What do you see, when you watch "2001?"

[Mark Dunn]

70mm DTS goes where the mag tracks go. So,, it's all or nothing, no backup.

[Phil Connolly]

This was on the first of January though, before it could have been screened in Germany. So unless it was re-dubbed twice....

Anyway, those were the days. The new re-release is digital. Not interested.

The BFI south bank has a single (sold out) 70mm screening of 2001 next month. I guess its an old print as all the other screenings are digital.

 

The new re-release should look pretty good, the main issue for me is the poor contrast ratio of DLP projection - not so good for the muddy grey of space

[Mark Dunn]

Too bad it's sold out. It would have been rather entertaining, if a bit nerdy, to be certain that you'd not only seen the film in 70mm. before, but that actual print.

[Doug Palmer]

The BFI south bank has a single (sold out) 70mm screening of 2001 next month. I guess its an old print as all the other screenings are digital.

 

The new re-release should look pretty good, the main issue for me is the poor contrast ratio of DLP projection - not so good for the muddy grey of space

I'm rather long way from London but may have made the effort to see it, too bad. I wonder how it will look, this old 70mm print. Just goes to show if they're sold out, people want 70mm film, at least the few who know about it do. As you say, the digital projection doesn't seem to be very good for getting the blackness of space. At least that's how I remember 'Gravity' and the stars weren't too sharp either :blink: even with 3D which you'd think would help the definition.

[Bill DiPietra]

I saw a 70mm re-release (brand new print) of 2001 at Lincoln Center a couple of years back. It was definitely a bucket-list experience.

[Mark Dunn]

If there's one thing the NFT can do it's look after a print.

There are so many stories- apologising for showing a subtitled print of 'Bad Day at Black Rock' because it was the best they could find, restarting a screening of 'Barry Lyndon' because people were still coming in at programme time. They do it right. Digital may be crap but the NFT will make it the best crap they can manage, I'm sure. No point swimming against the tide.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[Carl Looper]

Not to me it isn't.

 

Lucky you.

[Carl Looper]

If there is no gap between the areas exposed by a 65mm camera, as David has suggested, and for which I have no reason to doubt him, then the diagram is clearly misleading, since it clearly depicts just such a gap.

 

The gap I'm referring to is the one I've highlighted here in red, just so that there can be no ambiguity on this:

 

 

 

To suggest this diagram is not misleading, is completely pointless. Unless, of course, I'm still missing some point.

 

C

[John E Clark]

If there is no gap between the areas exposed by a 65mm camera, as David has suggested, and for which I have no reason to doubt him, then the diagram is clearly misleading, since it clearly depicts just such a gap.

 

The gap I'm referring to is the one I've highlighted here in red, just so that there can be no ambiguity on this:

 

 

 

To suggest this diagram is not misleading, is completely pointless. Unless, of course, I'm still missing some point.

 

C

 

 

Here is an actual snap shot of 70mm print film. The clip of film came from "Lawrence of Arabia", and is under the heading of 'Leader Ladies', that is calibration images for verifying the quality of the print, as well as in some cases aligning the projector. (this one looks to be just print quality...).

 

One can see the 5 sproket holes, and the 'small' interframe 'gap'...

 

[Carl Looper]

Thanks John. That's perfect. And it clealy shows that the diagram is, in any common sense interpretation, a misleading diagram.

 

Carl

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm counting to ten...

[Carl Looper]

Yes, the erroneous idea I had was that the gap was the size depicted in the diagram. The gap is clearly much smaller than that depicted in the diagram (or as David suggested - effectively no gap at all). The following should make this obvious. The top image is from the post by John and is consistent with what David was getting at. The bottom image is where I've fitted this same image to the diagram - lining up the sprocket holes between the two. And it should be obvious from this that the bottom image crops off far more than the top one.

 

Of course, what Mark is trying to suggest is that he is not misled by the diagram. But so what. Big deal. Who cares. I'm no longer misled by the diagram either. But that's beside the point. The diagram is still misleading. It's just that we're now in a position where we can make mental corrections to such an error. Reverse the error. And make it obvious to anyone else who might trip over the same error.

 

[Gregg MacPherson]

In the original Tod AO spec drawing that David attached (post 69 on page 4) it looked to me as if the camera and projector apertures were the same. A common trick in the old days

when someone was drawing things almost identical. So assuming that the drawing wasn't accurate, I had a look in autocad. It's easier to see the tiny gap between exposed frames,

and to see how much of the frame that is masked during projection. The gap between exposed camera frames is only 0.74mm by me, which is 3.57% of the projected frame.

 

One could imagine a small spaceship hiding behind the masked area and popping into view if the projectionist fiddled with the racking wheel.

 

Realizing that David might have already done a drawing to show the masking. Maybe I missed a couple of turns around this maypole.

[Carl Looper]

Thanks Gregg.

 

Yes, so the blue frame in your CAD drawing is the projector aperture, the red line is the camera aperture. And the black line is the pitch line. And a version of this is what David actually did subsequently post, following the original TOD AO diagram. Somewhat unfortunately I misregistered this new diagram in relation to the original TOD AO diagram, lining up the camera lines with where the TOD AO diagram appeared to suggest the camera lines would be. And the projector line as a better version of the dotted line in the TOD AO drawing, leaving a huge gap between the camera exposed areas. David subsequently clarified the situation, ie. that there was no appreciable gap between the frames exposed by the camera. And I was able to work it out from there.

 

cheers

Carl

 

 

Carl

[Doug Palmer]

Interesting...Some people talking of their experiences making and acting in the film:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04pvdhk