Jump to content




Photo

"2001" behind-the-scenes photos


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:30 PM

http://oneperfectsho...-space-odyssey/

 

Some great photos of the sets being shot.  I've always been fascinated about how fluorescent lighting was often faked with large tungsten units or globes hidden behind frosted panels back in the days of 50 ASA film in the 1960's.

 

The photo of the lighting set-up in the centrifuge set suggests that Kubrick wanted any additional lighting to be bounced - you can see some large mushroom globe bulbs in reflector housings bouncing into white cards, but I suspect in the end, Unsworth had to roll in two 10K's to augment the bounce further for this set-up.

 

2001_lighting1.jpg


2001_lighting2.jpg

2001_lighting3.jpg

  • 0




#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2197 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 06 December 2015 - 01:23 PM

Interesting a Mitchell BFC 65mm which sort of confirms that Todd-AO lenses were used on this .And then on the high shot with the 2 x 10K's a Panavision 65 mm .


  • 0

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2366 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2015 - 01:48 PM

I think the Mitchell was used for the 35mm insert shots of their discussion which are square.

That's my thought on why that camera was there.
  • 0

#4 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2197 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 06 December 2015 - 02:00 PM

Maybe but I think it would have been easier to shoot everything in the same format .I don't know wish I did hope someone else knows .


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2366 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2015 - 02:47 PM

Well, they did use Todd AO lenses on it for sure. They also absolutely used Mitchell cameras, almost all of the BTS images from the end of the film in that white room, are of Kubrick with a Mitchell body, same with the centrifuge scene. 

Maybe I'm mistaken about which shot that is... maybe it's the bug-eye shot of Hal looking back at the two of them? Which would be a Todd AO bug-eye lens.

 

You could be right, the insert of the screen could have just been taken from a 65mm interview. 


  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2366 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2015 - 02:49 PM

Z7Mgyoe.jpg

 

Uyjp7Xz.jpg


  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2015 - 03:40 PM

Todd-AO 65 and Super Panavision are the same format, so I'm not surprised if a mix of cameras were used.  I'm sure 16mm and 35mm were used for some material to be projected onto screens, plus tests.

 

Kubrick was also well-known for adapting still camera lenses and I think some medium format lenses that he found were put into use for some shots.

 

I'm surprised there weren't more use of Coops, Fay globes, and PAR64's, etc. but maybe those units were just starting to arrive in the U.K. studios at the time.


  • 0

#8 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2197 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 07 December 2015 - 03:46 AM

I have never seen that still with the Todd-AO camera and Bug Eye lens thanks .


  • 0

#9 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 07 December 2015 - 04:56 AM

I don't think the top one is a BNC- is it a BFC with the mag blimp off? Or maybe as this was the first scene to be shot  they hadn't got round to putting the Panavision stickers on.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 07 December 2015 - 05:01 AM.

  • 0

#10 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 07 December 2015 - 09:32 AM

 

 

Kubrick was also well-known for adapting still camera lenses and I think some medium format lenses that he found were put into use for some shots.

 

Jon Alcott, who shot DAWNOFMAN and the whiteroom stuff under the credit of additional photography, used his own Nikon still lenses when it came time to do model photography on DISCOVERY and other ship miniatures. And the photocutouts that were animated for many space scenes were shot using Hassleblads, so the resolution of the photo cutouts would be equal to or superior to the taking-65 cameras.

 

I'm pretty sure most if not all of the RP stuff played back on live-action sets was shot in 35, then reduced to 16 for projectors. RP stuff for the model shots I'm guessing would have been 65, otherwise you'd be undercutting your own credibility.


  • 0

#11 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 843 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 07 December 2015 - 11:15 AM

I believe the Dawn of Man RP background plates were also photographed in 4x5, although I'm not sure how they were projected. 


  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 December 2015 - 11:35 AM

The Dawn of Man African landscapes were 8x10 Ektachrome slides projected. Kubrick tested 4x5 slides and felt that they were "almost" good enough, so he went with 8x10, but this required a special 8x10 slide projector to be built from scratch.


  • 1

#13 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2197 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 07 December 2015 - 01:03 PM

Just imagine how many 8x10 Reversal Ektachrome plates must have been to taken to get the perfect exposure to then been front projected on to the very large screen used on that set !.


  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 6771 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:29 PM

Just imagine a world where you still had a super high level of film craftsmanship--- though that's another rant.


  • 1

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11232 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 December 2015 - 07:29 PM

It's time.

 

Most of us could have a reasonable bash at that, on a Kubrick schedule.


  • 0

#16 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 6771 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 07 December 2015 - 07:31 PM

That is quite true; though time is an increasingly rare commodity.


  • 0

#17 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2366 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 December 2015 - 08:41 PM

Yep, it's all time! What makes Kubrick films so amazing is the fact he spent years developing every detail before shooting, years shooting and quite a while editing. On average it took him 5 years to make a film from conception through finishing and as he got older, it took even longer.
  • 0

#18 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2197 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 December 2015 - 01:52 PM

Yes he did spend loads of time in prep and then shooting not so sure how long he spent on post. The thing is his films never really cost tons of money , small crews the same people he worked with over many years . Adjusting for inflation "2001" must have been his most expensive film .


  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 December 2015 - 01:56 PM

It's time, but it's more than time -- Kubrick had very specific ideas about how the sets should be lit, how the effects should look, etc.  Someone else back then with a similar schedule wouldn't have necessarily gotten the same results because they wouldn't have been operating under Kubrick's visual aesthetics. Certainly the movie does not look like most other movies of the day, and it doesn't look like most of Geoffrey Unsworth's other movies either.


  • 0

#20 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11232 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 December 2015 - 06:03 PM

Nonetheless I do think it looks very much of its period. If someone had done that recently I suspect it would have been a lot moodier. Consider this, which is an attempt to depict a more or less identical sort of environment, or at least equivalent circumstances, in The Martian.

 

stan%20martian.png

 

P


  • 0


Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Pro 8mm

CineLab

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Zylight

Technodolly

Glidecam

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Tai Audio

Zylight

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc