Jump to content

NASA lens on Barry Lyndon


Recommended Posts

This story was told to me by Dougie Milsome who had been the focus puller on Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. 

There was a scene which Kubrick wanted to have lit by candle light alone - and what is more a candle unaided by any enhancement such as a tiny light stuck to it. The film stock in the mid 1970s was not suitable to be pushed to that limit without severe degradation, so a lens was borrowed from NASA that was very, very fast; it did the trick and the result can be seen in the film. Extraordinarily beautiful.

Dougie told me how he coped with the almost non-existent depth of field that posed a problem for shooting this scene. The slightest movement toward or away from the camera would made the actor go soft and so he rigged up a CCTV system at right angles to the camera so that the motion towards or away from the film camera would show on the monitor as left and right motion. He marked up the screen with Chinagraph lines to correspond with measurements he had taken and so when they were rolling he just pulled the focus to match the position of the subject's eyes on the monitor. It worked jolly well!

Which reminds me of a similar situation when Zeffirelli made The Life of Christ. There was a scene where Jesus was in foreground and he was talking to Peter who was a few feet behind him. David Watkin had lit the scene very low key and Mike Rutter, the focus puller, asked Zeffirelli which he wanted in focus. Zeffirelli replied that he wanted Jesus sharp. Mike responded: "No, guv; I mean do you want his eyes or his nose sharp?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nick Flowers said:

This story was told to me by Dougie Milsome who had been the focus puller on Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. 

There was a scene which Kubrick wanted to have lit by candle light alone - and what is more a candle unaided by any enhancement such as a tiny light stuck to it. The film stock in the mid 1970s was not suitable to be pushed to that limit without severe degradation, so a lens was borrowed from NASA that was very, very fast; it did the trick and the result can be seen in the film. Extraordinarily beautiful.

I will add to this story that before Kubrick sought out the lens from NASA he borrowed a very rare Angenieux lens from my father, Haskell Wexler. The lens was specially made, there were only two of them, and it had an f-stop of .095 (obviously almost no depth of field). Angenieux referred to as a prototype for an "instrumentation lens" and it may well have been the same type of lens that Kubrick ultimately obtained from NASA. Many tests were shot with my father's lens and a few scenes in "Barry Lyndon" as well. Another interesting thing about the lens: the only camera it would work with was one of my father's Eclair CM-3 cameras which had a highly modified custom lens mount to accommodate the unique construction of this ultra fast lens. So, Haskell had to lend Kubrick not only the lens but the camera as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

I will add to this story that before Kubrick sought out the lens from NASA he borrowed a very rare Angenieux lens from my father, Haskell Wexler. The lens was specially made, there were only two of them, and it had an f-stop of .095 (obviously almost no depth of field). Angenieux referred to as a prototype for an "instrumentation lens" and it may well have been the same type of lens that Kubrick ultimately obtained from NASA. Many tests were shot with my father's lens and a few scenes in "Barry Lyndon" as well. Another interesting thing about the lens: the only camera it would work with was one of my father's Eclair CM-3 cameras which had a highly modified custom lens mount to accommodate the unique construction of this ultra fast lens. So, Haskell had to lend Kubrick not only the lens but the camera as well.

Fascinating, indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here, in our own time, is mon ami Mr. Lou Weinert while shooting a doc we've been doing on the choreographer Alonzo King, his company and guest stars.  Most of this movie has been shot with a Sony A7s MkII ( which is so sensitive to light that you can do pinhole cinematography with it) and 1959 Canon f0.95 50mm still camera lens, meaning that, yes, we haven't lit hardly anything.  The image is ghostly, yet sharp, unrealish but megabitchen and unique.  

lou.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I'm surprised to read that the Angenieux f0.95 lens that your father loaned Kubrick was a special prototype (although I don't challenge the accuracy of your assertion).

Angenieux had a f0.95 lens as a regular item in their catalog in 1970 although that was a 25mm C-mount lens for use with 16mm cameras. We had one in rental in the camera shop where I was working at the time. Perhaps a 50mm lens for use in 35mm was a specialty item.

Nikon also had a 50mm f1.2 lens as a regular item at the time. It was a monster piece of glass, quite a lot heavier than their more-or-less normal 50mm f1.4. It was a lot of extra weight for a half stop advantage but I could see it getting some use in low light cine work as the Eclair Cameflex was readily available with one of its mounts modified to take Nikkor lenses. 

As an aside, I recently had an opportunity to try out the new Leitz 50mm f0.95 ASPH when I auditioned their M Monochrome camera. I found it almost unusable. It's very bright but depth is so limited as to be hard to manage in use and the lens is so heavy that just holding the camera is difficult. No problem, of course, if working off a tripod.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Waelder said:

Jeff, I'm surprised to read that the Angenieux f0.95 lens that your father loaned Kubrick was a special prototype (although I don't challenge the accuracy of your assertion).

Angenieux had a f0.95 lens as a regular item in their catalog in 1970 although that was a 25mm C-mount lens for use with 16mm cameras. We had one in rental the camera shop where I was working at the time. Perhaps a 50mm lens for use in 35mm was a specialty item.

I could very well be wrong regarding the details of this particular lens --- I know there was something quite unique and special but I am may be confusing the necessity of a special custom mount with the possible scarcity of the lens. If it were readily available from Angenieux and fit on the camera(s) Kubrick was using, then there would have been no need for the loan. I know as well that Pop was one of the first to use still camera lenses (Cannon) adapted for movie camera use. I will try and firm up the details of my memory of all these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that fast 25mm being used on NPRs for low-light doco work mostly, but that lens wouldn't have made an image that would have covered a 35mm frame.  But I could see them making a version (maybe only some prototypes) for 35mm of the same thing…?  That Canon that Lou W has (from the post above) is a beast, dwarfs the little A7s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

completely different lens here, sorry for the OT... but snapped this photo of a Hasselblad body with Zeiss lens when I visited NASA Houston earlier this year, just amazed with the equipment that NASA put up into the harsh environs of space and the people that used them.  (incidentally, this photo was shot with a modern Biogon)

_DSC0927.thumb.JPG.8bdcf6de6eedd9477951c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fieldmixer said:

 

I watch/listen to this film on an almost monthly basis.

I love looking at it but actually listening to the awful dialog makes my head hurt. Ryan O'Neil switches from California-Boy to bad Irish accent at random, and he can't act to save his life.

But it is beautiful.

I was told a story by the main production stills photographer. It seems that Kubrick's original plan for this movie was to do it low budget ($1 million or so) and film it entirely on his (200 acre-ish) English estate, and that's how he pitched it to Warner Brothers. After must script writing and thought he got together his go-to production team and explained his plan. His production designer immediately told him that his low-budget idea was crap and that it would look terrible. Kubrick looked at his team and said, "Fuck it, let's spend some money."

Warner's hadn't put a cap on production costs in the contract so it wound up paying a not-insubstantial-for-1975 $11 million ($47 million in today's money), involving almost a year of principal photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Barry Lyndon once when it came out. For me its Kubricks least successful film. Like Omaha Jim said Ryan O'Neal was a disaster. The film looks great though. Visually I like all Kubricks work. B L is a 3 hour film that seemed 5 in memory. A much better film from and of the same era was "Tess" by Roman Polanski. Also a 3 hour film, it seems like 2 hrs. I should see B L again and see if I change my mind, or fall asleep.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max Penner with Ed Di Giulio [of Cinema Products} worked on developing super fast lenses and mounts for "Barry Lyndon".I remember back when Max was telling me about working on the film and he was all excited.For me it wasn't that exciting because it wasn't sound and Ryan O'Neil.-----Ed Di Giulio is listed under Camera credits.

 

                                                                                                                     J.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a traveling Kubrick exhibition in Melbourne a few years back, full of props and memorobilia, and a great mock up of the Moloko Milk Bar from A Clockwork Orange... 

 

There was a cabinet full of lenses and camera owned by SK. There was British Cinematographer on a video explaining the significance of each lens and camera. I think the NASA lens was in the case.

 

A teriffic show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear Jeff and everyone on this topic string,

My father was Bernard Levy of Angenieux. Over the 2015 holidays, I was googling my father's name and Angenieux and found these topic entries (on your site) regarding this "special" lens designed for your dad and Kubrick's multiple use of it. I am writing to you all since, although I am not in the business, I remember so vividly my father telling me the story about working with your father, Jeff, and his needs for this very special lens. He described so precisely that he developed the lens with your dad in order to accomplish a certain aesthetic for the film. Bern was so proud to be able to accommodate your father and get this equipment designed and developed for him. When I read this string it made me so happy to see that what my dad was able to design for Angenieux so many years ago is still spoken about. Bern passed away almost five years ago. My condolences regarding the recent loss of your father. Their generation of equipment and film makers was breathtaking. They will always be remembered for their greatness. Best regards, Leah Soltas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone, I found the article that appeared in an edition of American Cinematographer that my father once showed me regarding this Kubrick lens topic. The entire article can easily be found on line but I cut and paste the lens related info here taken from the article's page 2. I don't understand much about it but just thought you all might be interested.

Cut and Pasted from an ASC article/Oct 99 (I think)

 

Understanding that filmmaking is as much a mechanical craft as it is an artistic endeavor, Kubrick has always kept abreast of technical innovations which he could possibly implement in his productions. However, many of his aesthetic and conceptual ideas reached beyond off-the-shelf technology. Haskell Wexler, ASC told Kubrick that Ed DiGiulio, president of Cinema Products Corporation in Los Angeles, was responsive to the demanding requirements of filmmakers, prompting the director to call DiGiulio about his technical needs for Clockwork. After their discussion, DiGiulio purchased a standard Mitchell BNC for Kubrick, which Cinema Products overhauled. DiGiulio also supplied a joystick control for smooth operation of zoom lenses, and a BNC crystal motor. Interestingly, the BNC was not modified for reflex viewing, allowing Kubrick tremendous flexibility in the use of special lenses.

For this film, Kubrick envisioned shots that would utilize extremely long, continuous zooms. "Stanley started chatting with me about getting a 20:1 zoom lens, and I said, ’We could do it,’" DiGiulio has reported. He explained to Kubrick that his company could take an Angenieux 16mm 20:1 zoom and put a 2x extender behind it so that it would cover the 35mm format. However, there would be a loss of two stops of light. "The next day I get a telex that’s a yard long in which he explains to me that the 35mm format he’s shooting in is 1.66:1," DiGiulio remembered. "Then he recites Pythagorean theorem to show me how X squared plus Y squared equals the diagonal root of the sum of the squares—and to point out that [in] going up from a 16mm format, I didn’t need a 2x extender, that I could do it with a 1.61x. Therefore, I didn’t have to lose two stops—maybe a stop or stop and a half. Here he is lecturing me, and I’m saying, ’Why this smart ass, another one of these wild-ass directors.’ I called my old buddy Bern Levy, who was working for Angenieux at the time, and I said, ’Bern, I’ve got this wacko director who wants to do this.’ Bern said, ’Well, you know, Ed, as a matter of fact we do have a 1.6x extender.’ And I said, ’Oh, shit.’ This extender existed for some other application, but the bottom line is that I was able to take a 16mm zoom lens, put this extender on it, and give Stanley the exact lens he wanted."

One outstanding use of this lens system is Clockwork’s signature opening shot, which begins as a tight close-up on Alex’s sneering face and then slowly zooms out as the camera dollies back, revealing his trio of thuggish companions and the bizarre interior of their favorite haunt, the Korova Milkbar. "That shot is one of the great opening sequences," actor Malcolm McDowell told Neon magazine. "Of course, it’s because of Stanley’s technical ability. He saw it the next day and came in all excited. He said, ’You raised your glass, didn’t you? To the audience?’ I said, ’Yes, to the camera.’ He didn’t notice it during filming. But what an opening."

Not incidentally, Kubrick chose to shoot Clockwork with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio partially due to his disgust over the treatment that 2001 suffered in theaters. Improper projection had often all but ruined his precise Super Panavision 70 compositions, compelling him to finally switch to a relatively fail-safe, near-Academy frame. None of the filmmaker’s subsequent films were wider than 1.85:1.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...