-
Hey, I just saw this movie, and I suggest it, especially for those interested in cinematography.
Lots of different lighting scenarios, and the DP did a great and creative job of setting the mood.
There were some really tough scenes to light, and justify the light sources.
I realize you don't always have to do this, but in a period piece, in a time where there were not any lights that weren't candles, lanterns, etc., he really did a great job.
I liked the scene where the son is kidnapped by thugs in the tunnel.
A swordfight in complete sillouette!
Just a little light coming in from a tunnel leading down, with no fill light.
Very brave!
Who has seen the movie, and what did you think?
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Sounds cool, I'll check it out when it hits DVD.
Another film that also dose an excellent job of using justified lighting is BARRY LINDON. There's some scenes were a single candel is the only light source!
------------------
-
Yeah Kubrick had to have a special lens made for that scene because the lighting was so scarce. I love it when filmmakers invent their own way around obstacles.
------------------
-
Kubrick got a special lens from NASA and had his Mitchell camera modified to the point where it could not economically be returned to its former state. In the years that followed other filmmakers wanted to borrow the camera but Kubrick would not let them have it.
Why didn't these other filmmakers do what Kubrick did and modify their own camera? There was nothing particularly revolutionary in what he did. Just take every known method of sucking in light and apply it to the camera. Costly, yes, but a lot of camera techs could do it. So why didn't they?
------------------
-
Kubrik used Zeiss lens with f0.7 aperture during Barry Lyndon sessions.
Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
------------------
-
Kubrik used Zeiss lens with f0.7 aperture during Barry Lyndon sessions.
Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
------------------
[This message has been edited by jukkasil (edited February 13, 2002).]
-
I would really like to know where that lens is now. Somebody has it.
I wonder what the drawback of a lens like that is.
I mean, who doesn't want a better f-stop?
There must be some reason they don't commonly make these.
Expense wouldn't matter, given what professional lenses go for anyway. That would be insignificant to the budget of most feature films.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Not sure. But I read that the reason those lenses haven't been used very much is that Kubrick owned the rights to them.
[This message has been edited by seekaee (edited February 15, 2002).]
