HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey
- Thread starter simon_lewis
- Start date
:lol
Well at least I'm not taking a "pistol" approach. People could get hurt.
- k
Well at least I'm not taking a "pistol" approach. People could get hurt.
- k
Actually the Nikkor looks like it's much shallower than the Kenko as well, not as much body to bury back into the HAL panel.
- k
Scottish Film Maker
New Member
I'm convinced the Kenko IS the correct lense...
if you take into account the following:
In the screenshot, the white dots aren't text - instead they're reflections of the stage lights above. Kubrick was a perfectionist, and it would be unlike him to allow the text to be visible.
On the Kenko lense, if you remove the outer ring with the text printed on (using a small jewler's screwdriver) then you've got a lense that matches upto the screenshots exactly.
if you take into account the following:
In the screenshot, the white dots aren't text - instead they're reflections of the stage lights above. Kubrick was a perfectionist, and it would be unlike him to allow the text to be visible.
On the Kenko lense, if you remove the outer ring with the text printed on (using a small jewler's screwdriver) then you've got a lense that matches upto the screenshots exactly.
Which screenshot are you referring to? There are numerous shots of the HAL lens that are clearly text and not relections.
I do feel that the Kenko is the correct lens as well though.
Interesting.
I certainly agree with you that Kubrick was a perfectionist, and I would assume that very few things would sneak into his film that he had not wanted to be there. (The food sliding back down the tube in the Aries is a famous and rare example of a Kubrick oversight.)
On the other hand, those sure look like words rather than reflections to me.
However, I very much want you to be right about this.
I'll try to find a set of jeweler's screwdrivers and see about removing the ring.
Well if we're lucky, it may be possible to use a Kenko or some other currently available lens, if we can find one the correct size. But first we need to nail the dimensions of the prop.
I'm intrigued tho, can you post a photo of your Kenko with the ring removed? I'd like to see it.
But it really does look to me like out of focus writing on the side of the lens, in that black-and-white Podbay test bench photo.
- k
I'm intrigued tho, can you post a photo of your Kenko with the ring removed? I'd like to see it.
But it really does look to me like out of focus writing on the side of the lens, in that black-and-white Podbay test bench photo.
- k
If I can come up with a suitable screwdriver for removing the ring, I'll definitely post a photo. I'd like to see it, too.
The screws holding the ring in place are particularly tiny. I do have a tiny Phillips-head driver, but these are flat-head screws. :unsure
Thanks for the comparison shot Tony.
Yeah that Nikkor (technically "Nippon Koganku") lens is more substantial than the Kenko, look how big it is on that camera body.
Also as far as "Kubrick wouldn't have allowed the text to be visible", I don't know about that. Kubrick also tried to ground 2001 in as much reality as possible, so panels and props DO have logos and labels on them (aka the IBM logo on the spaceship control panels earlier in the film, the brand names in the Space Station concourse, heck the film is veritably dripping with "product placement", and years before the concept even had that name).
So I don't see why HAL's lens couldn't have had the markings on it. Nikon is one of the leading camera manufacturers, and Kubrick himself was a lifelong photography enthusiast, even before he was a filmmaker. I could see him being amused by the notion that HAL's eye was a Nikon, actually.
It's not proof of anything, I know, but it's just my opinion.
- k
Yeah that Nikkor (technically "Nippon Koganku") lens is more substantial than the Kenko, look how big it is on that camera body.
Also as far as "Kubrick wouldn't have allowed the text to be visible", I don't know about that. Kubrick also tried to ground 2001 in as much reality as possible, so panels and props DO have logos and labels on them (aka the IBM logo on the spaceship control panels earlier in the film, the brand names in the Space Station concourse, heck the film is veritably dripping with "product placement", and years before the concept even had that name).
So I don't see why HAL's lens couldn't have had the markings on it. Nikon is one of the leading camera manufacturers, and Kubrick himself was a lifelong photography enthusiast, even before he was a filmmaker. I could see him being amused by the notion that HAL's eye was a Nikon, actually.
It's not proof of anything, I know, but it's just my opinion.
- k
Other factors in the Nikon's favor include TIMING... the fact that the lens was introduced in the early 1960s, and was quite prominent on the photography scene
from this site
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/compa...son/8mmfish.htm
I'm not saying this HAS TO BE the lens they used, only that at this time it seems very reasonable to me.
- k
Jedirick
Sr Member
Originally posted by temponaut+Apr 3 2006, 12:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(temponaut @ Apr 3 2006, 12:28 PM)</div>If I can come up with a suitable screwdriver for removing the ring, I'll definitely post a photo. I'd like to see it, too.
The screws holding the ring in place are particularly tiny. I do have a tiny Phillips-head driver, but these are flat-head screws. :unsure
[snapback]1219047[/snapback][/b]
Use one of the screw drivers found in eyeglass repair kits.
Hey all.
Well, I don't know if this Dennis Gilliam fellow is actually using the same lense as what we see in the pod bay. As others have mentioned, the white writing doesn't appear to line up. Unless there is other writing on the other side of the "NIPPON KOGAKU, JAPAN" lense that does match, I might be more inclind to think that the "NIKKOR" is what we are actually after. Here is a very crude comparison of the writing on the Nikkor lense to the blurry mess on the pod bay photo.
It seems to line up pretty well to my eye, enough to almost say that is definately it. Any thoughts? These lense do seem to be in the $1000 range, which makes the Kenko a much more attractive idea. But if it isn't screen accurate, what are we all doing here.
Keep up the good work.
MJC.
Well, I don't know if this Dennis Gilliam fellow is actually using the same lense as what we see in the pod bay. As others have mentioned, the white writing doesn't appear to line up. Unless there is other writing on the other side of the "NIPPON KOGAKU, JAPAN" lense that does match, I might be more inclind to think that the "NIKKOR" is what we are actually after. Here is a very crude comparison of the writing on the Nikkor lense to the blurry mess on the pod bay photo.
It seems to line up pretty well to my eye, enough to almost say that is definately it. Any thoughts? These lense do seem to be in the $1000 range, which makes the Kenko a much more attractive idea. But if it isn't screen accurate, what are we all doing here.
Keep up the good work.
MJC.
It seems that this particular Nikkor was the world's first commercially available fisheye lens for 35mm photography. It's a historical benchmark of sorts and sought after by camera collectors. Thus the hefty price range.Originally posted by Cantina_Dude+Apr 4 2006, 03:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cantina_Dude @ Apr 4 2006, 03:20 AM)</div>Thanks for the comparison pics. Yes, the writing seems to match up pretty well. We're trying not to jump too fast (as we seem to have done several weeks ago with the Kenko), but the Nikkor looks very promising to me. There are others, though, who still feel strongly about the Kenko, so the jury is still out on this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cantina_Dude@Apr 4 2006, 03:20 AM
These lense do seem to be in the $1000 range, which makes the Kenko a much more attractive idea. But if it isn't screen accurate, what are we all doing here.
If it does turn out to be the right lens, maybe we can find someone who owns one and is willing to take some measurements for us. :angel
