Jump to content




Photo

2001: A Space Odyssey slow motion frame rate...

Stanley Kubrick 2001 a space odyssey frame rate slow motion

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:37 AM

Hello,

 

I'm trying to find out the frame rate used during the slow motion shots of Moonwatcher striking the skull with the bone in the "Dawn of Man" sequence from 2001. It looks like it might be 120 fps, but I can't find a quote anywhere (checked the SK archives, the new Taschen book on 2001, and several biographies and studies). Does anybody know for sure, or perhaps has a more educated guess based on the cameras used during production? Thank you.

 

 


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:44 AM

Don't know... Just looking around online, a couple of sites mention 72 fps as the max frame rate for some 65mm high-speed cameras.
  • 1

#3 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:50 AM

Don't know... Just looking around online, a couple of sites mention 72 fps as the max frame rate for some 65mm high-speed cameras.

 

That's what I was afraid of, because the shots look faster than 72 fps to my eye:

 

https://youtu.be/ypEaGQb6dJk?t=420

 

Thank you so much for your comment, Mr Mullen!


Edited by Giles Rais, 15 January 2016 - 11:51 AM.

  • 0

#4 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:00 PM

Could be step printed maybe? Perhaps 144fps?

 

Freya


  • 0

#5 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:01 PM

I'm thinking 120 as well, because Photosonics built a pin-registered 70mm. camera in 1954 which ran at 80, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the newer 65mm. cameras ran faster, or that Kubrick asked Panavision to gee it up a bit.


  • 1

#6 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:02 PM

Could be step printed maybe? Perhaps 144fps?

 

Freya

It's not step printed. It doesn't stutter.


  • 1

#7 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:02 PM

Could be step printed maybe? Perhaps 144fps?

 

Freya

Don't think so; wouldn't step printing add stuttering? Footage is completely smooth.


Edited by Giles Rais, 15 January 2016 - 12:04 PM.

  • 0

#8 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:04 PM

I'm thinking 120 as well, because Photosonics built a pin-registered 70mm. camera in 1954 which ran at 80, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the newer 65mm. cameras ran faster, or that Kubrick asked Panavision to gee it up a bit.

Right, he would be no stranger to modifying a camera to fit his purposes (Barry Lyndon). I just find it strange that I can find no information about this very important shot on all the plethora of work written about this film.


Edited by Giles Rais, 15 January 2016 - 12:09 PM.

  • 0

#9 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:24 PM

On closer reading of the Photosonics site, they claim the fastest pin-registered 70mm. instrumentation camera at 125fps. That's about the same mass of moving film as the fastest 35mm. at 360, so maybe that's about the mechanical limit.

Have you had a look in Agel's book? I seem to remember something about high-speed for the effects, but some of that was composited from 35.


  • 1

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:47 PM

It's not step printed. It doesn't stutter.

 

It wouldn't stutter if it was a straightforward doubling up of the frames especially at high speed but it might still be noticeable, so I'm inclined to agree with you that it probably wasn't step printed but who knows I'm just suggesting possibilities. :)

 

Freya


  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:34 PM

I looked through all of my books on 2001 and Kubrick, there's no mention of the frame rate used for that shot that I could find.


  • 1

#12 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:49 PM

I looked through all of my books on 2001 and Kubrick, there's no mention of the frame rate used for that shot that I could find.

Yes, neither did I. Another mystery from this magnificent film. Thank you so much for looking!


  • 0

#13 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:56 PM

On closer reading of the Photosonics site, they claim the fastest pin-registered 70mm. instrumentation camera at 125fps. That's about the same mass of moving film as the fastest 35mm. at 360, so maybe that's about the mechanical limit.

Have you had a look in Agel's book? I seem to remember something about high-speed for the effects, but some of that was composited from 35.

I *gasp* don't have this book...I just ordered it. Thanks for the suggestion and for the info from Photosonics.


  • 0

#14 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:53 PM

One could work out an estimate of the frame rate based on physics. The first shot showing the skeleton being smashed sees a bone flipping up into the air following a path which takes it to it's highest point (at rest) before it curves back down to earth where there is a distinct collision with the ground. Based on an estimate of the bone's size, one can estimate the distance travelled between it's highest point and the ground, and given the duration of that descent (in frames), one can use the known force of gravity (9.8 m/s2 ) to compute a ball park shooting frame rate.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 15 January 2016 - 06:03 PM.

  • 2

#15 Giles Rais

Giles Rais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 07:02 PM

One could work out an estimate of the frame rate based on physics. The first shot showing the skeleton being smashed sees a bone flipping up into the air following a path which takes it to it's highest point (at rest) before it curves back down to earth where there is a distinct collision with the ground. Based on an estimate of the bone's size, one can estimate the distance travelled between it's highest point and the ground, and given the duration of that descent (in frames), one can use the known force of gravity (9.8 m/s2 ) to compute a ball park shooting frame rate.

 

C

Or, one could simply play the footage back faster than normal until the motion feels correct, and work out how much faster than normal it was shot at that way. I needed something more official for my purposes, but thank you for your idea.  


Edited by Giles Rais, 15 January 2016 - 07:03 PM.

  • 0

#16 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2016 - 07:49 PM

Or, one could simply play the footage back faster than normal until the motion feels correct, and work out how much faster than normal it was shot at that way. I needed something more official for my purposes, but thank you for your idea.  

 

Yes, that's a really good idea. A simple emperical method. Good one.

 

I treat "official" sources with a grain of salt. Unless one is in a hurry of course. If the "official" rate says X and the evidence says Y, I'd much prefer Y over X.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 15 January 2016 - 07:53 PM.

  • 1



Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

The Slider

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

CineLab

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

CineTape