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.

Sure, they didn't go to other elements to clean up splices.There were for sure dupe elements cut in, the most egregious was the wide shot at the monolith on the moon.Raised blacks were the biggest issue for me and yes, unacceptable. Nolan does it to his own movies and it's wrong.You would assume so, but they were so damn crisp. It's one thing if the resolution dropped, but it didn't. Also, since the dirt was associated with one shot, my thought is that shot was pulled from different elements.Yep, zero cue marks. Just like Nolan's other movies.That's pretty interesting. I'd love to know more about this process, for my own stuff of course.I wouldn't consider them an embarrassment because nothing else out there is even close right now. Despite the issues we've already talked about, everything else was ok. I think we can all agree the film does need digital restoration and re-release.I must sadly agree because I do like Nolan, I have spent time talking to the man about his philosophies. At the same time, he does make a lot of silly mistakes that do make his movies not look as good as they could. His use of IMAX for huge action scenes and then anamorphic 35mm for everything else, leads to a pretty soft image that is not necessary. Shooting a $100M+ movie on 5 perf 65mm is no problem, but he didn't want to push that envelope until someone else had done all the testing. I still think the Dunkirk IMAX prints looked like crap during the 5 perf scenes, dirty and colored poorly, they were pretty bad and unrepresentative of what the format can deliver. The 5 perf prints had some issues, but over-all they were fine. I personally can't wait to see what Tarantino does with his next movie, which supposedly is going to be shot on 65mm, but no word on what lenses yet.SO yea... someday maybe someone will do a restoration of 2001. Until then, I do think this version is the best version at the moment because flawed as it may be, it's pretty damn clean and over-all good looking to the normal human.

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.

PArdon my ignorance, but what would have been the difference between IP and dupe?

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

 

Sorry, I don't have that sort of memory. It was billed as a new print.

A fond memory of seeing it on the first day of 2001.

 

Nor do I.

If the print was new in 2001, it might have been made at CFI.

I seem to remember seeing something fairly decent on 1/1/2001 at the NFT- should that have been better that the recent release?

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, ???

So I finally got to see it today at the Cinerama Dome here in Hollywood. I honestly was blown away by how good it looked, it's FAR better then the American Cinematheque print. It has a few very small issues, some splices, some dupe elements cut in, a few dirty shots (same action location, so that's odd) and a few color grading choices that were odd. Honestly, the print was crisp, the movie actually looks like 70mm now, where the American Cinematheque print looked like 35mm blown up. It's like seeing 2001 for the first time.

 

I didn't see a single issue with the "color" of the grade, just a few raised blacks, I would have liked to have seen actually black. I noticed Nolan and Hoyte tend to grade like this to see detail in shots they normally wouldn't see detail in. I personally don't like the idea, but hey if it works for them, maybe I'm missing something.

 

My only complaint is the audio... it needs remastering. All of those beautiful low organ notes and bass rumble you get in the BluRay aren't on any 70mm print I've seen. Man if they had those things fixed and allow the high frequencies rip instead of restrict them so much from the noise reduction, It would be a far better experience. The movie is as much audio as picture and it's sad to see such awesome picture mixed with poor quality audio.

 

In summary, I'd consider this new 2001 version, for sure what the film should look like. Seeing it at the dome was a great experience and quite amazing because it's one of the only theaters like it left in the world with the proper lenses. The Kinton projector in the Cinerama dome is so well setup, it's always a treat to see 70mm projected so well. No print dirt, no noticeable print splices, no reel change cues, I mean flawless. A+ job guys!

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

It's a misprint. I believe it's been 2h21 since the post-premiere trim and he took out 19m. Wikipedia has it as 2h44. I guess it depends when you start and stop your stopwatch.

There was no "post-premiere trim," per se.

It was a re-cut with scenes, both deleted, as well as added.

RAH

I know you're only quoting someone else, but there wouldn't be "digital cleanup" in a print from interneg, would there?

Odd that the reviewer noticed a stray sync pop but missed the 2 seconds of black leader that would have had to be included for it to be heard.

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.

I read another reviewer who noted that the color grading for the new print is very different from the digital restoration. The digital is, to my eye, pretty neutral, some would say cool. But the new print is very warm — everything looks like it's under tungsten.

 

The reviewer also notes the lack of digital cleanup — lots of dust & scratches left intact, as well as a reel-change beep that didn't need to be there.

How would one perform chaneovers without cue marks?

I think Robert's point is more about the compatibility of digital reproduction with analogue originals. Modern end-to-end digital is very good, sure. But magnetic originals were never intended to be treated in this way- as I said, digital is too good.

In 1968, 70mm. mag was good enough- as good as it got. A modern 70mm. release with digital sound start to finish is as good as it gets now. But for a classic picture, which has to have digital sound now stripe is extinct, it probably needs more work.

 

Perhaps those who can actually remember what 70mm. sounded like need to be in on the deal. No-one doubts the superiority of digital sound over mag, but this isn't primarily a technical argument. Robert's technical qualifications are indisputable, but even he doesn't talk about decibels and SNR. He talks about what the sound feels like.

 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

A friend doing an article on the new printing neg and screenings of 2001 in 70mm, led me to this page, and suggested that I might be able to fill in some of the missing info.

Under the concept of "better late, than never," here goes:

Afaik, every production of 65mm origination was printed from OCNs until the 1980s, when 5243 arrived, and dupes could be produced without doing harm to the images. That stock was so good, that all that might be noted on screen, was a very slight softening of the edges of grain, yielding a slightly velvety appearance.

OCNs were heavily used. The more loved a film, the worse the condition. 65mm sep masters stood by lest something tear, and many shots and entire reels, had to be replaced.

As I recall, Lawrence saw well over 150 runs on the OCN, plus 65mm seps, and Technicolor reduction printing matrices. If a theater damaged the first 25 feet of a reel, the footage would sometimes be taken from an extra print, but in many cases, the OCN would be re-printed just to produce a short head or tail section. This was the norm, adding dozens of addition runs to already worn elements.

The negatives were conformed in several different manners.

The earliest were generally single strand, ie. A roll only, with printer functions duped in, usually short cut.

By the late 1950s, single strand still survived, but in the guise of auto-select, which allowed different versions of the film to be produced. Leader, slates, etc were left on the heads and tails of shots, for printer functions, and the OCN would travel forward and back in the optical printer, along with the raw stock.

A & B rolls generally became the standard.

At least one oddity that I encountered was My Fair Lady, which was cut and conformed single strand, auto-select Techniscope format, with an extra frame at the head and tail of every shot, removed during the printing functions, along with the fades and dissolves that had to be added.

Like Lawrence and MFL, 2001 saw extremely heavy use, with many shots replaced from the seps, and damage that could affect stability over time, especially as perfs wore. The general ethic was to print from head to tail, and when perfs wore, to reverse the process and print from tail to head.

Two sets of separation masters were produced on 2001. The first set in London, was of the original longer cut without explanatory titles. It was specially processed warmer than the norm, in order to make certain that the star fields were a black as possible. The problem with the temperature, was that the seps shrank, and would not register properly.

A second set was produced at MetroColor, once the OCN had been re-cut, and that is the set being current accessed.

When it came to printing from OCNs, the largest number of prints that I've noted, was for Rear Window (35mm), which was run over 300 times, being lacquered, stripped and re-laquered, as needed, along with requisite dupes cut in as footage was damaged. The sep stock was the earlier 5216. I believe it was reel 5A that was damaged during de-laquering, stripping away parts of the Y dye layer.

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

RAH