65mm movies on DVD... (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Lowry Digital Images didn't handle 2001.

2001 was remastered and restored by Pacific Title recently. The wire removal might have to do with color density adjustment. Wires may be visible on a poorly timed print, but invisible on a correctly timed one.

Given the perfectionist nature of Kubrick, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let something like that be obvious in corrected prints.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

PatrickMcCart:

was created from a new 35mm Reduction Interpositive, manufactured directly from the 65mm Super Panavision Original Camera Negative. The 2.2:1 aspect ratio of the Original Camera Negative was retained in the 35mm Reduction and in the video transfer.
The 35mm Interpositive was scanned directly to Digital Component Videotape using a Spirit Datacin. A Pogle Platinum system was used in color correction.
The soundtrack was restored and remastered digitally from the original 35mm 6-track stereo magnetic soundtrack masters. Dialogue and effects information was sourced from the seperate 35mm magnetic ("stem") units. Music cues were sourced from the original orchestral recording sessions."

I take this as evidence that the full image area in on the new DVD. Yay!
The Lawrence Of Arabia DVD is said to be 2.20:1, but it measures around the 2.30:1 mark. Another black-mark for that DVD. Beautiful packaging though - the cloth edition, mmmm! By-the-by though, right?
Gordy

 

[Robert Harris]

AFAIK there has been no "restoration" to 2001, simply the production of a some new dupes.

 

[Rain]

...but it measures around the 2.30:1 mark.

Widescreen Review says 2.25:1.

I don't know what method you are using, but I can tell you that Widescreen Review uses some complicated method that I don't quite understand. Based on my discussions with one of the fellows at WSR, I think his measurements are pretty accurate.

The difference between 2.25:1 and 2.21:1 is fairly negligible.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In reply to Robert Harris:
You're right: 2001 has NOT been "properly" restored. It was digitally cleaned up and colour-corrected. I'm not sure who did the work... might have been Lowry Digital Images. I'm not sure.
Have you seen the new Warner DVD, Bob? What do you think of it? Should the film be properly restored? I remember reading an interview with you on the Net where you were asked which films need to be restored and one of the films you mentioned was a "famous sci-fi film from 1968" (paraphrasing). Does 2001 need any work? Ahh! Were you refering to Planet Of The Apes?!
Hmmm.
Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In reply to Rain:
My method is to print-off screenshots from the DVD and measure with a engineer's ruler (half-millimeters are marked on those!) and use a calculator! I feel like Bill Hicks: "These are not idle thoughts - I can prove this with a home computer/Etch-A-Sketch."
Try comparing shots from the DVD to the frame-grabs at www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/loa1a.htm. And is it me, or is the guy who runs that site, the great Marty Hart, a sex-obsessed legend or what?! Look at all those sexy usherettes and his little comments about them!
Great stuff.
Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In reply to Patrick McCart:
It could be down to the timing, I'm not sure. What I am sure of, it that SK wouldn't have wanted the wires. There are no wires on the DVD - I'm happy!
With all this technical talk, I feel I must say that Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a stunning film, richly beautiful and genuinely spooky and is mind-expanding piece of cinema. It's a great, great film... one of my top 5 films of all-time.
Gordy

 

[Jack Briggs]

You go, Gordon!
For the record, the only scene in which a wire can be detected in 2001 is aboard the Pan-Am space shuttle when it's en route to the space station. When the flight attendant navigates down the aisle toward the sleeping Dr. Floyd, the camera closes in on the floating pen. Briefly, one can see light reflected off the wire suspending the pen.
I've noticed this ever since 1968.
And, Mr. Harris, we would love your opinions on the current 2001 disc's transfer.
It's also true the film has not been "restored" per se. In a rare fit of studio people getting it right from the beginning, the 2001 elements have been carefully preserved since day one.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In reply to Jack Briggs:
Yeah, those wires were erased alright! Just checked. The "floating pen" shot was created using a pane of glass and Scotch Tape! The pen was taped on and the glass was revolved by grips. But when the cute stewardess (or "Airline worker" for you PC folks! :wink: ) goes to grab the pen, she awkwardly pulls it off - it would have better to have subtley twisted it off and thus making the illusion better, says I. :wink:
Yeah, Stanley ought to have contacted me in 1968. But I was in the Spirit Realm at that point! I wasn't born until 1980!
And I think you are right Jack: MGM have taken great care of 2001 over the years. The reason the "old" DVDs looked medicore, was because they were made from 1989 video masters that were created for the Laserdiscs. The negs were kept in great shape by Warner. We are all well aware of how Universal treated Spartacus, but what's the deal with Dr Stranglelove? I would like to see the great Kubrician detail and cinematography by
Gil "Star Wars" Taylor is all their razor-sharp B&W glory! But I doubt that will happen any time soon at Columbia. :frowning:
Thanks Jack.
Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

What was The Dirty Dozen shot in? "MetroScope" 70mm? What the hell was that?! 65mm? But the DVD is 1.85:1! Maltin's says that MetroScope was 2:1 70mm! Argh!
Some shots in 2001 were shot in MetroScope at 2:1 according to Doug Trumbull, then matted to 2.21:1... I think! :wink:
The Patton DVD looks great. Shot in 65mm Dimension 150 (150mm lenses!), the DVD was made from a brilliantly made 35mm reduction print (from the neg?) and cleaned up by THX. Some colours look a little faded, but the DVD is infinately better than the Laserdiscs. Great film and a fine DVD.
Thanks for reading.
Gordy

 

[TedD]

Interesting... very interesting! So the full, unmatted image area of 65mm measures 2.13:1 and the matted 70mm prints are 2.21:1 that's cool! I like the idea of transfering at 2.13:1 .

Unfortunately, incorrect.
The only difference between 65mm and 70mm film stock is an extra 2.5 mm OUTSIDE the sprocket holes on each side.
The AR of both 65mm and 70mm stock is 2.28:1 before the magnetic stripes are applied to the release print. This is also the camera aperture.
After striping the release print, the projection AR is 2.20:1.
check here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto3.htm
for the official word or here:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/filmdims.htm
for even more detailed info.
Ted

 

[TedD]

Shot in 65mm Dimension 150 (150mm lenses!),

Buzzzz...
The 150 in Dimension 150 refers to angle of view of the shortest focal length lens used for photography.
A quote:
"The first was a camera system employing the conventional 65mm/70mm format together with a range of spherical camera lenses giving horizontal fields of view of 50 degrees, 70 degrees, 120 degrees and an ultra-wide 150 degrees (18mm), which gave the process its overall title."
From this web site::
http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm/magazi..._back_d150.htm
Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread seems to be exploding in all directions, so I'll try to offer a few comments which will not hit all the areas.

Re: 2001 and its DVD transfer...

I prefer to view 2001 in 70mm. I've said this before, but there are certain films which I feel should only be viewed as they were meant to be by their creators. To me, 2001 is one of these few. While the DVD is perfectly representative of the film in a cheap paperback fashion (and this is not to denigrate the dvd in any way -- I simply don't wish to view it as such), much like viewing a black and white Xerox of a early, hand created illuminated manuscript.

Re: seeing things that were not meant to be seen in 2001 -- or any other film for that matter --

It is the change of film stocks that has made certain things suddenly discernable. Like wires which may be seen in Chaplin films like City Lights, the circular platter which held the "floating" pen in 2001 was hidden by the grain structure of the 1967-8 print stock.

*************

Please keep in mind, when referring to aspect ratios and 65mm origination that we are discussing not only the available real estate for the DP, but the aspect ratio (AR) of that frame without mag stripes, on top of which we have a related AR of the same frame adjusted for splice lines, dirt and light refraction within the camera.

*************

65mm transfers have never been either as easy to work with, or as correctible as generally the 65mm hardware is built on older units. This is why I generally prefer to work with a specially produced 35mm element for transfer as opposed to 65mm. The difference in the final product -- positive, because of the larger frame area and resolution / negative, because of the lack of maneuverability of the image and older hardware.

*************

In the end, the absolute perfection of the aspect ratio is of little importance as long as it is within the ballpark.
No matter how far off, if within parameters, it will be closer to perfection then anything viewed at the local cinema.

**************


Re: the comments about LoA DVD, I have absolutely no problem with the aspect ratio, the chosen portion of the element reproduced, or the basic transfer for the film, which is extremely high.

***************

Dirty Dozen was shot 1.85.

RAH

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's a witty and correct statement, and my favorite from this thread. And I've just learned something new about my favorite film.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In reply yo TedD:
You're absolutely right, Ted - D-150 refered to the angle of view not the lense size! D'oh! My bad. :b
65mm origination is 2.20:1 then? Yes. I'm satisfied with that.
Great links by the way. Thanks, Ted!
-----------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Robert Harris:
I too prefer to see 2001 in 70mm, but 70mm screenings are rare in Scotland. The Museum Of Television and Film in Bradford, England screens 70mm, Cinerama and more on a daily basis, and I try to get down there every once in a while.
What was the AR of Super Cinerama? Was it 2.59:1?
Dirty Dozen was shot in 35mm at 1.85:1 hard-matted?
Thanks, Bob.
Gordy

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Not to gainsay Mr. Harris, but...
I finally got around to watching the remastered DVD of 2001 on my Tosh 65H80 through my progressive scan Malata N996--eliminating overscan, hooray---and was just floored by how utterly, utterly beautiful it looks. It was so good that once Bowman went through the Stargate, I went back to the beginning and watched the whole thing again.
I'd love to see it in 70mm, but here in the boondocks that's pretty darn unlikely. Lucky lucky folk in LA and New York...but I have to say that this will certainly do in a pinch for me. Cheap paperback? Well, sometimes that has to do, but this is at least a trade paperback with good quality paper
But I do wish I hadn't read so much about the blue sand in Lawrence....now all I see is seaside!

 

[Jack Briggs]

And get this: 2001: A Space Odyssey screened in 70mm here in L.A. just last Saturday at Hollywood's The Eqyptian Theater. I had to miss it! But I understand the film is to screen in 70mm at Hollywood's one-and-only Cinerama Dome pretty soon.

 

[Chris Purvis]

for those of us late to the party, which 2001 dvd is the dvd to get? I need to replace my laserdisc of this film and I'm confused which one everyone is so excited about.

thanks!

 

[Rain]

w...hich 2001 dvd is the dvd to get?

Get the one from the Kubrick collection that specifies that it is the remastered version.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

The remastered one, luckily, should be the one that's most readily available. Avoid the MGM disc and the first Warner issue (which looks identical to the remastered version, other than the banner that says it's remastered). The other two are now long out of print, but there might be some dusty copies sitting around some stores.