2001: A Space Odyssey is a 4K/UHD Release possible? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Anything that piece of excrement author says can be safely disregarded (but then that's true of most pervy, creepy dudes). It amazes me that he still gets a press pass...

If this is anything like the last 70MM prints that were made I expect it will be an incredible experience none the less. Actually, shouldn't it look better than those since it was sourced from elements that weren't as worn?

Do we know for sure if the IP is the source of the 4K master?

Any 70mm print of 2001 struck in 2018 should be as flawless as possible. This was not the intent here.

 

[Nelson Au]

Is this an audience so used to modern film presentations that they just have no idea what a real film looks like? Maybe we need to wait to hear from someone who knows what he/she is looking at?

 

[haineshisway]

Jeffrey Wells (are people afraid to name him) is an idiot. The person at Blu-ray.com is an idiot. I don't know how they write such things in a public place because clearly neither person knows a damn thing about film.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Jeffrey Wells (are people afraid to name him) is an idiot. The person at Blu-ray.com is an idiot. I don't know how they write such things in a public place because clearly neither person knows a damn thing about film.

Not sure why you feel the need to write "The person at Blu-ray.com is an idiot. " Please expound.

 

[Robert Harris]

I’m finding the entire 2001 situation getting a bit humorous.

On one hand, newly struck 70mm prints will be hitting theaters, derived from problematic intermediate elements, as reported from Cannes, occasional color problems, light scratches, and positive and negative dirt.

And those prints will have no more than 2k resolution, as shots range from fourth generation, at best, to sixth at worst.

On the other hand, Doug Trumbull, an acknowledged effects genius will attend a screening at the Smithsonian, digitally projected from a 2k element, derived from a 35mm intermediate, that will be no higher than HD resolution.

Anyone see a problem with any of this?

I cannot imagine SK being pleased.

Mr. Barnum comes to mind. “This way to the egress.”

RAH

 

[marshman1138]

People who have grown up on digital have a very different feeling about projected images.

 

[marshman1138]

I started this thread almost two years ago in the hope that WB would do "Something wonderful!" with one of their crown jewels. I am still hopeful...

 

[ArnoldLayne]

A spoiled brat sounds more appropriate. I would be curious to know his chronological age. That would tell me more about him and his relationship to film than almost anything else.

Unless I missed something, we're referring to the "person at Blu-ray.com" that posted a review of the Cannes presentation? What did we find offensive or ignorant in that?

 

[marshman1138]

Unless I missed something, we're referring to the "person at Blu-ray.com" that posted a review of the Cannes presentation? What did we find offensive or ignorant in that?

Sorry, my original reply was regarding Jeff Wells and his behaviour at a film festival in 2009.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I do find it interesting that WB is giving such a publicity push for this 70mm release, yet the first screening, at Cannes, no less, appears (from only a couple of sources so far, it must be said) to have used a print with some real issues. I realize that Nolan has been very careful to call this "unrestored," but if he wants to sell people on the idea that 70mm film still has an advantage over digital projection, this isn't the way to do it. While I'd still pay to see 2001 in a theater if I could, I think a lot of people who are seeing the film for either the first time on film or the first time ever will wonder what all of the fuss is about with 70mm film.

I hope that these issues are simply due to mechanical eccentricities and aren't endemic to every print.

(Jeffrey Welles is laughably wrong in every single way regarding the Blu-ray being some untouchable thing of beauty.)

 

[Alan Tully]

Ha, this will run & run...until the UHD Blu-ray is released, & then a whole new debate starts (& still no official release date yet). I know what film looks like, been going to the cinema since (around) 1958, & working with it for about 45 years. The last time I saw film projected at the cinema was the 70mm Hateful 8, & that had a nasty scratch down the middle of the picture for a lot of it. I'll probably never see film again. I don't mind, a well produced Blu-ray looks fine to me, esp. the newer, less sharpened more "organic" looking transfers.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I’m finding the entire 2001 situation getting a bit humorous.

On one hand, newly struck 70mm prints will be hitting theaters, derived from problematic intermediate elements, as reported from Cannes, occasional color problems, light scratches, and positive and negative dirt.

And those prints will have no more than 2k resolution, as shots range from fourth generation, at best, to sixth at worst.

On the other hand, Doug Trumbull, an acknowledged effects genius will attend a screening at the Smithsonian, digitally projected from a 2k element, derived from a 35mm intermediate, that will be no higher than HD resolution.

Anyone see a problem with any of this?

I cannot imagine SK being pleased.

Mr. Barnum comes to mind. “This way to the egress.”

RAH

Soooooo... going on the most basic of math, IF the UHD 4K disc is derived from a harvest of the IP which was used to generate the printing elements for this "unrestored" release, that would mean that the shots would range from second to fourth generation for the disc release? Note that I said "IF".

 

[Robert Harris]

Soooooo... going on the most basic of math, IF the UHD 4K disc is derived from a harvest of the IP which was used to generate the printing elements for this "unrestored" release, that would mean that the shots would range from second to fourth generation for the disc release? Note that I said "IF".

Knowing what I do about WB superb preservation program, I would doubt that route very much. They know better.

One of the problems with the current working elements, leading to the new prints, is that digital scans are necessary to create quality elements. Know the people behind the production of the current IP, I'm certain that it is state of the art, but late 20th century, state of the art.

Huge difference in what we are able to attain today.

I'll stick my neck out and surmise that the 4k UHD disc, unless Mr. Nolan is involved, will be gorgeous, and state of the art.

I'm not suggesting that he's a bad person, and I respect his work immensely, but he's out of his realm here.

RAH

 

[Interdimensional]

There may be some value to what Christopher Nolan is doing here. It's about the integrity of the process, not necessarily about making a 50 year old film look as good as it possibly can.

70mm screenings of 2001 have routinely sold out before, and there's always a generation of film-lovers who haven't seen it like that. A big part of what makes it so impressive to modern eyes is that everything was achieved with purely analog technology. There is a sales pitch here, and it's partly an appeal to purism, partly appeal to celluloid nostalgia, all packaged in rare event status.

 

[Robert Harris]

There may be some value to what Christopher Nolan is doing here. It's about the integrity of the process, not necessarily about making a 50 year old film look as good as it possibly can.

70mm screenings of 2001 have routinely sold out before, and there's always a generation of film-lovers who haven't seen it like that. A big part of what makes it so impressive to modern eyes is that everything was achieved with purely analog technology. There is a sales pitch here, and it's partly an appeal to purism, partly appeal to celluloid nostalgia, all packaged in rare event status.

Agreed.

It’s marketing sizzle.

But 70mm film no longer delivers, vs high transfer rate 4k projection, of large format productions.

Possibly time to trade the AAII for a Christie!

 

[ArnoldLayne]

There may be some value to what Christopher Nolan is doing here. It's about the integrity of the process, not necessarily about making a 50 year old film look as good as it possibly can.

70mm screenings of 2001 have routinely sold out before, and there's always a generation of film-lovers who haven't seen it like that. A big part of what makes it so impressive to modern eyes is that everything was achieved with purely analog technology. There is a sales pitch here, and it's partly an appeal to purism, partly appeal to celluloid nostalgia, all packaged in rare event status.

Scratched film probably appeals to the same crowd that celebrate scratched vinyl.
And can hear above 20 kHz (i.e. CD's are inherently harsh, etc)
I would still like to see it again in a large theater w a huge screen (SF Castro hopefully) because regardless of the technical A / B comparison, it's just a great experience that can't be replicated in my home theater. I haven't decided on the 70mm print or waiting for DCP.

 

[Robert Harris]

Scratched film probably appeals to the same crowd that celebrate scratched vinyl.
And can hear above 20 kHz (i.e. CD's are inherently harsh, etc)
I would still like to see it again in a large theater w a huge screen (SF Castro hopefully) because regardless of the technical A / B comparison, it's just a great experience that can't be replicated in my home theater. I haven't decided on the 70mm print or waiting for DCP.

Both. Contrast and compare!

 

[Dee Zee]

Glad that AFI Silver will be showing 2001 in 70mm in early July. Looking forward to seeing it there.

Is that the one in Silver Spring MD? If so, what date?

 

[Jim*Tod]

Yes.... here is the link to the schedule. Looks like it will play for a week.

https://silver.afi.com/Browsing/Movies/Details/m-0100000214

 

[Vincent_P]

The 70mm print of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that I saw projected at the Lowes Astor Plaza in NYC in 2001, taken from an earlier intermediate element apparently, looked amazing on that huge Astor Plaza screen (which was the largest non-IMAX screen in NYC at the time). Do these new 70mm prints really not look as good? Could this possibly be the true reason they didn't use the 1999 IP back then, because it wasn't as good as the earlier 1980s intermediate film elements used to strike those 70mm prints in 2001?

Vincent