2001: A Space Odyssey 4K UHD (1968)

[Mierzwiak]

So buh bye, black levels?

[stvn1974]

Is Nolan going to add long scenes of exposition to explain things to newbies of the film?

[ArnoldLayne56]

Here's the Cannes poster for ya:

2001-A-Space-Odyssey-poster-Cannes-2018-70mm.jpg

[Colson]

Any news on where the locations for the 70mm screenings will be?

[ROSS.T.G.]

So May 8th ehhhh? I’ll need to get a part time job next month.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

Here's the Cannes poster for ya:

Attachment 196352

Would’ve been an excellent poster had it not been for the obtrusive tagline.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I am a proponent of photochemical color timing from what I've seen from movies that used it versus DIs. I generally prefer to avoid digitizing the image as much as I can.

But when it comes to restoration, digital tools have really come around. Geoff's points are quite valid as one can't really fix emulsion scratches with wetgate printing, for example, and any damaged footage would have to be replaced with a dupe of some sort.

For example, PlayTime was restored just a few years ago. It's a 70mm production and I got to see a 35mm reduction print that was from the 4K restoration earlier this year.

My goodness, did that look good. Rock solid registration and absolutely gorgeous color and detail. There wasn't much in the way of film grain as this was from large format, so that wasn't a concern for me. After seeing that I was sold. I think 8K pipelines will be needed to truly preserve 70mm content, but as far as 35mm is concerned save for IB Technicolor materials, digital is truly the better way to go restoration wise.

Even 3-strip technicolour can benefit, as the precision of the digital overlay of the three matrices is beyond any photochemical line-up. But yes, 100% agreed on the rest. Photochemical restoration has always had to contend with hitting the ceiling of what can ultimately be done with that piece of film, not that it doesn't have any merit but it's basically about patching up a degrading source as best you can, trying to stay one step ahead of something that could literally be crumbling in your hands.

In some cases they sidestepped the actual camera original completely because it was too far gone for any photochemical process to rescue e.g. Spartacus' 1991 restoration was rebuilt using the YCM 8/35 separation masters and output to a new 5/65 IP, the oneg was basically dead to all intents and purposes because it had faded so much. Every print they pulled from it skewed a fetching shade of blue in the shadows - heck, even in the wondrous digital restoration you'll still see a bit of blue creeping through here and there.

As for 65mm, as long as the scan is an oversampled 8K one (Fotokem have 11K scanners, remember) then the 6K/4K downrez will hold most of the usable information IMO, aside from slivers of detail and the finest particles of grain. And if the 8K scan is archived then who knows what may happen in the future...

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, preferred processes aside, this news makes me suspect that Nolan’s interest was in part impetus for the timing of this release and for that, at least, I thank him.

It's the 50th anniversary, this was coming regardless. But Nolan getting involved has thrown a big spanner into the works, whether we ultimately benefit from it is another matter entirely. I've preached enough recently about not throwing something under the bus before having seen it but I'd be lying through my teeth if I said that I wasn't just a bit nervous right now.

If this ends up going from a 65mm neg restoration by the experts at MPI into a scan of a new IP replete with all of Nolan's other UHD hallmarks (as people said, bye bye black levels) then I'm going to be disappointed on some level. Am I still going to watch it and enjoy the hell out of the movie? Damned right I am. (Christ, I was spellbound when recently watching a shitty non-anamorphic DVD of 2001 that's literally 20 years old.) And who knows, this may yet turn out to be (inter)stellar despite my misgivings.

But Nolan fudging with his own movies on UHD is one thing, applying his backwards-ass ways of thinking to Kubrick's masterpiece is another. At least when Scorsese oversaw the various Powell & Pressburger restorations he had no compunctions whatsoever about them digitally realigning the 3-strip originals, but if Nolan were in charge he'd probably want them to be photochemically lined up and printed out to an IP. Great for back in the day, but we're not back in the day any more and digital is not the devil.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Wow, Nolan is here too. It's getting interesting. Infinite possibilities. I hope he didn't help Pope with The Matrix, though.

Aye, I really hope he hasn't taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of all things UHD at Warners and that even if he did, Bill Pope told him to **** off. No bueno!

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I am a proponent of photochemical color timing from what I've seen from movies that used it versus DIs. I generally prefer to avoid digitizing the image as much as I can.
.

I wonder what advantage photochemical colour grading in theory can have over a digital grade. For starters you can not grade photochemically without copying which means additional analogue distortion, noise and filtering. Then you are limited to what you can do with printer lights for YCM. Selective grading of image parts or a subset of colours is not possible. What you gain is avoiding potential digital artifacts and losses during scanning (and film out if film is the end target). And you work entirely in a subtractive colour space while the digital version uses an additive colour space. The two have overlapping gamuts, so neither can do all the colours the other can. Is this the main reason for sticking to analogue colour grading? For all the rest current digital technology should be able to mimick the analogue way for full 35mm quality for anyone who wants the analogue look, and for all the others offer the additional possibilities of digital grading.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

For all the rest current digital technology should be able to mimick the analogue way for full 35mm quality for anyone who wants the analogue look, and for all the others offer the additional possibilities of digital grading.

And that's the thing that slays me the most with Nolan. If he at least scanned up his stuff from negative and then applied an emulation LUT which preserved the photochemical colour without necessarily ruining the crisp oneg detail then I don't think anyone would mind a jot (and a LOT of this colour science went into creating the digital deliverables for Dunkirk, albeit still scanned from IP material which isn't terminal for large format detail but it can hurt 35mm [edit] when using that source as the basis for four kays).

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even 3-strip technicolour can benefit, as the precision of the digital overlay of the three matrices is beyond any photochemical line-up. But yes, 100% agreed on the rest. Photochemical restoration has always had to contend with hitting the ceiling of what can ultimately be done with that piece of film, not that it doesn't have any merit but it's basically about patching up a degrading source as best you can, trying to stay one step ahead of something that could literally be crumbling in your hands.

I agree that 3-strip can still benefit from superior registration. I just made that point because dye transfer prints have a unique color that unfortunately can't be replicated anymore because the printers no longer exist. When Gordon Willis said that his blacks couldn't be replicated even with modern stock compared to the dye transfer prints, something was lost there in my opinion.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

I wonder what advantage photochemical colour grading in theory can have over a digital grade. For starters you can not grade photochemically without copying which means additional analogue distortion, noise and filtering. Then you are limited to what you can do with printer lights for YCM. Selective grading of image parts or a subset of colours is not possible. What you gain is avoiding potential digital artifacts and losses during scanning (and film out if film is the end target). And you work entirely in a subtractive colour space while the digital version uses an additive colour space. The two have overlapping gamuts, so neither can do all the colours the other can. Is this the main reason for sticking to analogue colour grading? For all the rest current digital technology should be able to mimick the analogue way for full 35mm quality for anyone who wants the analogue look, and for all the others offer the additional possibilities of digital grading.

It is perhaps an anecdotal statement, but in general when I see a movie finished photochemically (even on Blu-ray, let alone a film print) I find the color to be more natural looking with more depth and realism. The early DIs particularly suffered in this regard. I know aggressive LUTs are all the rage these days and perhaps I wouldn't notice as much of a difference if this wasn't the case, but that is my observation. This is especially stark when comparing modern photochemically finished titles like Dunkirk and The Hateful Eight to what's out there now. The majority of my theater going these days is at art house theaters so I see a lot of film prints. Again, I have been very impressed with the color in these. Raising Arizona and Bad Day at Black Rock particularly stick out with the depth and realism of color.

At the same time, the Sony UHDs show what can be done with digital scans of OCN material. I assume they are using answer prints if they have them, so perhaps there is a middle ground of sorts.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I agree that 3-strip can still benefit from superior registration. I just made that point because dye transfer prints have a unique color that unfortunately can't be replicated anymore because the printers no longer exist. When Gordon Willis said that his blacks couldn't be replicated even with modern stock compared to the dye transfer prints, something was lost there in my opinion.

...which is why RAH actually prefers (unless something has changed) the "data" version of the Godfather restoration viewed on a proper 4K projection setup because modern print stock just isn't up to the task of reproducing the range of the digital master.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...which is why RAH actually prefers (unless something has changed) the "data" version of the Godfather restoration viewed on a proper 4K projection setup because modern print stock just isn't up to the task of reproducing the range of the digital master.

Hmm. I wasn't aware of that.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...which is why RAH actually prefers (unless something has changed) the "data" version of the Godfather restoration viewed on a proper 4K projection setup because modern print stock just isn't up to the task of reproducing the range of the digital master.

Indeed. And the process for 2001: A Space Odyssey would really benefit from being performed entirely in the digital domain, as long as it's done correctly and with adequate latitude therein. Hopefully Nolan, who will doubtless disagree, will not steer them too far in the other direction.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Hmm. I wasn't aware of that.

I can't find the relevant quote but I'm quite sure he said it on one forum or another. (As an aside, given the actual topic at hand, RAH has said that he'd rather watch a properly presented 4K DCP than a properly presented 70mm print. He's worked with film for a long time but he's a fan of the ones and zeros is Robert: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...7#post-4125230)

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I can't find the relevant quote but I'm quite sure he said it on one forum or another. (As an aside, given the actual topic at hand, RAH has said that he'd rather watch a properly presented 4K DCP than a properly presented 70mm print. He's worked with film for a long time but he's a fan of the ones and zeros is Robert: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...7#post-4125230)

I can see why he'd say that. I've seen Lawrence both in 70mm and a 4K DCP. Picture wise, I thought the 70mm print had slightly better color and grain retention. Sound wise, the mag track wasted the PCM on the DCP, but that's another subject

So given that, I imagine a DV graded 4K version of 2001 on a laser projector would look just as good and perhaps even better than the 70mm print. I've seen it in 70mm last year so it would be fun to compare it to the Dolby Cinema version.

[BluProofie]

Nolan touching Kubrick’s work is ridiculous. Why should he be allowed to supervise a transfer for a work that isn’t his? Because he directed some blockbusters? Can’t wait for the Michael Bay remaster of Hitchcock’s Notorious!

I guess I will stick with the old blu-ray if he messes it up. It looks pretty good despite the low bitrate.

[bga84]

I suppose we don't really know that Nolan has had anything to do with the disc transfer. After all, the story about the Cannes screening talks about the 70mm prints coming from new elements taken from the o-neg. To me this points to a lot of work having been done prior to Nolan coming on board.

His involvement might have been limited to preparing the new 70mm theatrical prints, because he's in bed with WB and has experience in putting films out in the format. The UHD with its HDR grade might have been handled completely separately.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bga84

I suppose we don't really know that Nolan has had anything to do with the disc transfer. After all, the story about the Cannes screening talks about the 70mm prints coming from new elements taken from the o-neg. To me this points to a lot of work having been done prior to Nolan coming on board.

His involvement might have been limited to preparing the new 70mm theatrical prints, because he's in bed with WB and has experience in putting films out in the format. The UHD with its HDR grade might have been handled completely separately.

Let's just say there are other things bubbling up in the background re: the restoration that make perfect sense now that I've heard that Nolan is involved, I know that's a tease but I can't say any more than that.