Jump to content


Photo

Carrie 1976


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Schroers

Michael Schroers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Producer

Posted 01 August 2011 - 10:36 AM

Hi !

I'm interrested in the look of 'Carrie (1976)'.

Does anybody know which lenses were used in Carrie ? I think it was a Mitchell Camera, which was used, wasn't it ?

Did they use Super Baltar or Kowa lenses ?

Which film stock was used ?

Michael
  • 0

#2 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 07 August 2011 - 11:59 PM

A lot of this type of thing can be had at www.imdb.com

Just search for any movie you're interested in, and look at "technical specs".

Here's what imdb.com says about Carrie:

http://www.imdb.com/...74285/technical

Camera
Panavision Split Diopter Lense

Laboratory
DeLuxe

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:38 AM

Most U.S. movies shot in 1975 would have used Kodak 5254 (100T). Back then, there weren't a lot of choices in stocks. This was during a transition where Kodak was trying to replace 5254 with 5247, but was having trouble getting U.S. cinematographers, labs, and studios to convert, while 5247 was being used already in Europe by then. But in 1976, Kodak came out with an improved version of 5247 and obsoleted 5254, so everyone had to switch at that point.

I recall "Carrie" also using Fog Filters for some scenes.
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 August 2011 - 10:22 AM

That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters.

Very dated today, but certainly an effective, trend-setting look in this film that perhaps led to some less motivated abuse in the future.



If I were to emulate the look of this movie, I'd try to dig up exactly what different filtration they were using. Camera, almost nothing to do with the look. Lenses a very small part.
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:01 AM

That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters.


A number of DPs thought that the lenses then were too sharp... I'm not sure how they would react to the modern glass. Although, it's interesting that some people are using vintage lenses on the new digital cameras.
  • 0

#6 Michael Schroers

Michael Schroers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Producer

Posted 09 August 2011 - 06:01 AM

That's what sticks in my mind, too, the fog filters.

Very dated today, but certainly an effective, trend-setting look in this film that perhaps led to some less motivated abuse in the future.



If I were to emulate the look of this movie, I'd try to dig up exactly what different filtration they were using. Camera, almost nothing to do with the look. Lenses a very small part.


I want to generate a look which is very similar to this in a own film. (on Super 16)

What would you recommend me to do to get this kind of organic, soft and a little bit strange look ?

What would you do ?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 09 August 2011 - 06:21 AM

Use a fog filter!

The film was shot 35mm, so I'd stay away from the 500T, no matter how many cool, big numbers, and attractive packaging it comes with ;-)




David might be CLOSE to an ASC Magazine walking, talking encyclopedia, but I'd recommend you try to find that issue. I would assume there's an article in there on this film?


As this movie far precedes the world-wide web, you'll have to really hit the periodicals to track down detailed information on it. I think it'll be well worth your effort though.



Looking back through a big pile of '70s film and photography, I would strongly suggest you shy away from the level of filtration you see there, unless you want a dated '70s look. For instance, if they use a double fog filter, I'd use a single instead. Add to that the reduced clarity of 16mm film, and you don't want to go too heavy on any sort of filtration unless you can settle for a more severe loss in image clarity. To put it another way, shooting 16mm already adds a level of "diffusion" to the look, so I'd go even easier on any sort of sharpness-reducing filtration in the 16mm format than I would rolling 35. . .
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 August 2011 - 10:50 AM

David might be CLOSE to an ASC Magazine walking, talking encyclopedia, but I'd recommend you try to find that issue. I would assume there's an article in there on this film?


There was never an article on "Carrie" -- however, around the same period, the same DP (Mario Tosi) shot "MacArthur" and he discussed his use of filters and bounce lighting quite extensively in an interview with him about the movie in American Cinematographer,

My index that I created for the 1970's issues -- the one that said that there was no article on "Carrie" -- says that the "MacArthur" article was in the July 1977 issue, so I dug through my boxes looking for it and couldn't find it.

Then I remembered: I've collected those issues piecemeal over the years and the one key issue from that decade that I don't own is July 1977. Why? Because it's the issue on "Star Wars" and it's a collectors item outside of cinematography circles, so you can never find a copy on sale that isn't really expensive.

Luckily, however, Tosi is one of the interviews in the book "Masters of Light" (Schaefer & Salvato, UC Press, 1984) and he does talk a little about "Carrie" in it, not much.
  • 0

#9 Charlie Peich

Charlie Peich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:17 AM

Looking back through a big pile of '70s film and photography, I would strongly suggest you shy away from the level of filtration you see there, unless you want a dated '70s look. For instance, if they use a double fog filter, I'd use a single instead.


Hello Karl!

Actually it's the other way around. They are 2 different animals. The Harrison & Harrison Double Fogs were popular back in the '70s, especially in commercials, usually using the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 1. Seldom used anything over the 1 for 16mm.

The Regular Fogs put too much "halo" around the highlights, and you couldn't get them in lower strengths, 1/8, 1/4, /1/2. They acted totally different than the Doubles.

Then that "look" fell out of favor.

If you've never used them, I would do some testing to see how they act with today's film and transfers.

Here is a description of the Regular Fogs vs the Double Fogs as written by Hank Harrison:

Posted Image
  • 0

#10 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:49 AM

Double Fogs i still love them i have a Harrison and Harrison No 1 . I use this now at certain times with my Canon 550d/ T21.
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:33 PM

Did I just fall into a classic trap? I think I read something about this in "Painting with Light" or "Cinematography" by Malkiewicz (sp? - as a Polock I should know this one).

My apologies for the erroneous information.



Double fog is actually less of an effect than a fog?

Double fog is graded and fog is just one strength?


Or did I still read it wrong? If you seldom used anything over the 1 for double fog, was there a 2 double fog? That is an unfortunate choice of filter names in that case.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:55 PM

A "Double Fog" is misnamed, as Vilmos Zsigmond said in one interview (it may be in "Masters of Light").

A Harrison & Harrison Double Fog was a combination of a Regular Fog and a Low Con filter in that the "mist" particles were finer than in a Regular Fog, creating less softening but more contrast-lowering veiling. It was Harrison's attempt to reinvent the Fog filter.

They were first used by Vilmos Zsigmond in the early 1970's on movies like "McCabe and Mrs. Miller". Allen Daviau once told me that a lot of "E.T." was shot with the lightest grade of Double Fog.
  • 0

#13 Michael Schroers

Michael Schroers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Producer

Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:58 AM

And which lenses did they use ?
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:23 AM

I think Panavision provided the equipment so it could have been anything -- adapted Zeiss, etc. Their Ultra Speeds from the day were a mix of elements from Nikon glass and who knows what I believe, assembled by Panavision. If "Carrie" used a zoom, likely it was a Cooke 20-100mm or an Ang. 25-250mm.

Baltar lenses were not being used much by the mid 1970's.
  • 0

#15 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:19 PM

My cousin Peter told me a slightly humorous story when he worked for Mario. Mario came to the set one morning that had been lit the day before. He was about an hour late. He sat down in the auditorium where they were shooting and started to read the paper. Production gathered in what I like to call, "the circle of confusion" and wondered what to do. Everyone was whispering and nobody wanted to approach Mario and to tell him to get to work. Finally he dropped the newspaper and said, "Why are we waiting? Where are the actors? I was an hour late, I have been here for twenty minutes and you still aren't ready."
  • 0


Willys Widgets

CineLab

Technodolly

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

CineTape

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc