Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 85/1.4 becomes 1.0??
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:37 pm    Post subject: Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 85/1.4 becomes 1.0?? Reply with quote

I recently saw the great Kubrick exhibition at LACMA, which included a section on his lenses. There was a cine-modified Zeiss 85/1.4 with a distinctive triangular bokeh, which if I'm not mistaken was repeated in the Rollei mount version.

Anyway, on the back side I was surprised to see that aperture apparently goes up to 1.0. How come? Or did I get my photos mixed up (I don't think so).




PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minimum focus distance?


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one.


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

frenched wrote:
Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one.


I thought Kubrick used the 50mm f0.7 in Barry Lyndon and had it specially made. But it seems there were actually 10 made. Rather than using a huge front element and everything big to get the wide aperture, the Planar had a thick glass condenser type element at the rear that makes the image circle smaller (like a 'speedbooster') and concentrating all the light into a smaller circle.

I was unaware of the f1.4. So what did he use that for?


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story. Could the mismatch be that somebody serviced it and placed the wrong front ring on it?

-Ben


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fabian wrote:
Minimum focus distance?


Actually I'd say you're correct. That there is the MFD in metres.


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, looks like the white numbers denote the focusing distance in meters, and the orange ones in feet. The aperture control might be on the camera side

enliten wrote:
A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story.


Umm, well, that's one opinion.


PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Want something with nice visuals and weirdesd high-end lenses and scurrilous camera techniques? Watch "Enter the Void" - It's very good but it's definately not made for everyone ^^ (disturbing, about psychedelic drugs and the trip after death) - I loved it.
And more recent and less disturbing movies... "The King's Speech" is good and has a very great camera - even better than all the Cubrick movies imho!

Barry Lyndon was also nothing for me - not bad, very special but even slower than the other Cubrick movies - I prefer the Cubricks like 2001, Clockwork Orange, Shining,... (all also very decent camera)


philslizzy wrote:
frenched wrote:
Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one.


I thought Kubrick used the 50mm f0.7 in Barry Lyndon and had it specially made. But it seems there were actually 10 made. Rather than using a huge front element and everything big to get the wide aperture, the Planar had a thick glass condenser type element at the rear that makes the image circle smaller (like a 'speedbooster') and concentrating all the light into a smaller circle.

I was unaware of the f1.4. So what did he use that for?


Hhmmmm.... In a docu in TV they said he used a Zeiss 75/0.7 (the lens which was originally designed bei Zeiss West for NASA to make pictures from the dark side of the moon on the apollo missions) with an wide-angle-converter to get an ~50/0.7. But I don't find any really reliable sources, only a lot guy-in-forum-quotes-another-guy-in-another-forum rumor sources... most sources a saying that the lens he used was a native 50/0.7


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

enliten wrote:
A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story.

I last saw it 20 years ago on a very average TV, so didn't get much impact from the visuals at all. However, I now have an HD copy and an HD TV, so will get around to watching it again, in the fullness of time. I found it quite watchable first time around, as far as story went, but I've always been into costume drama.


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barry Lyndon is the absolute peak of traditional film visuals, an absolute masterpiece. Kubrick wanted to make it look like 18th century paintings come to life and succeeded.


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForenSeil wrote:
Want something with nice visuals and weirdesd high-end lenses and scurrilous camera techniques? Watch "Enter the Void" - It's very good but it's definately not made for everyone ^^ (disturbing, about psychedelic drugs and the trip after death) - I loved it.

There's a lot more special effects to it than one would think:
Enter The Void | Visual Effects Making Of


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Barry Lyndon is the absolute peak of traditional film visuals, an absolute masterpiece.


+1

Kubrick was a visual genius. IMHO he was a photographer at heart in the truest sense, meaning that he could make us see and feel exactly what he intended and went to incredible lengths to make that happen.

Oh, and Thackeray wasn't a bad writer, either. Smile