Kubrick's F0.7 lens

dadsm3

dadsm3

Well-known
Local time
4:22 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
842
I always wondered about the candle-lit scenes in Barry Lyndon, very beautiful, almost like a painting. After seeing a documentary on his life recently it seems he used an F0.7 Zeiss lens originally designed for still photography for the Apollo moon shots. Apparently this lens is two stops faster than anything else in existence before or since, and is the fastest lens ever used in a movie.
Just wondering if anyone has a link to some stills taken with this lens, and possibly a picture of the lens itself?
Or maybe someone here already has one on their M8?:D
 
IIRC, there were two lenses, both .7, one a Zeiss, the other I forget...off to google!

.
 
Why would you need such a lens if you are going to shoot the whole Moon landing on a sound stage? Just turn the lights up.
 
I had read about the Zeiss f0.7 lens used in the making of 'Barry Lyndon' a few months ago. I then rented the movie again, wanting to pay particular attention to the cinematography. Aside from the visual aspects, it is not a movie I would readily recommend to anyone. The cinematography, however, and not just from the indoor scenes shot with the f0.7 lens, is brilliant. The other aspects of the movie, in particular the thespian talents of Ryan O'Neal, leave something to be desired.

I really can't fault Kubrick. I can only imagine the thrill he must have had playing with a f0.7 lens. Convert it to M-Mount and I am there :D
 
I just mentioned this lens and Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" a few days ago on a local Croatian photo newsgroup.

Some links:

The lens and shooting:
http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/alcott.htm

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

A bit more about Kubrick and his way of filming:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg2.htm

Apparently Zeiss also made f0.55 lens, but that one is NOT used in photography/cinematography, but in manufacture of silicone chips (microlithography) ...
It's called "Starlith" lens - see here:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Lens_Production/$File/Lens_Production.pdf
(page 3. of the PDF)

Denis
 
Bits of Trivia

Bits of Trivia

On Barry Lyndon they used a pair of F.07 Zeiss lenses (36.5mm & 50mm) to film candle-light scenes with virtually no supplemental lighting. They were modified still camera lenses from NASA's Apollo moon-landing program.
Click to expand...

Did somebody post this link? If so, sorry for the duplication.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:xcUP99ESGicJ:www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/bl/page1.htm+barry+lyndon+cinematography&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It's not totally clear, but there is mention of a Canon 50/1.2 as well. Also, because of having to push the film for one scene, the entire movie was shot with a 2/3 stop push.

Pretty neat stuff.

Now, for my own opinion: I saw the movie the first week it was out. On a huge screen. Yes, the cinematography was great. No, I didn't care for the movie at all. I'm a huge Kubrick fan. Barry Lyndon was a dud in my opinion.
 
emraphoto said:
whilst i know kubrik was a pj for a while i'm guessing he's talking about a 35mm cine camera...
Click to expand...
Yeah, who are we talking about, Stanley Kubrick or Lyndon?

Hopefully, not John Malkovich ;)
 
Kubrick's masterpiece is Clockwork Orange. Barry Lyndon was quite good. The people who released Eyes Wide Shut really did Kubrick a dis-service IMHO.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Yeah, who are we talking about, Stanley Kubrick or Lyndon?

Hopefully, not John Malkovich ;)
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about the 1964 U.S. Presidential contest!

I too saw the movie when it was brand new, on a large screen. I thought it was excellent. But then, I'm a huge Kubrick fan. I would agree it's not his best work. (That honor still goes to Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket.)
 
I have to admit I thought the "hypnotic slowness" was Kubrick's deliberate attempt to show how life has changed since then...basically to make the viewer realize how much modern society has sped up. Similarly, the over-politeness and formality of the dialogue....especially the scene where Barry is relieved of his money and horse by the highwayman, which has to be the most civil and polite robbery in the history of cinema.
There's no question Ryan O'Neill was miscast in this role.....strange that Kubrick would use him (or any American for that matter), since the whole work was steeped in so much realism. Kubrick was no stranger to bad acting, especially after Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory.
But that window only lighting in the scene where the young Lord challenges a sleeping Barry to a duel, wow.
In spite of all it's faults, I still vote masterpiece.
 
Re. Barry Lyndon - I agree it may not be the most "exciting" of the Kubrick movies, but visually - it's a definite masterpiece. I don't think anything as visually appealing has ever been filmed - either before or after... (including the "2001 - Odyssey"!).

(I don't care much for "Eyes Wide Shut"....)

BTW, "Dr. Strangelove" is also my favourite ;)
 
I like "Eyes Wide Shut" very much!

The only semi-failed movie of Kubrick is, in my opinion, "Lolita", due to the character performed by Peter Sellers. I think he destroys the story.

Barry Lyndon is, for me, one of the 3 best movies made by Kubrick.
 
Nemo said:
I like "Eyes Wide Shut" very much!

The only semi-failed movie of Kubrick is, in my opinion, "Lolita", due to the character performed by Peter Sellers. I think he destroys the story.

Barry Lyndon is, for me, one of the 3 best movies made by Kubrick.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing Lolita again. He plays the guy who is Humbert Humbert's undoing, right? Clare Quilty?
 
memphis said:
Here's an old pic he shot for Look Magazine that was in the 1951 leica manual (morgan / lester)
Click to expand...

memphis--

that's very interesting. (no matter how long it took, or didn't take, to find in google).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom