Barry Lyndon vs Dangerous Liaisons

[Scotness]

I watched Barry Lyndon the other night - it's an absolute land mark in it's lighting - for everyone who hasn't seen it - and it's shot composition was beautiful too - but man I thought the camera work sucked - all those zooms and pans - a couple I thought were okay but overall I found that too obvious or contrived -- I also found the voice over didn't work for me - made me feel I was watching something rather than experiencing it.

But anyway back to the lighting (as everyone probably knows) it was shot with virtually no artifical light at all - virtually all natural light - and the candle shots were amazing and created so much mood - really giving us an idea of what things would have been like back then -- like nothing I've ever seen on film before. I think he used a lense made for NASA that worked at f0.7 I think at the time there were only 10 in the world. The effect was so great I wanted to compare it to something else (with similar settings etc) so I put on Dangerous Liaisons (and as much as I love that film) I almost couldn't watch it - it looked so fake in comaparison - the candle lit scenes there were essentially wahsed out with artificial fill and had none of the mood that Lyndon had - I truly won't be able to look at another period film in the same way again.

Does anyone know more about these candlelight shots and what asa the film was -- also what are the fastest lenses generally availalbe now - anything like the lense he used but easier to get hold of?




Scot

[Alex_W]

I haven't seen Barry Lyndon unfortunately, but i will now.

When i went looking for the fastest lens i found this:
The fastest lens available is a lens which uses cesium gas to accelerate the light in the lens, with which you can make an image 2 seconds before something actually happens. It's called the f zero zero project.
http://www.mudhaus.com/f00.html

That would be the day.

[Shion]

I saw Barry Lyndon for the first time a couple of months ago. I found the film very enjoyable, but unfortunately, the image quality of the DVD was not great, and I think this affected my perception of the visuals to a certain extent. (Apparently, there were two different DVD's of it in Australia, and the newer one is a big improvement over the earlier version I saw).

I agree that the composition and lighting were very nice for the most part- stunning in many places- but overall, not quite as spectacular as I was expecting, perhaps because I'd heard so much about the film and was expecting something extraordinary. A lot of shots looked quite flary and murky, particularly some of the backlit close-ups. This may have been partially attributable to the DVD and the age of the film, but I think that the lighting in certain shots simply wasn't to my taste. It reinforces my belief that natural light alone simply isn't always photogenic, and the use of artificial light can sometimes yield a more natural-looking final image.

But I'm probably just nitpicking because it wasn't quite what I was hoping for. It's a well-shot film, with a very engaging story. I plan to rent it again some time, especially if I find the newer version of the DVD.

I don't know what filmstocks were used, but someone over at cinematography.com did comment that the use of f/0.7 lenses would be unnecessary today thanks to modern stocks. Interestingly, I read somewhere that each candle contained three wicks, to make them produce more light.

As for the zoom shots, I did find the first few a bit distracting as I'm not fond of the effect, but they were tolerable and I ended up concluding that he used them reasonably well.

-Bon

[tlatosmd]

I haven't seen Barry Lyndon unfortunately, but i will now.

When i went looking for the fastest lens i found this:
The fastest lens available is a lens which uses cesium gas to accelerate the light in the lens, with which you can make an image 2 seconds before something actually happens. It's called the f zero zero project.
http://www.mudhaus.com/f00.html

That would be the day.

Sounds like a hoax or fake to me. I've heard of image recording several seconds, even half minutes before pressing the button but that's based on constant recording to buffer or cache all the time, and pressing the button will start saving from cache to actual disk or drive.

[downix]

Barry Lyndon's candlelit scenes were shot with the fastest film made then, 400ASA, pushed one stop. Nowadays, you can purchase an f1 lens from Leica and shoot with V2 500T pushed one stop to gain a similar effect.

*whistles innocently*

[timdrage]

Sounds like a hoax or fake to me.

It doesn't look like a hoax or a fake to me, but it's clearly not true.

[Evan Kubota]

Yeah, that site is not citing a real lens. I was searching a while ago for the 'fastest lens ever made' and came across that. It struck me as incredible for about two seconds before I realized how obvious the flaw in the theory was.

I saw an f/0.7 Schneider lens for sale on eBay a while ago - couldn't find any information on it now, though. I have an Angenieux f/0.95 which is useful for the low light levels on my latest project (although I'm only using Plus-X at 80 ASA).

[Shion]

Yeah, that site is not citing a real lens. I was searching a while ago for the 'fastest lens ever made' and came across that. It struck me as incredible for about two seconds before I realized how obvious the flaw in the theory was.

Theory? Isn't the whole thing a prank? I laughed at it thinking it was...

-Bon

[Shion]

Barry Lyndon's candlelit scenes were shot with the fastest film made then, 400ASA, pushed one stop.

That's faster than I realised. I wonder how grainy it would look on the big screen...

-Bon

[JGrube]

Now, I had read that the film used was only rated at 100 asa, and that they used a pair of zeiss f0.7 lenses and a LOT of double-wicked candles.

BTW, I LOVE Barry Lyndon, probably the best period piece I've seen, and absolutely beautifully filmed, John Alcott was a real master.

Jason

[mattias]

the experiment with light exiting a cesium grid before it enters is true as far as i know and so is the fact that we always live in the past. the lens however isn't. f/x isn't even defined for x=0, plus the speed of a lens obviouly has nothing to do with the time it takes for the light to pass through it. ;-)

/matt

[Arriflex]

I think he used a lense made for NASA that worked at f0.7 I think at the time there were only 10 in the world. Scot

I don't think there's 10 f0.7 lenses in the world even nowdays.

Barry Lyndon's candlelit scenes were shot with the fastest film made then, 400ASA, pushed one stop

As JGrube said, film was 100 asa, pushed one stop. Back in those days there was no even 250 asa mp film yet.

[Lunar07]

the experiment with light exiting a cesium grid before it enters is true as far as i know and so is the fact that we always live in the past. the lens however isn't. f/x isn't even defined for x=0, plus the speed of a lens obviouly has nothing to do with the time it takes for the light to pass through it. ;-)

/matt

The experiment (performed by Wang/Kuzmich/Dogariu at NEC research institute in Princeton, NJ - results published in Nature journal in 2000) is controversial and has been open to interpretation and criticism. Even if true, such light can not transmit information that can actually be used.

[mattias]

Even if true, such light can not transmit information that can actually be used.

of course. it just puts a finger on a flaw in our current way of looking at the world. many experiments have done that in the past without really proving what they were set up to show.

/matt

[Alex_W]

I didn't think it was true either, that's why i added the 'that would be the day' comment. But, like mattias said, the experiment is pretty much real, at least according to the article on the bbc site, which i've checked is not fake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm