Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

If Kubrick were alive today, would he have shifted to Digital, or stayed on film?

A

Aaron Hunt

Active member
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The man knew his stuff -- what do you think his take on it would have been? What digital camera would he use (if he were to use one)? Would he alternate between the two?
 
Last edited:
Might as well hear it from Doug Milsome BSC, ASC, cinematographer on 'Full Metal Jacket' and 1st AC on 'Barry Lyndon': https://bscine.com

The whole conversation is fascinating, but Milsome addresses this question near the end of the video.
 
After about eight years of testing behind the walls of his English Country manner, he would have emerged from the gates with a hybridized Arri/Red bastard with a NASA Zeiss f/0.7 50mm lens strapped to it, ready to fake the second moon landing.
 
Awesome. I enjoyed the geek-out. ;-)

I think Kubrick would probably shoot like this today, for the projects where he chose digital:

- RED

- Super 35

- Rehoused Leica M lenses

- Minor filtration

- He'd rate the sensor about two stops under its base

He'd still shoot film, but not for everything. I mean, just look at the beauty of '219. He'd love it just as we do. I don't think he ever shot 65mm, and I think he'd want to give that a try.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Awesome. I enjoyed the geek-out. ;-)

I think Kubrick would probably shoot like this today, for the projects where he chose digital:

- RED

- Super 35

- Rehoused Leica M lenses

- Minor filtration

- He'd rate the sensor about two stops under its base

He'd still shoot film, but not for everything. I mean, just look at the beauty of '219. He'd love it just as we do. I don't think he ever shot 65mm, and I think he'd want to give that a try.
Click to expand...

Why do you say Rehoused Leica M lenses? I was under the impression that he used primarily Cooke Speed Panchros (and occasionally a Kinoptik Tegea or NASA Ziess lens), as is stated in the Kubrick exhibit: https://skiffleboom.wordpress.com/2...arriflex-35iic-handheld-camera-with-cooke-sp/
 
Speculation is rather difficult, but certainly interesting when you add up the elements.

Here's a few things.

Kubrick developed and thought deeply about the story, likely he'd make much of his decisions based on that.

Kubrick was an advocate and curious to explore all sorts of motion picture technology.

Kubrick was a lens nut.

I have a hunch of what he'd be up to. Especially if he got the opportunity to shoot Napoleon and move on from there.
 
He did shoot 65, only once, for 2001! Interesting that you say rehoused Leica M's!
 
I just read another Kubrick book written by his assistant, and he mentions that Kubrick would have set-up his own 35mm processor for his negative but the insurance companies wouldn't allow it. He had a love-hate relationship with the labs so that might have pushed him to digital when the quality reached a point to his liking.
 
It's always fun to speculate about this genius. Ive actually spent a good amount of time thinking about this exact question. In my opinion it could go two ways.


Either Kubrick would shoot digital, most likely in a similar manner to Fincher, manipulating the minutaue of his frames to perfection.
Or, he would jump between acquisition formats and camera systems based on the story, setting and/or tone... Yet still produce near pefect frames :)
 
Nathan Wold said:
Why do you say Rehoused Leica M lenses? I was under the impression that he used primarily Cooke Speed Panchros (and occasionally a Kinoptik Tegea or NASA Ziess lens), as is stated in the Kubrick exhibit: https://skiffleboom.wordpress.com/2...arriflex-35iic-handheld-camera-with-cooke-sp/
Click to expand...
Kubrick used Super Speeds a lot. I saw them in person when I went to the big Exhibition (I wanted to sneak a camera phone in there, but I didn't have enough time to prepare). I did a report on it for my personal website (this was obviously before any big social media sites were in operation) and like the geek that I am I wrote down the serial numbers.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. So. The thing is, he'd use M lenses because a lot of people like them, and digital cameras make it much easier to use lenses with a short focal flange distance. The Zeiss 50/0.7 had to be used on a non-reflex camera, of course, but that was because there was no other choice. You probably can't use that 0.7 lens on a digital camera. You wouldn't bother doing that just for rangefinder lenses, but the RED makes it so easy.

So for Kubrick, digital would open up his lens choices. He probably would love (and be familiar with) the 35 Summicron v4, AKA the 'bokeh king'. He might also experiment with the Summar and Summitar and also the Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander M lenses, too. But you'd definitely need to rehouse them, for sure.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Kubrick used Super Speeds a lot. I saw them in person when I went to the big Exhibition (I wanted to sneak a camera phone in there, but I didn't have enough time to prepare). I did a report on it for my personal website (this was obviously before any big social media sites were in operation) and like the geek that I am I wrote down the serial numbers.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. So. The thing is, he'd use M lenses because a lot of people like them, and digital cameras make it much easier to use lenses with a short focal flange distance. The Zeiss 50/0.7 had to be used on a non-reflex camera, of course, but that was because there was no other choice. You probably can't use that 0.7 lens on a digital camera. You wouldn't bother doing that just for rangefinder lenses, but the RED makes it so easy.

So for Kubrick, digital would open up his lens choices. He probably would love (and be familiar with) the 35 Summicron v4, AKA the 'bokeh king'. He might also experiment with the Summar and Summitar and also the Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander M lenses, too. But you'd definitely need to rehouse them, for sure.
Click to expand...

i was at the exhibit in LA ... from what I saw FILM...the discipline and lenses..in his work suggest that
 
I've read and watched a fair bit about Stanley Kubrick.

By many reports knew the technical details of each department as well, or often better than, the technicians.

His favourite camera was the ARRI 2C, and he developed a new way of hand-holding it. I think he would have appreciated the Epic form factor.

He was frustrated by the inconsistencies and often poor standards of film projection and looked forward to digital projection.

He was constantly researching still lenses (starting his career as a stills photographer at the ripe old age of 17) for use in cinema and having them adapted (for example the Nasa f0.7).

My guess is he would have built his own camera systems around the RED and would have owned one of the best digital labs and had access to the best colour scientists and software engineers to make the image his own way. He probably would have built his own digital cameras - stuff like the One-Cam and beyond.
 
I'm pretty sure he would avoid digital like the plague. He was a perfectionist, and film still looks better than digital in almost every way.

the candle scenes from Barry Lindon for example, he wanted to keep the light as natural as possible. Using candles only and a super fast Zeiss f0.7 lens.


 
Milano Questa said:
I'm pretty sure he would avoid digital like the plague. He was a perfectionist, and film still looks better than digital in almost every way.

the candle scenes from Barry Lindon for example, he wanted to keep the light as natural as possible. Using candles only and a super fast Zeiss f0.7 lens.
Click to expand...

Subjective and contradictory.
We all know that film can't hold a candle (see what I did there?) to (top end) digital when it comes to low light.
 
David Finchers is very much like Kubrick in his perfectionism. He choose Red because of the need to have total control over the image. Kubrick would most probably go digital to be able to have control. He would have had his own post production company, his own color science, his own modified Red camera. Watch this series (he also made a series of Kubrick), it's a great insight into Finchers works and why he is very much like both Kubrick and Hitchcock.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top