huge bizzare lens on A Clockwork Orange

[Brian Drysdale]

The' reddit is the only time I've come across a reference. to a 12mm, there is no mention of who they are or if the information they got is correct about it being used on Clockwork Orange..

 

The lens in a photo of the hospital scene on the first link looks rather like the 9.8mm

[Dom Jaeger]

i saw it here : https://indiefilmhustle.com/laowa-12mm-venus-optics/

 

and here : https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/30ulmj/kubricks_lenses_a_complete_guide_to_the_lenses/cpwoi85/

 

Yeah I wouldn't trust those sources. The first one claims "most of Clockwork Orange was shot on a 12mm" which is patently incorrect. The second is just some guy making a single line claim on a Reddit thread.

 

12mm is actually a pretty rare focal length for 35mm, I don't know of any older lenses except the Zeiss 12mm from I would guess the late 70s or 80s (definitely later than 1970) which is in actual fact a 16mm Standard Speed with an aspheric adapter on the front. It exhibits substantial chromatic aberration and doesn't compare favourably with the 10mm or 14mm Zeiss Standards that came out later. I doubt Kubrik would have liked it.

 

Kubrick was known to also use various adapted stills lenses, but I don't know of any 12mm photography lenses from that era either. Zeiss made an f/8 15mm Hologon in the late 60s that was close to rectilinear, anything wider was basically fish-eye, and as Brian mentioned, would have been very slow.

 

In 1970 he would have had access to a 9.8mm Kinoptik, a 14.5mm Angenieux, an 18mm Cooke Speed Panchro and an 18mm Schneider as wide angle choices for his Arriflex 2C. I don't know exactly when the Zeiss 16mm Standard Speed was introduced, but I suspect it was after 1970.

 

In the Joe Dunton interview about Kubrick's lenses, he mentions a specially made housing for the 9.8mm Kinoptik, by which I would assume he meant the wide-angle front port for the blimp, as seen in the initial thread photo, which differs from the standard 120 blimp port (as Mark mentioned).

[panagiotis agapitou]

 

Yeah I wouldn't trust those sources. The first one claims "most of Clockwork Orange was shot on a 12mm" which is patently incorrect. The second is just some guy making a single line claim on a Reddit thread.

 

12mm is actually a pretty rare focal length for 35mm, I don't know of any older lenses except the Zeiss 12mm from I would guess the late 70s or 80s (definitely later than 1970) which is in actual fact a 16mm Standard Speed with an aspheric adapter on the front. It exhibits substantial chromatic aberration and doesn't compare favourably with the 10mm or 14mm Zeiss Standards that came out later. I doubt Kubrik would have liked it.

 

Kubrick was known to also use various adapted stills lenses, but I don't know of any 12mm photography lenses from that era either. Zeiss made an f/8 15mm Hologon in the late 60s that was close to rectilinear, anything wider was basically fish-eye, and as Brian mentioned, would have been very slow.

 

In 1970 he would have had access to a 9.8mm Kinoptik, a 14.5mm Angenieux, an 18mm Cooke Speed Panchro and an 18mm Schneider as wide angle choices for his Arriflex 2C. I don't know exactly when the Zeiss 16mm Standard Speed was introduced, but I suspect it was after 1970.

 

In the Joe Dunton interview about Kubrick's lenses, he mentions a specially made housing for the 9.8mm Kinoptik, by which I would assume he meant the wide-angle front port for the blimp, as seen in the initial thread photo, which differs from the standard 120 blimp port (as Mark mentioned).

 

You are right !!!

 

In Vivian's making of the Shining .. Before going to shoot a maze scene .. Stanley ask to be available the 9.8mm the 14.5mm and the 18mm !!

 

If he used also and a 12mm why not ask to be and this available ... ;)

 

 

 

I have another question ... Garett brown said that the most of the film was shot with the Cooke 18mm

 

In the Shining Kubrick did a hard use of the Zeiss B Speeds set

 

Have any thoughts why he preffered the Cooke 18mm instead of the Zeiss T1.4 18mm ?

 

Thanks again !!

[Dom Jaeger]

I have another question ... Garett brown said that the most of the film was shot with the Cooke 18mm

 

In the Shining Kubrick did a hard use of the Zeiss B Speeds set

 

Have any thoughts why he preffered the Cooke 18mm instead of the Zeiss T1.4 18mm ?

 

No idea, maybe he just liked the Cooke better? In the Dunton interview, he only mentions the 25, 35, 50 and 85mm Zeiss B-Speeds, which he says was the first range available, so maybe Kubrick never owned the 18mm.

[Brian Drysdale]

There is what is termed the "Cooke look" https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/what-is-the-cooke-look/

 

Kubrick will have tested the lenses, so made a choice on what he preferred.

[Brian Drysdale]

This old thread states that Kubrick had the Angenieux 14.5 mm T4 in his lens set, which fits in with what Dom says was available at the time.

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=24878

[Jon O'Brien]

Joe Dunton's exposition of Kubrick's favoured lenses for his 2C is very interesting. I notice that his lenses are somewhat narrow in build - and I think this might have been a necessary factor in lens choice for the 2C camera. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a 2C with a large-barrelled (for want of a better term), 'fat' cine lens sticking out the end of it - like something of the girth of a Rokinon Xeen for instance (one make of lens I've done some research on) or bigger. I think the mirror housing might get in the way. Indeed this is what Tyler said recently on another thread.

 

Specifically for the 2C, or IIC if you like to write it like that, are these narrower-bodied lenses more prone to faint vignetting (not hard vignetting, I mean very slight underexposure in the corners of frame)? Now don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting Kubrick would have chosen lenses that vignetted. He was a master. What I'm on about is that I have read (and listened to) quite a bit of advice on the internet about how photography lenses are really not very good for use on cinema cameras. Yep, I've looked carefully into issues of breathing, colour matching, aberration, distortion of wides on cheaper lenses, filter/mattebox issues etc, follow focus/short focus throw and reverse focus, cheap plastic components especially in later AF lenses with sloppy travel, FFD and depth of focus and questions of mount type, and so on ... but the one thing that mainly gets me doubting the use of (many) photography lenses is potential for slight vignetting effects. Specifically on a 2C. I know that there's nothing distinctive about the film gate about this camera - I merely mean that 'thicker' lenses simply may not fit on it.

 

Can anyone direct me to some good information on this subject. I've looked but so far haven't found much expert knowledge on it. There is reams of advice on the internet about how cine lenses are the way to go for filmmakers. I'm not talking about that. That bit is clear. I accept that for a professional production crew it is the only way to go because of so many issues such as focus pulling, breathing etc etc etc.. I'm talking about low budget independent filmmaking and I'm not interested in debating why a low budget filmmaker would even consider shooting on film, let alone 35mm. You will just have to accept that that's the way I would like to go about doing my filmmaking - if I can. Thank you for any advice on this!

Edited January 10, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Some more explanation. Specifically, I've read that faint vignetting is much more noticeable when using photography lenses in filmmaking. But on the other hand the cine 35mm frame - especially academy width - is already significantly smaller than the 135 format 35mm SLR camera frame (approx. 36 x 24mm). So I can't see why vignetting would be much of a problem. Yet the 'only ever use cine lenses' camp often discuss the vignetting. Thus my question.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a 2C with a large-barrelled (for want of a better term), 'fat' cine lens sticking out the end of it - like something of the girth of a Rokinon Xeen for instance (one make of lens I've done some research on) or bigger. I think the mirror housing might get in the way.

 

 

 

Whoops, I've just remembered seeing a couple of pictures of George Lucas with a Pan-Arri 2C on Star Wars (IV), with a huge Panavision anamorphic lens on it. Perhaps this was possible because of the lens mount modification to PV. I've examined one of these closely and indeed the PV mount protrudes a good distance out from the 2C hard front due to the greater Panavision FFD. But for instance with Nikon lenses the lens is sunk deeper into the camera (Nikon FFD of 46.5mm). But a reputable source said that these lenses can work well with the 2C. Just have to watch that mirror.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Ah, I might have figured it out. Many of these filmmakers I've been reading possibly shoot on DSLRs. If they shoot footage on full-frame cameras it might be the case (but I just don't know) that slight darkening in corners is more apparent in digital cinematography. At any rate, I've just read some reviews of still lenses in digital photography that specifically looks into vignetting, and the writers mention - including in the comments below section (always worth reading) - that smaller format cameras, eg. DX sensor cameras, get rid of any apparent vignetting concerns with many lenses. DX or APS-C is close to academy 35mm frame size.

[Brian Drysdale]

The Arri 35 2c was modified by rental house etc so that it had a hard front, rather than the turret with the Arri Bayonet mount. The hard front mount options include PV, PL and BNCR mounts, I recall seeing Nikon mounts as an option being advertised in AC, You could also get adapters to fit Nikon lenses onto cine camera mounts, I had one for my Aaton..

[Nate Weaver]

The dolly is an Elemack Spyder, and only weighs about 300lbs. Maybe 330 with the low mode arm that they have on it. I use to own a Cricket, the successor to the Spyder. Lifted it many times. 
 

The Elemacks at that point didn’t really have any accessories so you could ride and get an eye to the eyepiece in low mode.

Any Panther, Movietech, or GFM dolly of a center column design like this now have all that taken care of now...sideboards, front porches, ways to hang a seat low and in weird places, etc etc.