A few words about…™ 2001: A Space Odyssey — in BD & HD

2001: A Space Odyssey is Unhesitatingly Extremely Highly Recommended! 4 Stars

I was there when it opened, as an NYU film school senior.
There are a short list of films that of which it can be said…
“There was cinema before and after…”
Mr. Kubrick’s 2001 is one of them. In your face. In spades!
To have the opportunity to view it (without drugs) in 70mm on a huge screen, is one of these life altering experiences.
Is it on par with watching the Stars and Stripes being raised at Iwo Jima?
Doubtful.
But in the world of cinema, it doesn’t get much better.
And neither could this high definition disc, for which I set aside the opening game of the World Series this evening to preview. The game actually went on without me.
This is one of those “few words” that is short, sweet and to the point.
The original 65mm negative of 2001 has been over-loved during the decades.
Over-printed, with dupes scattered about throughout, it comes to to this new DVD in nearly transparent condition. My assumption is that this transfer is derived from a 35mm interpositive produced several years ago, and it has yielded a superb master.
Warner Bros. has done a beautiful job with Mr. Kubrick’s magnum opus.
Image and audio quality are superb. And while we are viewing what is essentially the soft cover version of a film which was designed to be seen on a huge screen with audio blaring…
We finally have a version of 2001 on home video of which I believe Mr. Kubrick would be proud.
And then he would change the conversation to baseball, and the World Series.
2001 is a beautifully stuck disc from Warner, which I screened on Blu-Ray. I have no doubt that the HD version will be equally as pleasing.
On the short list of the most important classic releases of 2007…
2001 may well be at the top.
Just beautiful. Hats off to the archival crew at Warner Bros.
2001: A Space Odyssey is Unhesitatingly Extremely Highly Recommended!
RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

author,member

357 Comments

  1. I first saw 2001 in its original release as a 15 year old student in the "Century 21" theater in San Jose, which was a purpose-built theater for showing Cinerama films. The Century 21 is a concrete dome theater with fancy sound systems and a projection room custom built for 70mm and Cinerama projections.

    I was disappointed that 2001 wasn't a 3-strip Cinerama film. But everything else about the film was a delight.

    After owning 2001 in CED, WS VHS, non-anamorphic DVD, anamorphic DVD, and finally HD DVD, the HD culmination is what we have been waiting for all these years.

    A pedant will claim that the HD DVD will make more obvious the studio set vs. the background photos in the Dawn of Man sequence. There are many other portions that highlight the limitations of the 1968 special effect. But what the heck did you expect? This is as good as it's going to get.

    Having said all this, there are things in the transfer that Bob Harris may wish to comment upon. When Dave brings the pod up to the emergency airlock, the white lighting of the ship is overlaid by pinkish light from the pod's lights. Is this correct? Kubrick had a trademark of having 'halos' around lighting effects so I'm not sure.

  2. When Dave brings the pod up to the emergency airlock, the white lighting of the ship is overlaid by pinkish light from the pod's lights. Is this correct? Kubrick had a trademark of having 'halos' around lighting effects so I'm not sure.

    I certainly can't answer this. Even if there were a later "approved" print, something this specific may not have translated. Without either Mr. Kubrick or Mr. Unsworth, generally the best that one can do is make the surrounding general colors and densities correct, and allow everything else to fall naturally where it may.

    RAH

  3. Robert Harris

    To have the opportunity to view it (without drugs) in 70mm on a huge screen, is one of these life altering experiences.
    RAH

    I cannot help but smile at this statement as I've had the opportunity to experience it both ways on the big screen way back in the day.
    Nice to get the enthusiastic RAH stamp of approval on one of my favorite science fiction movies. Great review.
    And thank you Warner.

  4. According to AVS…
    "The 65mm neg was scanned within the last few years and was described as being in "perfect" condition to me by the guys that scanned it so there should be a pretty marvelous HD master available."
    Not when I wound through it. Overused, dupes, tape…
    The word "perfect" obviously has numerous meanings. I have yet to learn all of them.
    RAH

  5. Michel_Hafner

    According to Insider Mr. D. the HD master is not from a 35mm element but a 6K scan of the OCN. Cool.
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=880440

    A 6k scan is nice to have but more important is that there is no hideous EE added to the picture like with Battle of the Bulge.
    Everybody raves about the detail on that one but the EE completely destroys the illusion of a cinematic presentation. I take it 2001 is not affected by it judging by RAH's statements here – good !

  6. Robert Harris

    According to AVS…
    "The 65mm neg was scanned within the last few years and was described as being in "perfect" condition to me by the guys that scanned it so there should be a pretty marvelous HD master available."
    Not when I wound through it. Overused, dupes, tape…
    RAH

    Do you think the HD-DVD could come from this 6K scan? (Have not seen the disc yet.)

  7. A 6k scan, to the best of my knowledge, is not the way that Warner has been generally handling their 65s. Unless one is seeking to create additional digital preservation elements, it adds little toward the purpose of an HD release which may be harvested from a 35mm element.
    Large format scans are horrifically expensive.
    Whether they did a digital scan in this case is anyone's guess.
    RAH

  8. The latest SD version (not the subject of this thread, I know) still has noticeable edge halos, especially evident on the horizon shots during the "Dawn of Man" sequence and just about everywhere during the space station/white corridor scenes early on in the picture. They looked about the same as they did in the previous 16:9 enhancded DVD and the HDNET broadcast.

    I'm hoping to see the Blu-Ray this evening and will report back. If nothing else, the PCM 5.1 should be ear candy.

    Regards,

  9. Ken_McAlinden

    …I'm hoping to see the Blu-Ray this evening and will report back. If nothing else, the PCM 5.1 should be ear candy.

    …Well, the edge halos were there, but they were lower in intensity and less bothersome on the BRD then on the SD release. The ones on the SD release more or less jumped out at me while I had to look a bit more actively to notice them on the HD. I will now spend the evening trying to train myself to stop looking actively for them so I can enjoy the film. [​IMG] The PCM 5.1 track is as nice as I hoped it would be.
    Regards,

  10. BrettB

    Looks like the higher resolution is revealing the matte paintings at the beignning. A few shots are very ugly.

    They aren't matte paintings. They are large format still photographs that are front projected on to a screen that is coated with 3M reflective material. I think what we are seeing is an uneven application of that 3M material.
    Doug

  11. Interesting. Thanks for the info. At first I didn't know what was going on. It sort of looked like a dirty lens or something.

    The 20-30 mins I sampled after that were pretty damned impressive.

  12. Talk about an Odyssey…try finding one of these in a B&M store! [​IMG]
    The Best Buy store locater says that my local one has some in stock. I'm going to take a long lunch in a bit to try and track a copy down since Amazon is still listing this as 2-5 weeks and I'm not the waiting type…

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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!

  16. 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

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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).

  20. 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

  21. 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 [​IMG]
    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

  22. OliverK

    Hello Dave,
    good to meet each other on the forums again [​IMG]
    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

  23. Hey Oliver! Thanks for chiming in. Got some widescreen reviews waiting for you whenever you're ready. [​IMG]
    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?

  24. DaViD Boulet

    Hey Oliver! Thanks for chiming in. Got some widescreen reviews waiting for you whenever you're ready. [​IMG]
    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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. I saw 2001 in a historic theater in San Francisco that specializes in older films, film festivals, and events about 4 or 5 years ago, maybe it was even 2001. What struck me more was how bright the image was. The rear projection in the Dawn of Man scenes are almost washed out. I had never known that was rear projection till I saw the HD-DVD!
    The 2001 Hd-DVD was a real eye opener to me. The Dawn of Man scenes was terrific. The shots of the shuttle coming up to the Moon looked razor sharp to me. The contrast of the crater highlights and shadows was really nice! And I have been observing the moon recently a lot with a telescope. I am viewing on a 50" plasma.

  28. I am viewing on a 50" plasma.

    Thanks for sharing your screen-size. We should all (the whole HD forum) establish some basics for comparing our viewing experiences to help keep discussion meaningful (ie, so our various impressions can actually be understood in a context along side each other).

    When we watch films in a theater, we very often view the screen from between 1.25 and 1.75 screen-widths distance. The middle, at around 1.5 screen-widths, gets you close to that "30 degree viewing angle" where your peripheral vision starts to get stimulated and you go from "TV" to "Movie".

    Front projection systems in the home can duplicate this same type of viewing angle, which I'll call "wide angle". Naturally, since HD media should have reasonable transparency to the 35 mm film originals, when we talk about reviewing and critically evaluating the image quality of an HD transfer, it needs to be in the context of a wide-angle viewing system. Anything else will appear too small relative to the seating position which is fine for personal choice, but won't in any way reveal the level of detail you'd see if you went to the theater.

    If a 50" plasma is about 40" wide, then that means you'd need to sit around 60" away (about five feet) from the screen to get the "wide angle" effect. Now, there's nothing wrong with viewing a 50" plasma comfortably from your sofa that's 8-10 feet away from your screen. However, such a narrow viewing angle can't reveal the level of detail to be able to compare against a projected-film-experience (the context in which we should be evaluating HD transfers).

  29. I did not report the negative being in "pretty bad shape."
    It was used to produce the entire run of original 70mm prints, but was in far better condition that some other titles. Some dupes and tape repairs aside, the OCN was quite representative of a film of it's type when I saw it.

  30. Hey RAH,
    given your familiarity with the look of the projected film, in particular, do you feel that this new HD image reproduces the same sharpness/level of detail you've seen in projected 35mm and/or 70mm prints (or at least a reasonable sharpness/detail given the obvious resolution increase of 70mm)? I understand the positive accolades in general, but I'm curious about this one specific aspect of the image (sharpness/detail). You're watching on your Ruby?
    dave [​IMG]

  31. OliverK

    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

    I'm sorry Oliver I wasn't actually talking about HDM with regard to that but rather David's impression that the 35mm print of 2001 looked very sharp to him. I was suggesting that the reason it appeared so sharp to him was the same reason that 35mm prints from VistaVision was an improvement on standard 35mm/35mm prints. Being a reduction printing from 65mm the 35mm print is likely to show less grain and be somewhat sharper than a 35mm print that is 4 or 5 generations away from the ON.
    As to HDM again I'm not sure that a film such as Grand Prix, or 2001 would look any sharper coming from the 65mm ON that it they do now from a 35mm intermediary, even under the best of conditions. HD just doesn't have the resolution to be able to show the difference between 35mm and 65mm. Frankly I think Grand Prix is one of the sharpest and most detailed High Def movie I own.
    Doug

  32. Nelson Au

    I saw 2001 in a historic theater in San Francisco that specializes in older films, film festivals, and events about 4 or 5 years ago, maybe it was even 2001. What struck me more was how bright the image was. The rear projection in the Dawn of Man scenes are almost washed out. I had never known that was rear projection till I saw the HD-DVD!
    The 2001 Hd-DVD was a real eye opener to me. The Dawn of Man scenes was terrific. The shots of the shuttle coming up to the Moon looked razor sharp to me. The contrast of the crater highlights and shadows was really nice! And I have been observing the moon recently a lot with a telescope. I am viewing on a 50" plasma.

    It wasn't rear projection, it was front projection. Its a somewhat different system that give very different results on screen.
    Front projection uses a two way mirror in front of the camera lens, and a projector off to the side of the camera that projects the image off of the mirror and on to a screen behind the actors and settings. The screen is coated with a highly reflective 3M material. The same stuff used on road signs. Because the actors, props and sets aren't as highly reflective as the screen, the projected image doesn't show up on them, even though it is hitting them.
    Doug

  33. Robert Harris

    I did not report the negative being in "pretty bad shape."
    It was used to produced the entire run of original 70mm prints, but was in far better condition that some other titles. Some dupes and tape repairs aside, the OCN was quite representative of a film of it's type when I saw it.

    Sorry Robert, I misinterpreted your comments about the condition of the OCN.
    Doug

  34. DaViD Boulet

    Thanks for sharing your screen-size. We should all (the whole HD forum) establish some basics for comparing our viewing experiences to help keep discussion meaningful (ie, so our various impressions can actually be understood in a context along side each other).
    When we watch films in a theater, we very often view the screen from between 1.25 and 1.75 screen-widths distance. The middle, at around 1.5 screen-widths, gets you close to that "30 degree viewing angle" where your peripheral vision starts to get stimulated and you go from "TV" to "Movie".
    Front projection systems in the home can duplicate this same type of viewing angle, which I'll call "wide angle". Naturally, since HD media should have reasonable transparency to the 35 mm film originals, when we talk about reviewing and critically evaluating the image quality of an HD transfer, it needs to be in the context of a wide-angle viewing system. Anything else will appear too small relative to the seating position which is fine for personal choice, but won't in any way reveal the level of detail you'd see if you went to the theater.
    If a 50" plasma is about 40" wide, then that means you'd need to sit around 60" away (about five feet) from the screen to get the "wide angle" effect. Now, there's nothing wrong with viewing a 50" plasma comfortably from your sofa that's 8-10 feet away from your screen. However, such a narrow viewing angle can't reveal the level of detail to be able to compare against a projected-film-experience (the context in which we should be evaluating HD transfers).

    I agree with your thoughts 100% David on all these points. As a matter of fact i am about 5 to 6 feet away from my 50" plasma! Sometimes i feel like i am in a movie theater, even if the size to distance ratio puts me at the back of a theater by comparison! [​IMG]

  35. Douglas Monce

    I'm sorry Oliver I wasn't actually talking about HDM with regard to that but rather David's impression that the 35mm print of 2001 looked very sharp to him. I was suggesting that the reason it appeared so sharp to him was the same reason that 35mm prints from VistaVision was an improvement on standard 35mm/35mm prints. Being a reduction printing from 65mm the 35mm print is likely to show less grain and be somewhat sharper than a 35mm print that is 4 or 5 generations away from the ON.
    As to HDM again I'm not sure that a film such as Grand Prix, or 2001 would look any sharper coming from the 65mm ON that it they do now from a 35mm intermediary, even under the best of conditions. HD just doesn't have the resolution to be able to show the difference between 35mm and 65mm. Frankly I think Grand Prix is one of the sharpest and most detailed High Def movie I own.
    Doug

    Doug,
    completely agree on the 35mm reduction print – it SHOULD indeed look better than a "normal" 35mm print.
    Regarding the detail of Grand Prix on HDM. While Grand Prix is nicely detailed IMO it does not come close to the level of detail that can be seen in the best scenes of movies like Casino Royale and MI III.
    So where did the resolution go ? I don't know and I certainly would not want to imply that one has to use the original negative to arrive at a master to be used for HDM.
    It would however be the preferred way to go if only to get the most of what is available in resolution from the best material available. There will probably be 4k HDM in the future and for those it will not hurt to have very good masters.
    Oliver

  36. OliverK

    Doug,
    completely agree on the 35mm reduction print – it SHOULD indeed look better than a "normal" 35mm print.
    Regarding the detail of Grand Prix on HDM. While Grand Prix is nicely detailed IMO it does not come close to the level of detail that can be seen in the best scenes of movies like Casino Royale and MI III.
    So where did the resolution go ? I don't know and I certainly would not want to imply that one has to use the original negative to arrive at a master to be used for HDM.
    It would however be the preferred way to go if only to get the most of what is available in resolution from the best material available. There will probably be 4k HDM in the future and for those it will not hurt to have very good masters.
    Oliver

    I'm not seeing much more detail in Casino Royale or MI III than Grand Prix, but it is apples and oranges and you can't really tell a thing like that unless it is the same actual image, or you have a resolution chart so you can actually tell how much detail is really there.
    As for 4K HDM I have my doubts. Even at 2k you really have to have a fairly large screen to get the benefits of it. 4k seems a bit like over kill for home theater. I have no doubts that theatrical presentations will move higher, perhaps to 8k in the near future. There are already 8K digital cameras available for production.
    Doug

  37. Douglas Monce

    As to HDM again I'm not sure that a film such as Grand Prix, or 2001 would look any sharper coming from the 65mm ON that it they do now from a 35mm intermediary, even under the best of conditions. HD just doesn't have the resolution to be able to show the difference between 35mm and 65mm. Frankly I think Grand Prix is one of the sharpest and most detailed High Def movie I own.
    Doug

    I think HD can easily show the difference between 35mm and 70mm. For sure for older 70mm titles. Maybe not when you shoot 70mm and 35mm with the latest stocks and sharpest lenses. But for cases like LOA etc. HD will show clear differences.
    Concerning Grand Prix on HD-DVD I have heard it's way too filtered and lacks the grain of the original film look (with the HF detail that comes with it). I have not seen it myself.

  38. Douglas Monce

    I have no doubts that theatrical presentations will move higher, perhaps to 8k in the near future. There are already 8K digital cameras available for production.
    Doug

    Theaters won't go to 8K for decades, if ever. 4K is difficult enough. There are no 8K cameras for production outside prototype experimental Super HD systems. We have barely started with the first digital 4K cameras (with actual resolution closer to 3K). 4K will be gold standard for very long for regular cinema. If IMAX is going beyond that for their screens remains to be seen.

  39. Douglas Monce

    I'm not seeing much more detail in Casino Royale or MI III than Grand Prix, but it is apples and oranges and you can't really tell a thing like that unless it is the same actual image, or you have a resolution chart so you can actually tell how much detail is really there.

    Doug,
    I saw a 70mm release print of Grand Prix in a theater. It was at a festival and I said to myself that this was the most detailed film print I have ever seen, it almost looked too sharp at times.
    This is definitely not what I see on the HD-DVD. It is still very good and the best rendition of a movie shot in 65 mm that is available on HDM but it certainly could have the sharp as a tack look that you have in many scenes in MI III and Casino Royale WITHOUT any enhancements.
    BTW: I am sitting at about 1.1 to 1.2 screen widths away when I watch these movies and I think that sitting at such a distance helps tremendously to be immersed in the movie but also to see differences between transfers.
    And 4k is nice if you want to sit about 1 screen width away in your home theater – I would like that very much [​IMG] I can see how this will always be a fringe market as we approach the resolving limits of the human eye – therefore no need to go beyond 4k outside of commercial theaters where indeed 8k should be preferred for a smooth picture in the front rows.
    Oliver

  40. To David Boulet:
    To my eye image resolution is screen size dependent. An HD image can look beautiful when properly projected on a screen of nominal size, certainly ten feet or so across, but will begin to fall apart at a certain size. I've never experimented to see what that size is.
    A 35mm image can be beautiful when properly projected on a screen up to forty or possibly fifty feet, but will then become problematic in both resolution as well as illumination at a greater size.
    70mm really doesn't seem to look at that more impressive in comparison to 35 on a screen at twenty or thirty feet, but begins to shine after that as the image will refuse to break up and the added illumination will allow it go far larger than 35. A properly projected 70mm sourced image on a sixty foot screen can be magnificent.
    RAH

  41. Douglas Monce

    It wasn't rear projection, it was front projection. Its a somewhat different system that give very different results on screen.
    Front projection uses a two way mirror in front of the camera lens, and a projector off to the side of the camera that projects the image off of the mirror and on to a screen behind the actors and settings. The screen is coated with a highly reflective 3M material. The same stuff used on road signs. Because the actors, props and sets are as highly reflective as the screen, the projected image doesn't show up on them, even though it is hitting them.
    Doug

    Thanks for that explanation. I didn't know about that. (I assume you meant to say that the actors, props, and sets aren't as reflective as the screen. [​IMG] )
    It's like getting an extra extra feature. [​IMG]

  42. OliverK

    Doug,
    I saw a 70mm release print of Grand Prix in a theater. It was at a festival and I said to myself that this was the most detailed film print I have ever seen, it almost looked too sharp at times.
    This is definitely not what I see on the HD-DVD. It is still very good and the best rendition of a movie shot in 65 mm that is available on HDM but it certainly could have the sharp as a tack look that you have in many scenes in MI III and Casino Royale WITHOUT any enhancements.
    BTW: I am sitting at about 1.1 to 1.2 screen widths away when I watch these movies and I think that sitting at such a distance helps tremendously to be immersed in the movie but also to see differences between transfers.
    And 4k is nice if you want to sit about 1 screen width away in your home theater – I would like that very much [​IMG] I can see how this will always be a fringe market as we approach the resolving limits of the human eye – therefore no need to go beyond 4k outside of commercial theaters where indeed 8k should be preferred for a smooth picture in the front rows.
    Oliver

    Given that 35mm has the equivalent of more than 4k resolution, and 65mm vastly exceeds that, you aren't likely to be able to see the difference between 35mm and 65mm on a 2k HD system anymore than you can see the difference on a 480p system. The only differences you might see would be if the film elements are several generations away from the negative. Also dirt and dust specks will appear smaller coming from a 65mm element. However there just isn't enough resolution in HD to show the complete image detail in 35mm much less 65mm.
    I'm not talking about 35mm release prints which probably have considerably less detail than 4k.
    Doug

  43. Michel_Hafner

    Theaters won't go to 8K for decades, if ever. 4K is difficult enough. There are no 8K cameras for production outside prototype experimental Super HD systems. We have barely started with the first digital 4K cameras (with actual resolution closer to 3K). 4K will be gold standard for very long for regular cinema. If IMAX is going beyond that for their screens remains to be seen.

    Your absolutely right about the 8k production cameras. For some reason I had it in my head that the Red One production camera was 8k. I think I was reading somewhere that they are developing an 8k camera.
    Doug

  44. Given that 35mm has the equivalent of more than 4k resolution, and 65mm vastly exceeds that, you aren't likely to be able to see the difference between 35mm and 65mm on a 2k HD system anymore than you can see the difference on a 480p system. The only differences you might see would be if the film elements are several generations away from the negative. Also dirt and dust specks will appear smaller coming from a 65mm element. However there just isn't enough resolution in HD to show the complete image detail in 35mm much less 65mm.

    I'm not talking about 35mm release prints which probably have considerably less detail than 4k.

    Hey Doug,

    I think we all agree with that statement. The catch which I was discussing was that the scanning-equipment used, if inferior, can introduce problems such that a scan from a 65mm element looks softer/worse than that of a 35mm element (even through the lens of SD and HD resolution media). So far, this was the typical situation with SD DVD. Now it looks like the trend might continue with HD media until the studios start to invest in transfers using equipment properly optimized for large-format elements.

    Hopefully by the time Ben-Hur rolls around on HD, Warner will have learned this lesson. There's just too much beauty and detail in those 65mm elements to toss away on a transfer that looks less-sharp than a conventional 35mm scan!

  45. DaViD Boulet

    Hey Doug,
    I think we all agree with that statement. The catch which I was discussing was that the scanning-equipment used, if inferior, can introduce problems such that a scan from a 65mm element looks softer/worse than that of a 35mm element (even through the lens of SD and HD resolution media). So far, this was the typical situation with SD DVD. Now it looks like the trend might continue with HD media until the studios start to invest in transfers using equipment properly optimized for large-format elements.
    Hopefully by the time Ben-Hur rolls around on HD, Warner will have learned this lesson. There's just too much beauty and detail in those 65mm elements to toss away on a transfer that looks less-sharp than a conventional 35mm scan!

    Oh I agree completely. Ben-Hur is a great example of a 65mm scan that while it looks nice, is a bit on the soft side. I think someone here said that the only high quality 65mm scanner that they know of is at Fotokem, but that it is very expensive to use. I believe that is one reason that Warner has been doing these HD masters from 35mm elements.
    Personally I think Grand Prix looks amazing, and I'm not seeing any thing that looks like grain filtering as has been suggested. I don't know if you've had the chance to look at that title or not David.
    Doug

  46. I would just like some feedback on this title in HD. Is this title worth buying in HD? And what format should I purchase it or does it matter? I am interested in this title but if the video is not all that great then I will wait to buy it.

  47. Dave,

    It's definitely worth the purchase. Better than any hv (home video) format that's come before, and it looks very good. I'm just disappointed that it lacks that ultra-clear "snap" that I saw in the theater.

    Both formats use the same video file (identical bit-for-bit) and both offer lossless audio (PCM on the BD and TrueHD on the HD DVD). It's a very "format neutral" release from WB.

  48. Douglas Monce

    Given that 35mm has the equivalent of more than 4k resolution, and 65mm vastly exceeds that, you aren't likely to be able to see the difference between 35mm and 65mm on a 2k HD system anymore than you can see the difference on a 480p system. The only differences you might see would be if the film elements are several generations away from the negative. Also dirt and dust specks will appear smaller coming from a 65mm element. However there just isn't enough resolution in HD to show the complete image detail in 35mm much less 65mm.

    Doug,
    I think we do not really disagree on matters but you don't really notice it [​IMG]
    Let me try again: I do not think that 70mm films should look better on HDM than newer films shot on 35mm. BUT: In most cases they should not have to look worse either. At the moment, not only IMO they do.
    Michel has also mentioned Grand Prix and I have the same impression of the HD-DVD. Warner seem to use a way to filter grain that preserves quite a but of HF detail but still Grand Prix does not come close to what it could have looked on HDM. Part of it surely is due to this filtering, hard to say how the movie would have looked without it.
    Oliver

  49. Contrast build-up through succesive generations will sometime make the apparent image sharpness and detail of a projected film print seem higher than it really is. This no doubt presents headaches when trying to figure out how best to represent the same image on video. I did not see any recent film presentations of "2001:ASO" to comment specifically on whether or not this explains David's observations, though.

    Regards,

  50. Douglas Monce

    Given that 35mm has the equivalent of more than 4k resolution, and 65mm vastly exceeds that…
    Doug

    35mm and 70mm refer to negative size first, not image quality and detail. 35mm and 70mm are merely useful terms for upper limits for image quality. Actual detail on 35mm and 70mm film depends on many factors, especially
    – film stock used (is it 75 years old, 50, 25 or 1? Is it slow or fast?)
    – lenses, exposure, development, camera movement, object movement etc.
    It is simply not so that 35mm = > 4K. It may be so that some very specific 35mm is >= 4K, but the very large majority of it is not for various reasons. When you have seen 70mm and 35mm on a 4K projector you can see the limits of 35mm quickly compared to full 3K or 4K material. And all this on a 4K projector, not 6K not 8K. It's sobering. Full res 4K (and I mean MTF is not much down at 4K) looks like 70mm, not like typical 35mm at all.

  51. Robert Harris

    To David Boulet:
    To my eye image resolution is screen size dependent. An HD image can look beautiful when properly projected on a screen of nominal size, certainly ten feet or so across, but will begin to fall apart at a certain size. I've never experimented to see what that size is.
    RAH

    It really depends what you are looking for and what quality your HD is. Concerning the 8 bit limit of consumer HD and the restricted color gamut it's visible at any image size. Looking at studio quality 10 bit 4:4:4 SR tapes you are looking at something quite close to 2K DI data except for the color space. So it holds up as long as 2K holds up.
    Looking at consumer HD discs at lot depends on the quality of the mastering and compression. If there's EE and DNR artifacts it falls apart for me on normal HD TV monitors. No need to go 2 or 3 meters wide. If there is no EE and DNR, it's well compressed and everything is state of the art it holds up like in a cinema (not counting the 8 bit and color limitations). You can project a top BR disc on a 2K DLP in a cinema and it looks very nice.

  52. The acid test on 2001 is whether you can read the instructions for the Zero Gravity Toilet. The HD DVD is pretty good in that respect; they're readable at least half the way down, but then they get a bit smeary. Prior home video versions were quite illegible.

  53. Mark Zimmer

    The acid test on 2001 is whether you can read the instructions for the Zero Gravity Toilet. The HD DVD is pretty good in that respect; they're readable at least half the way down, but then they get a bit smeary. Prior home video versions were quite illegible.

    With decent upscaling on a 720p or better display, one can make out the text for the first few steps pretty well off of the remastered SD-DVD before the zoom out.
    Regards,

  54. The toilet instructions are not an acid test on their own. If they weren't legible in a 35mm print then they won't be legible in HD. If they were legible in a print, then they should be legible now.

    No matter what aspect of the film you select, the only valid litmus test is whether or not it captures the full fidelity of the original projected print. 35mm-reference is generally the rule for HD reproduction. But at not time should an HD transfer taken from a larger-format source (65mm) look inferior to a transfer from a sister 35mm copy.

  55. OliverK

    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.
    Oliver

    So, was this a "4K" scan?
    Which HD Discs use a "6K" scan?
    I thought "Grand Prix" was indeed held in very high regard, when it was first released, as an HD Disc transfer. With both "MotB" & BotB", easily besting their SD DVD counterparts. Wining many fans in the HD format.
    Which transfers do you see as "the very best discs available in either format"?
    Thanks.

  56. The instructions are legible on a print (though they go by very fast and you don't have the benefit of a pause button). Back when they had campus film societies I went to numerous showings of 2001 and at one time made a point of checking whether they actually could be read, and they could. This obviously was 35mm (or possibly even 16mm, I'm not positive).

  57. Michel_Hafner

    = 4K, but the very large majority of it is not for various reasons. When you have seen 70mm and 35mm on a 4K projector you can see the limits of 35mm quickly compared to full 3K or 4K material. And all this on a 4K projector, not 6K not 8K. It's sobering. Full res 4K (and I mean MTF is not much down at 4K) looks like 70mm, not like typical 35mm at all.

    Michel,
    Of course there are many factors that can effect the resolving power of 35mm film. A film like Robin Hood from the middle 30s probably doesn't have more than 2k of resolution, given film stocks of the time and the nature of 3 strip technicolor photography. Frankly the biggest factor is the fact that many of these films are using a digital intermediary now, which instantly restricts the film to what ever it was scanned in at. In some cases its 2k, others its 4k.
    But frankly we are talking about HD here which is not even close to the resolving power of a 4k projector that has a 4.4.4 color space. I have no doubt that at 4k you can start to see the limits of some 35mm elements. As I said a quality first generation 35mm element has just a little more than 4k of resolution.
    Another factor that can make HD seem to be sharper than 35mm film is the fact that there is no gate weave. Gate weave can quickly reduce the apparent sharpness of projected 35mm film.
    But as for HD at home with compressed video, I still say there isn't enough resolution to be able to tell the difference between 35mm and 65mm with quality elements.
    Doug

  58. Ed St. Clair

    So, was this a "4K" scan?
    Which HD Discs use a "6K" scan?
    I thought "Grand Prix" was indeed held in very high regard, when it was first released, as an HD Disc transfer. With both "MotB" & BotB", easily besting their SD DVD counterparts. Wining many fans in the HD format.
    Which transfers do you see as "the very best discs available in either format"?
    Thanks.

    Ed,
    I have no idea if the HD-DVD of Grand Prix originated from a 4k scan master from looking at it, could as well have originated from a 2k master.
    From what I have seen (5 movies so far) there is no large format movie out at the moment that reproduces as much detail as is possible with HDM.
    Besting the SD counterpart is not really an achievement when the film has the potential to have the highest resolution there is on HDM. Both BotB and Grand Prix fall short in that regard, as do Mutiny on the Bounty and Spartacus. I would definitely expect stellar resolution / no high frequency roll-off from the first two, the second pair are not on the same level of quality with regard to the original camera negative but still should have enough detail to look much better.
    If I was to rate the movies I have watched so far that are large format based I would rank them as follows:
    1. The Searchers (the best, there has been discussion on the colors but they do not look outright wrong to me)
    2. Grand Prix (pretty detailed with highest frequencies subdued, could be both bitrate and DNR related)
    3. Mutiny on the Bounty (soft + DNR but for me still pleasing to look at)
    4. Battle of the Bulge (EE and DNR form an unholy alliance – definitely too much for me)
    5. Spartacus (a catastrophe, shame on Universal ! Still an improvement over the Criterion DVD in transparency and detail, colors look like they stole them from Ben Hur -> definitely wrong)
    Despite some shortcomings I would definitely recommend to buy 1 to 3, but I am a bit undecided on BotB. I would advise against buying Spartacus – if you want to watch it rent it.
    Regarding best available in either format: From what I have seen so far both Casino Royale and MI III do have some very detailed scenes and a high level of detail throughout the movie, with edges at times looking so well defined that I immediately looked for some EE – but they both are just very good, not overenhanced. Also they both do look to me as if little or no DNR has been used on them, certainly little enough for me to enjoy them. If properly done Grand Prix and BotB definitely could be up there in the parameters mentioned but a direct comparison will show you they aren't.

  59. Douglas Monce

    But as for HD at home with compressed video, I still say there isn't enough resolution to be able to tell the difference between 35mm and 65mm with quality elements.
    Doug

    Define quality elements. Take the original negative of LOA (theoretically), scan it at 6K and downsample to 1080p going close to the theoretical limit of 1080p. Then do the same with the best 35mm positive you can find from LOA made with the stock from the 60s, then the same with the best stock today. The first version will look the best in 1080p, the third second best and the second worst. There will be clear differences between the first and the second, and small ones between the first and the third. That is my prediction. It's built on the fact that 1080p made from oversampled 70mm can have a flat MTF upto 1080p, while the 35mm element can not. That is visible.
    (Apart from different MTF 70mm sources provide less noise/grain than corresponding 35mm which is also visible on HD where super clean material can be shown as super clean.)

  60. I just watched my first two blu-ray dvd's – 2001: a space odyssey and Battle of The Bulge on my PS3 and Sanyo Z4 720p projector using component cables. While they look good, they don't seem much better than the SD versions I have. I can't flip back and forth easily as I don't have a receiver with multiple inputs. Maybe then I will be able to see the difference but, I don't think it will be that great. A 1080p projector I guess would show more of a difference.

  61. OliverK

    definitely wrong)

    The Searchers was filmed in VistaVision but the release prints were all 35mm. The rest of the films listed were in 70mm, Mutiny on The Bounty and Battle of The Bulge 70mm anamorphic.

  62. Michel_Hafner

    Define quality elements. Take the original negative of LOA (theoretically), scan it at 6K and downsample to 1080p going close to the theoretical limit of 1080p. Then do the same with the best 35mm positive you can find from LOA made with the stock from the 60s, then the same with the best stock today. The first version will look the best in 1080p, the third second best and the second worst. There will be clear differences between the first and the second, and small ones between the first and the third. That is my prediction. It's built on the fact that 1080p made from oversampled 70mm can have a flat MTF upto 1080p, while the 35mm element can not. That is visible.
    (Apart from different MTF 70mm sources provide less noise/grain than corresponding 35mm which is also visible on HD where super clean material can be shown as super clean.)

    I'm not sure that the original negative of LOA is in any condition to be scanned at any resolution, so you would most likely have to use the new elements that were created in the restoration, which would be printed on films stock circa 1989. I'm sure Robert Harris can correct me if I'm wrong on this.
    Interestingly I saw LOA in a theater in 70mm on a 65 foot screen in 1989. It was glorious. Not a week later I saw The Last Crusade on the same screen in a 70mm blow up. I was amazed at how far 35mm film has come. While it didn't have quite the level of detail or sharpness of LOA, it was much closer than I would have expected.
    Doug

  63. RolandL

    The Searchers was filmed in VistaVision but the release prints were all 35mm. The rest of the films listed were in 70mm, Mutiny on The Bounty and Battle of The Bulge 70mm anamorphic.

    Actually we got quite a mix there with two movies shot in each Ultra Panavision 70 and Super Panavision 70, one in Super Technirama 70 (similar to Vistavision, but intended for release on 70mm) and one in Vistavision.
    That's why I simply called them large format movies – much shorter [​IMG]
    Regarding your equipment preventing you to see the difference to a DVD: 720p projectors are good enough to show a difference if there is one provided an appropriate downconversion to 720p is done somewhere in the signal chain. Not too many transfers have that much detail beyond 1280 x 720, Battle of the Bulge definitely hasn't. Regarding the Z4: It always looked pretty nice when fed 1080i and that might actually be preferred to 720p from the PS3 if the PS3 still has that bug when putting out 720p (I think that was just upsampled 480p for some time).
    Oliver

  64. I enjoyed the review of the HD-DVD release of 2001 A Space Odyssey. I am seriously thinking about picking up this title this friday along with Pirates 3, Mr & Mrs Smith, Close Encounters and Cast Away. [​IMG] I am thinking I will have to go with the Blu-ray version as I hate WB's use of Dialog Normalization. So just like the HP box set I will have to go with the Blu-ray. I might how ever have to go with HD-DVD for The Omega Man however, as it looks like the Blu-ray only has a mono sound track.
    How good does 2001 look and how good is the sound on the Blu-ray version?
    Again great review on the HD-DVD. [​IMG]

  65. Dave Moritz

    How good does 2001 look and how good is the sound on the Blu-ray version?

    The Blu-Ray and the HD DVD use the same VC-1 encoded transfer, and they are both very good. There is some low intensity ringing on some high contrast edges noticeable in a few sequences, but it is very mild compared to the SD DVD versions. The PCM audio on the Blu-Ray is fantastic – a giant step-up from the DD5.1 on the SD DVD. Special features are the same for all versions, and the Blu-ray has more choices for alternate language tracks.
    Regards,

  66. OliverK

    Regarding your equipment preventing you to see the difference to a DVD: 720p projectors are good enough to show a difference if there is one provided an appropriate downconversion to 720p is done somewhere in the signal chain. Not too many transfers have that much detail beyond 1280 x 720, Battle of the Bulge definitely hasn't. Regarding the Z4: It always looked pretty nice when fed 1080i and that might actually be preferred to 720p from the PS3 if the PS3 still has that bug when putting out 720p (I think that was just upsampled 480p for some time).
    Oliver

    I have a new receiver, the Yamaha 661 (only $355 on Amazon) so, I can now do a comparison of SD DVD 480p vs Blu-ray 720p. Very little difference on Battle of the Bulge. Maybe a very tiny bit sharper. The CINERAMA logo at the beginning has EE on the SD DVD but none on Blu-ray – that's the only big difference. I changed the output on the PS3 to 1080i but it looks the same or maybe a very tiny bit better with the 720p output. When I watch HD signals through cable, they do look a lot better than SD DVD.

  67. RolandL

    I have a new receiver, the Yamaha 661 (only $355 on Amazon) so, I can now do a comparison of SD DVD 480p vs Blu-ray 720p. Very little difference on Battle of the Bulge. Maybe a very tiny bit sharper. The CINERAMA logo at the beginning has EE on the SD DVD but none on Blu-ray – that's the only big difference. I changed the output on the PS3 to 1080i but it looks the same or maybe a very tiny bit better with the 720p output. When I watch HD signals through cable, they do look a lot better than SD DVD.

    Roland,
    I am not too surprised about your results. From my limited viewing of this title I can say I was astonished about the reviews it got – not a very good transfer that also has some EE and DNR.
    BTW: I have known your site for a few years now and it is nice to meet on a forum like this [​IMG]
    Oliver

  68. OliverK

    Roland,
    I am not too surprised about your results. From my limited viewing of this title I can say I was astonished about the reviews it got – not a very good transfer that also has some EE and DNR.
    BTW: I have known your site for a few years now and it is nice to meet on a forum like this [​IMG]
    Oliver

    Hi Oliver,
    I'm not saying the transfer is bad. The SD version looks fine for SD. I just thought the Blu-ray would looked at lot better than the SD.
    I would like to have Blu-ray or HD-DVD copies of all the films promoted as being "In CINERAMA". But, if they are not much better the SD versions, I'll skip them.

  69. RolandL

    I would like to have Blu-ray or HD-DVD copies of all the films promoted as being "In CINERAMA". But, if they are not much better the SD versions, I'll skip them.

    I will probably still get all of them even if they are just a little better as this will show with closer viewing distances. Even the very bad HD-DVD of Spartacus is better than its DVD counterpart – why would I not want to watch the movie in the best version available even if the increase is not so big ?
    So I think I will pretty much buy all large format based stuff on HDM and I eagerly wait for the day when the first HD disc comes out that is making full use of the potential of the large negative area that 70mm has to offer.
    Oliver

  70. I will probably still get all of them even if they are just a little better as this will show with closer viewing distances. Even the very bad HD-DVD of Spartacus is better than its DVD counterpart – why would I not want to watch the movie in the best version available even if the increase is not so big ?

    On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, purchaching inferior/poorly mastered material tells the studios that we don't demand optimal quality with HD media. A hand-written letter to Universal expressing disappointment with the PQ of their Spartacus disc would do the world of cinephiles much more good.

  71. DaViD Boulet

    On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, purchaching inferior/poorly mastered material tells the studios that we don't demand optimal quality with HD media. A hand-written letter to Universal expressing disappointment with the PQ of their Spartacus disc would do the world of cinephiles much more good.

    I hear you and I leave the hand-written letters to you guys in the US but I agree there should be more complaining.
    I think the biggest problems are the titles that are "good enough" for most and that get pretty nice reviews despite their shortcomings, Spartacus was so bad it even got some bd reviews but others just slip under the radar.
    And I also think that most people in the studio would suspect that if a title like Spartacus does not sell it is due to the movie not being popular.
    So to put something out there voicing disapproval of subpar transfers is very important – not buying and not saying anything will help even less.
    Would be even better if some videophiles among us would be able to have a look at the final product before a transfer is approved and to compare it to the master it is taken from – now that would be something to strive for.
    Oliver

  72. Would be even better if some videophiles among us would be able to have a look at the final product before a transfer is approved and to compare it to the master it is taken from – now that would be something to strive for.

    Tell me about it. You know… that wouldn't be a bad idea. Not bad at all…
    [​IMG]

  73. OliverK

    Would be even better if some videophiles among us would be able to have a look at the final product before a transfer is approved and to compare it to the master it is taken from – now that would be something to strive for.
    Oliver

    I think that is an incredibly bad idea. It's bad enough to have every yahoo at the studio chiming it, but to have some self professed "videophile" weighing in on how a particular title should look is just laughable. First of all there are so many different opinions on what these things should look like, who are you going to send. Just because you think a film should look a particular way doesn't mean that I do.
    Frankly I'll take the professionals who understand the strengths and limitations of the hardware and software over an armature who THINKS he knows.
    Doug

  74. Doug,

    I'm assuming that anyone evaluating would be given the opportunity to a/b against the original projected print.

    Frankly I'll take the professionals who understand the strengths and limitations of the hardware and software over an armature who THINKS he knows.

    Looking at discs like Mary Poppins and Ben-Hur, even high-profile releases often manage to get mangled despite all the "experts" at the helm.

  75. DaViD Boulet

    Doug,
    I'm assuming that anyone evaluating would be given the opportunity to a/b against the original projected print.
    Looking at discs like Mary Poppins and Ben-Hur, even high-profile releases often manage to get mangled despite all the "experts" at the helm.

    In spite of some mediocre releases I still say no. A layman has no business in a telecine room. Whats next the CNN audience voting on a military battle plan?
    Doug

  76. Douglas Monce

    I think that is an incredibly bad idea. It's bad enough to have every yahoo at the studio chiming it, but to have some self professed "videophile" weighing in on how a particular title should look is just laughable. First of all there are so many different opinions on what these things should look like, who are you going to send. Just because you think a film should look a particular way doesn't mean that I do.
    Frankly I'll take the professionals who understand the strengths and limitations of the hardware and software over an armature who THINKS he knows.
    Doug

    Doug,
    this brings this thread way off topic and out of respect to RAH and as it is me who started this I will open another thread and adress your questions there.
    Oliver

  77. I am going tonight to see a 70mm print of 2001 at the Cinerama in Seattle. It will be the 12th time I have seen it in 70mm. I feel very fortunate right now! My favorite movie in my favorite theatre. I can hardly wait.

    Brian

  78. I have to admit I was kind of disappointed in this one. I was expecting more. Don't get me wrong, I think the film looks really good in a lot of places, but it also looked soft in a lot of other areas. The meeting at the Clavius base looked pretty soft and detailess, at least on my set up. Unless it was supposed to look like that. I don't remember ever seeing a theatrical screening of this film.

  79. Edwin-S

    I have to admit I was kind of disappointed in this one. I was expecting more.

    The difference between 70mm in the cinema and on HDM media is this:
    In the cinema most movies shot in 70mm look superior to anything shot in 35mm. On HDM IMO no 70mm transfer comes close to the best 35mm transfers [​IMG]
    I hope this will change with the upcoming Fox releases of The Longest Day and Patton. Please note that none of the large format based releases so far look really bad with the notable exception of Spartacus (RAH was polite neough not to comment on it) but IMO they do not look that stunning either.

  80. I just watched this about 2 weekends ago in Blu-Ray and I thought it looked stunning. I saw details I never saw before, specifically with the rotating space station section (first Blue Danube part).

    I had absolutely no issues at all with the way it looked and was in awe with it at most times. The Stargate scene was breathtaking.

    The sound was also the best I have heard on any home format. Beautiful sound!

    The special features were decent for the most part. I could do without Keir Dullea reading from papers on screen, but aside from that they were good additions.

    A masterful disc IMO.

  81. OliverK

    The difference between 70mm in the cinema and on HDM media is this:
    In the cinema most movies shot in 70mm look superior to anything shot in 35mm. On HDM IMO no 70mm transfer comes close to the best 35mm transfers [​IMG]
    I hope this will change with the upcoming Fox releases of The Longest Day and Patton. Please note that none of the large format based releases so far look really bad with the notable exception of Spartacus (RAH was polite neough not to comment on it) but IMO they do not look that stunning either.

    I guess that depends on what you call the best looking 35mm transfers. I think Grand Prix is probably the best looking film on HD right now. Of course it comes from a 35mm reduction print and not directly from 65mm.
    If you are talking about actual 65mm transfered directly to HD then I agree with you. But then I've only seen one direct transfer of 65mm and thats the above mentioned Spartacus. I don't know of any others on HD that are direct from 65mm
    To be honest, I'm not sure there is really enough resolution in HD to be able to see a dramatic difference between 35mm and 65mm anyway.
    Doug

  82. Douglas Monce

    To be honest, I'm not sure there is really enough resolution in HD to be able to see a dramatic difference between 35mm and 65mm anyway.

    I will gladly settle for as detailed as the best movies shot in 35mm [​IMG]
    Oliver

  83. Douglas Monce

    If you are talking about actual 65mm transfered directly to HD then I agree with you. But then I've only seen one direct transfer of 65mm and thats the above mentioned Spartacus. I don't know of any others on HD that are direct from 65mm

    Blade Runner SFX is directly from 65mm 6K scan.

  84. OliverK

    Grand Prix is nice but is not as detailed as other stuff available on HDM.
    It definitely is the best quality transfer of a movie shot in 70mm that is available on HDM.

    Specifically what films in 35mm do you think have better detail than Grand Prix? I don't think I've seen anything that tops it.
    Doug

  85. Douglas Monce

    Specifically what films in 35mm do you think have better detail than Grand Prix? I don't think I've seen anything that tops it.
    Doug

    There are a lot of closeups and medium shots that clearly do look rather soft, also the wide angle shots at the races that were probably done with a helicopter do not look as good as they could imo. I think it basically comes down to the fact high frequency detail and therefore edges are somewhat softened in this transfer, giving it that slightly soft look most of the times that looks almot odd with all the detail that comes with it. For significantly better performance in that regard you have to look no further than Casino Royale which I think is a title everybody knows. It might look like video but it is still superior under the conditions I described, indicating less rolloff at higher frequencies.
    Now somebody might say that Grand Prix is film and not video and this is not how it is supposed to look but I saw a premiere release print myself and the whole time while watching the movie I thought to myself that I could not believe how sharp and yet artefactfree it looked – the amount of detail and the sharp edges were giving the movie a kind of HDcam sharpness if you want to say it that way but still with the look of film – it was stunning.
    Oliver

  86. OliverK

    There are a lot of closeups and medium shots that clearly do look rather soft, also the wide angle shots at the races that were probably done with a helicopter do not look as good as they could imo. I think it basically comes down to the fact high frequency detail and therefore edges are somewhat softened in this transfer, giving it that slightly soft look most of the times that looks almot odd with all the detail that comes with it. For significantly better performance in that regard you have to look no further than Casino Royale which I think is a title everybody knows. It might look like video but it is still superior under the conditions I described, indicating less rolloff at higher frequencies.
    Now somebody might say that Grand Prix is film and not video and this is not how it is supposed to look but I saw a premiere release print myself and the whole time while watching the movie I thought to myself that I could not believe how sharp and yet artefactfree it looked – the amount of detail and the sharp edges were giving the movie a kind of HDcam sharpness if you want to say it that way but still with the look of film – it was stunning.
    Oliver

    Well all I have to do is point to the close up shots of Toshirô Mifune in the scenes where he is hiring James Garner. The dots on his tie are razor sharp. You can even see the detail in his jacket.
    Casino Royale is a bad example because although it was shot on film, the DI was artificially sharpened, edge enhancement added and grain reduced with the approval of the director before release prints were made. Now if you saw this film projected on film then the grain reduction wouldn't be noticeable because of the added grain of the release print. I understand that this is becoming a fairly common practice with films that use a DI.
    Interestingly I thought that Zodiac, which was shot on the Thompson Viper, looks more like film than Casino Royale.
    Doug

  87. Douglas Monce

    Interestingly I thought that Zodiac, which was shot on the Thompson Viper, looks more like film than Casino Royale.

    I had very mixed feelings when watching Zodiac – some shots looked extremely artificial and only after I watched the movie I looked it up to see if it was shot with some sort of HD camera.
    So while we agree to disagree let us hope that the new Fox releases will surpass the quality of Grand Prix – I certainly do [​IMG]
    Oliver

  88. That is a better shot but a lot of others don't look as good. That was not the case in the theater where in a festival spanning 3 days this was the most detailed movie, looking almost artificially sharp for film. My point is that theatrically Grand Prix looked as sharp as Casino Royale and then some but WITHOUT artificial sharpness added. Where is it gone ? I don't know.

    Oliver, which festival did you see it at? I saw it at the Lafayette theater in NY USA a few years back. It *was* the sharpest, most detailed 35mm print I'd seen… there and almost anywhere else. It was shocking. I remember thinking "even HD doesn't look this sharp, 3-D, or detailed".

    The HD DVD/BD looks almost fuzzy by comparison. I'm not impressed given what I saw on the 35mm projected print.

  89. DaViD Boulet

    Oliver, which festival did you see it at? I saw it at the Lafayette theater in NY USA a few years back. It *was* the sharpest, most detailed 35mm print I'd seen… there and almost anywhere else. It was shocking. I remember thinking "even HD doesn't look this sharp, 3-D, or detailed".
    The HD DVD/BD looks almost fuzzy by comparison. I'm not impressed given what I saw on the 35mm projected print.

    David,
    I saw it at the Karlsruhe 70mm Festival in Germany. The VERY weird thing was that they showed Grand Prix, Spartacus and Mutiny on the Bounty in the exact order they were released in HD. Needless to say in the months after the festival I put in my HD-DVD'S and was very disappointed to see how soft they looked compared to what I saw there. Of the 7 large format movies that were shown the premiere copy of Grand Prix looked the best and IMO topped even the new prints of South Pacific and Cleopatra that were of course still looking spectacular and with non-faded colors to boot.
    Oliver

  90. OK, finally got my Blu Ray player, so now it's on to the disks…

    Can anyone tell me if the audio in the man-ape scenes is as horrible as it was on the DVD? That nasty tanky comb-filtered mess was enough to make me want to not listen.

    I had the opportunity to see this film in 1997, it was a spanking-new print and was projected in a refurbed theater. The event was a sort of Birthday Party for Hal at the University of Illinois. I doubt that the high-def will come close to that experience, but hope it will be good enough!

    I run a 70mm projector here at work, and have run the same films on 35mm equipment. The difference is astounding. I'm hoping that the upgrade from DVD to BD will be similar…

  91. Has there been any hint that this might be included in a Blu-ray version of the SD DVD Stanley Kubrick Collection? I was going to buy the latter, but would obviously prefer BD if available, while conversely I'd feel kinda dumb if I bought the 2001 BD standalone, only for a BD Collection to come out later. I guess I don't mind waiting if there are future plans for one, but the thing is I don't know if there are any?

  92. OliverK

    The difference between 70mm in the cinema and on HDM media is this:
    In the cinema most movies shot in 70mm look superior to anything shot in 35mm. On HDM IMO no 70mm transfer comes close to the best 35mm transfers [​IMG]
    I hope this will change with the upcoming Fox releases of The Longest Day and Patton.

    If only it were so! That turned out to be wishful thinking [​IMG] TLD in particular looks godawful.

  93. I recently saw this projected in 70mm at AFI's Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD. I was disappointed to see the print in such bad shape. There was lots of print damage, dirt and severe flicker for the first hour. Then it was more watchable except for the flicker which diminished only slightly. The film was never really sharp. Which leads me to a thought : If the AFI can't get a better print of this iconic film, probably the days of seeing these large format films in their original format are near its end. I will say the sound was fantastic and blaring, especially Strauss' "Sunrise". Or maybe we've been spoiled by Blu-ray.

  94. Originally Posted by schtan /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/90#post_3947331
    I recently saw this projected in 70mm at AFI's Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD. I was disappointed to see the print in such bad shape. There was lots of print damage, dirt and severe flicker for the first hour. Then it was more watchable except for the flicker which diminished only slightly. The film was never really sharp. Which leads me to a thought : If the AFI can't get a better print of this iconic film, probably the days of seeing these large format films in their original format are near its end. I will say the sound was fantastic and blaring, especially Strauss' "Sunrise". Or maybe we've been spoiled by Blu-ray.

    Flicker and sharpness should might best not be attributed to the print.

    Might they have been running a 35?

    If 70, sounds more like projection problems, unless perfs were either damaged or embossed, and print would not lay flat in gate.

    RAH

  95. It's being advertised as a 70mm Spectacular through the summer. I think they're showing Vertigo now. If it is mainly a projection problem, that would be even more disappointing that they couldn't get it right. Occasionally perfs were visible so it sounds like you are right.

  96. The newest 70mm prints were made in 2001, I'm surprised they'd be so beat up. Although, when I went to see this projected in 70mm at the now defunct Loews Astor Plaza in NYC that year, they stupidly removed the intermission card and just spliced the next reel on, so the film just went on going with no break. So I guess anything is possible if some theaters have such low regard for how the movie was meant to be played.
    Vincent

  97. Vincent_P

    The newest 70mm prints were made in 2001, I'm surprised they'd be so beat up. Although, when I went to see this projected in 70mm at the now defunct Loews Astor Plaza in NYC that year, they stupidly removed the intermission card and just spliced the next reel on, so the film just went on going with no break. So I guess anything is possible if some theaters have such low regard for how the movie was meant to be played.
    Vincent

    You know, the intermission in this movie drives me nuts. It's clearly a holdover from a longer pre-release cut of the film. At the current length, there is no need for an intermission. It's very disruptive to the flow of the story. On video disc formats, I always chapter skip past it as soon it comes up, but doing so manually is a nuisance. I would absolutely love to get a Blu-ray seamlessly branched so that you can decide up front to watch with or without the pointless intermission.
    The last time I saw this movie theatrically in 70mm was during the release in 2002 (stupid Warner couldn't manage to get the print to my area in 2001). When the intermission came up, I had to listen to the ignorant babble of morons in the audience grumbling that the movie was more "boring" than they'd been told, and snickering about the ape makeup. That's the absolute last sort of thing I want to put up with right in the middle of watching 2001!
    With that said, it wasn't right for a theater to make that decision on its own.

  98. Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/90#post_3947976
    You know, the intermission in this movie drives me nuts. It's clearly a holdover from a longer pre-release cut of the film. At the current length, there is no need for an intermission. It's very disruptive to the flow of the story. On video disc formats, I always chapter skip past it as soon it comes up, but doing so manually is a nuisance. I would absolutely love to get a Blu-ray seamlessly branched so that you can decide up front to watch with or without the pointless intermission.
    The last time I saw this movie theatrically in 70mm was during the release in 2002 (stupid Warner couldn't manage to get the print to my area in 2001). When the intermission came up, I had to listen to the ignorant babble of morons in the audience grumbling that the movie was more "boring" than they'd been told, and snickering about the ape makeup. That's the absolute last sort of thing I want to put up with right in the middle of watching 2001!
    With that said, it wasn't right for a theater to make that decision on its own.

    The intermission always worked theatrically. It's possible that you needed to be there in '68 or whatever.

  99. JoshZ

    You know, the intermission in this movie drives me nuts. .

    How old are you and have you ever experienced a properly presented "roadshow" version of this film?
    I think the Intermission break in this movie is perfect – providing a great "whoa" moment and lots to think about before
    the roller-coaster second act.
    (Of course I'm a boomer who's seen my share of "roadshows" or the like done right – unfortunately the last one probably
    being "Lawrence of Arabia" at the Ziegfeld in 1989. "2001" in 2001 at the Uptown in DC was quite a botch job – no
    functional curtains, the image appearing off-center on the "Cinerama" screen and partially out of focus.)
    Is anyone else here a sucker for properly placed Intermissions? I always felt they added something more of an "epic
    feel" to many presentations (and having them at home adds a legitimate break point rather than the standard
    potty and beer break which I arbitrarily add to most movie showings in my home theater).
    Good ones off the top of my head are the ones in "Mad Mad World" (including the song leading into the Intermission),
    "The Sound of Music" – and of course the great pullback leading into the "Gone With the Wind" break.

  100. Originally Posted by Dennis Gallagher /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/120#post_3948037
    How old are you and have you ever experienced a properly presented "roadshow" version of this film?
    I think the Intermission break in this movie is perfect – providing a great "whoa" moment and lots to think about before
    the roller-coaster second act.
    (Of course I'm a boomer who's seen my share of "roadshows" or the like done right – unfortunately the last one probably
    being "Lawrence of Arabia" at the Ziegfeld in 1989. "2001" in 2001 at the Uptown in DC was quite a botch job – no
    functional curtains, the image appearing off-center on the "Cinerama" screen and partially out of focus.)
    Is anyone else here a sucker for properly placed Intermissions? I always felt they added something more of an "epic
    feel" to many presentations (and having them at home adds a legitimate break point rather than the standard
    potty and beer break which I arbitrarily add to most movie showings in my home theater).
    Good ones off the top of my head are the ones in "Mad Mad World" (including the song leading into the Intermission),
    "The Sound of Music" – and of course the great pullback leading into the "Gone With the Wind" break.

    A properly placed intermission is a thing of beauty.

    Several places were tested for Spartacus, but they decided upon "Put him on a horse."

    RAH

  101. Just to share … right place, right time for me. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey upon first release at Cinestudio in Hartford on the big screen as part of a class trip. That's really the odd thing about it as a I sure wish I knew who advocated that trip so I could have thanked them. We never went to a film before or after this excursion, so it simply was a one-off in that regard.
    We all have those certain films, those special moments. For me, the real meaning of seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey was not that it was a glorious film per se, it is what the film represented. It represented something that transcended beyond mere entertainment. The best way I can think to put it is that, for me, it offered up a worm-hole to exploration and wonderment.

  102. Dennis Gallagher

    …Is anyone else here a sucker for properly placed Intermissions? I always felt they added something more of an "epic
    feel" to many presentations…

    Interestingly, I watched the BD of Jeremiah Johnson last night as was surprised to find it included both an Overture and Intermission, in what was overall a less-than-two-hour film. I saw this theatrically during its first run, and although I can't make any claims to accurate memory reaching back that far, I don't seem to remember an Intermission way back when. The BD Intermission is oddly placed too, resulting in a very short second act.

  103. Dennis Gallagher

    Is anyone else here a sucker for properly placed Intermissions? I always felt they added something more of an "epic
    feel" to many presentations (and having them at home adds a legitimate break point rather than the standard
    potty and beer break which I arbitrarily add to most movie showings in my home theater).
    Good ones off the top of my head are the ones in "Mad Mad World" (including the song leading into the Intermission),
    "The Sound of Music" – and of course the great pullback leading into the "Gone With the Wind" break.

    Definitely love a well-placed intermission. Besides the ones you mentioned (which are great!), I like the intermissions in West Side Story – Riff and Bernardo dead, Tony anguished and on the run, Maria none the wiser, and Oklahoma! – Laurey awakes from her dream/nightmare to find Jud standing over her – and in Todd-AO, Rod Steiger looks bigger than King Kong.
    I am not sure that intermissions would work very well – or at least the way they used to – in today's theaters. I mean, would they show more commercials? In the road show days there was something about that huge curtain closing in perfect timing with the film that made it magical. Without going into a discussion about the quality of movies overall today, I think most would agree that the quality of presentation has suffered incredibly.
    As for 2001, the intermission has always worked for me.

  104. The AFI Theater near D.C., where I saw 2001 a couple weeks ago, has curtains. It really adds to the screening. When the INTERMISSION card came up, the curtains slowly started to close with the card still being projected on the curtains. You don't really see that anymore except in the few specialty theaters.
    They'll be showing Spartacus in a couple weeks. I'm looking forward to seeing this in 70mm especially since the Blu-ray was so disappointing. I just hope it's the Robert Harris restored print!

  105. There is very specific moment in Gladiator, when Russell Crowe sees the Colosseum for the first time – the movie seems to reach a full stop as if Ridley Scott is saying, 'If this was the 1960s this is where I'd have the intermission.'

  106. Dennis Gallagher

    How old are you and have you ever experienced a properly presented "roadshow" version of this film?
    I think the Intermission break in this movie is perfect – providing a great "whoa" moment and lots to think about before
    the roller-coaster second act.

    No, I wasn't fortunate enough to see a Roadshow presentation. I was first introduced to the film on a crummy pan&scan VHS. Nonetheless, I was mesmerized and watched it three times back-to-back. The tape apparently edited out the intermission. I never realized that there was supposed to be an intermission until years later, and it's just never felt right to me, perhaps because of my first experience.
    I like a good intermission when well placed in the middle of a long movie. But it just seems extraneous in something under three hours. Even with the intermission, 2001 is shorter than any of Michael Bay's stupid Transformers movies.

  107. JoshZ

    I like a good intermission when well placed in the middle of a long movie. But it just seems extraneous in something under three hours. Even with the intermission, 2001 is shorter than any of Michael Bay's stupid Transformers movies.

    Intermissions were not at all unusual for longer movies before the 1980s. I remember when I went to see THE DEER HUNTER in its first run, and they had a big notice propped up on an easel in the lobby, stating that the movie was 183 minutes and would be shown with no intermission. Now that was unusual for the time!

  108. JoshZ

    I like a good intermission when well placed in the middle of a long movie. But it just seems extraneous in something under three hours.

    In roadshow days there were plenty of films which ran less than two and a half hours which had intermissions. I never found them to be an annoyance and they never took me out of the film.

  109. Re: short films with intermissions, in Italy it was (is?) customary to have intermissions even in very short films. Even the Dario Argento-produced DEMONS, a film that's less than 90-minutes long, had an intermission in Italy!
    Vincent

  110. Saw "The Wild Bunch" at the Dryden Theatre in Rochester a few years ago, with the intermission (foreign cut?), and it elevates an already great movie to epic status, functioning as punctuation and emphasis. I really miss it on the DVD and Blu-Ray.
    Todd

  111. Robert Harris

    There were also films with unplanned intermissions. Helped concessions

    These seem to be making a comeback in Germany in on of the biggest multiplex chains. In the past years virtually all the Harry Potters had unplanned intermissions (official argument was that kid's can't sit that long… sure), but in the last 2 years or so they started popping up more and more. Today you can expect an "Intermission" in pretty much every film that runs approx. 130 minutes or above (including such films as "X-Men: First Class" and "Mission Impossible 4"). I'm sure it helps concessions. It's also the reason I haven't seen a movie theatrically in more than 6 months. (Sadly there are no other viable options in my area aside from that multiplex as I don't watch dubbed movies and they're the only ones who show at least one English movie a week).

  112. Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/120#post_3948645
    There were also films with unplanned intermissions. Helped concessions

    In the early 70's, ABC/Paramount Theatres included unplanned intermissions in Poseidon Adventure just to increase concession. It was located at the end of reel 4 and really wrecked the pacing of the film. The experiment only lasted three months.

  113. ahollis

    In the early 70's, ABC/Paramount Theatres included unplanned intermissions in Poseidon Adventure just to increase concession.  It was located at the end of reel 4 and really wrecked the pacing of the film.  The experiment only lasted three months. 

    Funny, and I though RAH was making a joke about when the film broke…

  114. I watched the Blu-ray last night for the first time since it was released in 2007. While the transfer was considered very high quality in 2007, the standards have changed and the image looks too processed particularly with edge enhancement and filtering. The image also looks less detailed than one would think for a 70mm film. Hopefully, Warner will re-visit this title in the future with a new scan as they have done for Casablanca and going to for Gone with the Wind and Oz..

  115. I saw 2001 in 2001 projected on screen at the Castro theater. I particularly paid attention to details and color and imagery. As best as I can recall, I thought the blu-ray replicated that experience. Especially the early scenes with the apes, the painted backdrop was particularly visible on the print and I could see that on the blu ray. I thought the disc looked great! Especially the Blue Danube sequence as Dr. Floyd is traveling to the Moon, the shot of the Moon and the shuttle looked so crisp and with high contrast!
    Next year is the 45th Anniversary of 2001, so perhaps Warner will do a box set and single release like they did for Casablanca. And improve the transfer. Perhaps Mr. Harris could chime in on what he thinks of the blu ray today.

  116. Originally Posted by Doctorossi /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/120#post_3972943
    I would re-buy it as many times as they can manage to improve it (just as I have in the past).

    I would too, i also enjoy 2010 and would have loved to have seen a movie based on the third book.

  117. FoxyMulder

    I would too, i also enjoy 2010 and would have loved to have seen a movie based on the third book.

    But not the fourth? I think the plots of books 3 & 4 are so slight that they'd do well combined into one 3 hour or so piece…

  118. Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/263841/a-few-words-about-2001-a-space-odyssey-in-bd-hd/120#post_3973038
    But not the fourth? I think the plots of books 3 & 4 are so slight that they'd do well combined into one 3 hour or so piece…

    There was a fourth. ? I learnt something new today.

  119. Todd Mattraw

    Saw "The Wild Bunch" at the Dryden Theatre in Rochester a few years ago, with the intermission (foreign cut?), and it elevates an already great movie to epic status, functioning as punctuation and emphasis. I really miss it on the DVD and Blu-Ray.
    Todd

    The Wild Bunch was a roadshow picture during it's original run-in the UK. THe full director's cut except I believe that it also had an overture…

  120. Nelson Au

    I saw 2001 in 2001 projected on screen at the Castro theater. I particularly paid attention to details and color and imagery. As best as I can recall, I thought the blu-ray replicated that experience. Especially the early scenes with the apes, the painted backdrop was particularly visible on the print and I could see that on the blu ray. I thought the disc looked great! Especially the Blue Danube sequence as Dr. Floyd is traveling to the Moon, the shot of the Moon and the shuttle looked so crisp and with high contrast!
    Next year is the 45th Anniversary of 2001, so perhaps Warner will do a box set and single release like they did for Casablanca. And improve the transfer. Perhaps Mr. Harris could chime in on what he thinks of the blu ray today.

    The BD is very good considering that it was released in 2007. I scanned several 70mm frames at 8K some time ago and there´s indeed room for improvement.

  121. Lidenbrock

    The BD is very good considering that it was released in 2007. I scanned several 70mm frames at 8K some time ago and there´s indeed room for improvement.

    That is what I suspected. More than anything, the edge enhancement bugged me.

  122. I watch this film about every 2 years for a little clarity on great cinema. This film, especially the last 5 minutes, absolutely unhinged cinema in 1968. I can only imagine the bewildering impact on 1968 audiences, that were, as RAH put it, part of the "before" crowd. Magnificent.

  123. Dr Griffin

    I watch this film about every 2 years for a little clarity on great cinema. This film, especially the last 5 minutes, absolutely unhinged cinema in 1968. I can only imagine the bewildering impact on 1968 audiences, that were, as RAH put it, part of the "before" crowd. Magnificent.

    Saw it opening week in Cinerama, NYC! My barely pubescent self seems to remember it had the 3-projector, curved screen presentation. I went with my grammar school class (a field trip set-up by a science teacher, to whom I shall ever be grateful for.). It remains to this day my most memorable and seminal time at the movies. Bewildered was an understatement…but surprisingly nearly everyone loved it. but no one understood it. We had to spend two classes trying to figure it out! With so many other SF conceits now played out in movies, 2001 is pretty obvious now, conceptually. Almost hard to believe it was ever otherwise…when terms like "stargate", "warp," etc. were virtually unknown.

    Sadly, the biggest joke in 2001 is one that most audiences today don't get. The telephone charge that pops up after Dr Floyd calls Earth ($1.82) got the biggest laugh in the theater. Contemporary audiences think that's incredibly cheap. But the laughter came from the fact that $1.82 was considered an astronomical price for a phone call (which only cost a dime back then). Anyway, thanks for the trip down memory lane.

  124. Your barely pubescent self, of course, remembers incorrectly. Though it carried the Cinerama logo, it, of course, was not three-projector EVER. The last two three-projector films were How The West Was Won and The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm in the US. 2001 was a 65mm production and had nothing to do with true Cinerama.

  125. A still common misperception it seems. Although 65mm prints were rectified for projection on the deeply curved CINERAMA screen, it all 'came out of one hole'.

    A bit of sidebar trivia: 2001 enjoyed one of the longest non-stop runs at the Glendale CINERAMA in Toronto, where I saw it almost bi-monthly until it finally left in '70…a full 127 weeks…2 years later! We never did get Ice Station Zebra in CINERAMA; 2001 just wouldn't let go of that screen.

    A couple of the ads which appeared in newspapers during this remarkable run, often tying in with the various IRL moon shots during that period:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

  126. 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.

  127. Robert Harris

    A 6k scan, to the best of my knowledge, is not the way that Warner has been generally handling their 65s. Unless one is seeking to create additional digital preservation elements, it adds little toward the purpose of an HD release which may be harvested from a 35mm element.Large format scans are horrifically expensive.Whether they did a digital scan in this case is anyone's guess.RAH

    Wow. Isn't it interesting how one's opinion can change in a mere seven years! 🙂

  128. 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.

  129. 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.

  130. 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 🙂

  131. 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.

  132. Billy Batson

    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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

  133. Billy Batson

    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.

  134. 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.

  135. 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.

  136. 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. ?

    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.

  137. Persianimmortal

    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.

  138. 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 2560×1080 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.
    View attachment 12792View attachment 12793View attachment 12794View attachment 12795View attachment 12796View attachment 12797

  139. 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.

    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.

  140. Josh Steinberg

    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.

  141. Dr Griffin

    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!

  142. Dr Griffin

    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.)

  143. Paul_Warren

    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?

  144. Paul_Warren

    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.

  145. 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.

  146. 2001 is my 'desert island' film too Josh. :B)

    Unfortunately, whole generations now know it only from home video, threadbare baggage and all. However one day, I hope they'll finally get it right. Its 50th anni is in 2018, so here's hoping…

  147. ROclockCK

    2001 is my 'desert island' film too Josh. :B)Unfortunately, whole generations now know it only from home video, threadbare baggage and all. However one day, I hope they'll finally get it right. Its 50th anni is in 2018, so here's hoping…

    Hopefully my desert island comes with a giant screen :)In a sense I feel lucky that "2001" is my favorite movie, at least as far as theatrical screening opportunities go: it comes around fairly often, and up until a couple years ago it was usually a print that looked pretty good. The DCP and Blu-ray aren't terrible by any means – it's not Spartacus bad – but they're not Lawrence Of Arabia good and that's what I'd like to see one day.

  148. I watched the Blu-ray fairly recently on my front projection set-up (117.4" diagonal scope screen) and this transfer is really showing its age. Edge enhancement and noise reduction are evident and it just takes on that older transfer look we see on so many of these earlier Blu-ray releases. It doesn't look terrible, but it certainly does not look good nor nearly as film-like and detailed like many remasters I have seen. This goes for most of the Kubrick titles I've seen for that matter. Hopefully Warner addresses his movies at some point.

  149. ROclockCK

    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.

    Thanks for the detailed explanation Steve lets hope someone @ WB can do something about this for the next new release. I wonder what print BFI will be using as they are showing the movie in several cinemas on 28th November this year here in the UK?
    http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/bfi-rerelease-stanley-kubricks-2001

  150. Hopefully you get to see it on film in 70mm Paul. But these days, I wouldn't bet on that…fingers crossed for you though.

    BTW, there's also another area where the digital video transfers* of 2001 haven't served Kubrick's effects perfectionism particularly well; their rendering of Trumbull's slit-scan star gate. Once again, it looks like the brightness is down a stop or two, or the contrast is up, because now you can distinctly see banding and strobing along Trumbull's slits (note the darker vertical lines in the red areas to the right of the frame, less so in the green):

    [​IMG]

    I'm not denying their existence – obviously they were captured on the film, so they're in the scan. But until 2001 hit home video, that little giveaway about the nature of Trumbull's Fx technique was never this noticeable. On film, with the correct light levels, those bands simply never stood out like they do now.

    * including the current Blu-ray; I've never seen the DCP.

  151. Interesting that two old 2001 threads have been resurrected today. I saw the film a couple of times in theaters, bought two laserdisc versions, 2 DVD versions, an HD DVD version and a Blu-ray. I will never buy a remastered version of 2001 unless it comes in a box with an action figure.

    [​IMG]

  152. Keith Cobby

    Do you think if Stanley Kubrick were still with us he would be meddling with his masterpiece, producing different cuts and improving on the special effects? Difficult to improve on perfection isn't it.

    I doubt it other than insisting on the colour timing so we do not see the 3M backgrounds. Perhaps a seamless branching BD with the newly found 19 mins of missing footage what else could you change & make it better most of the opticals are fine as they are the moon looks a little too bright in places but a decent colour timing pass could probably fix that!

  153. Speaking of Kubrick, has everyone seen the Kubrick segment from this year's Simpsons Halloween special? It was brilliant. It was called "A Clockwork Yellow," but it included references to many Kubrick classics. Worth checking out.

  154. Until this I've read and heard nothing of any new restoration work – I would assume this is going to be a presentation of the DCP that has show in repertory theaters in the US for the past few years, which is a 2K DCP from the same master as the Blu-ray. I'd absolutely love to be wrong about that.

  155. Ditto Josh. But I doubt you're wrong:

    [*]At 0:18 in the new BFI trailer, you can still see banding and strobing in the foreground of the slit-scan for the stargate.
    [*]At 1:36 when Moonwatcher tosses the bone, you can still see some yellowing in the upper left corner of the frame – not a good sign that any new work has been done to correct those visible ScotchliteTM patches.
    [/list]
    Until 2001 gets definitively restored and remastered, best to stick with 70mm showings rather than the current DCP.

  156. Wished I could have bought one of these beauties many years ago…
    [​IMG]
    The small company that was making these G.I. Joe scaled costumes apparently couldn't keep up with demand, and closed up shop. When these come up for sale today, they are horribly expensive.

  157. What are the chances we'll see a longer cut of the film?http://www.thewrap.com/deal-central/column-post/wb-uncovers-lost-footage-kubricks-2001-space-odyssey-23309/ Apparently WB has a new restoration?http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69207

    The 2K DCP showing this November is not a new Restoration but they are showing a 70mm print on 30/11 and the 2nd and 7th of December.In November at The Cinerama Dome they are even screening from DCP not 70mm.

  158. Dr Griffin

    The AFI Silver in Silver Spring, MD is showing a 70mm print in November. I hope it's a better print than the last one I saw there, which was in bad shape.

    http://www.afi.com/silver/films/events.aspx#2001a

    I'm going to guess it might be the same one I saw at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, NY over the summer. That one was in mostly good shape, the colors were good and the print was pretty clean… but it did have some ugly, new looking scratches during the scene in the pod where Bowman is arguing with HAL and finally decides to go in on his own. I remember there being a bunch of bright green scratches running down the print on some of those interior pod shots. But I recall the rest of the presentation looking fine.

  159. Flemming Kristensen

    BFI has released a new digital print for a winter theatrical run in England at the moment. It seems to be a new 4K restored print, from Warner Bros. If this is true, then couldn't (shouldn't) we expect a new blu-ray edition during the next couple of years, or would they wait until 2018?http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t002067.html

    Hard to say with Warner when it comes to new transfers (so rare) and timing.

  160. All indications are that it is 2k only and based on the same digital source as the current Blu-ray.

    I have a hard time believing that work on 2001, most probably including a now customary 8k scan, would be performed in complete silence.

    2001 is an extremely high profile title so we can expect to hear about work being done on it well in advance of any screenings or Blu-ray releases.

  161. The BFI version of 2001 on DCP is only 2K and was supplied by Warner Brothers. It is also supplied in aDCI 1.85:1 aspect ratio box, so to show in DCI 2.39:1 aspect ratio box ( in 2.20:1) you are enlarging thepicture size so the PQ is nowhere near it should.Its also a shame that the Pictureville in Bradford is screening from this DCP when they could be screeninga 70mm Dolby SR print in Super Cinerama on their curved Cinerama screen which I have seen and makes the DCPlook so bad.

  162. Flemming Kristensen

    I have seen the 4K mentioned several places.

    http://www.smokescreenlondon.com/news-features/2014/10/29/what-to-see-at-the-bfis-sci-fi-days-of-fear-and-wonder-season
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stanley-kubrick-s-2001-a-689874

    [​IMG]ASPM_365.jpg
    [​IMG]ASPM_367.jpg

    As DP70 has pointed out it seems that Warner supplied a 2k DCP to the BFI which is rather unimpressive.
    No need for marketing hyperbole imo as people who watch this will notice anyway if it is the same dated source that the Blu-ray comes from.

  163. I would also like to point out that I would love to be wrong about this only being in 2k.
    Bring on the 4k DCP, a new Blu-ray and possibly at the end of next year a 4k Blu-ray and I will be extremely happy about it!

  164. I thought I had read that Warner was prepping a new version of 2001 and that it would be released in cinemas in the US for a limited run. I thought that story also included a bit about some additional footage that would be included on a new special edition blu-ray release that were scenes Kubrick had edited from the film after its initial release. I believe that the story said there was not much additional footage at the time but they were working on and hoped to accumulate some 20 minutes of deleted scenes (that would NOT be reinserted into the body of the film to create an extended cut) to be included as a special feature for the "anniversary" blu-ray. I guess I could have hallucinated all of that or some bozo wrote that story based on some bad info. I thought there was some mention of them not making any big announcements about this until they knew exactly what they had for additional footage and that the additional scenes were to come from material Kubrick himself had stored and that there was still an ongoing search taking place to see what else there may be.

    I remember thinking at the time that all made sense because Warner had been releasing single film "special editions" as they had done with A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket and it seemed it was only a matter of time before we got one for 2001. Maybe all just a hoax but I thought that all sounded likely.

  165. Would it be appropriate to release a Smilebox edition?

    I think a Smilebox version would be good. As far as I know their were only Flat Super Panavision 70mm prints on release.Holiday in Spain has just been released in Smilebox from Todd-70 also the first Smilebox release not from 3 panel Cineramaand it looks pretty good.I would like to see Patton in Smilebox as being shot in D-150 I think would suit the format.

  166. DP 70

    I think a Smilebox version would be good. As far as I know their were only Flat Super Panavision 70mm prints on release.Holiday in Spain has just been released in Smilebox from Todd-70 also the first Smilebox release not from 3 panel Cineramaand it looks pretty good.I would like to see Patton in Smilebox as being shot in D-150 I think would suit the format.

    As I remember in Chicago 2001 upon first release was shown on an existing CINERAMA screen. Is that possible? But to me smilebox should just be a blu-ray player effect so you could play any movie in smilebox

  167. Dee Zee

    As I remember in Chicago 2001 upon first release was shown on an existing CINERAMA screen. Is that possible?

    VERY possible. That's how I saw it…Cinerama in NYC, 1968. I have yet to find the movie-going experience to top it! (Subsequent screenings I've seen over the years have never approached the quality and envelopment, nor the awe and mystery (apologies to OUTER LIMITS) that seeing it in Cinerama provided.

  168. In Canada, I don't recall even seeing ads for 2001 in SuperPanavision 70 until what seemed like a year after release…prior to that, exclusive CINERAMA roadshows only. At least that was my experience around Toronto.

    Because of 2001's spherical 70mm origins, I certainly don't *need* to see it in Smilebox form. That said, I would be *curious* to see it again with curved screen simulation, and would not hesitate to purchase a double-disc set that included both presentations. Kubrick's trademark head-on POV shooting style not only didn't suffer in CINERAMA, but was somewhat enhanced by the wing distortion of the deeply curved screen. In particular, his predominantly dead center framing of the stargate sequence actually looked better that way because of its greater perceived motion in depth.

    At this point though, it's more important to seriously restore and remaster 2001…fixing the visible front screen patches, the strobing in the slitscan, and the inconsistent black levels thoughout. IMO bigger fish to fry before WB even considers a Smilebox option.

  169. EddieLarkin

    Have Warner Bros. ever gone back and re-released one of their films on Blu-ray with a new transfer after it had already seen a previous Blu-ray release with an older transfer? I can't think of any…

    Good question Nick. I honestly can't think of one either.

    Didn't WB at least remaster A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, switching from VC-1 to AVC codec?

  170. I don't believe so, unless they were changed for that new box set. The most recent individual releases (from 2011 and 2012 respectively) are still VC-1. In the case of A Clockwork Orange, I believe a new transfer was done years ago (evidence of which can be found in one of many extra features) but WB appear to refuse to use it. Perhaps it's their intention to only ever use one transfer and one transfer only for Blu-ray (despite so many of their heavy hitters being released as far back as 2007!), and save any new transfers for the 4K format.

    Which sounds sensible but puts them far behind all of the other studios. If the other studios followed such a policy then we'd be stuck with lesser transfers of Patton, The Terminator, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Ghostbusters, JTTCOTE* etc.

    *probably 😉

  171. Dee Zee

    As I remember in Chicago 2001 upon first release was shown on an existing CINERAMA screen. Is that possible?But to me smilebox should just be a blu-ray player effect so you could play any movie in smilebox

    2001 was shown extensively in Cinerama theatres but I'd think that Kubrick did not appreciate the geometric distortions that came with it, he was too much of a perfectionist.

    With 4k TV's taking over at a rapid rate there is the option to use boxes like this one for a smilebox effect with little detrimental effects to the picture (or for undoing it):
    http://www.vnstw.com/en/products_view.asp?ID=135&BKID=68

    I plan to use one of these soon to be able to better watch the smilebox releases on a scope screen and will report back after my testing.

  172. EddieLarkin

    Have Warner Bros. ever gone back and re-released one of their films on Blu-ray with a new transfer after it had already seen a previous Blu-ray release with an older transfer? I can't think of any…

    I think they redid the transfer of Casablanca after their 2008 boxset, and they released their new transfer in 2012. There was extensive press coverage about it, IIRC, including a theatrical re-release.

  173. Allansfirebird

    I think they redid the transfer of Casablanca after their 2008 boxset, and they released their new transfer in 2012. There was extensive press coverage about it, IIRC, including a theatrical re-release.

    I believe The Fugitive was re-done, as well.

  174. EddieLarkin

    Have Warner Bros. ever gone back and re-released one of their films on Blu-ray with a new transfer after it had already seen a previous Blu-ray release with an older transfer? I can't think of any…

    Lethal Weapons 1 & 2, Enter The Dragon, The Fugitive, Casablanca. Not very many mind you but those that were very problematic.

  175. I thought this might be of interest, Steven Soderbergh talks about 2001

    i’ve been watching 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY regularly for four decades, but it wasn’t until a few years ago i started thinking about touching it, and then over the holidays i decided to make my move. why now? I don’t know. maybe i wasn’t old enough to touch it until now. maybe i was too scared to touch it until now, because not only does the film not need my—or anyone else’s—help, but if it’s not THE most impressively imagined and sustained piece of visual art created in the 20th century, then it’s tied for first. meaning IF i was finally going to touch it, i’d better have a bigger idea than just trimming or re-scoring.

    plus, it’s TECHNOLOGY’S FAULT. without technology, i wouldn’t have been able to spend so much intimate—and, ultimately, inappropriate—time with the film. by the way, i’ve seen every conceivable kind of film print of 2001, from 16mm flat to 35mm internegative to a cherry camera negative 70mm in the screening room at warner bros, and i’m telling you, none of them look as good as a bluray played on an pioneer elite plasma kuro monitor. and while you’re cleaning up your spit take over that sentence, let me also say i believe SK would have embraced the current crop of digital cameras, because from a visual standpoint, he was obsessed with two things: absolute fidelity to reality-based light sources, and image stabilization. regarding the former, the increased sensitivity without resolution loss allows us to really capture the world as it is, and regarding the latter, post-2001 SK generally shot matte perf film (normally reserved for effects shots, because of its added steadiness) all day, every day, something which digital capture makes moot. pile on things like never being distracted by weaving, splices, dirt, scratches, bad lab matches during changeovers, changeovers themselves, bad framing and focus exacerbated by projector vibration, and you can see why i think he might dig digital.

    MY ONE GIGANTIC ISSUE WITH THIS TRANSFER

    is that you can see, in the dawn of man sequence, the cross-hatched patterns of the front projection screen in several shots. this is INEXCUSBALE. i never saw these patterns in any film prints—this would never have gotten past the polaroid-happy SK—and ANY transfer in which these patterns are visible no matter how your monitor/TV is set up is TECHNICALLY F*CKED AND COMPLETELY WRONG. i hate saying that about my good friends at WB, especially since the WB remaster of CITIZEN KANE is literally a revelation, BUT on the other hand the ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN bluray is a disappointment, BUT on the OTHER other hand they did remaster and release a beautiful END OF THE ROAD disc, so….

    http://extension765.com/sdr/23-the-return-of-w-de-rijk

  176. It's good to actually read that a Director is in our camp, and I know there are others, such as Francis Ford Coppola. Is he actually thinking of a remake? I don't know about that. The re-scoring bit already has me doubtful, even though it would be fully expected with a remake. I couldn't agree more with his thoughts about the film's lagacy. As much as we want to see everything on that film with a Blu-ray transfer, it's obvious that there are things being revealed that were not meant to be seen. How they would go about "correcting" this would be the tricky part, but I'm sure it is getting more and more possible to do so to the approval of the majority.

  177. Anyone else deeply disturbed by the use of the phrase "touching it?" I'm already not a fan of the re-edits he's doing in his spare time, and to use that phrase gives me the creeps, especially in terms of a classic piece of cinema.

    It just feels wrong to me. Completely wrong.

  178. Unlike, say, the Star Wars Special Editions, (all three versions of them) it's not being foisted on anyone, and not pretending to be anything else but a fancy fan edit, so it's easy enough to ignore what he's doing. The real 2001 is quite safe. 🙂

  179. Interesting note from Soderbergh – on one hand, I love a lot of his movies, on the other hand, I don't know that I want to see a shorter "fanedit"-type version of "2001: A Space Odyssey" (I'd rather see the original premiere cut if anything) – but I certainly admire any attempt to honor the film and keep people talking about it.

  180. OliverK

    2001 was shown extensively in Cinerama theatres but I'd think that Kubrick did not appreciate the geometric distortions that came with it, he was too much of a perfectionist.

    Below is an trade magazine ad from 1965 so, he knew then that it would be projected on a deeply curved Cinerama screen.

    [​IMG]

  181. I wasn't around when 2001 first came out, so I can't share the experience exactly, but I have seen it on 70mm as well as DVD. No viewing at home compares to the big screen immersive experience, the way it was intended. (Of course, maybe I need a much larger TV screen. And no distractions.)

  182. Allansfirebird

    Anyone else deeply disturbed by the use of the phrase "touching it?" I'm already not a fan of the re-edits he's doing in his spare time, and to use that phrase gives me the creeps, especially in terms of a classic piece of cinema.

    It just feels wrong to me. Completely wrong.

    Yes, I'm happy to see Soderbergh (like so many of us, his peers) continuing to steep, mull, and enjoy the film, and pleased for him that he can "play with" the edit to his heart's content, but his take on 2001 is definitely not my own.

    I braced myself and tried a little taste of his handiwork, but I didn't even make it through the overture before I had to shut it off.

  183. The film needs to be "touched" seriously, one more time with an 8k scan. Having literally touched it a number of years ago, and wound through several reels, I came away fearful of the condition and reported findings to the filmmaker.

    2001 is a WB project that I'd love to see up and running quickly. Mr. Price is aware.

    RAH

  184. Robert Harris

    2001 is a WB project that I'd love to see up and running quickly. Mr. Price is aware.

    Of all the things that any studio could possibly release, a new "2001" disc (especially one that included the deleted scenes as a bonus feature) would be my holy grail. To me, this movie is simply as good as movies get.

  185. My wife Robyn and I saw '2001' on its first cinema release on a giant Cinerama screen in Paris. That was in late 1968 and whether there were distortions or not, it was a spectacular screening. From memory it wasn't dubbed and it was easy to ignore the subtitles. Then again, maybe it was in French and we just didn't care! I don't remember that detail but I'll never forget the big-screen impact of that movie.

  186. Josh Steinberg

    Thanks so much for sharing that memory! That sounds amazing. If I could steal a time machine, seeing "2001" on a Cinerama screen had got to be near the top of my list of things to do.

    I'd love a return trip myself Josh.

    Typically our memory of movies in their vintage theatrical form becomes sketchier over time – often outright suspect – yet even now, nearly 50 years after my 2 dozen viewings of 2001 in CINERAMA during its 1 1/2 year run at the Glendale, plus other 70mm Toronto venues over subsequent months, my memory of this film still feels as fresh as a viewing mere days or weeks ago. Which is one of the reasons why I'm so sensitive about 2001's still flawed state on home video. I can't say that about any other film, but this one is so imprinted. It's uncanny.

    Just one aspect of 2001 that has been seared into my memory Josh: the colour black. And I mean BLACK-black…shot after shot after shot of rock solid, grainless, squid-ink space with these tiny pin prick ultra-white stars. I've never seen filmed space vistas look like that before or since. The screen just seemed to disappear. Whole generations simply have no idea how exquisite this picture looked circa '68.

    So I, too, am hoping that a [literal] 'shoot-the-moon' 50th anniversary restoration, remaster, and new DCP for 2001 can come very close to that time machine. Fingers crossed its asset holders see the value…

  187. Steve, thanks so much for sharing that story – that sounds amazing. I wish I could have seen the film during it's original run. I feel that I've been lucky to see it about a dozen times in theaters over the past twenty years – first a new 35mm print in the 90s, then the 70mm prints during the 2001-2002 theatrical run in New York City and Boston, and then here and there in 35mm, 70mm and DCP in more recent years. But none of that can match what it must have been like to be there when it first came out. I don't actually know anyone who saw it during the original run so it's really pretty cool for me to be able to come here and talk about the movie and have people who are generous enough with their time to share memories of seeing it at the beginning. Thank you again Steve!

  188. Just to add that I've only ever seen 2001 in 70mm. The first twice in Cinerama at The Casino (Now the Prince Edward Theatre) in Old Compton Street, then twice at The Empire Leicester Square and, finally, and a touch disapointingly, on a part of the BFI Imax screen in correct aspect ratio. I don't think the print quite stood up to the ordeal but am sure that the treatment RAH mentions would change all that.

    I certainly endorse all that has been said about the original Cinerama experience – it was awesome. I was even caught out by the PA announcements during the early space station scene as, being on the surround track only, they seemed to be genuine cinema calls.

    I'll also endorse the conviction that it was always intended to be in Cinerama as when I was supposed to be revising for A Level exams in the Cardiff public library I would look at the cinema year book and the display illustrated in a previous post ran for a long time.

    Later, whilst working in tv, I knew an electrician who had the frightening experience of being chased around a Borehamwood supermarket by Mr Kubrick on a Saturday because he'd followed orders from the senior LX and switched off the power on Friday evening as everyone had had enough of this production dragging on for so very very long. That was when studios had permanent staff and the unions had power.

    I also once worked with an actor who'd played an ape, another l o n g shooting ordeal, and the unit lived in fear that Planet Of The Apes, being made at the same time, would find a way to copy Stuart Freeborn's head design. Then a head went missing and the worst was feared. But when Planet came out and everyone saw those comic book phony jokey monkeys it was obvious that there hadn't been inter-production espionage.

  189. Josh Steinberg

    Steve, thanks so much for sharing that story – that sounds amazing. I wish I could have seen the film during it's original run. I feel that I've been lucky to see it about a dozen times in theaters over the past twenty years – first a new 35mm print in the 90s, then the 70mm prints during the 2001-2002 theatrical run in New York City and Boston, and then here and there in 35mm, 70mm and DCP in more recent years. But none of that can match what it must have been like to be there when it first came out. I don't actually know anyone who saw it during the original run so it's really pretty cool for me to be able to come here and talk about the movie and have people who are generous enough with their time to share memories of seeing it at the beginning. Thank you again Steve!

    All I can say is that if – or rather when – they do get it right*, at least a couple of generations will feel like they're seeing 2001 for the first time.

    And it's encouraging that younger fans like yourself remain so passionate about this film Josh. I think it's precisely that continuing intense interest which will end up creating a virtual "time machine" after all. If it does come back like that, I'm there too in a heartbeat…

    * Starting with the 8k harvest RAH recommends.

  190. Malcolm Bmoor

    I also once worked with an actor who'd played an ape, another l o n g shooting ordeal, and the unit lived in fear that Planet Of The Apes, being made at the same time, would find a way to copy Stuart Freeborn's head design. Then a head went missing and the worst was feared. But when Planet came out and everyone saw those comic book phony jokey monkeys it was obvious that there hadn't been inter-production espionage.

    Kubrick paranoid?!?

    Nah… 😉

  191. I first saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Vancouver in 1968. I believe it was a 70MM presentation; it was at the Capitol Theatre, which in those days was an old-fashioned movie palace. The entire experience was so overwhelming to my 13-year-old self that I don't think I've gotten over it yet. Even thinking about it now, I feel like I went to space, not to see a film in a movie theatre. And there was so much to reflect upon and puzzle over afterwards! That movie remains a favourite of mine, but no great movie seems less impressive on home video to me, even though the Blu-Ray is very good. I don't know if a theatrical presentation of that (remembered) quality would be possible in 2015, but I sure hope that somewhere, they're working on it.

  192. I happen to see a 2001 screening a few summers ago. I was blown away with how much more visually striking it was on a large theater screen. I had seen it several times before at home but again the theater viewing cannot be matched.

    I have the initial blu Ray release. I wasn't aware of all of the issues with the transfer.

  193. Osato

    I happen to see a 2001 screening a few summers ago. I was blown away with how much more visually striking it was on a large theater screen. I had seen it several times before at home but again the theater viewing cannot be matched.

    I have the initial blu Ray release. I wasn't aware of all of the issues with the transfer.

    Like Malcolm and others I was lucky enough to see 2001 in its opening week at the Casino and then about half a dozen times later-always in 70mm.

    I kept recalling this while watching Interstellar in 70 mm Imax and how much more impressive 2001 was in Cinerama as both a visual and sonic treat.

    I also recall that it appeared in 70mm towards the late 70's at the ABC 1 in Shaftesbury Avenue, London.

    I was there when it opened with a number of friend who I had dragged along for "an experience of a lifetime"( sorry Ben Hur ad writer for pinching your line).

    Unfortunately as soon as the space sequences started, it was clear that there was a major problem with ghosting which continued through out the film .

    I ,of course, complained at intermission but nothing happened. The next day I telephoned the studio where I had heard Kubrick was based. Naturally, I couldn't speak to the great man himself but left a detailed message.

    A few days later I received a call from the theatre's manager inviting us all back as his guest. According to him their lenses all had to be replaced and yes it did solve the problem which was obvious and should have been corrected before any public showings.

    I am pretty sure that my call to Kubrick brought about this. Thank God ( if there is one) that Kubrick always concerned himself as to how his films were presented. I wish more directors did!

  194. I saw 2001 in Cinerama at the Uptown Theater in Washington D.C. in 1968. My first viewing was cancelled as DC went up in flames following the assination of MLK. But, it was nonetheless a transformative experience for this 19 year old. I was fortunate to have been able to see it at the same theater in revivals in subsequent years and the experience was always special. Frankly, I don't expect to ever see 2001 again in such magnificence. But, the experience is seared in my psyche and I know just how this film should look.

  195. 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of 2001. Given this milestone, will there be a new transfer or special screenings? I know a few years back there were rumors of transferring it for IMAX projection. Hard to imagine Warners would not do something for this landmark film.

    I am watching the blu ray tonight and while is is acceptable, I think in the 11 years since it came out transfer technology has improved.

    Has anyone heard anything?

  196. I've been reading the Making Of book from Taschen these last few days, and I was wondering if there might be a good, comprehensive making-of documentary in the works for the anniversary, as well as an updated transfer.

  197. ROclockCK

    Nearly 50 years after my 2 dozen viewings of 2001 in CINERAMA during its 1 1/2 year run at the Glendale

    You were fortunate to have a theater like the Glendale…most Cinerama screens were hijacked far too early in the (successful) 2001 run in order to accommodate MGM's newest "marvel," ICE STATION ZEBRA.

  198. john a hunter

    Like Malcolm and others I was lucky enough to see 2001 in its opening week at the Casino and then about half a dozen times later-always in 70mm.

    I kept recalling this while watching Interstellar in 70 mm Imax and how much more impressive 2001 was in Cinerama as both a visual and sonic treat.

    I also recall that it appeared in 70mm towards the late 70's at the ABC 1 in Shaftesbury Avenue, London.

    I was there when it opened with a number of friend who I had dragged along for "an experience of a lifetime"( sorry Ben Hur ad writer for pinching your line).

    Unfortunately as soon as the space sequences started, it was clear that there was a major problem with ghosting which continued through out the film .

    I ,of course, complained at intermission but nothing happened. The next day I telephoned the studio where I had heard Kubrick was based. Naturally, I couldn't speak to the great man himself but left a detailed message.

    A few days later I received a call from the theatre's manager inviting us all back as his guest. According to him their lenses all had to be replaced and yes it did solve the problem which was obvious and should have been corrected before any public showings.

    I am pretty sure that my call to Kubrick brought about this. Thank God ( if there is one) that Kubrick always concerned himself as to how his films were presented. I wish more directors did!

    Like John and Malcolm etc. I was working at MGM Borehamwood when I saw "2001" at the Casino. I went with my parents and my landlady who was 'Dot' Reynolds. She had been a tea lady at MGM who used to wheel a tea trolley around to all the film units. I remember she always spoke highly of actor Clint Walker whenever she served tea on the "Dirty Dozen" set.

    John, I seem to have a distant memory of that screening you mention. I actually believe it was to do with the shutter blades set incorrectly out of alignment with the intermittent sprocket movement, that would have caused the ghosting effect.

  199. The ABC Shaftsbury Avenue was a great cinema to see a film, my brother was a projectionist there for 5 years and he showed a lot of 70mm
    prints including The Deer Hunter, The Jazz Singer, Gone with the Wind and that classic Cant Stop the Music and A Star is Born.
    I saw 35mm 4 Track magnetic prints of Genesis/White Rock and Xanadu and the sound was always really good, when they showed
    The Deer Hunter in 70mm Dolby Stereo the Director Michael Cimino said it sounded better than anywhere in the world it had shown.

    I did see 2001 in ABC 1 in the run and I remember it looked great, I also saw Ben Hur in 70mm in 1977 in ABC 2 and that looked ok
    as well.

    They had Phillips DP75 Projectors in both screens complete with doors, the only ones I have seen.

  200. My ticket to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” at the brand new Cooper Cinerama in Denver, Colorado, was my 15th year birthday gift from my sister and her then-boyfriend. I had been obsessing over the film since it had been announced in production, going on and on about how great it was going to be. I idolized Kubrick back then – having seen “Paths of Glory” at age 5, “Spartacus” at age 7, “Lolita” at age 9, and “Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” at age 11. Each film was a powerful viewing experience for my young self (born in 1953) – and they all rearranged my subatomic structure in unique ways – especially “Dr. Strangelove.” I remember leaving the theater after “Strangelove” and feeling like a new reality had opened up for me. (My parents didn’t censor my movie going – after I turned 5, if it was considered something vaguely “adult” and I was interested in it, they’d go along with me, as in “Paths” and “Lolita”.) The Cooper opened its doors to the public for the first time with a gala showing of “2001” which was covered by the local media (this news coverage was seen by me in Nebraska as all of my town’s cable TV channels came from Denver). The trip to see the film was an overnight excursion – getting to Denver, seeing the film that night, and then driving back the next day to my home town.

    I have never in my experience (theaters in Chicago, Omaha, and New York) seen a more perfect presentation of a film. As the theater was new, on its own terms it seemed like a building out of a science fiction tale:

    http://www.historicmoderndenver.com/the-cooper-theatre-of-tomorrow/

    The screen was enormous – and, as I recall, was made of vertical slats that were slightly rotated to help correct image distortions caused by curvature of the screen (or is this a fantasy created by my memory?). My sister and her boyfriend apparently had connections with the person managing the theater and they’d gotten tickets for the theater’s “sweet spot” seats.

    It is impossible to describe to anyone who hasn’t seen a pitch perfect, Cinerama, screening of “2001” just how mind-blowing, thrilling and disorienting it was. At times one felt suspended in deep space, at times one felt like the theatre itself was rotating, and, of course, at times one felt pushed back in ones seat as if traveling under tremendous speed. I have never felt anything similar while viewing another film.

    I saw what was apparently a large format print in New York City at the old Dimension 150 Theater (now demolished) in Times Square in the 80’s. But that experience was non-Cinerama, and the print had issues.

    What I wouldn’t give to take a time machine back to 1968 to Denver to revisit “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

    The Denver Cooper Cinerama, alas, is also demolished.

    Addendum: In reading the material about the Cooper Theater on the linked website above, I see that I am wrong about "2001" being the first film that it ever showed, nor was it "brand new" when I saw the film. I'm probably also remembering a trip with my parents to Denver earlier in the 60's when we must have gone to a Cinerama film there. Such is memory!

  201. You may correct Stephen although I especially remember being told my the manager that new lenses were installed.
    Besides, if Derek's brother was projectionist I am sure he would have spotted the problem and tried to rectified it by adjusting the shutter.;)

  202. I saw 2001 in several 35mm and 70mm versions and despite the fact that it is a great movie I never found it to be as sharp and stunning as I was told it should look, not even in a vintage 70mm print.

    So I am looking forward to seeing this in an upcoming 4k UHD version and maybe then I will see the detail that others have been telling me about 🙂

  203. johnmcmasters

    My ticket to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” at the brand new Cooper Cinerama in Denver, Colorado, was my 15th year birthday gift from my sister and her then-boyfriend. I had been obsessing over the film since it had been announced in production, going on and on about how great it was going to be. I idolized Kubrick back then – having seen “Paths of Glory” at age 5, “Spartacus” at age 7, “Lolita” at age 9, and “Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” at age 11. Each film was a powerful viewing experience for my young self (born in 1953) – and they all rearranged my subatomic structure in unique ways – especially “Dr. Strangelove.” I remember leaving the theater after “Strangelove” and feeling like a new reality had opened up for me. (My parents didn’t censor my movie going – after I turned 5, if it was considered something vaguely “adult” and I was interested in it, they’d go along with me, as in “Paths” and “Lolita”.) The Cooper opened its doors to the public for the first time with a gala showing of “2001” which was covered by the local media (this news coverage was seen by me in Nebraska as all of my town’s cable TV channels came from Denver). The trip to see the film was an overnight excursion – getting to Denver, seeing the film that night, and then driving back the next day to my home town.

    I have never in my experience (theaters in Chicago, Omaha, and New York) seen a more perfect presentation of a film. As the theater was new, on its own terms it seemed like a building out of a science fiction tale:

    http://www.historicmoderndenver.com/the-cooper-theatre-of-tomorrow/

    The screen was enormous – and, as I recall, was made of vertical slats that were slightly rotated to help correct image distortions caused by curvature of the screen (or is this a fantasy created by my memory?). My sister and her boyfriend apparently had connections with the person managing the theater and they’d gotten tickets for the theater’s “sweet spot” seats.

    It is impossible to describe to anyone who hasn’t seen a pitch perfect, Cinerama, screening of “2001” just how mind-blowing, thrilling and disorienting it was. At times one felt suspended in deep space, at times one felt like the theatre itself was rotating, and, of course, at times one felt pushed back in ones seat as if traveling under tremendous speed. I have never felt anything similar while viewing another film.

    I saw what was apparently a large format print in New York City at the old Dimension 150 Theater (now demolished) in Times Square in the 80’s. But that experience was non-Cinerama, and the print had issues.

    What I wouldn’t give to take a time machine back to 1968 to Denver to revisit “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

    The Denver Cooper Cinerama, alas, is also demolished.

    Addendum: In reading the material about the Cooper Theater on the linked website above, I see that I am wrong about "2001" being the first film that it ever showed, nor was it "brand new" when I saw the film. I'm probably also remembering a trip with my parents to Denver earlier in the 60's when we must have gone to a Cinerama film there. Such is memory!

    johnmcmasters

    My ticket to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” at the brand new Cooper Cinerama in Denver, Colorado, was my 15th year birthday gift from my sister and her then-boyfriend. I had been obsessing over the film since it had been announced in production, going on and on about how great it was going to be. I idolized Kubrick back then – having seen “Paths of Glory” at age 5, “Spartacus” at age 7, “Lolita” at age 9, and “Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” at age 11. Each film was a powerful viewing experience for my young self (born in 1953) – and they all rearranged my subatomic structure in unique ways – especially “Dr. Strangelove.” I remember leaving the theater after “Strangelove” and feeling like a new reality had opened up for me. (My parents didn’t censor my movie going – after I turned 5, if it was considered something vaguely “adult” and I was interested in it, they’d go along with me, as in “Paths” and “Lolita”.) The Cooper opened its doors to the public for the first time with a gala showing of “2001” which was covered by the local media (this news coverage was seen by me in Nebraska as all of my town’s cable TV channels came from Denver). The trip to see the film was an overnight excursion – getting to Denver, seeing the film that night, and then driving back the next day to my home town.

    I have never in my experience (theaters in Chicago, Omaha, and New York) seen a more perfect presentation of a film. As the theater was new, on its own terms it seemed like a building out of a science fiction tale:

    http://www.historicmoderndenver.com/the-cooper-theatre-of-tomorrow/

    The screen was enormous – and, as I recall, was made of vertical slats that were slightly rotated to help correct image distortions caused by curvature of the screen (or is this a fantasy created by my memory?). My sister and her boyfriend apparently had connections with the person managing the theater and they’d gotten tickets for the theater’s “sweet spot” seats.

    It is impossible to describe to anyone who hasn’t seen a pitch perfect, Cinerama, screening of “2001” just how mind-blowing, thrilling and disorienting it was. At times one felt suspended in deep space, at times one felt like the theatre itself was rotating, and, of course, at times one felt pushed back in ones seat as if traveling under tremendous speed. I have never felt anything similar while viewing another film.

    I saw what was apparently a large format print in New York City at the old Dimension 150 Theater (now demolished) in Times Square in the 80’s. But that experience was non-Cinerama, and the print had issues.

    What I wouldn’t give to take a time machine back to 1968 to Denver to revisit “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

    The Denver Cooper Cinerama, alas, is also demolished.

    Addendum: In reading the material about the Cooper Theater on the linked website above, I see that I am wrong about "2001" being the first film that it ever showed, nor was it "brand new" when I saw the film. I'm probably also remembering a trip with my parents to Denver earlier in the 60's when we must have gone to a Cinerama film there. Such is memory!

    As one who saw 2001 at the NYC Cinerama, it still remains the most memorable and transformative cinema experience of my life. None of today's CGI-fests even come close.

  204. Actor Gary Lockwood had 3 space missions.

    The first on Star Trek series second pilot (1966) :

    [​IMG]

    The second in 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) :

    [​IMG]

    The Third in a Tv made film, Earth II
    (1971) :

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Raise the hand who ever noticed they had a digital piano in Discovery Spaceship :

    [​IMG]
    Keir Dullea as Dave Bowman playing on a piano keyboard in the Discovery centrifuge.

    [​IMG]

    Who believe the revolution in scale model detail, set design and displays started with Star Wars, needs to see this page:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/2001archive/

  205. Holy Crap!
    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/012918-1800

    "Retail sources have begun telling us that Warner Bros. Home Entertainment is preparing to release a 4K Ultra HD version of director Stanley Kubrick’s landmark science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is something we’ve actually known was coming for a few months now, having heard it off the record directly from studio sources. Now that we’re finally hearing the first word from retailers we feel comfortable confirming it. "

  206. Here's hoping that..

    A) It's a new master, and not merely an upscale of the existing 2K transfer that's currently in circulation.

    B) That this new master is made available on other platforms besides UHD, for instance, on regular Blu-ray and as a new theatrical DCP.

    C) New special features.

  207. Robert Harris

    If this were to occur, chances are the aspect ratio would be 2.21:1.

    So right between:

    Video
    Codec: VC-1 (13.39 Mbps)
    Resolution: 1080p
    Aspect ratio: 2.22:1
    Original aspect ratio: 2.20:1

    Verrrry interesting…. 😉

  208. Worth

    "Unrestored" print?

    It's all the rage, you know.

    I am throwing out all of my pristine Blu-rays sourced from elements that have been cleaned of all dirt and damage, especially VERTIGO, MY FAIR LADY, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and all other titles that RAH has brought back from the edge of grave. Time to resurrect the letter-boxed VHS tapes.

  209. I wonder if the "unrestored" comment is a mistranslation of a French-language press release? I can't imagine Nolan is actually suggesting that film restoration is a bad thing. Maybe what he was actually referring to is the fact that the effects weren't changed or "updated"?

    Vincent

  210. From Deadline.

    According to Cannes, for the first time since the original film’s release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative meaning it’s a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. Nolan worked closely with Warner Bros. throughout the mastering process. The film will also return to U.S. theaters in 70mm beginning May 18, 2018.

  211. I don't know what the truth of that article is (& don't really care), but I do get the subtext that photochemical is good & pure, & that digital (scanning & digital repair/restoration) is artificial & to be avoided.

  212. Disturbing news. If they really want to show the film as it looked on a 70mm print from the OCN when it premiered a photochemical restoration is questionable. Not only can they not clean up the film to premiere levels, they can also not give us the original detail and sharpness of these prints. We will get >= 4th generation material in 70mm cinemas with all the inherent analogue losses and distortions. The way to go would be an oversampled 8K scan of the OCN and the best non OCN elements (for missing parts of the OCN) followed by digital clean up/restoration in 8K and then filmouts directly to 70mm release prints (too expensive I guess) or a new 65mm negative for traditional 70mm printing. To get the analogue colour grading look suitable digital filters should be able to simulate this to a sufficient degree, together with the analogue printing step. But since we don't know yet what they actually did in detail we'll have to wait and see. It would have been a suitable film for the first all digital 8K restoration of a feature film.

  213. Michel_Hafner

    Disturbing news. If they really want to show the film as it looked on a 70mm print from the OCN when it premiered a photochemical restoration is questionable. Not only can they not clean up the film to premiere levels, they can also not give us the original detail and sharpness of these prints. We will get >= 4th generation material in 70mm cinemas with all the inherent analogue losses and distortions. The way to go would be an oversampled 8K scan of the OCN and the best non OCN elements (for missing parts of the OCN) followed by digital clean up/restoration in 8K and then filmouts directly to 70mm release prints (too expensive I guess) or a new 65mm negative for traditional 70mm printing. To get the analogue colour grading look suitable digital filters should be able to simulate this to a sufficient degree, together with the analogue printing step. But since we don't know yet what they actually did in detail we'll have to wait and see. It would have been a suitable film for the first all digital 8K restoration of a feature film.

    The studio, and Mr. Nolan, set parameters at the outset, for (with the exception of audio) fully analogue prints, and that is what has been done.

    The realities are that from 15 rows from the screen, especially with today’s superior Eastman duping stocks, a viewer will have no recognition as to the generation of the projected print.

    Short of a full restorative effort, and this release is not publicized as such, I’m certain, especially knowing the lab involved, that this will be a wonderful release.

    Would it have looked superior, if properly restored?

    In my opinion, yes.

    But different.

    But again, that was not the mindset of those involved.

    As someone far more adept with words, once noted, “When you come to the fork in the road, take it.”

    They have, and cinephiles should be thrilled.

    RAH

  214. Michel_Hafner

    As long as they give me a Sony quality UHD from the negative/IP the prints are derived from I will be happy (for now). 😉

    Sony is doing a terrific job with their older titles on UHD but I think that with regard to detail even they could only do so much with an IP as opposed to being able to work from the negative. Oh well, it will certainly be better than the previous Blu-ray so I am in. 🙂

  215. I am not enthused (to put it mildly) that Nolan oversaw this. I have not been impressed with his oversight on most of his UHD BDs (thin milky blacks, DNR to varying degrees, refusal to go back to the OCN and demands to stick with IP, etc.). Why didn't Warner hire a true film restoration expert? Yes, I too wish Sony owned this one.

  216. Tino

    Nolan worked closely with Warner Bros. throughout the mastering process. .

    Ah crap, that means he's going to crank the music and effects audio to 8,000 dB and pull the dialogue channel down to a barely audible whisper. Probably crop the whole thing to 4:3 for IMAX theaters too.

  217. I just realized that the date Warner has selected for this theatrical reissue, May 18th, is the same date as the new Star Wars film comes out.

    This strikes me as a very bad idea. "2001" is my all-time favorite movie, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that two space-themed movies opening on the same day will be competing for the same audience. If Disney decides to make up some 70mm prints for the Han Solo movie, which they may do, that would further reduce the already small number of venues that could show this.

    I kinda wish this re-release was being targeted for the fall. For the past several years, the major studios have had box office hits releasing space themed movies in October/November (including Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, Arrival and others). I think that would have been the perfect time for "2001".

  218. With Mr. Nolan's superb eye for visual excellence, it is doubtful to me that his overseeing of 2001 at Cannes would be anything short of thrilling. I am certain that he has captured THE best print possible.

  219. Josh Steinberg

    I just realized that the date Warner has selected for this theatrical reissue, May 18th, is the same date as the new Star Wars film comes out.

    Solo comes out May 25 and Deadpool is May 18 but you're still right, the fall would be a much less competitive time too. I've got an IMAX theater near me that can also run 70mm and I'd imagine that there's little chance that they're going to give up two or three screenings a day of Deadpool to run 2001.

  220. I stand corrected on the Solo date – I knew there was something big coming on May 18.

    I would say there is zero chance that any 70mm equipped IMAX theater will play it. They'll either be showing Avengers Infinity War or Deadpool. My guess is that Deadpool won't even be getting much of an IMAX release, since they moved their movie to May 18 after Avengers had already claimed that May period. With Avengers Infinity War being the first movie to be shot entirely with IMAX digital cameras, I can imagine that IMAX will be playing that for as long as possible.

    I'm just worried that "2001" won't get any good venues to play in. Disney has really strong contractual language about how long theaters are obligated to play their releases and in which auditoriums, and for something like Avengers Infinity War, it's probably a 3-4 week requirement that it plays in the largest screen in the multiplex. It's understandable that Disney insists on this since their films usually deliver the goods, but it's bad for other movies that want the same screens. Even Tarantino couldn't get Disney to release a 70mm equipped theater for Hateful Eight that would have been the ideal venue for that film (Cinerama Dome). More recently, Murder In The Orient Express was shot with 70mm cameras and had a limited 70mm run. When it played in NYC, it played in 70mm in one of the smaller auditoriums of the multiplex because the theater was contractually obligated to play Disney's Thor Ragnorak in the largest auditorium. It didn't matter that Thor was digital and could be seen in any auditorium with optimal results, and that the auditorium Thor was in was specifically designed for 70mm film exhibition – there was no way that the theater was going to pass on being allowed to show Thor at all just to give the lower grossing Orient Express the proper auditorium.

    So I'm just not optimistic that this can get any screens worth a damn at the time they're putting it out. Which is a real shame.

  221. Hey guys, kind of late to the thread and I haven’t read every post, but most. So what I’m getting is that it is dubious that there will be a 4K remastered Blu-ray of 2001 anytime in the near future. I’ll believe it when I have one I hand. 🙂

    The discussion of a theatrical run at the 50th Anniversay I’ve seen discussed here and there. Upon reading Josh’s and Travis post that the release date conflicts with the Han Solo Star Wars film and Deadpool too had me thinking about the audiences. My take if these dates actually happen for 2001, is that the audience going to see Han Solo and Deadpool is not going to know what 2001 is or care. I have co-workers who are under 40 and they have never seen it or know what it is. So if 2001 is out in May, it might not be a conflict. I feel like 2001 is at art film status now. So the audiences could be different. Is it really going to be shown at the big multiplex franchises?

  222. JoshZ

    Ah crap, that means he's going to crank the music and effects audio to 8,000 dB and pull the dialogue channel down to a barely audible whisper. Probably crop the whole thing to 4:3 for IMAX theaters too.

    In case you are not joking, he has his likes and dislikes, but he also knows this is a Kubrick film and not a Nolan film, so he will make sure it sounds/looks as close as possible to what it looked/sounded like when it was released within the limitations of an all photochemical approach. Anything else would not be tolerated by the Kubrick estate/WB anyway.

  223. Looking at my notes the last time I saw 2001 on the big screen was 29 July 1978, nearly 40 years ago! Jeez I'm getting old.

    It was at the ABC Shaftesbury Avenue, London and in 70mm according to this website.

    http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1998/55/shaftsbury/index.htm

    I was only a teen at the time and being a sci-fi fan it thrilled the heck out of me. The next time I saw it in full widescreen was on BBC TV in 1989, an exciting event for British Kubrick fans but the image was a tiny strip of light on my 22inch set. 🙂

  224. My last time in 70mm would have been at the Cinerama Dome in the 1980s (?), I'm not actually sure when that was now. Before that, I remember "Dimension 150" showings at the Egyptian in the 1970s. And before those, any number of times in original "Cinerama" and 35mm. So anyway, it's been a good long while for me and I'll certainly not miss it this time around.

  225. I told that I was limited to only one ticket to either Deadpool, Hans Solo or 2001, I wouldn't even hesitate. 2001 is genius, still mightily relevant and Geoffrey Unsworth, in addition to Kubrick, visually paved the way for all the rest.

  226. PMF

    I told that I was limited to only one ticket to either Deadpool, Hans Solo or 2001, I wouldn't even hesitate. 2001 is genius, still mightily relevant and Geoffrey Unsworth, in addition to Kubrick, visually paved the way for all the rest.

    Did someone say HANS Solo???

    View attachment 45185

  227. What I never saw in any theater (or, with any prior t.v. I have owned, on a monitor) is pitch-black, velvet skies between the stars that I've always hoped for with this movie. Until now. If you can get hold of an OLED, whether 3D or not, 2001 will seem like a revelation. You really feel like you are in deep space watching it on this format. I don't know whether or not the 4K edition will (or can) improve much on that aspect of it. Detail in the models will almost certainly advance the PQ. I will be interest in how Mr. Harris finds this transfer.

  228. 2001 was inky black, at least in those first beautifully projected Cinerama engagements. On subsequent runs, who knows, the brain probably had to fill it in on some later viewings. But those first impressions were of absolute blackness.

    There. That's my memory of it and I'm sticking to it. 🙂

  229. Charles Smith

    2001 was inky black, at least in those first beautifully projected Cinerama engagements. On subsequent runs, who knows, the brain probably had to fill it in on some later viewings. But those first impressions were of absolute blackness.

    There. That's my memory of it and I'm sticking to it. 🙂

    I saw it on a Cinerama screen also and was overwhelmed by it (the movie in general) at the time. But unless the prints utilized silver in their emulsion to block light from the projector beam, there is no way I was seeing absolute black. It just seemed that way to my young eyes. OLED perhaps simulates what 2001 contrast levels would have looked like if processed and projected using the techniques of the 1930's. Then again, I might be speaking with my head up my ass!

  230. JoshZ

    That's a lot of teal-and-orange in the trailer. Hope the actual release doesn't look like this.

    The best way to safeguard yourself would be to call the theater in advance and ask the manager if, during it's engagement, their concession stand will be serving Orange Tea.:huh:

  231. JoshZ

    That's a lot of teal-and-orange in the trailer. Hope the actual release doesn't look like this.

    I wouldn't be concerned.

    The new 70mm reissue is being printed from 70mm elements entirely in the analogue domain – there will be no digital steps involved in making new 70mm prints.

    As best I can tell, that trailer was created using the existing HD master (the same one used for the DCP and that's on Blu-ray). It does not appear to represent a new scan.

    As best as we know, the transfer that would be used to create a new master for the eventual UHD release has not yet been performed.

    It's also worth noting that the original HD master that's on the Blu-ray is not accurate to the look of the 70mm prints, and that the old Blu-ray really isn't valid as a basis for comparison for what's accurate and what's not. I'm not saying that this new trailer is accurate either, just that the BD isn't.

  232. I was curious about which theaters will be doing showings to. I saw 2001 in 2001 at the Castro theater in San Francisco, it appears to be the only theater in Northern California with 70mm film projection capability.

    In reviewing when 2001 could be shown for the 50th, I was surprised so many venues that could show 70mm have closed. I found a website that created a list of all the 70mm theaters in the US and it’s status. The guy appears to have done quite a job to compile the list!

    http://www.redballoon.net/current70mmus.html

  233. Nelson, it's possible that Warner may ship a projector with the print. When they reissued the movie in 2001-2002, they provided the rental of a projector along with the 70mm print for venues that weren't already equipped with 70mm. I think they had two different 70mm prints and projector setups, and they would leapfrog each other from city to city on the "tour" of dates.

    I also think that thanks to Hateful Eight getting a wider 70mm release than anything had gotten in ages, that a lot of those theaters kept their 70mm infrastructure intact afterwards. Warner has been releasing 70mm prints of their tentpole pictures in a few markets because those projectors are still there, so it may be slightly better out there now than it was, say, ten years ago.

  234. Dave H

    I just hope the upcoming BD/UHD BD mirrors the 70mm as much as possible and Nolan keeps his personal preferences out of it (still don't understand why he is overseeing this, ugh).

    Nolan's personal preference would be for the BD/UHD to match the 70mm. Isn't that what you want too?

  235. Dave H

    Can you link me to that? I missed it.

    I'm not sure that there was an explicit statement of that. But the film is being reprinted in 70mm from original elements, rather than going through a 4K digital restoration, because Nolan is at the helm and wants it to be done in the analog realm. For Nolan's own films on UHD, he had them scan timed IPs rather than the original negatives, because he wanted to retain the look of the photochemical finish rather than recreating it digitally. So I just think that with all of this push towards retaining as much of the original film look as possible, that it would carry on to the disc release as well.

  236. Josh Steinberg

    I'm not sure that there was an explicit statement of that. But the film is being reprinted in 70mm from original elements, rather than going through a 4K digital restoration, because Nolan is at the helm and wants it to be done in the analog realm. For Nolan's own films on UHD, he had them scan timed IPs rather than the original negatives, because he wanted to retain the look of the photochemical finish rather than recreating it digitally. So I just think that with all of this push towards retaining as much of the original film look as possible, that it would carry on to the disc release as well.

    I am a bit leery of Warner not hiring a reputable film restoration expert (even if this is not a full blown restoration) and instead hiring their hottest modern director right now to oversee this process, but we'll see. Keeping fingers crossed.

  237. Dave H

    I am a bit leery of Warner not hiring a reputable film restoration expert (even if this is not a full blown restoration) and instead hiring their hottest modern director right now to oversee this process, but we'll see. Keeping fingers crossed.

    I think the logic there would be that they're merely reprinting the film, so they don't need a restoration expert for that – they just need a good lab. I imagine they'll be using Fotokem, who have been doing some great 70mm work lately. Fotokem also made some of the more recent 70mm prints that Warner did for "2001" for a couple theaters that wanted their own copies, so they should be familiar with the film.

    Of directors working in Hollywood today, Nolan probably has more experience in the photochemical workflow than anyone else in the past decade. But I also have to think some of his involvement is about raising the profile of this release. He has a large fan base of dedicated followers and his stamp of the approval on the project could boost the box office potential here, so I'd imagine the partnership has something to do with that as well.

    I genuinely believe that Warner will want to do right by this title. I'll admit I was a little surprised that they were going the photochemical route but I'd much rather see a 70mm print than a 4K DCP. I think there's a benefit to having a presentation being supervised by an actual human in the projection booth at each and every show, vs an environment where a technician arrives on Thursday morning, programs all the showtimes into the automated system for the next week, and then no one actually supervises anything.

  238. Josh Steinberg

    I'll admit I was a little surprised that they were going the photochemical route but I'd much rather see a 70mm print than a 4K DCP.

    I much prefer a 4K DCP in a Dolby Vision o LED screen cinema or UHD at home from the scanned and restored negative than a 4th generation 70mm print from unrestored sources. The difference is not subtle at all.

  239. Craig Beam

    Attention Portland dwellers: first weekend in June at the Hollywood!

    [GALLERY=media, 4926]Capture by Craig Beam posted Apr 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM[/GALLERY]

    One of the worst written pieces I’ve seen relevant to 2001.

    Filled with truly “fake news.”

    Mr. Kubrick purposefully, would not wish an audience to see the film as it premiered in 1968.

    Neither would I.

    “What fools these mortals be”

    RAH

  240. Michel_Hafner

    I much prefer a 4K DCP in a Dolby Vision o LED screen cinema or UHD at home from the scanned and restored negative than a 4th generation 70mm print from unrestored sources. The difference is not subtle at all.

    They’re very different. Both can look amazing.

  241. Robert Harris

    One of the worst written pieces I’ve seen relevant to 2001.

    Filled with truly “fake news.”

    Mr. Kubrick purposefully, would not wish an audience to see the film as it premiered in 1968.

    Neither would I.

    “What fools these mortals be”

    RAH

    Offending copy notwithstanding, I'm still stoked as hell, and I hope to see other HTF locals at one of the screenings.

  242. Robert Harris

    One of the worst written pieces I’ve seen relevant to 2001.

    Filled with truly “fake news.”

    Mr. Kubrick purposefully, would not wish an audience to see the film as it premiered in 1968.

    Neither would I.

    “What fools these mortals be”

    RAH

    Really? I have yet to see a presentation (and I've seen my share) that matched it's premiere run at the NYC Cinerama theater in 68. (I still remember how stark & pure the whites were.)

  243. Dave H

    I am a bit leery of Warner not hiring a reputable film restoration expert (even if this is not a full blown restoration) and instead hiring their hottest modern director right now to oversee this process, but we'll see. Keeping fingers crossed.

    I sincerely doubt that Christopher Nolan is working within a vacuum.
    I am certain that with an eye like Mr. Nolan's, he has many highly informed specialists, contacts and colleagues that he confers with.
    He is a much needed champion and voice for the 70mm format.
    I, for one, am very, very encouraged.

  244. Robert Harris

    One of the worst written pieces I’ve seen relevant to 2001.

    Filled with truly “fake news.”

    Mr. Kubrick purposefully, would not wish an audience to see the film as it premiered in 1968.

    Neither would I.

    “What fools these mortals be”

    RAH

    I gave Craig Beam a "Likes" for bringing another presentation venue of "2001" to our attentions;
    and I gave RAH a "Likes" because it was a shoddy piece of writing.

  245. We've been talking about this in the other thread a bit.

    To begin with, there is no 4K theatrical release coming up. New 70mm film prints are being struck from original film material, so this will be a 100% analog release. There will not be a 4K DCP offered as part of this re-release.

    The trailer was not created from 70mm film elements. It appears to have been edited digitally using the 2K transfer that was the basis of the current Blu-ray edition, as well as the current DCP that repertory theaters have had access to for the past several years. The color timing on the trailer is basically irrelevant to any future releases.

    Warner, the Kubrick estate and Christopher Nolan are making it a priority to present "2001" as close as possible to the original presentation, and the press release explicitly states that there is no revisionist or digital work being done on the 70mm release.

    It also appears that the actual transfer for the eventual UHD has not yet been performed, so we don't yet know what will be used as the source for the UHD, nor what it will look like. Christopher Nolan is said to be overseeing that process as well in collaboration with the Kubrick estate and Warner, which to me signals that they are going to try to replicate the original look as closely as possible.

    Whatever company put together this trailer has clearly done so with the idea of making a modern looking film trailer to excite a modern audience. Nothing wrong with that.

    I also think it's worth mentioning that there are many of us, myself included, who are not happy with the existing Blu-ray for "2001" (as well as the 2K DCP based on the same master), because it is not representative of how the film appears in 70mm. So just as a word of caution, the current Blu-ray should not be used as a guide for what the "correct" look of the film is.

  246. Josh Steinberg

    Warner, the Kubrick estate and Christopher Nolan are making it a priority to present "2001" as close as possible to the original presentation, and the press release explicitly states that there is no revisionist or digital work being done on the 70mm release.
    .

    Which is a contradiction in itself IMHO. If they want to present the film as close as possible to the look of the original release then they have to go digital to compensate for wear and tear, colour fading of the negative, different projector bulbs, different print stock etc. They still can show a 70mm print in the end, of course.

  247. RJ992

    Really? I have yet to see a presentation (and I've seen my share) that matched it's premiere run at the NYC Cinerama theater in 68. (I still remember how stark & pure the whites were.)

    I'm pretty sure Robert is referring to the premiere print being about 20-minutes longer. Kubrick cut the film down to its current length after the premiere and the cut footage has never been seen since, as per his wishes.

    Vincent

  248. Josh Steinberg

    We've been talking about this in the other thread a bit.

    To begin with, there is no 4K theatrical release coming up. New 70mm film prints are being struck from original film material, so this will be a 100% analog release. There will not be a 4K DCP offered as part of this re-release.

    To be clear, there is no “original film material” involved in this release.

    While everything is analogue, and I’m told by someone who has seen it, that it looks beautiful- of which I have no doubt…

    All prints will be derived from standard issue, modern, Eastman dupes.

    Fourth generation.

    And there’s nothing wrong with that.

    But no part of this is coming directly from the OCN, as it did in 1968. Therefore, there are no “original elements” involved in the printing path.

    It would be a travesty to do so.

  249. This is interesting information and provides some insight into the 50th Anniversary marketing spin. If I re-read the quote from Christopher Nolan below, it’s easy to interprete it to mean the new prints are made from the original camera negative.

    “For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” Nolan explains. “This is a true photochemical film recreation.”

    From Mr. Harris post above, the 4th generation dupes, I’m reading as meaning they were derived from the camera negative a few generations earlier, and the new 2001 prints came from these “newly struck printing elements”.

    That makes me wonder, all the earlier prints of 2001 that’s been screened at theaters in the last decades, including the print I saw in 2001 is derived from dupes. The print looked great and I’m thinking it had no digital work done on it. Is it fair to ask if this new release is any different from the earlier prints?

  250. Was it common from prints to be made directly off the negative? And is that something directors and cinematographers would have even wanted? That would mean there's absolutely no colour grading.

  251. Nelson Au

    This is interesting information and provides some insight into the 50th Anniversary marketing spin. If I re-read the quote from Christopher Nolan below, it’s easy to interprete it to mean the new prints are made from the original camera negative.

    “For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” Nolan explains. “This is a true photochemical film recreation.”

    From Mr. Harris post above, the 4th generation dupes, I’m reading as meaning they were derived from the camera negative a few generations earlier, and the new 2001 prints came from these “newly struck printing elements”.

    That makes me wonder, all the earlier prints of 2001 that’s been screened at theaters in the last decades, including the print I saw in 2001 is derived from dupes. The print looked great and I’m thinking it had no digital work done on it. Is it fair to ask if this new release is any different from the earlier prints?

    I'm guessing Nolan is saying that a brand-new 65mm IP was made from the negative, from which a brand-new 65mm IN was struck, and then new 70mm prints from that.

    I'm still not sure he's entirely correct in his statement though. Specifically, the "For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative" part, since I would think that the new 70mm prints that were made in the year 2001 were also struck from a new IP/IN chain? Or were the new 70mm prints made in 2001 taken from vintage IP/INs? The print I saw in 2001 at the Loews Astor Plaza during the first week of its run was gorgeous- aside from the theater stupidly removing the intermission (which caused my bladder some considerable consternation)- so if it was from an "old" IP or IN, it was one that was kept well-stored and in really good condition, and was very well-printed and processed by the lab back then.

    Vincent

  252. Worth

    Was it common from prints to be made directly off the negative? And is that something directors and cinematographers would have even wanted? That would mean there's absolutely no colour grading.

    AFAIK, All prints produced in the ‘60s & ‘70s (from all 65 negs) were struck from the OCN, as there was not yet a quality duping stock. Dupes began to arrive a bit later.

    All unfazed prints screened over the past thirty years or so have been from dupes.

    There’s nothing new occurring, beyond selecting quality dupes.

    Basically, it’s a non-story.

    One should not need “sizzle” to get folks to desire to see 2001, but if the audience is that gullible, and that’s what it takes. As Mr. Barnum posted…

    “This way to the egress”

    That noted, no reason, aside from any problematic dupes, why the new prints should not be lovely.

  253. There are significent advantages in the sound now being digital and not from magnetic stripes. Although we've all marvelled at stunning sound from those stripes I was once shown (at Technicolor) how the prints were recorded once striped.

    To compensate for losses from such narrow tracks and below professional Mastering tape speed the Master 6 track Mag went via a graphic equaliser to the print so that the sound being sent to the print was being tweaked to overcome losses that would have occurred on flat transfer.

    Only now, with digital transfer, are we potentially hearing the untweaked original mix.

  254. Just so I am understanding all of this, Warner will simply be scanning in these 4th gen dupe elements (at 4K) with the normal digital tweaking as is done on every analog film to video scan so that it conveys properly at home. Nolan will be overseeing this entire process.

    Going back to the ON was not possible giving it's condition and would have required a major reconstruction which was probably well beyond what Warner wanted to spend.

  255. My interpretation of what Mr. Harris said is,

    It would be a “tragedy” to use the OCN for this new 2018 print. It’s been industry practice to make dupes by high quality film. So no need to access the OCN. They are protecting the OCN. Whether the condition of the OCN is good or not, others with more knowledge would know better.

    There’s been no discussions about 4K scans for home video. This is strictly regarding the Nolan effort for the 2018 anniversary showings in theaters around the US.

    This is how I’m interpreting this news from Mr. Harris. There’s nothing but a lot of here here, Radar.

  256. Dave H

    Just so I am understanding all of this, Warner will simply be scanning in these 4th gen dupe elements (at 4K) with the normal digital tweaking as is done on every analog film to video scan so that it conveys properly at home. Nolan will be overseeing this entire process.

    Going back to the ON was not possible giving it's condition and would have required a major reconstruction which was probably well beyond what Warner wanted to spend.

    For the 4K release, I'd imagine they'd be scanning the IP or IN. The 70mm prints getting a theatrical release would be 4th gen.

Leave a Reply