Jump to content



Photo

Brand new 70mm print of 2001 A Space Odyssey


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#81 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 11 June 2018 - 11:52 AM

PArdon my ignorance, but what would have been the difference between IP and dupe?

  • 0

#82 Robert Harris

Robert Harris
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Other
  • NY

Posted 11 June 2018 - 12:40 PM

PArdon my ignorance, but what would have been the difference between IP and dupe?


Same film stock. Used to create duplicating positives (IP), from an OCN or dupe neg, and from which a dupe printing neg is produced, in turn.

First to be reasonably transparent, was 5243. I’ve improved, allowing multiple generations with extremely minimal affect on the projected image
  • 0

#83 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 11 June 2018 - 12:46 PM

I'm grateful.
So, by "dupe neg", you mean second generation copy? OCN>IP>dupe neg?

  • 0

#84 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:18 PM

I seem to remember seeing something fairly decent on 1/1/2001 at the NFT- should that have been better that the recent release?

There was a new 70mm print in the UK for the 2001 re-release in 2001. I believe it toured the UK - I saw it on the Cinerama screen in Bradford. I remember it looking very nice and very crisp and sounding fantastic. It did have more tape hiss then the new prints

 

The new print (as screened in London) was quite a lot softer with much more visible grain (closer to a 35mm look at points) and the sound had lost the low end. Maybe that was due to how the cinema patched in the sub bass crossover - but I doubt that - since its one of the best screens in London, technically.  


  • 0

#85 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:31 PM

To add confusion American Cinematheque commissioned a new print in 2016

 

http://www.film-tech...f1/t012067.html

 

I wonder if its significantly different from the Nolan effort. 


  • 0

#86 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 June 2018 - 12:36 PM

Splice, dupes cut in, odd grading choices?


Sure, they didn't go to other elements to clean up splices.

There were for sure dupe elements cut in, the most egregious was the wide shot at the monolith on the moon.

Raised blacks were the biggest issue for me and yes, unacceptable. Nolan does it to his own movies and it's wrong.

The same "dirty" shots tell you that they're either dupes or damaged originals printed through 4 or 5 generations before landing on a print, but those go back to the condition of the OCN.


You would assume so, but they were so damn crisp. It's one thing if the resolution dropped, but it didn't. Also, since the dirt was associated with one shot, my thought is that shot was pulled from different elements.

No cue marks?  And it's film?


Yep, zero cue marks. Just like Nolan's other movies.

The one absolute that Mr. Kubrick demanded, were that his blacks be absolutely black.  Back in 1967-68, when he was shooting the film, and doing final grading, which was very specific, Chris Nolan had not yet been conceived, and Hoyte's parents may have not yet even met...
 
But their sensibilities come to the fore instead of the filmmakers?
 
Stanley created two sets of 65mm separation masters.
 
The first set, which represented the earlier cut of the film, had problems registering.
 
And those problems existed, because he ordered the exposed stock to be processed warmer than usual.
 
Why?
 
To make absolutely certain that if and when dupes ever had to be struck for shots involving the sky in space, that there be no exposure in those areas.  He wanted clear negative, which would yield black blacks.


That's pretty interesting. I'd love to know more about this process, for my own stuff of course.

The new prints of 2001 are an embarrassment, to all but those involved in their creation, and tell the wrong tale of what the film looked like in 1968.


I wouldn't consider them an embarrassment because nothing else out there is even close right now. Despite the issues we've already talked about, everything else was ok. I think we can all agree the film does need digital restoration and re-release.

First, Chris is an analogue fetishist, to a point of distraction, and second, he has no concept as to how digital technology works, or how it interrelates with the analogue world.
 
I'm fearful that he may have gotten his hands on the digital masters, and screwed them up, as well.
 
Which will leave 2001, not through the eyes of its filmmakers, but through the eyes of someone who never saw an original print of the film in its full glory.
 
It is only by proper use of digital technology, that we have a chance of closely replicating those original prints.
 
Via newly stuck 70mm, with the best shots at fourth generation, and the worst at sixth...
 
Not a chance.
 
Just sayin'...
 
And understand, these comments come from someone who loves film.
 
RAH


I must sadly agree because I do like Nolan, I have spent time talking to the man about his philosophies. At the same time, he does make a lot of silly mistakes that do make his movies not look as good as they could. His use of IMAX for huge action scenes and then anamorphic 35mm for everything else, leads to a pretty soft image that is not necessary. Shooting a $100M+ movie on 5 perf 65mm is no problem, but he didn't want to push that envelope until someone else had done all the testing. I still think the Dunkirk IMAX prints looked like crap during the 5 perf scenes, dirty and colored poorly, they were pretty bad and unrepresentative of what the format can deliver. The 5 perf prints had some issues, but over-all they were fine. I personally can't wait to see what Tarantino does with his next movie, which supposedly is going to be shot on 65mm, but no word on what lenses yet.

SO yea... someday maybe someone will do a restoration of 2001. Until then, I do think this version is the best version at the moment because flawed as it may be, it's pretty damn clean and over-all good looking to the normal human.
  • 0

#87 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 June 2018 - 12:38 PM

To add confusion American Cinematheque commissioned a new print in 2016[/size]

 
http://www.film-tech...f1/t012067.html
 
I wonder if its significantly different from the Nolan effort.

Yea it looks like shit compared to the Nolan treatment. It's why Nolan put in the effort because the print is that bad.
  • 0

#88 Robert Harris

Robert Harris
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Other
  • NY

Posted 12 June 2018 - 02:03 PM

Sure, they didn't go to other elements to clean up splices.There were for sure dupe elements cut in, the most egregious was the wide shot at the monolith on the moon.Raised blacks were the biggest issue for me and yes, unacceptable. Nolan does it to his own movies and it's wrong.You would assume so, but they were so damn crisp. It's one thing if the resolution dropped, but it didn't. Also, since the dirt was associated with one shot, my thought is that shot was pulled from different elements.Yep, zero cue marks. Just like Nolan's other movies.That's pretty interesting. I'd love to know more about this process, for my own stuff of course.I wouldn't consider them an embarrassment because nothing else out there is even close right now. Despite the issues we've already talked about, everything else was ok. I think we can all agree the film does need digital restoration and re-release.I must sadly agree because I do like Nolan, I have spent time talking to the man about his philosophies. At the same time, he does make a lot of silly mistakes that do make his movies not look as good as they could. His use of IMAX for huge action scenes and then anamorphic 35mm for everything else, leads to a pretty soft image that is not necessary. Shooting a $100M+ movie on 5 perf 65mm is no problem, but he didn't want to push that envelope until someone else had done all the testing. I still think the Dunkirk IMAX prints looked like crap during the 5 perf scenes, dirty and colored poorly, they were pretty bad and unrepresentative of what the format can deliver. The 5 perf prints had some issues, but over-all they were fine. I personally can't wait to see what Tarantino does with his next movie, which supposedly is going to be shot on 65mm, but no word on what lenses yet.SO yea... someday maybe someone will do a restoration of 2001. Until then, I do think this version is the best version at the moment because flawed as it may be, it's pretty damn clean and over-all good looking to the normal human.


I also enjoy Chris’ work.

As to how he handles black levels on his own films, I’d have to disagree with you, as his look should be his look. I always enjoy seeing how someone affects film and printing.

But just down try to list the blacks on a Willis film.

Same thing with 2001.

The reason why I don’t feel that the Nolan version should be seen, is that the studio apparently already had a proper full-scale restoration ready to go, along with UHD files.

And my perception is that a better product, far closer to what would make Stanley smile, could have just as easily done the tour, inclusive of Cannes, and in 70mm, if so desired.

The new prints derived from the 1999 IP, along with a new dupe - mixing stocks - was a needless exercise.

Just my opinion, of course...

But most important to SK was image quality, closest generations to original, and perfect blacks.

The new prints don’t deliver, on any basis.
  • 0

#89 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:52 PM

I just don't understand why raised blacks are even a thing if your exposure is fine. There is usually no added detail to be had in shots with raised blacks that I've seen, it's just Nolan likes to see things that aren't necessary to see ya know? That's kinda my beef with the way he times things in his own movies.
  • 0

#90 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:13 PM

Saw the new 70mm print in Brisbane. Great sound (to my ear). Wonderful to see real film at a cinema again. They even had the traditional curtain. Brilliant. Was slightly shocked at first at flicker, most noticable on the very bright white (eg. of white floor on space station). Bit of gate weave and wobble too. But a real sense of 'presence' and artistically a richer experience than many digital shows I've seen recently. Film has a more incised or more 'etched' effect on the screen than digital. Yeah, I know it's a print that's had many generations. But still. Film to me is great. I love it. Hope to see more films projected on film in cinemas in the years ahead. That said, I do respect what's happening in digital projection too. Very clear, rock steady, very sharp. The projector lens for 2001 had a strange blurry patch in it, bottom rh corner of the screen, plus a very slight vignette effect in top rh corner of screen that detracted slightly from the experience. But it was truly great to see real film again. Congratulations to all involved for bringing this back to cinemas.


  • 0

#91 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20346 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:01 AM

There can be raised blacks if printing from a faded negative.  Also, in Nolan's case, sometimes the raised blacks are because the exposure was "thin" due to working in low-light conditions.

 

Basically, black level in a print is a function of printer light values which are a function of density of the negative plus desired brightness level of the image.  So if the blacks are lifted and the brightness of the image is where you want it to be, the negative wasn't exposed enough to allow using higher sets of printer light values to achieve the desired brightness.  Or the negative has aged and the base fog level has increased.

 

Of course, the blacks can be lifted as well because of things like smoke on set, flaring in the lens, etc.  Or if the negative or dupe negative has been flashed in any way.

 

But otherwise, Nolan can't just say "raise the blacks" when making a photochemical print, all he can do is say "print it lighter".


  • 0

#92 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2288 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 04 July 2018 - 01:12 PM

Hence why in the past I always over exposed the neg .I hate the look of a thin neg .


  • 0

#93 Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Other
  • Born in L.A....NYC is 2nd home...Rustbelt is home base.

Posted 07 July 2018 - 11:25 AM

OP...enjoyed your website. Thanks for keeping film alive.


  • 0

#94 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20346 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 August 2018 - 11:42 PM

Saw the 4K digital restoration today in digital IMAX... I have to say that it looks better than the 70mm print released last month, other than the superior black levels of projected prints. The image is back to being pristine, steady, sharp generally, like I remember the way it looked to me when I saw it in 70mm prints in the 1980’s.

Maybe this is controversial, but they fixed the visible strips of 3M material in the projected backgrounds in the Dawn of Man sequence. I never noticed them until I saw the blu-ray and 2K DCP made several years ago, but when I saw the 70mm Nolan print, I realized that they had always been there in the image, just that it was less noticeable in the print on a large screen where your eye goes more to the center of the image. But now that artifact has been cleaned up, which I suspect Kubrick would have approved of, he worked very hard to make that movie nearly perfect technically. Certainly it’s a bit controversial to fix what is essentially an effects shot from a classic movie, but the strips in the sky clearly was not an artistic intent and become distracting once you start noticing them.
  • 0

#95 Robert Harris

Robert Harris
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Other
  • NY

Posted 26 August 2018 - 06:41 AM

The 3M material, the transparent circular mount for the floating pen, et al, would not have been seen on prints in 1968.

Our printing (and duplicating) stock has cone that far, especially with the arrival of 5243 in the mid-‘80s, via which the entire first run of dupes were struck.

Any time that we return to a fx ladden original today, we must be very aware that certain original photography anomalies must be digitally massaged.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery