Jan Harlan, Stanley Kubrick’s Executive Producer, talks about the famous ZEISS Planar 0.7/50mm

[@Diamonddavej]

The lens was designed by a team led by Dr. Erhard Glatzel of Zeiss, and they use computer aided design to optimise the lens, one of the first time CAD was used to design a lens. It was speculated that the lens was based on an older lens perhaps intended an X-Ray machine or a night vision camera for a Tank. This would explain why the rear of the lens is so close to the film plane, the image was originally intended to be projected onto a phosphor or image amplifying screen. Then NASA approached Zeiss in the mid-1960s, they needed a lens for a Moon mapping mission. The original idea was to image the dark areas of the moon illuminated only with light from the Earth (Earthlight) so an extremely fast lens was needed. Zeiss had an existing lens design on file, and it was redesigned by Dr. Glatzel's team. In the end the project was abandoned and Zeiss had a few prototypes lenses, and that when Stanly entered the story.

[@dragonstone6594]

You guys should make this kind of lens today. It would be amazing!

[@paulgreengod]

They do, it's just ridiculously expensive.

[@vitkriklan2633]

There is quite a market with lenses around 0,8-0,9. But the fact is, you don't need to produce/buy a ridiculously expensive 0,7 lens because todays cameras are much more photosensitive. Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon on ISO 100 film. Consumer grade cameras have equivalent of ISO 800.

[@mightisright]

@@vitkriklan2633 Even before digital sensors took over, film stocks of the 80s and 90s had improved so much that such a lens was no longer necessary. 400 and 800 ISO stocks became far less grainy than the poor color film stocks of the 70s. Digital sensors have now far surpassed what film was capable of.

[@koothka]

It would be nice for MFT camera.

[@CinematographyLischka]

These revelations underscore that boundaries in the film world, and indeed in art as a whole, are waiting to be tested. Stories like this serve as a reminder that breakthroughs often occur where disciplines intersect, in this case, space technology and cinematography

[@TheStockwell]

Zeiss is my favorite lens manufacturer. I own a few vintage 1930s cameras made by Zeiss. The smartphone I'm watching this video on has lenses made by Zeiss. That's why I bought this smartphone rather than some other. Kubrick and me - for the two of us, it's Zeiss . . . or it's nothing at all! 😸

[@Keckegenkai]

unfortunately almost all of the german camera and lens industry sold out to Japan.

[@bill775]

Very interesting. I can only imagine what power or potentiality the Zeiss lens are able to do now. I wonder how Kubrick had the financial means to just go to NASA and ask to buy one of their satellite camera lenses.

[@vitkriklan2633]

First of all, he bought the lenses (namely 3) directly from Zeiss, not from NASA. And second of all, why wouldn't he have the money? At that time he already had movies like 2001, Spartacus, Paths of Glory, Clockwork Orange etc. under his belt.

[@bill775]

@@vitkriklan2633 Oh okay. Thanks for answering. I was kindve going off the conspiracy angle. It makes more sense that he bought them from Zeiss.

[@vitkriklan2633]

@@bill775 Nevertheless. Only 10 were ever made. 6 were bougt by NASA, 1 remained in the Zeiss company, 3 were sold to Kubrick.

[@bill775]

@@vitkriklan2633 That's dope!

[@nollieheel214aim]

Stanley Kubrick was LIGHT years ahead of his time.

[@bladimadrigal9221]

That's why he's the GOAT!

[@stevemuzak8526]

It's probably the most famous lens ever made.

[@jmedlin81]

what kind of jackalope needs these subtitles.. the man's english is perfect.

[@peterresetz1960]

For individuals who may minimally understand English. Also. At the upper right corner, a little square box with "cc" is the menu to select CLOSED CAPTION On/Off.

[@VariTimo]

Gonna shoot with that lens one day.

[@vidsbyleo]

it's in my closet rn LOL

[@VariTimo]

@@vidsbyleo The Camera is still a Problem. I guess I’m gonna have get an ArriCam LT modded for it. “One day” as in one day when I have project big enough to buy an ArriCam LT and mod it to take the lens and have a side viewfinder. So I’ll get back to you in about four to ten years.

[@vidsbyleo]

@@VariTimo ok just to be clear... i was joking about it being in my closet... are you serious!?

[@rafamottaa]

@@VariTimo The Arricam LT would be a poor choice. Any modern film camera would be, thats because all of them have mechanical spinning shutters that require a very specific focal plane that all of the PL mount lenses comply with. The best way to mod it would be to use the original modded Mitchell BNC (that was not a reflex camera, it has a ragefinder viewfinder) or a mirrorless digital camera (like the Arri Alexa 35, Alexa LF or Alexa mini) and mod its lens mount, because the distance to the sensor would have to be severelly diminished to adress the very thin focal plane of the Zeiss 50mm 0.7. Anyway, that lens was a pain to handle, because at 0.7 it is almost impossible to keep anything in focus. The Stanley crew had to resort to a video camera sideways of the staged scene, feeding to a video monitor with distance markings to the focus puller, in order to avoid things becoming a blur on the screen. The actors even had to train their breathing, because it was causing them to miss focus. In summary, this rare, beast of a lens is best to keep as a museum piece due to its rarity, historical value and impratical usefulness. Stanley had no other choice - the fastest film stock at the time was 100 ISO you have several tools to tell your stories.

[@VariTimo]

@@rafamottaa I’m not entirely familiar with the mechanics of the LT. But from what I understand they modded mirrored cameras for Barry Lindon as well to work with the lens. And I imagine using two lenses and a beam splitter, one on the film camera and one with a small digital camera for the focus puller. If there are two identical enough models. Otherwise the next best thing. Imagine what you could do with an 0.7 lens on 5219 pushed two stops and contact printed.

[@gro_skunk]

Wouldnt 2 stops be 4x faster? :p

[@peterresetz1960]

No. Two stops faster is only two stops faster. But the difference is with the lens aperture wide-open the shutter speed would be increase from I.E. 1/30 to 1/125. Even though shallow field of view will be a serious problem, the advantage is using the higher shutter speed in low light will produce a smoother reproduction image is far is a film based movie. This was all about being able to shoot in candlelight with ASA (ISO) 250 motion picture film. Film stock that is exposed in the camera as per the movie scene shoot. Then chemically processed. Then the scene shoot can be reviewed. No video tape, or digital files.