|
|
Author
|
Topic: Are there any good BARRY LYNDON prints?
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 04-18-2004 05:30 PM
A question to the GB forum members:
Tonight I saw BARRY LYNDON in what was called a "Special Show Print" from Warner Bros. After suffering through many a faded and splicy print of that title, I was enthusiastic - until the film began.
All titles were fuzzy, the print was quite grainy and had inferior resolution. Even old 16mm prints did look sharper, in the long shots you could not see the faces any more. I left after reel #3 because I couldn't stand the lack of focus and the unsteady image any more. All in all, this print looked like it was struck from an old dupe negative by improper contact printing, there were even flashes and blotches on the negative.
Now, did you ever get decent prints of BARRY LYNDON from Warner Bros. GB over the last years, or do they all have such inferior image quality? I wonder what Stanley Kubrick would have commented on that print, after spending so much time in creating those beautiful images...
BTW, the print had a Dolby Digital sound track.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-19-2004 10:23 AM
"Barry Lyndon" was shot on EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5254, an EI 100 film that was considerably more grainy than modern Kodak stocks. It was "pushed" one stop in processing:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/bl/page1.htm
quote: QUESTION: Did you use any of the 5247 color negative, or was it all 5254?
ALCOTT: We used the 5254, because the 5247 wasn't available even at the time when we finished shooting. It came out something like two months after we had finished the main shooting of the film...
QUESTION: Now we come to the scenes which have caused more comment than anything else in this overall beautiful film - namely the candlelight scenes. Can you tell me about these and how they were executed?
ALCOTT: The objective was to shoot these scenes exclusively by candlelight - that is, without a boost from any artificial light whatsoever. As I mentioned earlier, Stanley Kubrick and I had been discussing this possibility for years, but had not been able to find sufficiently fast lenses to do it. Stanley finally discovered three 50mm f/0.7 Zeiss still-camera lenses which were left over from a batch made for use by NASA in their Apollo moon-landing program. We had a non-reflexed Mitchell BNC which was sent over to Ed DiGiulio to be reconstructed to accept this ultra-fast lens....
QUESTION: And those scenes were illuminated entirely by candlelight?
ALCOTT: Entirely by the candles. In the sequence where Lord Ludd and Barry are in the gaming room and he loses a large amount of money, the set was lit entirely by the candles, but I had metal reflectors made to mount above the two chandeliers, the main purpose being to keep the heat of the candles from damaging the ceiling. However, it also acted as a light reflector to provide an overall illumination of toplight.
QUESTION: How many foot-candles (no pun intended) would you say you were using in that case?
ALCOTT: Roughly, three foot-candles was the key. We were forcing the whole picture one stop in development. Incidentally, I found a great advantage in using the Gossen Panalux electronic meter for these sequences, because it goes down to half foot-candle measurements. It's a very good meter for those extreme low-light situations. We were using 70-candle chandeliers, and most of the time I could also use either five-candle or three-candle table candelabra, as well. We actually went for a burnt-out effect, a very high key on the faces themselves.
QUESTION: What were some of the other problems attendant to using this ultra-fast lens to shoot entirely by candlelight?
ALCOTT: There was, first of all, the problem of finding a side viewfinder that would transmit enough light to show us where we were framed. The conventional viewfinder would not do at all, because it involves prisms which cause such a high degree of light loss that very little image is visible at such low light levels. Instead, we had to adapt to the BNC a viewfinder from one of the old Technicolor three-strip cameras. It works on a principle of mirrors and simply reflects what it "sees", resulting in a much brighter image. There is very little parallax with that viewfinder, since it mounts so close to the lens.
QUESTION: What about the depth of field problem?
ALCOTT: As I suggested before, that was indeed a problem. The point of focus was so critical and there was hardly any depth of field with that f/0.7 lens. My focus operator, Doug Milsome, used a closed-circuit video camera as the only way to keep track of the distances with any degree of accuracy. The video camera was placed at a 90-degree angle to the film camera position and was monitored by means of a TV screen mounted above the camera lens scale. A grid was placed over the TV screen and by taping the various artists' positions, the distances could be transferred to the TV grid to allow the artists a certain flexibility of movement, while keeping them in focus.
It was a very tricky operation, but according to all reports, it worked out quite satisfactorily.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 06-09-2004 03:23 PM
An addition to my previous BARRY LYNDON post:
Today I accidentally saw one reel a new print (German Language Version, YCM Labs, printed in April 2004) and was surprised again!
The US print had a really steady image, but colors were quite muted, almost "dirty". There were density fluctuations (screen illumination was not to blame for that) and the image looked sharper than the print I mentioned in this thread.
The GB print had very bad steadiness, looked quite unsharp (more like so-so 16mm) and was more grainy than the US print, but colors were bright and clear. (I think it was printed by Rank)
Now what does it mean? Is there an American interneg with muted colors, but otherwise OK, and a British interneg that has been produced and/or printed improperly?
Please, dear Brothers Warner, try to make a "Mid-Atlantic" print that has both colors, sharpness and a steady image - it was possible back in 1976, why not today? Please!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|