Comments on: Stanley Kubrick Films Natural Candlelight With Insane f/0.7 Lens

By: fhjks

fhjks — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:39:00 +0000

That’s exactly what I thought. I’m going to keep this one for next time someone complains about pulling DSLR focus!

By: Anders Petersen

Anders Petersen — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:37:00 +0000

That’s because a lot of people think bokeh means “amount of background separation” or even “smallness of depth of field”, when bokeh is actually just a subjective measure of the smoothness of the out-of-focus areas. In other words: quality, not quantity.

Depth of field is a mathematical function of aperture size, sensor size, focal length and focus distance. Bokeh is independent of all of these, it just depends on glass type, design and quality.

By: Stefan Parol

Stefan Parol — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:08:00 +0000

I, also, would like to learn more about the production of this movie… Allthough it is motionpicture, to me it seems in large parts to be a flow of steady shots, zoomed in and out, filmed left to right, up and down, but constructed and lightned as one big photograph, a snapshot of the time.

By: Daniel Mora

Daniel Mora — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:58:00 +0000

is there any more than just the youtube clip to this documentary? i’d love to watch the whole thing being a cinephile. :)

By: W van de Kletersteeg

W van de Kletersteeg — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:56:00 +0000

In a close-up, sure. But in the film the lens is mostly used for wider scenes so the focus is way back, probably even infinite, which gives it a bigger DOF naturally.

By: Michael Kormos

Michael Kormos — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:36:00 +0000

Oh wow, that Minolta is a portrait photographer’s dream! That bokeh looks even better than Nikkor 135 f/2DC. I’ve heard rumors of an upcoming Nikkor 135 f/1.8 set to replace it, but I may just have to look into this Minolta first. Thanks!

By: Kyle Sanders

Kyle Sanders — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:27:00 +0000

If Barry Lyndon was shot on normal 35mm cine film, then the image size is closer to a crop-sensor APS-C. Still razor thin, but 1.6x better than a full-frame still camera!

By: Mattbuzz

Mattbuzz — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:31:00 +0000

So, I have a f1.2 50mm lens and I find the fov very limited already, you can sometimes see blur around the focus plan. I can’t imagine how a f0.7 would look in focus, I need to see that movie again

By: Patrick Hall

Patrick Hall — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:46:00 +0000

My comment about bokeh was a little tongue in cheek. What I’ve found to have the largest effect on blurring the background is actually not aperture or focal length but rather minimum focusing distance. You can shoot both at 1.4 or 2.8 at 50mm or 200mm and have everything in focus. It’s when you get close to the subject and focus at a relatively short distance and the background is significantly far away from your subject. Does a wider aperture help? Sure, but it’s really the distance of the subject to your lens that has the largest effect.

By: RUSS

RUSS — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:48:00 +0000

The equipment is neat.
But that man concieving the idea and then executing it in such a wonderful way is AWESOME!