Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ 2001: A Space Odyssey -- in BD & HD

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
227 replies to this topic

#21 of 228 OFFLINE   Dan Lindley

Dan Lindley

    Second Unit



  • 396 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2000

Posted November 01 2007 - 03:30 PM

Carlo,

Mine arrived from Amazon today, and my order was fairly recent (last two weeks or so, maybe less. Standard delays for super saver shipping, but here it is!).
Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human beings if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelings about nuclear combat.

#22 of 228 OFFLINE   Seppo

Seppo

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 201 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2004
  • Real Name:Seppo

Posted November 01 2007 - 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lindley
Carlo,

Mine arrived from Amazon today, and my order was fairly recent (last two weeks or so, maybe less. Standard delays for super saver shipping, but here it is!).
Seems like they're all in stock at Amazon.com finally. I have an order at DVD Pacific, but only "A Clockwork Orange" has been filled so far.

#23 of 228 OFFLINE   JeremySt

JeremySt

    Screenwriter



  • 1,775 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2001

Posted November 02 2007 - 06:37 AM

I picked mine up at my local hastings for $19.99. Too bad my 50" plasma is boxed up. Moving! It did look fantastic on my 36" tube. Posted Image

#24 of 228 OFFLINE   PatWahlquist

PatWahlquist

    Supporting Actor



  • 735 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2002

Posted November 02 2007 - 12:29 PM

Hi, guys,
I just posted my enthusiastic review of the Blu-Ray. While I was watching it, I noticed the follwoing and I'm wondering if anyone else is noticing this (quoted from my review):

"When I went back to do some close inspection of the image, I noticed what appeared to be some type of dirt on the print during the Dawn of Man sequence. If you look closely at the lighter parts of the images, such as the light sky above the mountain ranges, you will see some light smearing on the image. At first I thought I had some dirt on my screen or the lens of my projector, but the dirt remained once I cleaned both of those. When you jump to the space station scenes, which are very light and would show this dirt easily, it is absent. Therefore, I believe this is dirt that is part of the original negative of the scenes for the dawn of man sequence. "

I didn't see it on the first viewing, but once I got up on the screen it's pretty obvious. I haven't seen this mentioned on any of the other online reviews.
ISO "Lost" ARG prints from Kevin Tong, Olly Moss, Eric Tan and Methane Studios.  PM me if you want to sell!

All reviews done on a Marantz VP11S1 1080p DLP projector.

Displays professionally calibrated by Gregg Loewen of Lion AV.

#25 of 228 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted November 02 2007 - 01:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatWahlquist
Hi, guys,
I just posted my enthusiastic review of the Blu-Ray. While I was watching it, I noticed the follwoing and I'm wondering if anyone else is noticing this (quoted from my review):

"When I went back to do some close inspection of the image, I noticed what appeared to be some type of dirt on the print during the Dawn of Man sequence. If you look closely at the lighter parts of the images, such as the light sky above the mountain ranges, you will see some light smearing on the image. At first I thought I had some dirt on my screen or the lens of my projector, but the dirt remained once I cleaned both of those. When you jump to the space station scenes, which are very light and would show this dirt easily, it is absent. Therefore, I believe this is dirt that is part of the original negative of the scenes for the dawn of man sequence. "

I didn't see it on the first viewing, but once I got up on the screen it's pretty obvious. I haven't seen this mentioned on any of the other online reviews.

Pat, I noticed this as well. I read in one of these threads that what your seeing is the reflective paint on the wall that the background plate was shown on. If you look at it, it does look like paint, from a roller. Sorry, i dont remember the thread, or who said it. But thats why the leopards eyes glow too!

Oh, and i watched on a 50 inch Tosh plasma. The Blu-ray disc looked amazing!

#26 of 228 OFFLINE   PatWahlquist

PatWahlquist

    Supporting Actor



  • 735 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2002

Posted November 02 2007 - 01:11 PM

Makes sense, thanks! Also answers the question I had about the eyes, but my interpretation was far more metaphysical than that!
ISO "Lost" ARG prints from Kevin Tong, Olly Moss, Eric Tan and Methane Studios.  PM me if you want to sell!

All reviews done on a Marantz VP11S1 1080p DLP projector.

Displays professionally calibrated by Gregg Loewen of Lion AV.

#27 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 02 2007 - 03:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatWahlquist
Makes sense, thanks! Also answers the question I had about the eyes, but my interpretation was far more metaphysical than that!

Rick it right. It looks to me to be an uneven application of the 3M reflective material on the front projection screen. (this is the same stuff that makes stop signs glow) All of those ape shots were done in a studio in England. The background plates are actually large format still photographs that were taken in African and front projected into the scene.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#28 of 228 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted November 04 2007 - 11:39 AM

I must say I'm honestly a bit perplexed by the image quality of this HD DVD/BD of 2001.

I saw a 35mm print of this film a couple of years ago at a restored theater in NY and the print was *** RAZOR SHARP ***. It almost felt like your eyeballs were "cut" watching those blazing white ships drift through that midnight black space.

On the DVD, all the space shots (and all others) appear slightly softened on the edges to my eyes. I was expecting this 1080p disc to look as sharp (I don't meen edge-halo sharp, just analog sharp) as the 35mm print I had enjoyed.

Has anyone else with good familarity with the clarity/sharpness of the projected print felt this? Naturally, the fact that RAH is singing the praises of the fidelity of this transfer is causing me to wonder if my impressions of the 35mm print that I saw were remembered incorrectly... or perhaps I was seated far enough away from the screen that the viewing angle was narrower to produce a "sharper" impression?
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#29 of 228 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted November 04 2007 - 12:07 PM

You have a pretty big projected screen dont you David?
It looked great on my plasma. But then again it looked better than my LD or that crappy, very dark MGM DVD.
I only WISH i could have seen it on a movie screen.

#30 of 228 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted November 04 2007 - 12:11 PM

I viewed it both on my 720P DLP projector (106") and my friend's 1080p LCOS projecto (110"). Don't get me wrong, the image was very good, and very "film like" in many ways, but not quite as sharp as I remember from film.

Also, in the turning spokes of the space-station, I saw a "twitter" along the edge that didn't seem to be a film-orgin artifact. Has anyone else noticed that? Note that we're watching a properly rendered 1080p image on the 1080p projector (and I noticed this also at 720p).
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#31 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 04 2007 - 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
I viewed it both on my 720P DLP projector (106") and my friend's 1080p LCOS projecto (110"). Don't get me wrong, the image was very good, and very "film like" in many ways, but not quite as sharp as I remember from film.

Also, in the turning spokes of the space-station, I saw a "twitter" along the edge that didn't seem to be a film-orgin artifact. Has anyone else noticed that? Note that we're watching a properly rendered 1080p image on the 1080p projector (and I noticed this also at 720p).


I didn't notice any "twitter" or aliasing on the space station, but then I've only got a 47" TV. It might be more visible on a large projection screen.

I've never actually seen this film in the theater so I don't know about the sharpness of a 35mm print. I suspect in comparison with 35mm prints from 35mm negatives it looked very impressive and fairly grain free and that may have been your point of reference for the super sharp look.

This after all was the whole point of VistaVision as Paramount really had no plans for it to be projected in the horizontal format beyond a few theaters in LA and NY. But the 35mm prints from VistaVision were said to be a big improvement on standard 35mm / 35mm prints.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#32 of 228 OFFLINE   DonovanCampbell

DonovanCampbell

    Extra



  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2006

Posted November 04 2007 - 01:12 PM

Super Panavision actually, including the effects shots.
Donovan

#33 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 04 2007 - 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanCampbell
Super Panavision actually, including the effects shots.


Yes but he was talking about a 35mm release print.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#34 of 228 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,688 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted November 05 2007 - 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
I must say I'm honestly a bit perplexed by the image quality of this HD DVD/BD of 2001.

I saw a 35mm print of this film a couple of years ago at a restored theater in NY and the print was *** RAZOR SHARP ***. It almost felt like your eyeballs were "cut" watching those blazing white ships drift through that midnight black space.

On the DVD, all the space shots (and all others) appear slightly softened on the edges to my eyes. I was expecting this 1080p disc to look as sharp (I don't meen edge-halo sharp, just analog sharp) as the 35mm print I had enjoyed.

Has anyone else with good familarity with the clarity/sharpness of the projected print felt this? Naturally, the fact that RAH is singing the praises of the fidelity of this transfer is causing me to wonder if my impressions of the 35mm print that I saw were remembered incorrectly... or perhaps I was seated far enough away from the screen that the viewing angle was narrower to produce a "sharper" impression?

Hello Dave,

good to meet each other on the forums again Posted Image

From what I have seen so far with regard to 65/70mm movies out on DVD and HD the detail of these movies is always below what can be seen on the very best discs available in either format. This certainly is not due to a lack of detail in the original negative and what you say indicates that RAH is unfortunately correct when he says 6k scans are not what Warner usually does for their large format stock. From watching Mutiny on the Bounty, Battle of the Bulge and Grand Prix I would say that none of these come close to making full use of the available resolution in the original camera negative. If they did these would be among the most detailed movies available in the HD format but sadly they aren't.

Still I am happy these came out at all - Warner is the only studio doing something worthwhile about movies in large format so far. We also have to take into account that most of the movies we call classics are movies that sell in very limited numbers and 2001 might very well be the first of the released classics that earns Warner not only prestige but also money. So we cannot expect them to pay unlimited amounts of money for the best transfers and masters money can buy when we look at things from the business side.

Oliver

#35 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 05 2007 - 03:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK
Hello Dave,

good to meet each other on the forums again Posted Image

From what I have seen so far with regard to 65/70mm movies out on DVD and HD the detail of these movies is always below what can be seen on the very best discs available in either format. This certainly is not due to a lack of detail in the original negative and what you say indicates that RAH is unfortunately correct when he says 6k scans are not what Warner usually does for their large format stock. From watching Mutiny on the Bounty, Battle of the Bulge and Grand Prix I would say that none of these come close to making full use of the available resolution in the original camera negative. If they did these would be among the most detailed movies available in the HD format but sadly they aren't.

Still I am happy these came out at all - Warner is the only studio doing something worthwhile about movies in large format so far. We also have to take into account that most of the movies we call classics are movies that sell in very limited numbers and 2001 might very well be the first of the released classics that earns Warner not only prestige but also money. So we cannot expect them to pay unlimited amounts of money for the best transfers and masters money can buy when we look at things from the business side.

Oliver

At HD resolution (1080) the difference between 35mm and 70mm should not be discernible. There just isn't enough resolution to be able to see that level of detail.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#36 of 228 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted November 05 2007 - 03:11 AM

Hey Oliver! Thanks for chiming in. Got some widescreen reviews waiting for you whenever you're ready. Posted Image

Hey Doug,

part of the problem with "large format" films in the past is that the *scanning equipment* used to digitize the 65/70mm elements hasn't been up-to-snuff. Just take a look at the Ben-Hur DVD... another disc that received a great deal of praise despite some apparent inaccuracies to the source. Even in pathetic 480p resolution, you can see that the older DVD, scanned from a 35mm print (on equipment optimized for 35mm) looks MUCH more detailed than the newer DVD scanned from 65mm on "inferior" telecine gear (by inferior, I mean gear not optimized for large-format). It's not that DVD can show you the difference between the resolution of 35mm and 65mm camera negatives. It's that DVD can show you the difference between a scan from a device optimized for the film it's scanning (or not). Same with HD.

There are a few devices out there than can do a high-fidelity digital capture from large-format elements but they are $$$ to use and Warner has not used them in the past.

What I'm seeing from this BD/HD DVD looks like high-frequency information has been rolled off. Trust me, the 35mm print I saw was RAZOR SHARP... it was shocking. This HD image looks "soft" by comparison, which suggests to me that WB may have indeed scanned a 65mm source, but done so with gear not optimized for the task. Either that or they used a 35mm print but may have filtered it to ease compression demands given the somewhat average low-bit-rate of the VC-1 codec used to compress this title. WB has been tailoring their authoring for 30 GB which may or may not have a slight negative impact on image/sound quality depending on content... but I have noticed that in general the VC-1 WB BDs tend to look less sharp/detailed in comparison to high-bit-rate AVC titles by Sony/Disney (with a few exceptions of course). That general trend causes me to be suspect whenever I see VC-1 used at a low bit-rate.

I'd love to hear more input from someone familiar with what went into this actual disc. Does anyone really know what source/method WB used to get this image?
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#37 of 228 OFFLINE   DonovanCampbell

DonovanCampbell

    Extra



  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2006

Posted November 05 2007 - 04:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Yes but he was talking about a 35mm release print.

Doug
Yes, but you mentioned VistaVision, so I was just correcting that.
Donovan

#38 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 05 2007 - 04:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Hey Oliver! Thanks for chiming in. Got some widescreen reviews waiting for you whenever you're ready. Posted Image

Hey Doug,

part of the problem with "large format" films in the past is that the *scanning equipment* used to digitize the 65/70mm elements hasn't been up-to-snuff. Just take a look at the Ben-Hur DVD... another disc that received a great deal of praise despite some apparent inaccuracies to the source. Even in pathetic 480p resolution, you can see that the older DVD, scanned from a 35mm print (on equipment optimized for 35mm) looks MUCH more detailed than the newer DVD scanned from 65mm on "inferior" telecine gear (by inferior, I mean gear not optimized for large-format). It's not that DVD can show you the difference between the resolution of 35mm and 65mm camera negatives. It's that DVD can show you the difference between a scan from a device optimized for the film it's scanning (or not). Same with HD.

There are a few devices out there than can do a high-fidelity digital capture from large-format elements but they are $$$ to use and Warner has not used them in the past.

What I'm seeing from this BD/HD DVD looks like high-frequency information has been rolled off. Trust me, the 35mm print I saw was RAZOR SHARP... it was shocking. This HD image looks "soft" by comparison, which suggests to me that WB may have indeed scanned a 65mm source, but done so with gear not optimized for the task. Either that or they used a 35mm print but may have filtered it to ease compression demands given the somewhat average low-bit-rate of the VC-1 codec used to compress this title. WB has been tailoring their authoring for 30 GB which may or may not have a slight negative impact on image/sound quality depending on content... but I have noticed that in general the VC-1 WB BDs tend to look less sharp/detailed in comparison to high-bit-rate AVC titles by Sony/Disney (with a few exceptions of course). That general trend causes me to be suspect whenever I see VC-1 used at a low bit-rate.

I'd love to hear more input from someone familiar with what went into this actual disc. Does anyone really know what source/method WB used to get this image?

According to Robert Harris the 65mm ON was in pretty bad shape so unless they did a full restoration I have my doubts about them using it for this transfer. I suspect this transfer comes from a 35mm element.

Your right about the soft quality to 65mm transfers to home video. However having said that, all things being equal even with the best transfer possible in both 35mm and 65mm, I'm not sure you could tell the difference at HD resolution.

Again 2001 looks very sharp on my system, but its only 47 inches so I'm not seeing the same thing that you are on a large screen.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#39 of 228 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 05 2007 - 04:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanCampbell
Yes, but you mentioned VistaVision, so I was just correcting that.

Right. But I was talking about VistaVision for live action photography in the 50s and 60s, not its later application for visual effects. In other words the reduction printing of VistaVision to 35mm was said to produce a shaper more detailed image than a 35mm to 35mm release print. The same should be true of a 65mm to 35mm reduction print.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#40 of 228 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,688 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted November 05 2007 - 05:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
According to Robert Harris the 65mm ON was in pretty bad shape so unless they did a full restoration I have my doubts about them using it for this transfer. I suspect this transfer comes from a 35mm element.

Your right about the soft quality to 65mm transfers to home video. However having said that, all things being equal even with the best transfer possible in both 35mm and 65mm, I'm not sure you could tell the difference at HD resolution.

Doug,

I am not so sure what elements they used to arrive at that transfer, but it seems we don't get the same level of detail as in the best films available on HDM and of course this is a bit of a mockery given the fact that 2001 could rival the best of the best in terms of detail if state of the art technology was used.

Regarding 35 vs 65mm I think you got my argument the other way around. I do not think that for HDM 35mm sourced movies have to look less detailed than those shot on large format. I wanted to make a point that they don't have to look WORSE than stuff shot on 35mm which is what they do at the moment.

Oliver


Back to Blu-ray



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow