Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Barry Lyndon Candle lit scenes

D

Darylcheshire

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,

I'm not a cinematographer so I don't know anything.

I have been studying fast lenses in Google and note that the Kubrick movie Barry Lyndon is mentioned in reverent tones because a specially adapted f/0.7 lens from NASA was used in the candle lit scenes. I eventually bit the bullet and bought this movie to peruse it.

In 1975 Kubrick would have used film, I'm not sure what ISO but I'm thinking what would be used today.

Would it be better to use any lens and bump up the ISO?

Or would it be better to use a fast lens and the lowest ISO?

People talk about 'creamy' lenses and bokeh but the narrow DoF meant the actors couldn't move around much in the candle lit scenes.

So perhaps the higher ISO will allow for greater DoF?

I know photography (like many things) is a matter of balancing trade-offs, such as 'creamy' scenes versus greater DoF and normal movement.

So what is commonly done when shooting candle lit scenes in the 21st century?

Remember, I'm not a cinematographer so I may have missed the obvious.

Thanks

Daryl.
 
Kubrick used special 3-wick candles to increase the light output and shot at f/0.7 on 100 ASA film stock pushed to 200 ASA. F/0.7 is 2-stops faster than the common f/1.4 fast lenses available, such as the Zeiss Master Primes.

So to get the same exposure that Kubrick got (using these brighter candles) at f/0.7 at 200 ASA, you would use a f/1.4 lens on a camera rated or film stock rated at 800 ASA (i.e. 2-stops more sensitive than 200 ASA), which is possible today either by pushing 500 ASA film stock or by using a digital camera, many of which can shoot at 800 ASA. Of course, with some cameras being able to go to 2000 ASA and higher, the 3-wick candles aren't even necessary.

Depth of field is pretty shallow at f/1.4, and that's a lot more manageable than at f/0.7, which was a real challenge for Kubrick -- you'll note that there is not a lot of movement in those scenes to make focus-pulling difficult.
 
At f1 on a 75mm negative with a 50mm lens, shooting 3m away from the subject would give you a near limit of 2.88m and far limit of 3.13m, an effective DOF of 26cm. It would be a bit less, probably around 22-23cm at F0.7. Shooting with an 80mm lens would give you a DOF of about 7cm. Not very much at all.
 
Last edited:
The lens was a 50mm that Ed Degulio from Cinema Products converted to a BNCR mount for Kubrick and Alcott..... The focus puller had to pull focus off video and it was very difficult.

Not the sharpest lens in the world but Kubrick was a maverick and a technical genius. He knew photochemistry better thn many lab techs.

What I remember as a film student when I saw the film was his use of reds and greens in the art direction. Really brilliant despite Ryan O'Neal.....
 
I studied that scene as well. Of course I got most of my information from David Mullen on USENET in the dark ages! (Thanks David!)

Without getting technical, the key to success in cinematography generally comes down to balance.

In this case the balance is in the practical operational characteristics of using a very fast lens, versus the aesthetics of using a fast digital sensor or film stock.

Now, Mr. Mullen gave you a perfect answer about what to do.

My consideration is why.

When you choose a fast lens and choose to use it "wide open" at its fastest aperture, you are also selecting a particular aesthetic. You are choosing to keep very little of the frame in sharp focus, which as you've seen people mention makes the focus pullers job much harder.

Not being a cinematographer, you may not realize that in cinema a separate person has the primary responsibility for focusing the camera during a take. Traditionally we attempt to keep focus on the eyes of the actor in a scene. This is where shallow depth of field comes into play.

In normal photography we have sufficient depth of field to keep a persons entire head from nose to ear in sharp focus, and we have acceptable focus 6-12 inches in front and behind the head.

Now, with a 50mm t/0.7 lens we have very shallow depths of field. The wide shots have a depth of field of perhaps 6 inches, but the closer shots may have practically planar focusing ... that is to say effectively zero depth of field. If the eye is in focus, the eyelashes are out of focus.

So, the focus puller adjusts focus during a take, as best they can keeping focus where it needs to be: on the eyes. Now normally an actor has a fair amount of freedom of movement. When we have such shallow depth of field however movement must be extremely constrained. Look at Barry Lyndon again knowing this ... the actors are unusually still. Its very limiting.

More recently than Barry Lyndon there was an episode of House, M.D. shot with a Canon DSLR. The particular episode is called "Help Me" and its the sixth season finale.

They chose a fast lens on a larger format sensor. Setting aside the various issues inherent in using a DSLR, if you look at the show you'll note that very little is in focus. For me this is particularly annoying when House and Cuddy are talking together at the end of the episode. Both are relatively still in a doorway, but at times you can see the focus shifting across their faces.

The director and cinematographer chose this look for this scene! He had all the tools needed to create a different look- it would have been trivial to add light in that scene. I don't like that effect, but its appropriate because the characters are "unfocused" in that scene, but they are trying to find their focus.

Now in the rest of the episode, focus is very shallow compared to a "normal" episode, but its typically held deeper than in this scene. The cinematographer simply made different choices.

Now the other choice is to crank up the ISO. That's an aesthetic choice as well. You'll increase the visible noise in digital sensors or expose the grain of film, but you'll be able to use a slower lens stop, and keep the depth of field at a more traditional depth.

Just for reference the vast majority of interior scenes are filmed at a t/4 or t/5.6. That requires 32 times the light or sensor sensitivity of t/0.7

So, if I wanted to re-create Barry Lyndon's famous scene, with the same lights Kubrick used I could ... but there is a trade off at every step.

I could shoot at t/1 ISO 400, t/1.4 ISO 800, t/2 ISO 1600, t/2.8 ISO 3200, t/4 ISO 6400, t/5.6 ISO 12800.

So the question, as I said earlier, is where that balance lies.

A news or documentary show might choose to shoot t/5.6 ISO 12800 .... they are hoping to maximize their chances of keeping the events in front of them in focus, and the noise levels aren't so high that you impede the primary goal of recording recognizable images.

A film has to create a quality artistic image. In very few cases should excessive noise be a part of the story ... so normally we work to minimize noise.

Now we must also account for the march of technology.

As Dave pointed out, normal film in the days when Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon was ISO 100. It was important to Kubrick that he light with actual candles ... so he compromised a bit and doubled the ISO level accepting more film grain to get the shots he wanted lit how he wanted. Today cameras have lower noise levels- permitting the creation of much faster sensors. Today its normal to shoot ISO 800, and very acceptable to shoot ISO 1600 or 2000.

So, being Kubrick I imagine he'd still shoot with a very fast lens. I imagine he'd reduce the light level even further. So you might see a shot at t/1.4 at ISO 1600 or 2000.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Depth of field is pretty shallow at f/1.4, and that's a lot more manageable than at f/0.7, which was a real challenge for Kubrick -- you'll note that there is not a lot of movement in those scenes to make focus-pulling difficult.
Click to expand...

Some more than 20 years ago I was a loader on a film with Douglas Milesome was the DP. Douglas Milesome was the focus puller on Barry Lyndon. According to him actors on that scene could hardly breath while delivering their lines. He as a focus puller had to "nail them down" to the chairs....
 
Another thing to note is that Kubrick took advantage of the Art Direction to install light sources that made sense to the scene. This is notable in the Gaming Table sequences where a massive chandelier can be seen above the gaming table. Of course it adds to the sense of opulence appropriate to the scene (huge amounts of candles cost a lot to maintain in those days). Of course it also provides a generous amount of top and fill light off the walls. This accounts for the general well lit feeling of the sequences there.

In both the officers dining mess (where Barry is arrested as a deserter) and in the German farm's kitchen (where Barry dines with the woman who takes him in) there is also candlelight but on tables for the most part. They provide more of a single point illumination; allowing for darker backgrounds and a more intimate one on one atmosphere. This being Kubrick I don't think any of that was accidental.

I believe the story goes that Kurbrick scoured the candle market looking for the perfect candle and then bought a thousand of them once he found the right one (read this in a Kubrick book so not sure of its factual accuracy and the truth may vary slightly; but still a fun story).
 
Thank you for your answers.

Very interesting read.

I did know about focus pullers.

I didn't know about the special three wick candles.

I did read that some scenes had electric light shining through the doors and windows. The lack of electric lighting apparently protects the heritage buildings, but I don't think this was the main reason. Also one of the buildings was sadly destroyed by fire months after the shoot.

Grateful of the response.

Daryl.
 
The general avoidance of artificial lighting likely came from the use of painters as inspirations and references: Watteau and Gainsborough and others. There are various interviews and writings out there about this. Its not only in the lighting but in compositional choices etc.
 
Kubrick also used a Canon 0,95 TV lens in several scenes
 
Hrmmm For close ups its pretty amazing what camera's now can absorb from the light of a candle. Here is a test I did when we first got our hands on the MX upgrade. Shot with the f1.8 50mm RPP at 800iso. That candle was about two feet away from the girls face, and as you can see there is still a lot of information there.

candle.jpg
 
Watched all 3 hours of BL tonight. At the end was a credit that said that the lenses used for the candlelight scenes were manufactured by Zeiss (West Germany).

I also noticed what could be the original and possible the forerunner of today's dreaded "teal and orange" color scheme. It was in Part 2, just after he beat his stepson, in the Club dining room with Lord Wendover. Wendover is the orange and all of the other light is in teal. Kubrick was always pushing the enelope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top