2001 coming back in 70mm, unrestored

Looks like it is heading back to my favourite cinema, the Pictureville in Bradford. Saw 2001 in Cinerama a few years back. Packed house, everyone transfixed. The print wasn’t pristine (odd scratch and hair here and there) and there was a touch of hiss on the sound as I recall, though that may be me being hyper critical.

However, it was a good presentation of a classic film and everybody, including me, went home happy. Must be time for a trip back. They observed Kubrick’s intermission dutifully and evicted us for ice cream during it.

That is one cinema that takes enormous care in its presentations. Memo to self: visit more often. Having only seen the Blu Ray over the past few years and got very used to digital cinemas it will be interesting if my tolerance to the quirks of a film presentation have changed.

 

I watch films for: 1) the story 2) the acting 3) the direction 4) the writing

Picture quality fanaticism nuts (probably to the point where they'll only watch "good looking" movies the same way some boring audiophiles only listen to the dozen "great sounding" records ever made) are the one's losing out. Or they don't have the taste to recognize 1) 2) 3) & 4) in which case they should lock themselves away with their four 4K copies of Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, and the Last Jedi, and remain in their 4k ivory tower marveling at "Dunkirk" for its high pixel count -- while I sleep though it for it's non-existent plot.

 

A digital master made from the camera negative is going to be better than a film print that has gone through at least two other layers of film. But the most important step is the last - being projected. To use your metaphor, I'm not being allowed to hear the master tape, but a tape three generations worse...dubbed to cassette.

A DCP in a theater is has exactly the same 4K resolution it had when it was mastered (although it might have been scanned at higher quality.) But every chemical film stage reduces resolution, with the inevitable weave the film projector introduces being the worst - most of the other stages being pin-registered.

Not as much as you'd think. I have a Sony CRT projector with 8" CRTs - a predecessor to the Sony G-90.

My screen is homebrew (I've been to too many Stewart parties with an open bar to believe that he's offering good value for money. But I have recommended them for clients.)

For image capture? You might be able to make a case, but for display, no. In the same way that digital image capture has replaced chemical in the still world (other than a handful of holdouts and hipsters) it will replace film totally. I will bet that in ten years time, not one of the companies currently making 35mm film will still be doing so.

 

The story like the rest is served by better quality.

I cannot put any of the categories in front or behind art direction, music, special effects, sound....etc.

To value anything over the other just doesn't seem like a film love to me. They all serve each other. Sure you could watch any movie looking like crap...it doesn't mean you will get the same experience.

I too like the 4 category you listed and my tastes are so varied to even begin to categorize would be silly.

I am not "missing out".

A high pixel count serves Tokyo Story as well as a "Dunkirk(this is a generality as you put it)". So not seeing your point at all.

As for Chris post....well we have done this. Just go back to my previous posts for that.

Digital has not "replaced" chemical and never will.

 

Great cinema, saw Dr Zhivago there a few years ago. Enjoy!

 

Again, in still, it already has. None of the professional photographers I know shoot film, none of them maintains a darkroom and the estate sales agents I know can't give away top quality film camera bodies. It's as dead as Vaudeville.

The exact same thing is happening to motion capture, for the exact same reasons - it's both better and cheaper. Only a tiny handful of diehards are shooting on film, and in a few years time a film shot feature is going to be as much of an oddity as a zoopraxiscope.

 

Narrator: He doesn't get it.

 

Not as popular does not equate to dead.

Vaudville in its idea hasn't gone anywhere either.

Neither will ever be dead because there is always a market for quality.

P.S. I wasn't just talking about film.

 

Chris @Chris DeVoe, few have light treated rooms with near reference digital projection (+legit pro calibration) and screen. So I'm the likeliest to promote digital. Your contention seems to be that digital in the best theaters is perfected such that analog loses out. My digital will beat commercial theater in contrast. My room has better perceived contrast as well. Even so, I'm not gonna bash real film ("dubbed to cassette"). Good grief.

 

I did a bit of checking, and estimates of the number of photos taken range from 7.5 trillion at the low end, to 14 trillion at the high.

I haven't been able to find an estimate of the number of chemical photographs taken, what with Kodak bankrupt, Fuji discontinuing their remaining brands of film, and only boutique makers like the Impossible Project remaining, I'd be shocked if more than a few million 35mm frames are actually shot.

As people seem to have a problem with million, billion and trillion merging together in their minds, here are all the zeroes:

Code:

         1,000,000 - one million
     1,000,000,000 - one billion
 1,000,000,000,000 - one trillion

Sure, but work for baggy-pants comics with seltzer bottles is hard to find.

Sheesh, talk about moving goalposts! "As an idea"?

 

If you look through the thread, I have been to see 35mm film in private cinemas, and I've built plenty of home cinemas, so I've got a good frame of reference. I'm not ISF certified (mostly due to lack of money) but I have calibrated what I've installed using the tools available.

My comparison of a 35 million print in a theater to a cassette is fair. The weave inherent in any film projector decimates sharpness. Hang around after a screening and watch the credits on any 35mm film print scroll up the screen, ideally one using a font with serifs (those little feet at the bottom and top in fonts like Times New Roman). Compare that with the same film digitally scanned and projected. Get right down front and track one name going up the screen - that is a good proxy for any detail on the screen. The film print is constantly swimming around side to side and up and down. It's basically a cloud of images of a serif. Ask any projectionist.

 

It is important when making proclamations to understand the the human brain is just a little more complicated then a small cluster of data points.

Gate Weave does not really change picture quality (for the most part), it is merely picture position. The information can be deciphered by complicated perception abilities.

That said, what about the many cut up data points that are fed to a computer at a variable bit rate which has all kinds of approximations that are not a footprint like analog is? Do these random qualities not matter?

It once reminded me how someone proclaimed classical music was dead, the same as some people are proclaiming the same thing about rock. Yet wouldn't it be true that what we now enjoy has maybe changed a form to what we once enjoyed? For something that is dead, there sure seems to be quite a prevalence in spirit in so many ways.

While there are claims of moving goal posts, I am simply stating what actually is.

Film as we know it may die down in its mass production, but then again, is something really dead when there are gazillions of the film prints still in existence? For something that is "dead" it sure seems to still be hotly debated and done to this day. Film prints aren't going anywhere. If anything is true, the prevalence of restoration has made it a booming business and it continues to thrive way past its supposed shelf life.

Add this to the "books are dead" pile, while ignoring that more paper is being printed than ever before. etc...

All this said, I don't mind this post being deleted, because it is way off topic, and all of this has been said before.

I think we should be celebrating 2001 as a 70 mm FILM and save the "film is dead" talk for another dedicated subject. Though honestly, I find that a bit boring. I would rather talk about the things that matter which again, is the subject at hand. A wonderful 70 mm masterpiece that should be seen in its close as possible original glory. The off topic hate is just a waste of time.

 

I've seen a highly respected cinematographer go to the trouble of renting half a dozen top cameras and shooting test footage of the same test subject under exactly the same conditions at the same time and publish the results in the trade journal of cinematographers.

...and you utterly disregarded it.

I've thought about pulling up examples of exactly what I was talking about, zooming in, making YouTube videos, posting them...

Then I thought "Why bother?" If articles in American Cinematographer can't get you to accept their work, if SMPTE can't get you to accept their work, I could assemble a panel of a dozen Nobel Prize winning physicists and you will still value your own opinion over theirs.

I would much prefer to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in a real IMAX theater with 8K digital projection.

Hate? I can say something is dead without "hating" the thing. Both my mother and father are dead, and I loved them. Film had a good run, but it's over.

 

The article (which is not a peer reviewed journal) is terrible. The youtube clips are not scientific

The SMPTE method that you explained is what I criticized. This mushrooming into something it is not is where I have a problem.

Again, what any of this has to do with the analog film print that is being celebrated here, I will never know. This all needs to go, there is nothing more to talk about if it was ever that to begin with.

 

I'd like to keep watching this thread. I'm making a peaceful call to stay on topic please. Both of you are getting caught up in a discussion that belongs elsewhere. (Perhaps outside the bar or the back of the barn? ).

 

You are right. I apologize.

 

Well, I’ve booked my 2001 in 70mm tickets at my favourite cinema, so i’m happy. You all carry on fighting it out; i’ll watch the film, buy the 4K Blu Ray, and carry on regardless,

 

I completely agree. I believe constructive talk about both film mediums is the better way to go. I do not think one should have to pick or put one down over the other to enjoy the film in the theater and in the living room.

Film as it exists now is an invaluable save state that must be preserved.

I have no problem with film being printed at the request of viewers that want to see it, and I am glad that Nolan has made it available and I hope there is more to come. It is most certainly not over by a long shot.

 

They should buddy,it produces nicer/more natural results!!

 

Totally off topic and I apologize, but my son is a staff photographer for a major newspaper. His newspaper work is all shot on digital, but in his personal work he uses film cameras a lot. He recently acquired a vintage Leica that he's really excited about.

He also has and maintains a darkroom in his basement.

 

I think if the conversation is going to veer so far in this direction, my personal preference is to see a movie the way it actually appeared when it came out. I thought the current 2001 presentation gave me so much I missed since seeing it in my youth a handful of times on the big screen - all at revival theaters: being with a bunch of people in a theater, getting a film print with warts and all, having concession stand treats, and especially the hum and buzz of the audience as the Prelude music warmed us up.

And I especially loved the film artifacts of the restored 'un-restored' print. LOVED.

I'll watch this again and again on Blu Ray and enjoy the surround sound, the clarity. But, by no means do I feel like I need Ultra anything. Not my preferred aesthetic.

 

What sort of tastes do you have which preclude you from enjoying and appreciating what will nearly certainly be the best consumer release of this film ever before? Forget about "Ultra". Far less digital compression. Better color. Better resolution of details. Etc.

I'm very much looking forward to throwing this up onto my 105"+ wide ST100 film screen.

 

I think the only thing to caution is the chance of the digital restoration going to far. I welcome an improvement for sure, but you and I both know that this isn't always the case.

I do trust Warner Bros. though, and I don't think it will be an issue.

If it is, well it is not like the original bluray was terrible either. I didn't see a lot of issues with that one at all.

Though again, nothing compares with the cinema 70 mm version to me. It looked astounding warts and all. It was well worth the experience.

 

Where did I say I wouldn't watch it? Bring your system over to my place and set up. I'll provide the beer and whathaveyou.

 

That's what I am saying. Teasing us with that set-up.