2001 A Space Odyssey is supposed delayed till 30 Nov. Amazon just shipped me a copy

Anyone know how to get a replacement in the US?

 

$14,99 now, this is the cheapest I've ever seen it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KH8W76F/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_K78gCbNEJW2E2?tag=shforums-20

 

One year later . . . a bit late to the show. Sometimes I think you need an advanced degree in DVD, Blu-ray and 4K purchasing just to keep the various versions straight. I understand with the following one gets a 4K and a Blu-ray version:

I'm not entirely sure why one would want both, other than being on the verge of transitioning to 4K and simply needing both now. That aside, is the following the "stand-alone" (most recent) Blu-ray version? It seems to be, but I don't trust the cross-referencing on Amazon.

Are there any other post-2018 versions I'm missing?

 

There are alternate packages, including a couple of different steelbooks, but as far as the basic configurations go, I think that’s it.

Though the same mastering is also available in The Stanley Kubrick 3-Film 4K Collection along with The Shining and Full Metal Jacket: https://www.amazon.com/Stanley-Kubrick-3-Film-4K-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B08DPT6ZDR.

 

I never got the replacement disc. Are they still doing this? The flaw was so minor it didn’t bother me.

 

Where in the movie is the cut that was a fadeout? The link discussing it is dead. I assume all have been fixed by now (i.e., no one is selling new copies with the error).

 

Thanks. I'd bite on a three-film collection if the other two were Barry Lyndon and Paths of Glory (maybe Dr. Strangelove). I've never seen Spartacus in any format, so I can't assess that one.

 

Spartacus is a good film but it isn’t truly a Kubrick film IMHO as he came on board replacing Anthony Mann. Visually it has some nice touches courtesy of Kubrick but it is anomaly in his filmography. It’s a studio film.

 

At the end of Chapter 9, at about 33:40 (at the end of the conversation between Heywood Floyd and the Russian scientists), the scene is supposed to fade to black, but in the initial release you can see Dr. Smyslov leaning back in his seat before the scene cuts hard to black. My understanding is that this was fixed very quickly—I saw reports that fixed copies were found just a few weeks after the initial release—so it’s pretty unlikely that you’d get that version sold as new stock these days.

 

My recollection is that the main release of the 4K/2K package was pushed back because of early reports of the error. I recall having ordered it for a fall release but it was pushed back to later in December to correct the error. My set arrived corrected.

To date, I've never seen the 4K disc played. I bought it for the Blu-ray.

 

I wonder the extent to which that error has occurred elsewhere (i.e., in other versions or prints) previously. I’ve seen the movie many times in many formats (including TV, theater showings and library rentals). Last night, I was watching my 2011 standard DVD release - which actually looks pretty good on my Blu-ray player - and at that exact point you note I was thinking “ok, here comes that jump cut” or “lousy matching action” or whatever. I knew there was something off at that point. I didn’t see it and didn’t think anything more about it until I saw your post, which makes me think I’ve seen that blackout before (but not in any recent release).

 

I saw a Blu-ray vs 4K comparison on YouTube that makes the Blu-ray version look pretty poor in comparison to the 4K. I don’t see how the difference can be so striking for a simultaneous release. I’ll see if I can find the link.

 

That fadeout is a printer function, similar to how an audio master tape says this song gets faded at this point.

 

That would be this one:

(2) ▶ Comparison of 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K Dolby Vision vs 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-Ray Edition - YouTube

I actually don't like the 4K images. It looks like the red/pink color is too prevalent, the brightness has the whites looking blown out. I think the Blu looks more natural.

 

Could I be remembering a similar problem from another print, or is this something that was specific to the 2018 version? What I could be thinking of - and it's still there at about 33:18 in my copy - is the bad matching action for the Russian man (hands on side of chair then elbows resting on thighs after the edit). If you're looking at Floyd, you might not notice it. But I think my eyes always have been drawn to the Russian to gauge his reaction to Floyd.

 

That's it. I find it strange that a simultaneously issued Blu-ray and 4K would look so different. If that indeed approximates the two, I'll wait until I get a 4K set up. My 2011 DVD doesn't look that different on my current TV and Blu-ray player (though my test isn't very scientific - I'm using internet screen shots - and my eyes likely aren't either).

 

As always, to each their own, but I waited until I could get a proper 4k TV like my LG CX 65" OLED and Panasonic DP-UB9000 player, and though someone might quibble about colors, the Dolby Vision used in this movie is more accurate to the original film than has ever been possible. Now we're quibbling with Kubrick & crew, but not the TV nor the player. In fact, there isn't a consumer TV available that can handle the processing power to fully render Dolby Vision, outside of buying a $40,000 mastering monitor.

At this point is not even subjective as to the color accuracy intended by the filmmakers, save that your eyes are simply not used to the extra clarity and more accurate colors. If you've had the film burned into your brain for so long, this is understandable, but that doesn't make it subjectively correct, unless we decide to rail against the filmmakers, themselves.

From that vantage, yes, blu-ray technology will always suck, as it's simply not encoded with enough data to reach a more proper filmic experience.

 

Which do you prefer and why? All I have is a few clips on YouTube and some stills. From that, I mostly like the 4K but sometimes prefer the Blu-ray. But that's not the same as watching the entire movie. Of course, I will eventually get a 4K set-up and many 4K movies (including 2001), so it's sort of an academic exercise for me at this point.

 

I'll put it this way; the only downside to UHD - if you don't skimp on the TV and player - is that now you're able to see more "flaws" in the films, corresponding to the technology of the time. For instance, the shark in Jaws has never looked more fake. The car going off of the cliff in Raiders of the Lost Ark has never looked more painted in. As high definition as blu-ray is, it still has the potential to "blur" elements baked into the film. I still love blu-ray! My player upscales 1080p to 4k like a champ, but I saw its 4k counterpart there's no turning back.

The flipside (and it's a huge flipside) is like I've mentioned before, now you're seeing as close as you can get to the original colors that the artist intended. Imagine the Sistine Chapel. You see a photo of it, but what you don't know is that the photograph has a skewed view due to the camera, the exposure, the gama, etc. Now visit the Sistine Chapel, in person, like I have, and that's the difference between a Blu-ray color pallet and Dolby Vision color grading. Being there is how the artist intended it to be viewed. Give or take a little, here and there, Dolby Vision is closer to the naked eye.

A fantastic example is The Wizard of Oz. 1939 for chrissakes! Not only is the detail immaculate, but I showed my wife the blu-ray and then the UHD disc of when Dorothy first walks into Oz. It's not a subtle difference in color. It's night and day, and the BD looks like night! The colors are muted on the BD by comparison. I wish I had screenshots to show you.

The final thing I'll say about 4k is that initially the black levels were jarring. The best experience is watching 4k films in the dark, like a theater. Because think of the theater experience. The image on the screen is really not all that bright. The projector is calibrated to be shown in a dark room; therefore, the optimal setting for viewing UHD discs is in an equally dark setting. Moreover, what you see in the theater holds many artifacts because the resolution is not up to snuff. Plus, in many theaters I've seen flaws on the screen, itself. Not so with a quality 4k TV, but very much true that now, in an optimal setting, the blacks are blacker, and the whites are whiter, and every shade in between.

Okay, that's my rap. One day we'll have even higher picture resolution, but since 4k will probably be the last physical format for hi-def movies, who knows if I'll be around to see it?

 

Here are some Wizard of Oz screen shots - The Wizard of Oz 4K UHD - Judy Garland

I'm glad you pointed out the necessity of watching 4K in a dark room. As with 2001, when I view The Wizard of Oz 4K screen shots I'm overtaken by (for lack of a better phrase) a warm, cozy feeling (see especially the Emerald City comparison). It's like a comfortable pair of slippers compared to the Blu-ray. Intellectually, however, I'm drawn to the brightness of the Blu-ray and I say to myself, "this has to be right. The 4K is too dark. Where's the detail and clarity?" I suspect one simply must see it in person (in a dark room). Internet screen shots and video demonstrations don't provide an appropriate comparison.

Both and The Wizard of Oz and 2001 are on my 4K list, but I may not get there for a year or two.

 

I think with the advent of blu-ray and HD that there was a push for brighter screens, brighter luminance (which doesn't equal accurate colors), and, well, brighter everything!

I was late to the BD game, picking up my first 1080p TV in 2011. I recall shopping around and boy those TVs were bright! They had them on display, in the most eye-popping settings possible.

Earlier 4k model TVs were set the same in stores, all displaying the "soap opera effect" as if that was the way to view higher resolution.

It's changed a bit, because manufacturers send their TVs out in a more naturally calibrated way. Indeed, more or less, there are settings now that you really don't have to touch to get close to the filmmaker's intentions. In order to keep the 4k market sustainable, not just for TVs, but also UHD discs and streaming, store models are displayed more accurately. Both consumers and retailers are more educated. This didn't happen so much in the 1080p world.

Nowadays you're picking up 4k products for the at home cinema experience, which, yes, needs everything a cinema has, like a dark room. All of this switches one's perspective to what you would see in a theater. Directors are getting involved in the TV market with things like "Filmmaker Mode."

I'm only looking on my phone, but to my eyes, with my gear, in a dark room, I'm seeing better colors than the screenshots of UHD The Wizard of Oz. Not astronomically so, but yeah "better."

 

It's my understanding that all 4k discs also come with a Blu-ray Disc. This is to entice people moving to 4k so they have the option of watching blu-ray if a 4k TV is not available at the time/place they want to watch. They did the same thing when blu-ray was introduced: many releases were blu-ray/DVD combos.

 

I know zilch about 4K players. I assume they play DVD, Blu-ray and 4K discs, as well as music (CDs, FLAC, mp3, etc.).

 

It should be noted that some UHD-BD's are starting to be released without BD's in the package. A good example is the Indiana Jones set. I know I have a couple of 'em without the BD's I got in the past year. I can't remember the titles without pawing around. It's not automatic anymore.

 

I think all 4K players play all of the above, but I am certain that only a subset play SACD and/or DVD-A. (When it comes to current consumer gear, I think those two formats are now limited to some Sony models.)