Brand new 70mm print of 2001 A Space Odyssey

[Mark Dunn]

 

As noted, I'm a bit late with this, but hopefully, the comments will serve a purpose.

 

RAH

They will. We're unlikely to get closer to the horse's mouth on this.

Welcome to the forum.

[AJ Young]

Anyone catching either of the showings at Arclight in May? I'm attending the one on 5/23/18.

[Scott Pickering]

I haven't been lucky enough to see the new print of 2001 yet. I don't think they plan on showing it here in Vancouver B.C. The only time I saw 2001 in 70mm was back in 1993 shown at the Capitol 6, and the print was very old and red tinted throughout. It broke so many times during the showing, we all got our money back. But the detail in 70mm that I remember was amazing. I wish I could see it again, as this is one of my favorite movies (even if it is slow by most standards).

[Phil Connolly]

Watched the new 70mm print today in London (picture house central) - awesome as always. I last saw 2001 - in 2001 on the Cinerama screen in Bradford also on a new print.

 

I think the new print had better colour and contrast but its wasn't as clean as the previous version with printed in film damage and tears. The opening sequence is really grainy and dupy looking - but the quality improved as the film progressed. It still amazing and the 70mm image does have a luminous quality. There was some weird coloured spots at times and the monkeys were quite low contrast and their fir timed a bit green on the print i saw

 

Sound was a bit disappointing. I belive the print I saw in previously 2001 was in Mag SR and although lots of tape hiss the sound was rich and warm. This print had a DTS track and it sounded quite harsh and to my mind the dialogue + Hal was less directional but the main issue was the cinema ran it at ear splitting volume it was completely painful at several points. I'm wondering if that was Chris Nolan's influence rather then the cinema. If he had a hand in the remaster. His films tend to be oppressively loud if run at reference level. This was in a screen with a very good sounding Dolby Atmos installation - so I'm assuming its well aligned. Would be curious to see how the print sounds in other theatres

 

I recommend the new print - its always great to 2001 on a big screen, but maybe bring ear plugs. Picture House central did a good job on the presentation on a bigger screen than BFI southbank or Prince Charles. So if your local check it out.

[Tyler Purcell]

Thanks for the review Phil, sounds just like the last print I saw of 2001 stuck by the local guys here at the American Cinematheque. The entire first act was trashed, super grainy and "dupe" looking. The middle part was spotless and the final act was dirty had lots of scratches and other issues. It's unfortunate the new print has the same issues. The film really needs to be 'restored' rather then simply re-released. The audio sucked on the print I saw, all of the beautiful low-end on the BluRay did not exist at all and it was very tinny sounding, as if they increased the higher frequencies.

[Robert Harris]

Thanks for the review Phil, sounds just like the last print I saw of 2001 stuck by the local guys here at the American Cinematheque. The entire first act was trashed, super grainy and "dupe" looking. The middle part was spotless and the final act was dirty had lots of scratches and other issues. It's unfortunate the new print has the same issues. The film really needs to be 'restored' rather then simply re-released. The audio sucked on the print I saw, all of the beautiful low-end on the BluRay did not exist at all and it was very tinny sounding, as if they increased the higher frequencies.

 

No reason why a large amount of footage would be “super grainy and dupe looking.”

 

There are a certain number of shots derived from masters, but not a thousand feet. Regardless, you should not have been seeing grain, even in the dupe derived from the early ‘80s IP and dupe. Odd.

[David Mullen ASC]

What I saw didn't look as bad as what Phil describes -- it's clearly a print from a 65mm dupe negative, not from the original negative, and it had more positive dirt (black) than I expected, I guess maybe some of these prints have already had some screenings elsewhere.

 

I've seen it in 70mm many times over the years and I suspect that in the 70's and 80's they were striking new prints off of the original negative because I recall even the MGM blue logo being more fine-grained.

 

I don't think the African sequences were duped an extra generation -- I think that as the negative has aged, you're seeing that the original photography in those scenes was on the underexposed side.

 

One thing that was interesting to me was that on the blu-ray and early 2K DLP (from the same decade-old video master), the mosaic piecemeal technique to create the Scotchlite front-projection screen was clearly visible in the African skies, something I never noticed before -- so I watched for it in this print and it's visible there too, just less so -- it might be that on a large screen, your eye tends to not go to the corners where the artifact is more visible. Plus, frankly, it looks like the screen itself is dirty, streaky, not the image, at those moments (it wasn't the screen.)

 

I'm looking forward to seeing a 4K restoration shown in Dolby Cinema digital projection someday.

[Robert Harris]

What I saw didn't look as bad as what Phil describes -- it's clearly a print from a 65mm dupe negative, not from the original negative, and it had more positive dirt (black) than I expected, I guess maybe some of these prints have already had some screenings elsewhere.

 

I've seen it in 70mm many times over the years and I suspect that in the 70's and 80's they were striking new prints off of the original negative because I recall even the MGM blue logo being more fine-grained.

 

I don't think the African sequences were duped an extra generation -- I think that as the negative has aged, you're seeing that the original photography in those scenes was on the underexposed side.

 

One thing that was interesting to me was that on the blu-ray and early 2K DLP (from the same decade-old video master), the mosaic piecemeal technique to create the Scotchlite front-projection screen was clearly visible in the African skies, something I never noticed before -- so I watched for it in this print and it's visible there too, just less so -- it might be that on a large screen, your eye tends to not go to the corners where the artifact is more visible. Plus, frankly, it looks like the screen itself is dirty, streaky, not the image, at those moments (it wasn't the screen.)

 

I'm looking forward to seeing a 4K restoration shown in Dolby Cinema digital projection someday.

By the early ‘80s, they were all dupes.

 

The 3M situation may come down to fourth generation elements, making it less obvious. It never showed up I968 on the then current release stock.

[Tyler Purcell]

No reason why a large amount of footage would be “super grainy and dupe looking.”

 

There are a certain number of shots derived from masters, but not a thousand feet. Regardless, you should not have been seeing grain, even in the dupe derived from the early ‘80s IP and dupe. Odd.

 

I'm also referring to the older IN that the American Cinematheque made a print from recently. I haven't seen the new release yet, but I will soon.

[Phil Connolly]

Hi Tyler - yes the sound was super tinny and harsh, lacking the much on the lows. The mag print I saw 17 years ago sounded much better.

 

The first reel looked poor. I remember being wowed about how crisp the opening logo's looked when I saw the older print in Bradford. This was more like a super 35 blow up. Grain was very much visible - I took a class of cinematography students with me they all commented on the grain (and the horrible sound).

 

I would prefer a more restored print - but its always good to see it and even with the picture issues its vastly better looking than many of the 70mm rep prints doing the rounds. When I finally managed to catch Lawrence of Arabia in the early 00's the print was pretty scratched - unfortunately. In the case of 2001 I think a proper 4k restoration would resolve the printed in neg dirt and tears - that could have been painted out etc.. I didn't get a sense that the print was resolving much more detail than 4k most of the time and certainly not during the first act. But in the case of Chis Nolan projects you do get the sense of its photochemical at all costs - even when digital tools might achieve better results and still maintain the intended look.

 

I agree with David a proper 4k restoration in Dolby cinema would be something, meanwhile this is a decent stop gap

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, the first reel was very disappointing on the new print I saw over at The American Cinematheque.

[Robert Harris]

I hate to post this comment to a cinematography site, but if one is to take 2001 seriously, my opinion is that viewing the film in 70mm prints multiple generations removed from the original, or in older worn dupes, is no longer the best way to see it.

 

The 4k DCP should be stunning.

[Tyler Purcell]

I hate to post this comment to a cinematography site, but if one is to take 2001 seriously, my opinion is that viewing the film in 70mm prints multiple generations removed from the original, or in older worn dupes, is no longer the best way to see it.

 

The 4k DCP should be stunning.

I agree... The film needs to be scanned at 8k, restored and lasered back out to 70mm. Where I do love a good photochemical movie, unfortunately there is a limit to how good that restoration can be. What suprises me is how good the BluRay and why that version wasn't done at 4k.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure once the 4K restoration is done, new 1080P and 4K blu-rays will be released -- right now, you're seeing an HD transfer on blu-ray that is fairly old, I think the current version on home video was mastered about a decade ago (I could be wrong). It's decent though.

[Robert Harris]

I'm sure once the 4K restoration is done, new 1080P and 4K blu-rays will be released -- right now, you're seeing an HD transfer on blu-ray that is fairly old, I think the current version on home video was mastered about a decade ago (I could be wrong). It's decent though.

The original video were, as I recall, derived from a 35 CRI. The most recent, from another 35 reduc element

[Tyler Purcell]

The original video were, as I recall, derived from a 35 CRI. The most recent, from another 35 reduc element

So it just has heavy NR on it? Why does it look so good?

[Doug Palmer]

Were any black and white separation negs ever made from this movie I wonder. If so you'd think they would be pristine. I don't know if this archival method was done with 70mm.

[Mark Dunn]

Were any black and white separation negs ever made from this movie I wonder. If so you'd think they would be pristine. I don't know if this archival method was done with 70mm.

Yes.

Robert describes them in post 24.

[Mark Dunn]

Hi Tyler - yes the sound was super tinny and harsh, lacking the much on the lows. The mag print I saw 17 years ago sounded much better.

 

So do we assume that 70mm can't be striped any more, or was it just assumed that CD sound would be as good?

[Robert Harris]

So do we assume that 70mm can't be striped any more, or was it just assumed that CD sound would be as good?

For old films, it’s not that it’s not as good, it’s that it’s too revealing and transparent. We produced one magnetic 70mm print of Vertigo, while all others were DTS.

 

The magnetic was a more pleasant listening experience, as it seemed to smooth things out and cover flaws a bit.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[Mark Dunn]

Ah, so it's too "good". Utmost fidelity is neither required nor particularly desirable. I get it.

[Tyler Purcell]

So do we assume that 70mm can't be striped any more, or was it just assumed that CD sound would be as good?

Yea, it can't be. The problem is somehow in the re-mix to digital, a lot of information was lost.

 

The 6 track DTS system that 70mm film uses today is also not great, but it's a lot better then the magnetic version. Modern 70mm releases do sound fine.

[Tyler Purcell]

Two friends of mine saw this new print and both of them didn't like it. They said it has the same problems of the American Cinematheque print, which I thought wasn't very good.

[Phil Connolly]

So do we assume that 70mm can't be striped any more, or was it just assumed that CD sound would be as good?

 

Prints can't be mag striped any more because the glue they used to use to stick the stripe on, has been banned due to environmental reasons. I guess theres not enough demand to find an alternative source.

 

Mag prints are also much more expensive to produce - since you need an extra pass done in real time to record the audio. They can't be printed at high speed. Mag tracks are also much more easy to damage, they wear quicker and can become demagnetised in projection picking up all manner of clicks and ticks.

 

DTS-70 (sorry Datasat) prints are cheaper and thats whats probably helping make the new 70mm revival more economical. The only shame is its based on early 90's technology. Its not even CD quality, CD's after all are uncompressed. I think DTS was of the order of 4:1 or 5:1 of lossy compression. Ideally these new prints should use the DTS time code on the film to drive an uncompressed track off a server.

 

So good mag 70mm more then gives DTS a run for its money - if its a pristine recording encoded in Dolby SR its going to have a signal to noise ratio that approaches 16bit digital and possibly have a frequency response thats close to 20khz, so in the ball park of what 48khz digital can do.

 

But when a basic audio interface can do 24bit/96khz - the compressed DTS tracks do seem a bit old school. I guess there isn't the demand for an updated 70mm audio solution, even if its probably quite simple to engineer once you've got the timecode decoded.

[Tyler Purcell]

So good mag 70mm more then gives DTS a run for its money

No way, not in the best of times. The Signal to noise is very bad and the dynamic range is bad too. I've heard A LOT of mag films and none of them really sounded amazing.

 

But when a basic audio interface can do 24bit/96khz - the compressed DTS tracks do seem a bit old school. I guess there isn't the demand for an updated 70mm audio solution, even if its probably quite simple to engineer once you've got the timecode decoded.

CD's are 16 bit 44.1khz. DTS is 4:1 compressed 24bit/96khz using a "lossless" compression type. DTS is FAR SUPERIOR to any other film based audio system on the market.

 

Remember, most CD players have a 1 bit DAC. Only the very high end and/or very old machines have full 16 bit DAC's in them. Also remember that your computers music library is heavily compressed and is most likely not using anything near 16 bit 44.1 decoding.