daniele

DaNiElE BeLArDo · September 22, 2005

hello !

which lens i should buy on (16mm or super 8) to reach the smoothness , the pastel color of kubrik' s film BARRY LYNDON?? (indipendent to the format)

the angenieux lens have this "look" "mood" ??

many thanks

Paul Bruening · September 22, 2005

This thread has come up before. That movie is notorious for Kubrick's use of a special, super fast lens. If I recall correctly, it stopped down to f.7 . This allowed Kubrick to get shots of candle light with a minimum of artificial light. This also created remarkable DOF. While, not all of the look came from that lens, certainly, some or much did. That lens is much coveted by many here in this forum.

While I am uncertain of their techniques, the staging and lighting sensibilities in that movie came right out of the paintings from that era of the movie's subject matter. Art books from a library can help you get the sense of it.

Dimitrios Koukas · September 22, 2005

hello !

which lens i should buy on (16mm or super 8) to reach the smoothness , the pastel color of kubrik' s film BARRY LYNDON?? (indipendent to the format)

the angenieux lens have this "look" "mood" ??

many thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want a high speed lens there is one angenieux 50mm for 16mm at 0.95.

I am not sure if you can find it anywhere though, I have one in my inventory.

It's a C mount for Eclair NPR. Why not use Pro-Mist or anything similar?

Dimitrios Koukas

David Mullen ASC · September 23, 2005

The candlelight scenes made with the f/0.7 lens are a small part of "Barry Lyndon". The overall film was shot on 100 ASA 5254 pushed one stop to 200 ASA. A Low-Con #3 filter was used, plus a net for the wedding scene.

Format DOES matter of course because which speed film stock to use, whether to push it, and how strong a diffusion filter to use will be affected by the size of the negative. Plus post matters too.

If you want more pastel colors, try Kodak Expression 500T or Fuji F-400T for starters.

Paul Bruening · September 24, 2005

Dimitrios and David are completely right about the filters. Since that lens was so fast it made large circles of confusion (blur) of the background, That blending fuses colors from different BG targets together increasing the sense of color softness or pastel-like blending. The difference for you is that the filters will blend light on all of the image. Only a super fast lens will blend only the BG colors as seen in BL.

Thanks for the info on the film stock and handling on BL, David. I've wondered about those factors for some time. Was that a gorgeous movie, or what?

David Mullen ASC · September 25, 2005

Note that the f/0.7 candlelight scenes were shot unfiltered because the image was already soft & flarey on its own; the rest of the movie was shot with the Low-Con filter.

Dimitrios Koukas · September 25, 2005

Note that the f/0.7 candlelight scenes were shot unfiltered because the image was already soft & flarey on its own; the rest of the movie was shot with the Low-Con filter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why maybe a 1/4 promist will do for the candle lights scene?

Honestly I haven't see this movie, I am just guessing by knowing the effect of shooting wide open with old lenses.I know it wouldn't be the same but in a way mimic it.

Dimitrios Koukas

Francis Kuhn · October 1, 2005

Check out these links for what's probably way too much info on the legendary Kubrick Leica f0.7 lens:

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

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

It would be interesting to get this lens today and do an optical bench analysis of the thing. My guess is that it's probably wouldn't be all that great compared to modern optics. But that's just the thing--sometimes a less-than-perfect lens is, well, perfect for the look you want.

By the way, if you Kubrick fans happen to come across a couple hundred dollars in the sofa cushions, treat yourself to this fine publication:

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/...facts/00301.htm

If they still have the first edition and you buy one, you?ll actually get a filmstrip with about a dozen 65mm frames sliced right from a genuine Kubrick-owned print of 2001. If nothing else, it will give you another good story to tell on the next shoot.

Emilio Volmut · October 2, 2005

Anybody know if there is a lens out there now which is much more powerful than this one?

Check out these links for what's probably way too much info on the legendary Kubrick Leica f0.7 lens:

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

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

It would be interesting to get this lens today and do an optical bench analysis of the thing. My guess is that it's probably wouldn't be all that great compared to modern optics. But that's just the thing--sometimes a less-than-perfect lens is, well, perfect for the look you want.

By the way, if you Kubrick fans happen to come across a couple hundred dollars in the sofa cushions, treat yourself to this fine publication:

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/...facts/00301.htm

If they still have the first edition and you buy one, you?ll actually get a filmstrip with about a dozen 65mm frames sliced right from a genuine Kubrick-owned print of 2001. If nothing else, it will give you another good story to tell on the next shoot.

Chris Keth · October 2, 2005

Anybody know if there is a lens out there now which is much more powerful than this one?

What do you mean by powerful? Lenses aren't measured by 'power.'

Dickson Sorensen · October 4, 2005

Funny thing, I can remember seeing Barry Lyndon in the theatre when it was first released. Everyone was floored at the time as no one had ever seen candle lit secnes in a major motion picture. There was so much going on in the scene, the mother, the baby, the intimate feeling that the cinimatography brought to the screen for the first time. Kubrick and Alcott truely broke new ground. I wish it was so easy to just go out and buy the lens. Today we have film stocks and lenses far superior to what was available then. If these tools were available then rest assured they would have used them and not the f.7 lens they used to shoot by candle. In order to shoot in 16 or super8 and have similar depth of field one would have to find a lens of f.3 or f.15 apx The f stop is a ratio of the focal length to the aperature. The smaller the format the wider the aperature must be for a similar depth of field. A lens like that might exist however it certainly would have been manufactured for a special purpose and would have to be adapted for film use.

If your plan is to shoot in candle light I had very good results making candles with two wicks and lining them up so that from the lens we could see only one. This doubled the available light from the candle. With 500t stock and a 1.3 lens your exposing better than Kubrick could at the time. Experiment and Good Luck

Joseph White · October 4, 2005

whats even cooler is that Joe Dunton (with a very famous closet full of interesting lenses) has stated on their website that they'll begin renting out Kubrick's zeiss .7 lenses as a special consideration for special projects. could lead to some awesome looking stuff..wish i was in the UK....:(

David Mullen ASC · October 5, 2005

With 500t stock and a 1.3 lens your exposing better than Kubrick could at the time. Experiment and Good Luck

Actually, Kubrick pushed 100 ASA stock to 200 ASA and shot the candlelight scenes at f/0.7 (using three-wicked candles). The equivalent today would be 800 ASA at f/1.4, since a f/0.7 is two stops faster than f/1.4.

With the brand-new f/1.3 Zeiss Master Primes finally here, and pushing 5218 or Fuji Eterna 500T by one stop, it would be possible to now get superior results than the f/0.7 lens that Kubrick used.

Stephen Williams · October 5, 2005

Actually, Kubrick pushed 100 ASA stock to 200 ASA and shot the candlelight scenes at f/0.7 (using three-wicked candles). The equivalent today would be 800 ASA at f/1.4, since a f/0.7 is two stops faster than f/1.4.

With the brand-new f/1.3 Zeiss Master Primes finally here, and pushing 5218 or Fuji Eterna 500T by one stop, it would be possible to now get superior results than the f/0.7 lens that Kubrick used.

Hi,

Depending on the size of the set your lighting you may not even need to push the stock.

Stephen

Paul Bruening · October 5, 2005

Hey all,

We haven't even addressed the issue of set design. Imagine the issues of keeping those candle flames burning perfectly without flicker. No one can move; everyone has to hold their breath; actors have to be oriented to avoid disturbing the flames. I can just see the budget dissolving as everyone waits for the general swirl of air motion to calm down. Holy Cow!

Stephen Williams · October 5, 2005

Hey all,

We haven't even addressed the issue of set design. Imagine the issues of keeping those candle flames burning perfectly without flicker. No one can move; everyone has to hold their breath; actors have to be oriented to avoid disturbing the flames. I can just see the budget dissolving as everyone waits for the general swirl of air motion to calm down. Holy Cow!

Hi,

The more candles you use the less flicker is an issue. In any case the candles SHOULD flicker a bit.

Stephen

Paul Bruening · October 5, 2005

Hey Stephen,

While I get it that Kubrick pulled off amazing shots, couldn't you fake that with a small china ball and enough candles just as props to justify the light motivation? Would that work? Movie magic is our thing, after all.

Stephen Williams · October 5, 2005

Hey Stephen,

While I get it that Kubrick pulled off amazing shots, couldn't you fake that with a small china ball and enough candles just as props to justify the light motivation? Would that work? Movie magic is our thing, after all.

Paul,

Sure you can fake it, but its not difficult with today's films and fast lenses to do it for real. More fun, could be cheaper too!

Another trick is to use very white make up on the actors. Then their skin is a stop brighter and the candles seem less yellow!

Stephen