The Arri 35BL-2 | Kubrick's Camera of Choice on "The Shining"

Рет қаралды 14,134

Күн бұрын

This is a look at the Arriflex 35BL 2 - Stanley Kubrick's camera of choice for THE SHINING. I show how this camera helped Kubrick create his horror movie masterpiece. Take a look inside and outside as I demonstrate the many engineering design innovations and improvements that would go on to make this camera a legend of the cinema.

Пікірлер: 67

@metalinyourhead3604 Ай бұрын

Wow that’s a quiet camera. My last short film had a lot of problems with fan noise from our Red Scarlett. So the fact that a 50 year old camera is quieter than a modern one is amazing.

@footycheck 9 ай бұрын

This is neat and film is not dead but budgets are

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching, and I have to agree.

@matthewmaccarthy8542 9 ай бұрын

I entered the business in the mid 1990s so I had the pleasure of working with the BL4s and the BL4 Evolution before the 535 became the new go to ARRI camera. Even after the ARRI-CAM entered the market I preferred the 535 and mostly worked with e 535b. Personally I believe that Kubrick most likely would use the ARRI Alexa if he were alive today. I also believe that with Kubrick's input the science behind ARRI digital systems would be 5-10 years ahead of what they are today.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

I've thought about this and I think it's an open question - he was very progressive-technology in many ways, but unfortunately we'll never know. Thanks for watching!

@dylangarcia9468 9 ай бұрын

excellent and informative video

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@g1234538 3 ай бұрын

This was probably one of the best detailed overviews of a motion picture camera I've seen! I really liked how hands on it was, showing the effect of different parts and constantly showing how effective the noise isolation was. Showing off the rubber bumpers everywhere, then addressing the lens. It's quite crazy to see such efforts go into dampening or isolating the noise when Aaton just made the movement itself quieter by making it move more smoothly. Even more so when I saw an Arriflex documentary highlight the precision of all the parts even mention avoiding vibration by making the cams balanced. Still, the way the lens blimp snaps on and has windows for distance markings/aperture and dampened tabs for pulling focus is super cool! On a side note, along with the Arriflex I/II/III, I can't help but notice these 35mm cameras seem quite a bit smaller than I always expect. I guess the large, 1000 foot magazines on top of Panavisions and their bulky bodies make them look far huger by comparison. Some of these 35mm Arriflexes even rival some of their 16mm cameras for size (besides the 16S/M/etc) Also, some of the upscaling on the images looks rather mushy at times. I guess it's a lack of high resolution photos online. Just got surprised with some of the garbled text and other fine features. Excellently presented demonstration!! Your videos are wonderfully made!

@hvxjim1 9 ай бұрын

I used to have a BL2. My lens blimp was missing that metal piece on this side so I filled it up with clay or something to keep the noise from coming out. I currently have a BL4. Great cameras, but the parts for them are getting rarer. Even if Kodak survives and keeps making filmstock, these cameras may all become door stops due to lack of parts and only a handful of technicians in the US who know how to fix them.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree - but it's good to see some innovative add-ons and replacements being crafted. Thanks for watching!

@computationalerror69 9 ай бұрын

great video! i have the original arriflex 35

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

I also have a 352C - it's really a tank!

@Mario-tx4ll 9 ай бұрын

Amazing video!

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@roybrown503 9 ай бұрын

Great video, Thanks for putting it together.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@supercine35 8 ай бұрын

I still keep an Arriflex 35 IIC and a IIB and all Arriflex cine lenses for 35 and 16 mm.

@atomtan6107 Ай бұрын

Where do you live? Shooting a film on Kodak 35 this summer in the PNW.

@supercine35 27 күн бұрын

@@atomtan6107 NW Germany

@AlleyKatPr0 5 күн бұрын

Stanley would've shot on large format 65 digital imax Arri, then projected the digital image onto imax film to expose the film to the image directly. This, is what they do now, and, is what they did for Dune 2. Shot digital, project onto film, tap out, post, print film - then collect your Oscar.

@KylesDigitalLab 9 ай бұрын

I've always wondered why most film directors and DPs went with the Panavision Panaflex instead of the 35BL. The Panaflex came out the same year as the 35BL and was basically Panavision's own self-blimped 35mm camera. I assume because Panavision was an American company and Arri was West German? I remember reading that Panavision didn't sell their cameras or lenses and only had them available to rent, while you could actually purchase an Arri camera. The vidicon TV camera that could be used for monitoring the camera itself is very interesting. I assume later models like the BL3 and BL4 could use a color vidicon tube? At the time in the 1970s when the BL2 was out they would usually use 3 tubes to capture a full color image, which was very expensive, so they were forced to use black and white. However by the early 1980s the single-tube color vidicon camera was popular in consumer video cameras, so I imagine they would have upgraded it to color. Garrett Brown, the inventor and operator of the Steadicam, did a very informative commentary track on the Blu-ray of The Shining. They used wireless methods to actually transmit the video signals from the vidicon camera to the monitors, and Kubrick was worried about the locals being able to pick up the signal on their TVs. Brown assured him that they wouldn't, but Brown actually went outside of the movie set with a portable TV and was surprised when he could actually pick up the signal from the camera on the TV.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

At one point there might have been a color tube video assist, but I don't recall it. Color only started really being used when CCD chips came along in the late 80s. Black & white was usually fine, as it allowed one to see the framing and the performances. Color, contrast, etc. was always judged through the optical viewfinder or by eye. Thanks!

@jonathanswift2251 5 ай бұрын

@@FreshGroundPictures I have a friend who was on many films and is now a member of the ASC who said that the pin registration on ARRI's were superior to those on Panavision. Also, the strobing effect (on the wheels of a wagon, for instance) was more pronounced on Panavision cameras, leading to a distorted wheel motion. That same effect was less distorted and more visually accurate with ARRI BL's. Probably all this was due to the superior pin registration.

@jasper232323 28 күн бұрын

@@jonathanswift2251 Seems like strobing would be a product of shutter angle, which is adjustable on the higher end cameras and not pin registration. Your DP friend may be correct on pin registration, I don't know. But the Panavision camera movement is from Mitchell cameras, which many say has the best movement ever made for motion pictures.

@jasper232323 28 күн бұрын

I think a lot of it had to do with Europe vs. the US and the lenses. Arri has more presence in European markets than Panavision. Panavision has a different philosophy as a business model. Your renting a whole package. But it's often about the lenses. Pana had great spherical lenses, but their claim to fame is their anamorphics. If you want Pana animorphics, you're going to need to rent the whole package. Kubrick owned his own equipment and didn't shoot in anamorphic, so no need for Panavision (with the exception of 2001)

@KylesDigitalLab 26 күн бұрын

@@jasper232323 Thanks that makes sense. I guess it made sense to just rent instead of buying a $100K camera, especially if you were making low-budget films. The original Friday the 13th from 1980 comes to mind with it's $500K budget, and lo and behold they used Panavision. Did Arri ever rent their cameras too? Also, weren't their some Arriflex cameras like the 35 IIC that Panavision modified to use their own lenses and rented out? I think they used a modified 35 IIC on Star Wars that used Panavision lenses.

@brianmuhlingBUM 9 ай бұрын

You've sold me! I'll take one of each. A problem I had with my Bolex H16 SBM was the noise. So I bought a "Barney" which helped, but the best shot was a blimp I made out of plywood which resembled an early Technicolor blimp. But it worked! 😊

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

I made a Super 8 sound blimp in my 20s - it kind of worked, but I didn't really understand the whole isolation concept then. Thanks for watching!

@atomtan6107 Ай бұрын

Loved this! About to shoot a feature film in the PNW with the BL-2 also using the Arriflex 35IIC for stedicam shots. Might also be using some other ARRI cameras, including but not limited to the 435X. But the BL-2s will be the main cameras.

@FreshGroundPictures Ай бұрын

Good luck!

@sparky60ful 9 ай бұрын

Thank you again for the video, its great to find this inside information. I wonder if he truly used a Kinoptik Tegea f/1.8 5.7mm as people call it the "Kubrick" lens. Might find one for my 16BLEQ

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Kubrick used the Kinoptik 9.8mm lens - particularly on Clockwork Orange. It's essentially the same design and looks very similar to the 5.7, but covers a 35mm frame instead of 16mm. I had a 9.8 for a while - very interesting, but not that great optically when compared with modern lenses. Kubrick however would evaluate multiple copies of a lens and pick the best.

@user-pt5lg7zn3p 9 ай бұрын

5.7mm is the S16 version of that infamous 9.8 lens.

@jmalmsten Ай бұрын

When it comes to the question of "would he have switched to digital if he lived 20-40 years longer?" We need to remember that he shot Spartacus on essentially Vistavision with anamorphics and 2001 was on 65mm. He knew these bigger and better formats furst hand. And when he got to own his own gear and shoot just as he wanted? He defaulted to these almost pedestrian in comparison 35mm Arriflexes. Not even adding anamorphics. 35mm on these mobile luggables was "good enough". It was the most bang he could get for his buck for the setups he wanted. If he could have seen what a few thousand dollars can get us today he'd be giddily filling his shelves with GoPro's, Alexas, Blackmagics, Sonys, Canons Nikons.. he'd have a single digit serial number RED One signed by Jannard. And even closer to today. You'd see the first prototype Volumes popping up at his estate in England as he'd be shooting things on virtual sets for months on end, tweaking the Unreal 5 Engine to his will and bidding. That's what I believe.

@jonathanswift2251 5 ай бұрын

Kubrick's cameras were basically Mitchell BNC's on Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing...Then he shot on 65mm widescreen cameras with the very first ever Panavision Lens (just the lens, not the camera) for Spartacus. Lolita and Dr. Strangelove had him return to the Mitchell BNC. He shot 2001 on a Super Panavision 65mm camera. This was the only time Kubrick worked with Panavision cameras. With a Clockwork Orange, he returned to the Mitchell BNC. True, in Barry Lyndon, he used the Arri 35 BL -- but the groundbreaking photography done in candlelight only was done on a modified Mitchell BNC -- custom fit with lens with lenses SO FAST ( I believe 0.4 f) that were designed by NASA for photography on the dark side of the moon.

@thomasjordan-melcher673 Ай бұрын

Kubrick used a German ZEISS Planar 0.7/50mm for the candlelight photography. The lens was designed for NASA. He had three of them. Actual price: 60.000 up to 150.000 Dollar.

@KylesDigitalLab Ай бұрын

A Clockwork Orange also makes use of the Arriflex 35 IIC for some special shots, which is a handheld MOS camera. However since it was a MOS camera it was extremely noisy and not a quiet camera at all so that's why most of the film was shot with the Mitchell BNC, which was quiet enough to record sound.

@jonathanswift2251 Ай бұрын

@@KylesDigitalLab I shot my first and only 35 mm film in MOS with an Arri 35 IIC ...

@KylesDigitalLab Ай бұрын

@@jonathanswift2251 I know the 35 IIC was used to shoot the original Night of The Living Dead according to IMDB. It was a low budget film of course. I assume they used a blimp?

@jonathanswift2251 Ай бұрын

@@KylesDigitalLab I would imagine so during the dialogue scenes. However...they could have done post synced looping....

@jonathanswift2251 Ай бұрын

Correct me if I am wrong, However, I believe "Return Of The Jedi" was shot with an Arri 35BL. A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back were shot in Panavision....

@FreshGroundPictures Ай бұрын

That's correct. Arriflex 2C and eventually 35-3 cameras were used on all these films as well.

@mrshaheedmalik 9 ай бұрын

That camera is quiet when that door closes.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Yes, it's pretty amazing!

@kike74421 8 ай бұрын

VENDO ESA CAMARA.

@Statuskuo75 14 күн бұрын

I asked Liz Zeigler, his last steadicam op, if he wouldve gone digital. She quickly said yes. That was disheartening. I still think he wouldve stuck to film. He was always against the populist

@krp8154 9 ай бұрын

Great video about the camera. Not sure if you were earnestly wondering if Kubrick would have switched to digital, or just threw the question out to generate discussion- but Kubrick would definitely not have switched to digital, as digital still looks very bad compared to film. He isn't a director that just shot with anything that was available, and cared a lot about the appearance of his movies, as you said. It's been over 20 years and digital keeps "improving" every year, but that improvement is just reducing digital artifacts by doing things like improving the resolution or dynamic range- it's still nowhere close to being beautiful like film is. I really wish that we could get the beauty of film with the accessibility and ease of use of digital- but the outlook is dim.

@FreshGroundPictures 9 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree - I put the question out there for discussion. Thanks for watching!

@user-pt5lg7zn3p 9 ай бұрын

You are very wrong.He would %100 switch to digital and im sure he would be one of the first to do it.He was so into technology and always embraced it. Steadicam and few others..

@user-ch1by3th8s 11 күн бұрын

I think he would have stayed with film (I hope).

@AdamEX1 8 ай бұрын

He would have still used film. Digital doesn’t give you a film master. There is no physical real estate

@CinemaRepository 7 ай бұрын

Kubrick is more like Deakins. Consistency was king to him. Just look at his projectionist notes for all of his movies. He would have moved over very fast to digital, simply because it's more consistent. His "legacy" means nothing, he destroyed almost all of his outtakes over the years. He did not really care much about that aspect. Just how good the audience presentation was.