if they want, regardless of whom owns the patent, otherwise nobody would be able to rent anything, other than the manufacturers of that equipment, which is the exception, not the rule.

 

The question is, who owns this stuff? His widow?

Perhaps she sold a bunch of his stuff, eh?

 

Anyway, I have a feeling that the whole "shooting with Kubrick's legendary lenses" excitement would wear off after about 3 hours of shooting with that camera.

 

Matt Pacini

[Dan Salzmann]

I think it is a positive thing that that camera is available to be used instead of just oggled at.

IMHO Stanley Kubrick would have prefered that.

It really is a bear of a camera though.

[Alessandro Machi]

Dear Mr. Dunton.

 

Sorry I couldn't personally deliver the lenses back to you. As you know by now, two of the lenses you generously let me use for my "Extreme Skateboarding over Cobblestone" Video are being returned to you in the mint condition that you rented them to us for free (in exchange for us promising to never call you again).

 

The third lens, the only one we actually used, had a slight mishap. The good news is we know exactly where the lens is, and what's even better, the body surface scratches created when it was rolling over cobblestone into an open sewer drain now reflect nicely when we shine a light into the drain.

 

The Lens should be very easy to retrieve and I thank you for the opportunity to try out such a fine lens, however I really felt that overall the lens threw the balance off of the skateboard and in essence was the cause of it's own temporary demise.

 

Live and learn, and once again thanks for the opportunity, I'll send you copy of the video when it's completed.

 

Sincerely,

Joe A. Filmmaker.

[James Visiano]

I am positive he had some sort of control over either the modified camera or lens or both. I wrote "copyright" when I should have used what I believe to be a "patent." I am trying to remember where I read this, which text or magazine, but I am having difficulty. It for sure came from a reputable source. I've read so much on Kubrick that I just can't remember which publication. Yet, it is possible that the patent is on the modified camera and not the lens. I do remember the text discussing the control Kubrick had over the technology and that this was the reason why no one else has been permitted to use the equipment.

[Nate Downes]

The camera required extensive modifications to use the lens, as the lens needed to be much closer to the film than other lenses. This required a whole new shutter design, eliminating the variable-angle shutter capability as well. It also required a redesign of the rackover system or else you would damage the lens. This is likely what was patented. Or the simple fact is, Kubrick owned the only camera with these modifications, and did not post exactly how to modify another Mitchell to the same specs, so "copyright through obfuscation" you could say. But one of those Mitchells that were modified was sold last year I believe.

[Rik Andino]

I think it is a positive thing that that camera is available to be used instead of just oggled at.

IMHO Stanley Kubrick would have prefered that.

It really is a bear of a camera though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

'Cept for the fact that he didn't want anyone to use it...

It makes sense :)

 

 

Kubrick was such a strange fellow...

Maybe that's why so many admire him so much...

 

Although from what I've read

I'd consider many of us would find working with him to be rather painful.

 

:)

[Wendell_Greene]

Although from what I've read

I'd consider many of us would find working with him to be rather painful.

 

:)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know a DP who worked with Kubrick on his last film who found it to be an incredibly rewarding experience.

[Rik Andino]

I know a DP who worked with Kubrick on his last film who found it to be an incredibly rewarding experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know the DP of Eyes Wide Shut?

That's cool...

 

I'm sure working with any great director is a rewarding experience...

Especially on their last film. He is very lucky.

[Paul Bruening]

Gee willikers Batman,

 

I could use the lens. I want to fire the rig out of the 18" guns on a US battleship. Wouldn't that be nifty? My brother in law is naval reserve. He said it would only cost four consecutive life terms to do it. By the way, any DPs need a job?

 

Hyar, Hyar