This will be my 80th year behind the camera. I started filmmaking in 1946 with the 16mm Bell & Howell Autoload, as many did. I ended my career with a few documentaries for airlines and travel lecture business, which was killed by televison eventually. Stanley Kubrick is one of my heroes. Rembrandt ground his own pigments. Kubrick practiced the same fanatical attention to detail that made him famous. No, a tool is not just a tool. A superb, ingenious tool like a lens can enable you to share your inner vision and so enrich the whole experience of the visual arts. RIP Maestro!
That's why Kubrick's movies are the best looking ever (and probably why they took so long to shoot). He probably tried everything until he was totally satisfied with a shot, in a process similar to that of a great painter more than a filmmaker.
Fer Abra I notice one of the distinct stylistic decisions in his shots is small groupings of people sitting in certain places in the background and sometimes in focus. This reminds me very much of some paintings. His approach was definitely influenced by painters pressumably renaissance.
Samuel J. On Barry Lyndon definitely. But every movie he made was so vastly different from the previous one that it's difficult to say exactly what his influences were. Depends on the movie, really. There can't be two more stylistically different movies than Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon. One pop art influenced, and the other 18th century art influenced...And yet, both are unmistakably Kubrick, the mark of a great artist.
Fer Abra Absolutely every one the movies are very different yet similar. The style I'm referring to is particularly prominent in his films post "Lolita" He had extras propped about on the set, mostly in interiors, in often very intentional pose... like in paintings or photography. It's definitely used a lot in Lyndon. It adds an air of surrealism imo, dreamlike, very filmic.
Samuel J. I never noticed! I have to check that out. His movies are closer to art than entertainment. You keep noticing details even if you saw them 20 times, and they are never boring.
This guy and Dan Sasaki are probably the two most respected lens technicians alive. Joe Dunton actually built his own line of cinema lenses that were used a lot in the '80s (including Return of the Jedi).
I worked for a lighting company that had it’s own studio in west London, I started for the company after coming out the army. Any way that’s by & by, in a little corner of the yard was where joe operated his Camra department, at this time joe didn’t have much transport, so as a favour, on delivering our film lights to other studios, we would take Joe’s Camra gear with us, and I must say 50 years on you would never be lucky enough to meet a more genuine person. I went on to work on many major movies, and would run into joe here there, and he never changed on but an absolute gentleman/ jack white
Joe Dunton, had a rental house as well, was the man to see in those days, as well as Optex and Sammies. I shot my first feature film in 1984, Dark Summer, as writer/producer/director/DOP/editor on an Arri 2c, 60% of the time it was blimped (an 80lb caste iron jacket that enclosed the camera to stop the noise of motor and film). It was a zero budget film, film stock came out of a skip but we tested every roll before using. It was one of only two films shot in anamorphic 35mm SuperScope that year in UK. Film was theatrically release in UK and ended up being distributed and sold through Mel Gibson’s Company Icon and Majestic. The rushes and prints were done at Rank Laboratories, thanks to Chester Eire, the technicians used to call me Little Kubrick, as I was such a pan in the arse about my rushes and prints, they were all step printed! That name was not a complement! 😂
Cooke were excellent lens designers copied by many, including Leica for their first Elmar still camera lens. I use Schneider Componon S lenses for my still darkroom enlargers. Awesome. Very interesting video. Thank you.
Hi! I can't find the original video on your channel... And I wanted to know who is the author of this, just to write the good reference in my thesis ;) Thanks! (By the way: very interesting video!)
Awesome stuff! It is very obvious that Kubrick also knew how his lenses behaved with certain camera movements - and how the different film stocks "printed" the image (and things that go way beyond my knowledge). Totally love this top notch custom engineering approach combined with true art (hand the same gear to another great cinematographer: it won't be the same) - the jaw dropping results speak for themselves. Kubrick was a genius. Thanks for this upload!
Sehr schöne Dokumentation. Da tuen sich Parallelen auf: Wie Stanley Kubrick habe ich eine Arriflex IIc, Cooke Speed Panchros, Zeiss Super Speeds und viele der anderen vorgestellten Optiken. Und ich bin nur Hobbyfilmer.
What type of lens does Len Kabasinski use? There was some very unconventional camera work used in his classic film 'Skull Forest.' I really liked those scenes where all the actors were out of focus, but the trees in the background were crystal clear. So, does anyone know which one is Len's lens?
This is fascinating.. it would be great to see examples after every lense . Do you lecture at Frankfurt ? I was there, but it was closed an amazing red lit building ... thanks
After 3 years of doing a degree in Film Studies....my Dissertation was "Stanly Kubrick's use of the Colour Red".............it went right over their heads...and the Don of my college couldn't understand it. I dunno what to make of Stanley.....he was made from different stock, ......I can only compare him to cammile pissarro.....and this mans lens knowledge is breathtaking and I actually cried a little bit.....I love art and film.
I understand color consistency is very important in video work... considering the vast difference in lenses it must of been difficult keep the colour consistent
Amazing, thx! Has there ever been any other 'auteur' filmmaker who not only wrote and directed his own work, but was even his own cinematographer, and he was obviously a very sophisticated 'techie' well before Lucas did Star Wars!
Unfortunately we didn't get to see the "HAL's eye" lens. IIRC it was a weird Fairchild-Curtis lens, I saw it on eBay about 20 years ago, it sold for a large sum, it was still mounted in one of HAL's panels. Have no idea who owns it now, that's probably why this lens was not on the Kubrick exhibit, the "HAL's eye" there was replaced with a Nikon lens.
The lens in the HAL faceplate was a Nikkor Fisheye 8mm. It was there as a prop only, with a red light behind it. The fisheye lens they used for the actual POV shots would have been something else. The Nikkor was made for 35mm and would have produced only a small circle on the 65mm film.
All the focal length mentioned in this video is about to use on s35 camera, right? Which means that the real full frame equivalent should be x1.5 crop factor?
Cinema has traditionally been Academy 35 and then s35 especially with tv work. Full frame that new people refer to is Vista Vision format or 8 perf photography which is the equivalent of 35mm stills. Digital people got used to Vista Vision with 5d cameras which became the norm for digi people. Traditionally speaking, cinema was always flat 35 or s35 except for some 65 and vistavision photography films.
The reliance on full frame as a reference point is purely a modern fad. The "real" focal lengths on any camera system is what is written on the side of the lens. You should not call a 35mm motion picture lens by the focal length you'd used on a FF / 135 stills camera to match AOV. Full frame equivalents aren't "focal lengths" - simply comparative angle of views. Cinema for 90% of its existence has been 3 or 4 perf film (or a sensor of a similar size) ... that is 35mm motion picture film. 8 perf (VistaVision) is close to the frame size of a "full frame" DSLR is simply a different format. You uses lenses 1.5x longer on FF / 135 (compared to S35) for the same AOV. But a 35mm lens on S35 "is" a 35mm lens... it's completely inaccurate to call it a 50mm lens.
So, why is it when they shot the large Discovery model in a camera pass, with an aperature of f64, that there was no diffraction that the rest of us get when shooting at f16?
And the Production pays for every one of them, which he keeps afterward. Peter Jackson started Weta Digital that way too. He Bought a couple of Silicon Graphics workstations and a 35mm film printer for "Heavenly Creatures" and kept them for other things.
"Cinema frame" means 35mm motion picture film (vertical, 4-perf), rather than 35mm still photograph film (horizontal, 8-perf). Dunton brings this up because Kubrick used a lot of lenses that were originally made for still photography.
they are obviously expensive, we re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars but believe me, if you are a very talented film maker, lenses don't really matter because even when he did't have that, you could still say he was one of the greats if not the greatest. it's all about the vision
The irony is the bigger, richer, and more famous a filmmaker you become... the more people will just give things to you. There was a story about Kubrick asking the head of Warner Bros. (John Calley) for a couple of the remaining old studio cameras (I believe one of them he had modified for Barry Lyndon). Well, the studio chief obliged and gave them to Stanley, not aware that they were no longer produced, almost one of a kind and nearly priceless.
David Lopez - Leica or zeiss (can't remember which one) made lenses for the astronauts to use on the apollo missions. Kubrick managed to get his hands on some and had them modified to fit his Arriflex. They were extremely fast lenses. Probably the same or similar to the lenses used by Buzz and Neil during apollo 11.
Why would what he calls a "deep field" lens have any more DOF than another lens of similar quality with same focal length at same aperture? How could you make any lens have more DOF other than optimizing the formulas for best performance at smaller apertures?
@@CeruleanFilms no it's not - there's no such thing as "built in cropfactor". Crop factor is a tool to let you compare angle of view across formats. The 100mm deep field panchro is a 100mm - I have one sat on my desk.
The Cooke 100mm Deep Field Panchro offers a deeper depth field at the same Tstop - compared to the previous non-coated Cooke lenses of the same range - specifically the Cooke 100mm f2 (T2.8) The Cooke Double Speed Panchro had a smaller aperture of f2.5 but the same tstop of T2.8. This is because the lens had better light transmission between elements... due to newly designed lens coatings. So the Double Speed Panchro has at a stop of f2.5 (compared to f2 on the older lens) resulting in a deeper depth of field - while maintaining the same light transmission of T2.8
Fresnel Crater Apollo Moon Landing area Crater Fish with one Fish Eye lens stuck in its eye socket in a glass display Case. " Great Party" Scene The Shining Moon Shots Fish Eye used in every scene of 2001 ASOdyssey Candle Light NASA Spy Satellite Lens borrowed Jack Be Nimble Jack be Quick FASTEST Lens made. LOL! Very clever. Super Zoom Lens Barry Linden this is used in Flat Earth Proofs P900, P1000 He is using Lenses to communicate his message. Nikor Ultra Wide Angle Destructively modified camera 2001 A Space Odyssey In the Kubrick Museum. Galileo Hammer Fether drop. Galileo is credited with perfecting the Telescope. We can see way way way too far if we lived on a Blue Marble Telescopes blow your Balls off. You can see for miles and miles an miles oh yeah.
