2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

[TylerDurden389]

Originally Posted by mifunefan

you're in luck, looks like they extended it till october 17th

http://movingimage.us/exhibitions/20...space-odyssey/

thanks!!

[Canada]

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in the IMAX, it was great.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

Won’t comment on the UHD until I see it, but don’t use the Nolan 70mms as a point of reference for anything. Anyone who is saying it “looks fine” has no eye for detail or has no point of reference for how that film, or any 70mm film, should look.

The current problem with the 70mms is that by the time the IP was made, the camera neg had already faded. This also has an effect on thin areas of the negative, such as shadow detail, and blow-outs in the highlights from compensation for the fading in the timing. Many shots are dupe sections from lab crack ups on the OCN, some of them are from seps and are misaligned. There are several lab tears, neg scratches, and stains. And worst of all, many of the prints out there are (as expected) already getting trashed by poor operators.

As has been mentioned, there are two sets of Datasat discs available. One with the Chase 5.1 mix and one with the original Todd-AO staging. The Chase mix is a mess, with re-edited music cues, re-edited surround, and poor EQ. I haven’t heard their transfer of the 6.0, so no comment.

From what I understand, WHV went to the earlier generation elements, which makes comparison to the Nolan prints null.

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. I don't go see an analog print for perfection. I understand what fade is and warping and the brain can and does tell the difference.

It is like a faded photograph. True it doesn't look like the day it was born but that doesn't mean it doesn't retain accuracy.

Digital fixing is exactly that. It doesn't make it more accurate, just pleasing to the eye.

Seeing the original analog print untouched showed detail that was not on the 4K.

Those that think they know without seeing it are speaking from complete ignorance.

The Nolan print was straight from the negative. It was simply awesome warts and all and it showed more detail then a 4K scan ever could.

Yet there will be people that still claim that numbers in the thousands can retain a print that captures picture quality in the millions. It is like a warped religion.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Canada

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in the IMAX, it was great.

I bet! That is crazy just me thinking about it.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

I bet! That is crazy just me thinking about it.

It was pretty awesome. I believe that Christopher Nolan over saw the transfer to IMAX.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. I don't go see an analog print for perfection. I understand what fade is and warping and the brain can and does tell the difference.

It is like a faded photograph. True it doesn't look like the day it was born but that doesn't mean it doesn't retain accuracy.

Digital fixing is exactly that. It doesn't make it more accurate, just pleasing to the eye.

Seeing the original analog print untouched showed detail that was not on the 4K.

Those that think they know without seeing it are speaking from complete ignorance.

The Nolan print was straight from the negative. It was simply awesome warts and all and it showed more detail then a 4K scan ever could.

Yet there will be people that still claim that numbers in the thousands can retain a print that captures picture quality in the millions. It is like a warped religion.

Slight correction, the OCN was scanned at 8K. Some sources say the entire restoration was done in 8K, others are more vaguely worded. Since you have all the info I figured I would contribute something else. Carry on.

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

[Show spoiler]

Finally made my way up to Queens to visit the Museum of the Moving Image yesterday, and I got to see their exhibit on 2001: A Space Odyyssey. It was incredible. If you're a fan of this movie like I am, you will feel like a kid in a candy store. They packed so much stuff into the exhibit, from models of different crafts, various costumes, and prototypes to concept art, and all kinds of written correspondences (the exchanges with IBM about the portrayal of an evil computer were particularly entertaining). I had re-watched the film on Thursday, and read the section on 2001 from the Stanley Kubrick Archives book (I strongly recommend getting this), and that really helped me enjoy the exhibit that much more. They had various screens playing certain scenes from the movie on loop, and of course the great score in the background as well. I was bouncing from one thing to the other, it was just a blast.

The exhibit was low-lit so pictures didn't all come out great, and there's some reflections due to this. The exhibit runs until September 26th, so if you're in the NYC area, or planning to be, I highly recommend making the trip to visit this exhibit, and the museum too. The Jim Henson exhibition was just as great an experience as 2001.

[Show spoiler]

I checked out that 2001 exhibit at the Museum of Moving Image earlier in the month. Cool exhibit, and I got to watch the movie projected in 70mm again (in a double feature with Lawrence of Arabia no less!).

Interesting print. Colors looked a bit different from the 70mm "Nolan version" three years back to me as well. Colors actually reminded me more of that 2018 trailer. Flesh tones were more of a golden orange. Many scenes (especially the Discovery and final sequence) had more of a blue/teal cast to it and whites were more off-white/yellowish. The infamous hallway/corridor shot of Bowman in the red space suit was more off-white/yellow and Bowman enters the docking bay which was bluish. The print also was a bit juddery and colors seemed to strobe a bit. I don't have a precise memory of the "Nolan" version but I saw that 70mm presentation projected twice in 2018 and didn't think the colors looked all that much like WB's 2018 YouTube trailer at all. From my notes at the time, I did find the Nolan print to look rather warm for the first part, but colder after we get to the Discovery scenes but overall the colors were rather duller and desaturated compared to the 4K digital version. The 70mm print at MoMI appeared rather colorful to me.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. I don't go see an analog print for perfection. I understand what fade is and warping and the brain can and does tell the difference.

It is like a faded photograph. True it doesn't look like the day it was born but that doesn't mean it doesn't retain accuracy.

Digital fixing is exactly that. It doesn't make it more accurate, just pleasing to the eye.

Seeing the original analog print untouched showed detail that was not on the 4K.

Those that think they know without seeing it are speaking from complete ignorance.

The Nolan print was straight from the negative. It was simply awesome warts and all and it showed more detail then a 4K scan ever could.

Yet there will be people that still claim that numbers in the thousands can retain a print that captures picture quality in the millions. It is like a warped religion.

Digital scans, no matter how good aren't able to give you all the qualities that make film great - yet. They can make a faded print look better etc., but there are so many different scanners that often use different technology, making the scans from each system look different. I'm not implying that they are bad, but the final product could still look better as technology advances.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. I don't go see an analog print for perfection. I understand what fade is and warping and the brain can and does tell the difference.

It is like a faded photograph. True it doesn't look like the day it was born but that doesn't mean it doesn't retain accuracy.

Digital fixing is exactly that. It doesn't make it more accurate, just pleasing to the eye.

Seeing the original analog print untouched showed detail that was not on the 4K.

Those that think they know without seeing it are speaking from complete ignorance.

The Nolan print was straight from the negative. It was simply awesome warts and all and it showed more detail then a 4K scan ever could.

Yet there will be people that still claim that numbers in the thousands can retain a print that captures picture quality in the millions. It is like a warped religion.

The "Nolan prints" of 2001 were NOT "straight from the negative". A 65mm IP created circa 1999 was the initial source, which was then printed to a 65mm IN, and the 70mm "Nolan prints" were made from that IN.

The original 70mm prints circa 1968* would have been direct from the negative, but the Nolan prints most certainly were not.

Chris

* And reprints, if any, in the 1970s would be direct-from-negative as well, but by the 1980s, they would have been going to dupes if making any new prints as opposed to just recirculating existing ones.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

The "Nolan prints" of 2001 were NOT "straight from the negative". A 65mm IP created circa 1999 was the initial source, which was then printed to a 65mm IN, and the 70mm "Nolan prints" were made from that IN.

The original 70mm prints circa 1968* would have been direct from the negative, but the Nolan prints most certainly were not.

Chris

* And reprints, if any, in the 1970s would be direct-from-negative as well, but by the 1980s, they would have been going to dupes if making any new prints as opposed to just recirculating existing ones.

Thsnk you for the correction...but in 1968 weren't they also printing from an internegative?

The element that Nolan was working from obviously at one point was struck from the negative.

Yes I get that the element is aged but it is still photochemical which gives an obvious detail advantage.

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Slight correction, the OCN was scanned at 8K. Some sources say the entire restoration was done in 8K, others are more vaguely worded. Since you have all the info I figured I would contribute something else. Carry on.

Thank you for the correction.

Originally Posted by vortexx

Digital scans, no matter how good aren't able to give you all the qualities that make film great - yet. They can make a faded print look better etc., but there are so many different scanners that often use different technology, making the scans from each system look different. I'm not implying that they are bad, but the final product could still look better as technology advances.

Digital scans are often not 3D and even thrn they are limited compared to a photochemical process.

I think a good eye and using original director's notes helps and obviously I am a fan of digital discs but seeing 2001 this way was a real treat.

[Christian Muth]

No, in the 50s/60s, prints of large-format films like 2001 were always direct from the negatives due to the generally lousy dupe stocks of the time. This is one of the reasons large-format classics are so often in need of major restorations- the negatives were printed from and handled so much, leading to a lot more wear and tear. Even in the 1970s blow-up era, the 70mm blow up prints would be optically printed direct from the 35mm negatives.

Chris

[A113]

Originally Posted by Canada

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in the IMAX, it was great.

2001 is easily my favourite film of all time, so it's pretty easy in saying that the IMAX screening I saw for this back in 2018 is without a doubt one of the greatest theatrical experiences I've ever had so far.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by A113

2001 is easily my favourite film of all time, so it's pretty easy in saying that the IMAX screening I saw for this back in 2018 is without a doubt one of the greatest theatrical experiences I've ever had so far.

Ditto.

And I went to the IMAX showings twice.

[A113]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Ditto.

And I went to the IMAX showings twice.

2001 is my favourite all time film and I used to watch it almost every day but after that IMAX screening I very rarely actually watch it anymore because of how hard it is for a home theatre to live up to those kind of big screen + sound standards.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

No, in the 50s/60s, prints of large-format films like 2001 were always direct from the negatives due to the generally lousy dupe stocks of the time. This is one of the reasons large-format classics are so often in need of major restorations- the negatives were printed from and handled so much, leading to a lot more wear and tear. Even in the 1970s blow-up era, the 70mm blow up prints would be optically printed direct from the 35mm negatives.

Chris

Well obviously in this situation handling the negative again was not going to happen. Doesn't make the print trash or devoid of a great deal of detail.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Well obviously in this situation handling the negative again was not going to happen. Doesn't make the print trash or devoid of a great deal of detail.

Oh, I agree. 70mm prints from INs can look gorgeous. I saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA projected in 70mm four times, and all of those were from an IN of the Robert Harris photochemical restoration instead of direct-for-the-negative and it looked glorious each time.

I've also seen 2001 in 70mm three times. The first time was a fading (but not completely faded) print in 1994 at the smallish Walter Reade Theater in NYC, so I'm guessing it would have likely been from the 1970s. Even with the slight fading and the smaller screen, it looked (and sounded) fantastic. I'm not sure if that print would have been from a dupe of direct from the negative, but it looked really nice. Second time was in the year 2001 at the late, great Lowes Astor Plaza theater in NYC (at the time, the largest non-IMAX screen in NYC). That was a new print was DEFINITELY from an IN, and again, on that huge screen, it looked superb. The only thing that hampered that screening was that the theater stupidly removed the intermission from the print, but the projection quality was superb (I saw it on opening day).

The third time was one of the "Nolan prints" at the Redford Theater in Redford, Michigan, in the summer of 2018. That screening was less than ideal. The print had clearly been run quite a bit before making its way to the Redford and was already quite dirty and damaged around the reel changes, and the Redford's projection was less than ideal (likely due to the projection booth being very high up and at a rather extreme angle from the screen. The "middle" of the screen was in good focus, but top and bottom were not). I don't blame the print itself for these problems, though, but rather how it was handled, and the projection at the Redford Theater.

Chris

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Oh, I agree. 70mm prints from INs can look gorgeous. I saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA projected in 70mm four times, and all of those were from an IN of the Robert Harris photochemical restoration instead of direct-for-the-negative and it looked glorious each time.

At least you saw last Nolan print. I could watch it that way again no problem.

It had a ton of detail.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by slimjean

At least you saw last Nolan print. I could watch it that way again no problem.

It had a ton of detail.

Missing intermission aside, the best 70mm presentation I saw was the 2001 screening at the Lowes Astor Plaza in NYC. The screen size combined with the quality of the print and projection made for a stunning viewing experience.

Chris

[RegressiveScan]

I've seen 2001 in 70 mm a couple of times, both times at the "TIFF Lightbox" venue in Toronto. (This was around the late '00s/early '10s I think, so prior to that Nolan version.) I was quite impressed with the quality: no obvious flaws, warping, specks, etc. They show 2001 there pretty regularly.

But I read later that the screening room they use for 70 mm showings at the Lightbox is not really suitable to screen large-format film—the screen is apparently too small(!). Something to do with compromises they made in the construction of the facility. I don't really recall the details. In hindsight it does seem like the screen was not as big as the one in the Varsity (another Toronto venue), the only other place where I've seen 70 mm showings—namely, The Master and The Hateful Eight roadshow version, among others.

[Ray O. Blu]

Recently purchased this. Had the 2007 release and never got around to watching it.

Gonna fire it up today or tomorrow. Excited!

This will be my wife’s second time viewing this. She watched it once before we were together. Her first viewing was at the Cinerama Dome the first weekend it was out. She wasn’t impressed back then. I’ll try my best to duplicate that experience, but that’s a tall task for any home theater. Maybe if I turn it up super loud I can break a couple window panes. At least it’ll be unforgettable for her in that regard!

Wish me luck!