A Few Words About A few words about...™ 2001: A Space Odyssey -- in BD & HD (1 Viewer)

[Alan Tully]

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that HD scanning has gotten cheaper over the years, with more people doing it & competition, & you can scan VistaVision (& Techirama) on a Sprit. And maybe more wet-gate scanners? I don't know about that, as running a wet-gate really is a pain in the arse.

 

[GlennF]

Like Steve in Alberta I too saw the movie at the Glendale Cinema in Toronto with my brother. Didn't understand it, but was blown away. Hadn't seen anything like it.

As to RJ992, I might be wrong, but my recollection would be that people in '68 laughed at the phone charge for the same reason as today. Long distance phone rates in Canada used to be quite expensive and the concept of calling from space, for less than $2.00 (about a buck less than it cost to get into the movie - which was reserved seat), is what made it funny. Shows you how everyone's memory is a little different. Of course, I was just a kid, could be wrong.

 

[Persianimmortal]

One of my favorite sci-fi movies. I love the fact that it's slow and somewhat ambiguous - it's like reading a great novel where you can savor the journey and your own imagination can fill in all of the necessary details. Contrast 2001 with the vastly inferior sequel 2010 - one is full of mystery and grandeur, while the other is faster paced, spells everything out, and winds up being just another by-the-numbers sci-fi movie. Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing.Unfortunately I was born several years after 2001 premiered, and since then I've never had the opportunity to see it in all its glory on the big screen. But I'm perfectly content with the current Blu

 

[FoxyMulder]

I enjoyed both 2001 and 2010.

What changes did they make to 2010 from the actual book that makes you think it's inferior. ?

 

[Dr Griffin]

I was 6 when it premiered and didn't see it until I was 14. My older brother (by 11 years) was a big fan of the film and saw it in its initial run. We went to see it together eventually, probably in 35mm. I was later able to see it again in 70mm, albeit with a rough print, but on the big screen it was that much more impactful. The AFI Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD near DC is where I saw the 70mm print and the theater is THX certified. Richard Strauss' Sunrise was blasting through the theater. Fantastic. A great way to see the film, if you get a chance.

 

[RolandL]

I saw this on the day it opened (Thur.) at the Casino Cinerama, London, I'd bought the tickets about a month before. I recognised Mick Jagger in the audience & I had a better seat than he did (front, centre circle). The thing is, seeing it on that huge screen with the surround sound & such a stunning picture, was overwhelming, but seeing it at home, the magic's gone, & it just seems a very slow film, so I won't be buying any Blu-ray, just keep my memories.

 

[john a hunter]

I saw this on the day it opened (Thur.) at the Casino Cinerama, London, I'd bought the tickets about a month before. I recognised Mick Jagger in the audience & I had a better seat than he did (front, centre circle). The thing is, seeing it on that huge screen with the surround sound & such a stunning picture, was overwhelming, but seeing it at home, the magic's gone, & it just seems a very slow film, so I won't be buying any Blu-ray, just keep my memories.

You beat me by 2 days. For me it was the first Saturday evening performance with my parents. They asked me to explain the film afterwards but I could not.
Sat in the lodge at the side of the circle.
Stunning experience.
P.S the BD is pretty dam good.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I personally don't love the look of the BD. I think it's okay, and certainly better than any previous home video format we've had this movie on before then, but I think it could be better. My bigger issue is with the DCP of the film that circulates in repertory theaters, which is made from the same master as the Blu-ray. At home, the Blu-ray looks reasonably good, but I find it a little flat and lifeless looking. On DCP projected onto a larger movie screen, the whole thing looks very flat and very lifeless to me.

I've seen the film projected multiple times from both 70mm and 35mm over the past twenty years, most recently in 70mm about a month ago. The 70mm print I saw was more recent -- it had the "distributed by Warner" addition to the end credits that first popped up during the 2001/2002 re-issue, but I'm not sure if the print was from that run, or made more recently. It had a few scratches on it, more than a relatively new print should have in my opinion, but the color and clarity was astonishing. Even the 35mm reduction prints I had seen had more life in them than the DCP.

I know we're moving in a direction where films presented on film is going away for good. It's not lost on me that when I saw "2001" in 70mm last month, that it might be the last opportunity I ever get to see it in that format. But in my opinion, as seen through my eyes, the current DCP of "2001: A Space Odyssey" does not come close to reproducing the look and feel of the 70mm prints, and even a 35mm reduction print is superior to the DCP. I'd love for Warner to go back and re-do that. "2001" is my favorite movie in the entire world, and there's nothing better than seeing it on the big screen - but the DCP, for me, doesn't really capture the majesty of the prints. If we're only ever going to get to see "2001" in DCP from now on, I'd love to see it get a new one that's closer in look and feel to the 70mm prints.

 

[Dr Griffin]

If you read RAH's first post, the 65mm negative was not in good shape; that post is from 2007. I wonder what shape it is in today? If that cannot be acceptably restored, then I do not see a huge improvement to the present Blu-ray coming. I suppose an 8K scan of the usable elements would make a marginal improvement, and maybe we'll see that for the 50th anniversary. But, nothing would beat the full restoration and remastering of the 70mm elements, if possible.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I enjoyed both 2001 and 2010.

What changes did they make to 2010 from the actual book that makes you think it's inferior. ?

It's been a long, long time since I read either story in book form (maybe 30 years?). For one thing, I've never felt that 2001 needed a sequel, and 2010 winds up demystifying much of the original (e.g. the HAL sub-plot). But it's not the respective storylines that are the real issue, it's the fact that 2001 as a movie is presented in a very grand, mysterious, slow and methodical form, far beyond what the source material was capable of; whereas with 2010, not only do I not like the cast, especially the lanky, leathery Roy Scheider, but more importantly, it's clearly been paced to focus more on action and exposition, and the overall presentation is far less grand than the first movie.

I think the key to why so many people love 2001 (and equally, why some dislike it), is that it leaves a lot to the imagination. It's completely open to interpretation. The second movie is pretty much an open and shut case of here's some stuff that's happened, here's why it's happened, and here's a happy ending.

 

[Dr Griffin]

It's been a long, long time since I read either story in book form (maybe 30 years?). For one thing, I've never felt that 2001 needed a sequel, and 2010 winds up demystifying much of the original (e.g. the HAL sub-plot). But it's not the respective storylines that are the real issue, it's the fact that 2001 as a movie is presented in a very grand, mysterious, slow and methodical form, far beyond what the source material was capable of; whereas with 2010, not only do I not like the cast, especially the lanky, leathery Roy Scheider, but more importantly, it's clearly been paced to focus more on action and exposition, and the overall presentation is far less grand than the first movie.

I think the key to why so many people love 2001 (and equally, why some dislike it), is that it leaves a lot to the imagination. It's completely open to interpretation. The second movie is pretty much an open and shut case of here's some stuff that's happened, here's why it's happened, and here's a happy ending.

Let's face it, 2001 is an impossible act to follow. That being said, I think 2010 is a decent film. I agree with what you've said about it, but I still enjoy the film on its own merits.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Saw this in 1978 on the big screen when it got re-released. Stunning still classic sci-fi movie.

Saw the BD again a few days ago upscaled to 2560x1080 on an ultra wide LG monitor which shows stunning detail but also sadly a few issues......

The entire dawn of man sequence in the front projection skybox paintings from about 5:30 onwards I could clearly see some strange patterns on the backgrounds on most but not all the fabulous skyboxes. It looks like a large transparent outline in the shape of mountains its usually far top left + top right.

Not sure if its too much detail being shown by my display or just a consequence of the front projection + camera lens technology used in 1968 but either way it will appear more obvious the larger your display only way they could fix would be to do a digital fix to paint the skybox smooth instead of transparent. Apart from that most of the movie is stunning except for a few clusters of lazy white pixels in some of the pod bay scenes.

Front projection scenes as detailed here:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page2.html
Here are some screenshots I took direct from the US 2007 disc with green boxes around the areas I am talking about. If WB are doing a new 4K scan perhaps they could fix these invisibly I do not think Mr Kubrick would want them there as they are distracting once noticed.......& the rest of the movie is almost flawless except for a few lazy white pixels & black dirt specks.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Spoiler

Saw this in 1978 on the big screen when it got re-released. Stunning still classic sci-fi movie.

Saw the BD again a few days ago upscaled to 2560x1080 on an ultra wide LG monitor which shows stunning detail but also sadly a few issues......

The entire dawn of man sequence in the front projection skybox paintings from about 5:30 onwards I could clearly see some strange patterns on the backgrounds on most but not all the fabulous skyboxes. It looks like a large transparent outline in the shape of mountains its usually far top left + top right.

Not sure if its too much detail being shown by my display or just a consequence of the front projection + camera lens technology used in 1968 but either way it will appear more obvious the larger your display only way they could fix would be to do a digital fix to paint the skybox smooth instead of transparent. Apart from that most of the movie is stunning except for a few clusters of lazy white pixels in some of the pod bay scenes.

Front projection scenes as detailed here:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page2.html
Here are some screenshots I took direct from the US 2007 disc with green boxes around the areas I am talking about. If WB are doing a new 4K scan perhaps they could fix these invisibly I do not think Mr Kubrick would want them there as they are distracting once noticed.......& the rest of the movie is almost flawless except for a few lazy white pixels & black dirt specks.

4E207370-DEF3-4A37-B208-93E0160E82E0.jpg

755BF189-7A4C-4083-9DE2-FB9864A04351.jpg

61248638-8476-4C08-91CB-AA63A213D0C8.jpg

A9F7A340-F5B7-4799-9FD4-32A9063EA504.jpg

B741C5E8-8E22-4E90-9E74-2675313FF4DD.jpg

E6D68188-BA57-4814-823A-768004E891CE.jpg

I've noticed what you're seeing, on a 60 inch plasma. Surely this would also be visible on the 70mm prints if it was on the negative, unless it is some other anomaly.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If you read RAH's first post, the 65mm negative was not in good shape; that post is from 2007. I wonder what shape it is in today? If that cannot be acceptably restored, then I do not see a huge improvement to the present Blu-ray coming. I suppose an 8K scan of the usable elements would make a marginal improvement, and maybe we'll see that for the 50th anniversary. But, nothing would beat the full restoration and remastering of the 70mm elements, if possible.

I took a moment to re-read the entire thread -- it seems like RAH goes into further detail in later posts to clarify that the negative is in better shape than most other large format films of that period. I certainly have no idea if the negative requires a new restoration or if a new scan with today's equipment would be enough to create a better master for the DCP. The last thing I want to do is put words in RAH's mouth, so I apologize if I've misread what he was saying.

I don't feel that the DCP is representative of the 70mm prints that I've seen in the last 15 years. Now, is it possible that the 70mm prints were incorrect? Of course. But I don't think they are, if only because the different 70mm prints I've seen have a similar look to the 35mm prints that I've seen. Now, is it possible those are wrong too? Of course. So to me, I can't help but come to the conclusion that either a) every single print of the film I've ever seen is wrong, or b) the DCP isn't all that great. The level of detail in the 70mm print surpasses that in the DCP, and the colors seemed much stronger on film, whereas they look dull and lifeless to me on the DCP.

"2001" came out on Blu-ray in 2007, I think. I've seen 35mm and 70mm prints of it theatrically in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2014, and to me, each one of them looked better than the Blu-ray. To me that suggests that it's possible to do a better version of it for digital. I hope so.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I took a moment to re-read the entire thread -- it seems like RAH goes into further detail in later posts to clarify that the negative is in better shape than most other large format films of that period. I certainly have no idea if the negative requires a new restoration or if a new scan with today's equipment would be enough to create a better master for the DCP. The last thing I want to do is put words in RAH's mouth, so I apologize if I've misread what he was saying.

I don't feel that the DCP is representative of the 70mm prints that I've seen in the last 15 years. Now, is it possible that the 70mm prints were incorrect? Of course. But I don't think they are, if only because the different 70mm prints I've seen have a similar look to the 35mm prints that I've seen. Now, is it possible those are wrong too? Of course. So to me, I can't help but come to the conclusion that either a) every single print of the film I've ever seen is wrong, or b) the DCP isn't all that great. The level of detail in the 70mm print surpasses that in the DCP, and the colors seemed much stronger on film, whereas they look dull and lifeless to me on the DCP.

"2001" came out on Blu-ray in 2007, I think. I've seen 35mm and 70mm prints of it theatrically in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2014, and to me, each one of them looked better than the Blu-ray. To me that suggests that it's possible to do a better version of it for digital. I hope so.

If the scan for the Blu-ray and, I guess, the DCP you speak of, were done at 2K resolution, then I wouldn't think it could be close to the large format version. I'd like some confirmation as to whether the DCP is a recent higher resolution scan.

 

[Paul_Warren]

I've noticed what you're seeing, on a 60 inch plasma. Surely this would also be visible on the 70mm prints if it was on the negative, unless it is some other anomaly.

According to people at the very start of this thread (I just re-read) they think its the 3m reflective paint applied by roller to the front projection screen that gives the pattern I noticed. So I guess its probably not easy to remove. Such a shame as the existing transfer is almost flawless apart from a few lazy pixels a large horizontal black line I screenshoted above & a bit of black dirt.

I would prefer WB to fix those minor issues than scan @ 4K or higher!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If the scan for the Blu-ray and, I guess, the DCP you speak of, were done at 2K resolution, then I wouldn't think it could be close to the large format version. I'd like some confirmation as to whether the DCP is a recent higher resolution scan.

I think that's exactly it, that it's 2K and it really should be more -- I think I just read a post on another thread here a couple days ago saying that the DCP is 2K and only 70gb. File sizes shouldn't mean everything, but my understanding is that most DCPs of a film the same length would be at least twice that file size. (I'm not a projectionist, and the file sizes info is all from reading various websites and trades, so while I think I'm stating accurate info, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if that turns out to be the case.)

 

[Dr Griffin]

According to people at the very start of this thread (I just re-read) they think its the 3m reflective paint applied by roller to the front projection screen that gives the pattern I noticed. So I guess its probably not easy to remove. Such a shame as the existing transfer is almost flawless apart from a few lazy pixels a large horizontal black line I screenshoted above & a bit of black dirt.

I would prefer WB to fix those minor issues than scan @ 4K or higher!

Is it possible to "correct" that, and not smear out any more detail?

 

[ROclockCK]

According to people at the very start of this thread (I just re-read) they think its the 3m reflective paint applied by roller to the front projection screen that gives the pattern I noticed. So I guess its probably not easy to remove. Such a shame as the existing transfer is almost flawless apart from a few lazy pixels a large horizontal black line I screenshoted above & a bit of black dirt.

I would prefer WB to fix those minor issues than scan @ 4K or higher!

Unfortunately, myth. It wasn't "painted" on. The massive front projection screen for 2001* was composed of rolls of 3M ScotchliteTM which had to be cut up into irregular sections and applied patchwork style - the theory being that over such a huge surface any straight edge roll lines would be more noticeable than this 'crazy quilt' solution if there were minor variances in surface density roll to roll.

And this unconventional solution did work...on screen. What has been lost through multiple video releases - possibly just a problem with video transfer characteristics regarding white balance - is that these front projection scenes (especially during the dawn of man sequence) were very bright...again as projected via film on screen. Yet on video, these scenes have always been printed down, which just exacerbates the problem Kubrick and his team had solved via very careful light levels plus testing, testing, and more testing. Disguising the ScotchliteTM has been further hampered on video by some noticeable age-related yellowing in the corners of the frame, drawing even more attention to it.

All of this was discussed in detail in the book "The Making of 2001", and confirmed personally by Fx lead Wally Gentleman when he graciously visited our film class at York U. in the early 70s...and of course by my own eyes during those 13 roadshow CINERAMA viewings. When properly projected, with Kubrick's precise exhibition specs, you could not see those ScotchliteTM patches. That aberration is strictly an artefact from 2001's after life on home video...which is another reason for a full, archival-class restoration of this film plus a new transfer.

* To date, still a record IIRC.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Steve, that explanation totally matches my experiences viewing the film - seen projected in 35mm and 70mm, you really can't see those patterns or smears. On the Blu-ray and the DCP (both made from the same master), it's visible.