Angelo Colombus
Senior HTF Member
Speaking of The Battle of Britain it is the 50th anniversary of the release so around Memorial Day I will watch the Blu-ray.
A lot of defending of 2001, so tell me why are some people not seeing the ringing, halo’s are not acceptable to me, yet they are there on this release, thats an epic fail in my book, yet the film gets a pass.
Being a perfectionist has nothing to do with this, i do not understand why so many people fail to see halo’s which are also there on other releases, not just 2001, its my pet hate.
For others also being introduced, I should like to further expand upon Freddie Young's 80 plus film career;I must confess I didn’t know who Freddie Young is so I looked him up.
I see he’s not only done Lawrence, but quite a range of titles including a favorite, Indiscreet by Stanley Donen which Is more like a stage play and You Only Live Twice, one Bond film which is pretty big. Quite a long resume he has with a lot of titles I’ve wanted to see still.
So, I'm assuming this will be for the 10 or so people who can afford 8K screens large enough to make a difference from 4K? Oh, wait. The largest available 8K TV is 98". There's no way that the human eye will be able to tell a difference at anything resembling normal viewing distance. I love image detail, but 8K in the home is snake oil with a gigantic price tag. (I suppose I should add in the obligatory, "Git of'n mah lawn!" lol)Guys, a friend mentioned a BBC article to me about an 8K scan of 2001 for the first 8K TV broadcast. In case you guys were not aware, thought it might be of some interest to you.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46403539
And aside from a few dozen large format and IMAX titles, there's nothing that's ever been made that could take advantage of it, nor are there any real plans to make 8K a film and television industry standard going forward.So, I'm assuming this will be for the 10 or so people who can afford 8K screens large enough to make a difference from 4K? Oh, wait. The largest available 8K TV is 98". There's no way that the human eye will be able to tell a difference at anything resembling normal viewing distance. I love image detail, but 8K in the home is snake oil with a gigantic price tag. (I suppose I should add in the obligatory, "Git of'n mah lawn!" lol)
I had similar thoughts. But I was wondering, considering that 2001 was filmed on 65mm, would the 8k scan actually harvest more detail verses a film on 35mm. That’s one question I had in mind.
I had similar thoughts. But I was wondering, considering that 2001 was filmed on 65mm, would the 8k scan actually harvest more detail verses a film on 35mm. That’s one question I had in mind.
The last Fast and Furious movie was 2K. Most of the big, effects-heavy blockbusters are still being finished at 2K to save cost and time.Direct to the point.
The article seems to stress that the TV makers are interested in 8K and this 2001 8K scan is what I’d call a stunt. If TV makers want to sell 8K, it wants content. NHK are pushing live events too.
So I agree, 8K isn’t going to make 2001 look any better, it’s a marketing tool and stunt. The likely scenario is they’ll master new movies at 8K to sell the new TVs. 8K Fast and Furious sounds pretty good. I don’t have a 4K set yet, but if we did have an 8K TV, wouldn’t some of you be slightly curious to see how an 8k 2001 Blu Ray looks?
My apologies if this is old news, but you New Yorkers are in for a treat:
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/2001-a-space-odyssey-exhibition-museum-of-moving-image-1202161217/
My apologies if this is old news, but you New Yorkers are in for a treat:
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/2001-a-space-odyssey-exhibition-museum-of-moving-image-1202161217/
I hadn’t heard yet - I’ll be there!
Maybe I should be like Astoria’a Leon Vitali and give HTF visitors custom tour narration.