HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey

[DJ-Panic]

ok, just thought you guys might be interested, guess not.

 

[phase pistol]

Gabe: Fantastic. Just what I was talkin' bout.

DJ-Panic: First, welcome aboard. I think there may have been a misunderstanding along the way about what HAL actually was, in "2001". There was no real computer equipment used to represent HAL. The "eye" is just a wide-angle camera lens. Control panels and displays were designed specifically for the movie. Sorry dude.

Surfer: In-teresting. But I doubt it. Perhaps the Curtis Cinerama lens was used for HAL's POV shots in the film itself. I would believe that.

But I don't think that particular lens is what we see on the prop "HAL" panels on the Discovery set. Check out my oblique screen grabs; the lens protrudes from the panel, and has a very thin metal bezel around it. The Cinerama lens looks much, much bigger and would not fit into that space.

These grabs give you an idea of how big a typical HAL lens was.

This is from my files; it shows a plausible HAL replica using a smaller fisheye lens. I recall a thread here on RPF where lenses were discussed; I think the name Kenko came up.

- k

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by DJ-Panic@Jan 3 2006, 10:35 PM
Hey, if you guys are really into HAL, I can ask my dad exactly what he was made of.  He told me before but I don't remember exactly, but my dad used to work for Control Data Corporation, adn they were the one's who actually supplied the computers that were HAL in the movie.  HAL was in reality a real functioning mainframe computer. 
Apparrently they actually made a fair number of them and they were in use in various government and university science departments in the 70's.

[snapback]1150172[/snapback]​

DJ, don't get upset, dude. It's late at night in the US and many people have gone to sleep, plus I didn't see your post while I was working on the lens model. Also, while your story is fascinating, its bearing on this thread is a bit off-topic, and I can assure you that the eye panel had nothing to do with whatever computers were used to drive the graphics on board the Discovery shooting sets. It was, in fact, just a cool static wall hanger with a light and a voiceover.

But by all means, please share this thread with your father and perhaps he knows of production-related information that could help make this replica more accurate, for instance, if the HAL panel came from an existing mainframe enclosure.

- Gabe

 

[SurferGeek]

Karl, you are correct, I misspoke regarding the specific lens used for HAL. The lens I remarked was used for the POV shots.

Would be interesting to see if something could be scratch (or CAD) built to replicate the effect as seen on the movie. I'm not sure the lighting would be quite as effective without at least some additional optics behind the primary??

 

[phase pistol]

I think Gabe is off to a fantastic start, perhaps some additional lens elements coule be made this way... tho the price could quickly become prohibitive. Maybe a cheap source for additional lens elements would be better (anybody know where to get a $5 pair of binoculars? :lol)

Tho we would not need to worry about too much depth... the HAL panel is FLAT as we can see in the oblique screengrabs.

I found a couple more HAL related pix in the book Stanley Kubrick Archives (fantastic volume BTW a must have for Kubrick fans)...

On that Brainroom shot you can make out what appears to be lettering around the outer rim of the lens. Note how the black lens rim protrudes above the very thin silver metal bezel (visible in other shots above as well).

This shot taken during filming in Discovery's Centrifuge shows the Cinerama wide-angle lens (referenced above) on the camera.

- k

 

[zorg]

i'm sure it was agreed on the other thread that it was the kenko fish eye that was used, it definatly wasnt that big jobby.

they were getting snapped up on ebay afterwards, the avarage price was about 85 dollars but some got them cheaper, if you can get the real deal for this price why pay more for a replica?

and arent the holes at the bottom of the panel round and not square?

z

 

[SurferGeek]

This is purportedly one of the HAL panels from 2001.

Source unknown. If the owner wishes it removed PM me.

 

[phase pistol]

Originally posted by zorg@Jan 4 2006, 03:06 AM
and arent the holes at the bottom of the panel round and not square?

[snapback]1150215[/snapback]​

Nope.

 

[Prop Runner]

I hate to say it, but the lens profile that I modeled appears to be too flat based on some of the side shots of the bubble that Karl posted. From the photos of the rear-lit Cinerama lens housing, it seems that the contraption was moved from set to set and bolted behind the HAL wall panels for each scene. The external domes on all the ship's HAL pannels must have been a simple glass or plastic shell' Think about it: a portable Cinerama eye would have saved lots of hassle and expense with optics and wiring:

Here's my schematic of how I believe they showed HAL's red eye from every set panel:

Obviously for a replica I can modify the outer radius, but there's no guarantee that the red light will diffuse and defract the same way...

Any suggestions, besides expensive trial & error? One that I would put forward is giving the panel more depth like in this photo:

and adding the light and fisheye lens behind a flat pane of glass beneath the clear dome, thus duplicating the effect created by the original.

Discuss.

- Gabe

 

[zorg]

Originally posted by phase pistol+Jan 4 2006, 08:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phase pistol @ Jan 4 2006, 08:49 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-zorg

@Jan 4 2006, 03:06 AM
and arent the holes at the bottom of the panel round and not square?

[snapback]1150215[/snapback]​

Nope.

[snapback]1150234[/snapback]​

[/b]

i'm sticking with the round holes :$

 

[phase pistol]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 4 2006, 04:12 AM
From the photos of the rear-lit Cinerama lens housing, it seems that the contraption was moved from set to set and bolted behind the HAL wall panels for each scene.

[snapback]1150241[/snapback]​

No, I ain't buying it. PERHAPS the camera setup with Cinerama wideangle lens was installed for "HAL's POV" shots that were required for the film. But I just simply do not believe that the huge Cinerama lens is lurking behind a simple glass dome, whenever we see it around the set.

Note how the black rim of the (small) wideangle lens PROTRUDES from the black "HAL" panel in these shots. Note how the rim seems to have WRITING on it, much as a typical wide angle lens has.

The look matches this replica exactly.

And lastly, the wideangle Cinerama lens was extremely vaulable - irreplaceable really. Using it as set dressing would be insane, even for Kubrick. :lol

- k

 

[HAL9000]

Well, I'm flattered.

That's a very good likeness.

 

[phase pistol]

Hey HAL. How's your "enthusiasm for the mission" these days? :lol

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by phase pistol@Jan 4 2006, 10:42 AM
No, I ain't buying it. PERHAPS the camera setup with Cinerama wideangle lens was installed for "HAL's POV" shots that were required for the film. But I just simply do not believe that the huge Cinerama lens is lurking behind a simple glass dome, whenever we see it around the set.

Karl, the two uses of the Cinerama are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, how do you explain the red light eminating from the REAR of the lens in this photo and two wires coming out the back?

Please tell me you agree that you simply cannot use the lens for POV photography with a light shining through it... :lol

Note how the black rim of the (small) wideangle lens PROTRUDES from the black "HAL" panel in these shots. Note how the rim seems to have WRITING on it, much as a typical wide angle lens has.

Where you see letters, I see reflections. I also see them here:

And lastly, the wideangle Cinerama lens was extremely vaulable - irreplaceable really. Using it as set dressing would be insane, even for Kubrick. :lol

Again, then how do you explain the Cinerama lens tied down to wood blocks with 2 wires coming out the back? I'll concede that there were likely 2 HAL eyes: the hero, which used the Cinerama lens for extreme closeups where the multiple optics gave more depth and complexity to the eye, and background HALs, where they used a clear dome, a red bulb, and perhaps a Kenko or other lens (or no optics at all). That would explain why in the photo directly above you see a very faint light and no optical distortions, refractions, or diffusion.

- Gabe

 

[SurferGeek]

Originally posted by Prop Runner+Jan 4 2006, 12:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prop Runner @ Jan 4 2006, 12:33 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-phase pistol

@Jan 4 2006, 10:42 AM
No, I ain't buying it. PERHAPS the camera setup with Cinerama wideangle lens was installed for "HAL's POV" shots that were required for the film. But I just simply do not believe that the huge Cinerama lens is lurking behind a simple glass dome, whenever we see it around the set.

Karl, the two uses of the Cinerama are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, how do you explain the red light eminating from the REAR of the lens in this photo and two wires coming out the back?

Please tell me you agree that you simply cannot use the lens for POV photography with a light shining through it... :lol

[/b]

I may have inadvertentently added to the confusion between the lens that was used to represent HAL and the lens that was used to film HAL's POV.

If you look at that lens above you will see it's mounted next to a monitor so for scale purposes it couldn't have been used as the representation of HAL.

I think that they are simply showing the lens that was use for the POV and have hooked up a red light source that would be similar to the light setup that was used for the actual HAL prop.

 

[phase pistol]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 4 2006, 02:33 PM
Please tell me you agree that you simply cannot use the lens for POV photography with a light shining through it...  :lol

Well, you can't do both at the SAME TIME, no.... :lol

But this is actually an argument AGAINST the Cinerama lens being "HAL"... you'd be hooking it up with the light for use as a "prop", and then taking the light out and putting the camera on the lens to shoot the POV shots. It's madness. Kubrick was not that "low budget" I don't think. :rolleyes

Where you see letters, I see reflections.  I also see them here:

Well I ALSO see something HERE, but the Brainroom is full of little slivers of light, so it's likely reflections. Probably white marks seen in FACE-ON shots of the lens are reflections from the set; white marks seen OBLIQUELY are writing.

Again, then how do you explain the Cinerama lens tied down to wood blocks with 2 wires coming out the back?

Because it's a "mount" the new owner of the lens made, specifically to resemble the HAL panel in the Pod Bay. It's not the original condition of the lens.

If you dig around some more, you'll find this pic of the setup. The design of this fake panel doesn't even look like the Pod Bay set.

- k

 

[Montagar]

I wish they had archived the old HAL panel/lens thread because I am pretty sure that this ground was thoroughly covered. Isn't that the "large" HAL lens that they used in "2010"? I thought that a different lens was used somewhere else for something, but I could be completely off with the way that I am remembering all of this.

 

[Prop Runner]

Oh.



- Gabe

 

[phase pistol]

OK check this out: this is from Dennis Gilliam, who made that "real lens" replica I posted earlier.

http://www.2001spacesuit.com/HAL.html

The original intent of this project was to help the owner of the HAL panel determine what optics were used for HAL's eye, and how it was attached. I measured the original HAL panel and began researching the optics. I came across an image on the 2001 Key Sheet transparencies which showed a side view of the HAL panel. I was able to determine that an actual photographic lens was used in the HAL panel. The printing on the edge of the lens was out of the plane of focus, hence it was blurry. However the overall shape of the printed characters, size, and spacing could be determined. Using this info, I researched lenses which were available at the time the sets were built. ... There have been several fisheye lenses, of the same focal length, made by the same manufacturer, over the years. The important part is finding the type that was actually used. Some individuals have purchased what they thought was the correct lens, only to have a lens that is substantially larger that the hole in the HAL panel. Common sense (lens won't fit in the hole) and simply looking at images of the HAL panel in the film clearly show that's the wrong lens. The unfortunate part about that,is they are paying $2000 or more for the wrong lens. Also, since they are using an oversize lens, they scale up the HAL panel to fit the lens, and end up with a panel that's nearly 2 feet long, which is larger than the original.

Gilliam's replica (left) compared to a photo shot on set

 

[mgoob]

Perhaps someone who owns a Kenko lens can put a red LED behind it and take a photo.

I know of at least 2 people who own Kenko lenses.

That would put some of this topic to bed.