Robert Harris

The 3M material, the transparent circular mount for the floating pen, et al, would not have been seen on prints in 1968. Our printing (and duplicating) stock has cone that far, especially with the arrival of 5243 in the mid-‘80s, via which the entire first run of dupes were struck. Any time that we return to a fx ladden original today, we must be very aware that certain original photography anomalies must be digitally massaged.

I also enjoy Chris’ work. As to how he handles black levels on his own films, I’d have to disagree with you, as his look should be his look. I always enjoy seeing how someone affects film and printing. But just down try to list the blacks on a Willis film. Same thing with 2001. The reason why I don’t feel that the Nolan version should be seen, is that the studio apparently already had a proper full-scale restoration ready to go, along with UHD files. And my perception is that a better product, far closer to what would make Stanley smile, could have just as easily done the tour, inclusive of Cannes, and in 70mm, if so desired. The new prints derived from the 1999 IP, along with a new dupe - mixing stocks - was a needless exercise. Just my opinion, of course... But most important to SK was image quality, closest generations to original, and perfect blacks. The new prints don’t deliver, on any basis.

Same film stock. Used to create duplicating positives (IP), from an OCN or dupe neg, and from which a dupe printing neg is produced, in turn. First to be reasonably transparent, was 5243. I’ve improved, allowing multiple generations with extremely minimal affect on the projected image

Nor do I. If the print was new in 2001, it might have been made at CFI.

No absolute means of knowing. Depends upon age of print, lab that struck. It would be derived from IP #1 and dupe #1. Color timing, densities, ???

Respectfully... Your post has me a bit confused. Splice, dupes cut in, odd grading choices? Raised blacks, which are acceptable because the film is not by Kubrick, but rather by Chris and Hoyte? The same "dirty" shots tell you that they're either dupes or damaged originals printed through 4 or 5 generations before landing on a print, but those go back to the condition of the OCN. No cue marks? And it's film? But let's (please) return to the raised blacks. The one absolute that Mr. Kubrick demanded, were that his blacks be absolutely black. Back in 1967-68, when he was shooting the film, and doing final grading, which was very specific, Chris Nolan had not yet been conceived, and Hoyte's parents may have not yet even met... But their sensibilities come to the fore instead of the filmmakers? Stanley created two sets of 65mm separation masters. The first set, which represented the earlier cut of the film, had problems registering. And those problems existed, because he ordered the exposed stock to be processed warmer than usual. Why? To make absolutely certain that if and when dupes ever had to be struck for shots involving the sky in space, that there be no exposure in those areas. He wanted clear negative, which would yield black blacks. The new prints of 2001 are an embarrassment, to all but those involved in their creation, and tell the wrong tale of what the film looked like in 1968. The sooner they're destroyed, the better. Apparently, this has all occurred for two reasons. First, Chris is an analogue fetishist, to a point of distraction, and second, he has no concept as to how digital technology works, or how it interrelates with the analogue world. I'm fearful that he may have gotten his hands on the digital masters, and screwed them up, as well. Which will leave 2001, not through the eyes of its filmmakers, but through the eyes of someone who never saw an original print of the film in its full glory. It is only by proper use of digital technology, that we have a chance of closely replicating those original prints. Via newly stuck 70mm, with the best shots at fourth generation, and the worst at sixth... Not a chance. Just sayin'... And understand, these comments come from someone who loves film. RAH

There was no "post-premiere trim," per se. It was a re-cut with scenes, both deleted, as well as added. RAH

Depends upon where it was. There was a 3 pop between the MT and 1A of Lawrence from day one, until it was removed, along with parts of the audio, by Chace, about 12 years ago.

How would one perform chaneovers without cue marks?

Precisely. Thank you. To put it in terms of cinematography, imagine one of Harry Stradlings beautiful big close-ups of Audrey Hepburn from My Fair Lady, as shot through his black silk. He was able to make the 35 year-old actress appear younger than her years. Imagine that shot, taken today, but with a large chip digital camera, and no filtration. And thats the most simplistic comparison between original 6-track mag from the 60s, and that same original mag reproduced digitally. Anything that hid a layer of imperfections is gone, and we get the original audio warts and all. Much the same as DPs of any film-based era, knew what would be hidden by duping. Harvest a 4k scan from a 60s or 70s OCN, and youll find those layers removed, and the necessity of digital work to hide wires, make-up, hairpiece seams, et al, as necessary.

http://www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/technology/film-licensing.php

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.

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

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.

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.