Jump to content

Brand new 70mm print of 2001 A Space Odyssey


Recommended Posts

Your right standard DTS is 16-bit. But didn't spot the higher bit rate special venue version.

 

Mag compares well to 16 bit - the theoretical signal to noise ratio of 16 bit is 96 dB

A really well setup mag reproducer should be able to hit 60-65dB of SNR and if you put dolby-sr encoding on that buys you another 23-25db's. So your close.

 

Old school DTS as a sample rate of 44.1khz - so that gives a theoretical frequency response of 22khz - which is reality will be closer to 19-20khz when you factor in the hard low pass-filter required to stop digital audio aliasing.

 

Mag tape running at 15ips can hit 20khz and 70mm film runs faster then that. with tape frequency response is defined by linear head speed and head gap.

 

Of course 96/24 will destroy any analogue audio reproduction system on the market technically. But I was still assuming 70mm prints were still using the original DTS system - as would have been the case when the first 70mm DTS prints were produced in the mid 90's.

 

I built a 16 Bit DAC using the resistance method while at uni. The parts indeed were a lot more expensive then using a 1-bit IC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Your right standard DTS is 16-bit. But didn't spot the higher bit rate special venue version.

I'm not sure if DataSat is the later 24 bit format, but DTS's whole business model was based around it for years.

 

Mag compares well to 16 bit - the theoretical signal to noise ratio of 16 bit is 96 dB

A really well setup mag reproducer should be able to hit 60-65dB of SNR and if you put dolby-sr encoding on that buys you another 23-25db's. So your close.

Sure... but its not like tape which has a lot of flexibility. Mag film does not and alignment in the playback heads can be tricky, so getting the heads perfectly placed on the track for THE ENTIRE FILM has always been one hiccup with the system. Also the mag stripe varies in how it's glued to the film, it's not perfect at all.

 

Another big issue is how the mag stripe was recorded. It's one thing to use the same machine for record and playback, it's another to have different machines for both. Now you're talking about alignment issues on BOTH sides of the equation. The tracks are super thin on the 70mm mag stripe, so the room for error is very low.

 

Think of it another way... I've have many 15 IPS 1/4" half track reel to reel tape decks in my life, I'm a huge analog guy. None of them have ever sounded as good as a decently decoded CD. Remember, the total amount of mag space on the 70mm film is 5mm to store 6 channels of audio. That's like taking a 1/4" reel to reel tape and putting 5 tracks on it. Quarter track @ 15ips is pretty bad, lots of cross talk and the tracks don't have enough room to deal with high dynamic range either. Yes, mag striped 70mm was better then optical 35mm, that's for damn sure. However, DTS is FAR superior. Just watch a modern movie on 70mm, the sound is excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caught the unrestored screening at the Cinerama dome last night and loved the print. The sound was excellent too, especially when the choir reached maximum chanting.

 

Fun fact, they handed out re-printed programs from the film's release after the film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure if DataSat is the later 24 bit format, but DTS's whole business model was based around it for years.


Sure... but its not like tape which has a lot of flexibility. Mag film does not and alignment in the playback heads can be tricky, so getting the heads perfectly placed on the track for THE ENTIRE FILM has always been one hiccup with the system. Also the mag stripe varies in how it's glued to the film, it's not perfect at all.

Another big issue is how the mag stripe was recorded. It's one thing to use the same machine for record and playback, it's another to have different machines for both. Now you're talking about alignment issues on BOTH sides of the equation. The tracks are super thin on the 70mm mag stripe, so the room for error is very low.

Think of it another way... I've have many 15 IPS 1/4" half track reel to reel tape decks in my life, I'm a huge analog guy. None of them have ever sounded as good as a decently decoded CD. Remember, the total amount of mag space on the 70mm film is 5mm to store 6 channels of audio. That's like taking a 1/4" reel to reel tape and putting 5 tracks on it. Quarter track @ 15ips is pretty bad, lots of cross talk and the tracks don't have enough room to deal with high dynamic range either. Yes, mag striped 70mm was better then optical 35mm, that's for damn sure. However, DTS is FAR superior. Just watch a modern movie on 70mm, the sound is excellent.

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.

 

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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.

The original 35mm 6 track masters have HUGE/FAT tracks, with little to no cross-talk. Remember, the BluRay sounds amazing... so the concept of "digital to digital" not being able to reproduce what was initially intended is hogwash. The problem is that the sources for the theatrical version are NOT the remaster version on the BluRay. That's what needs to be done in my opinion.

 

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.

I watch magnetic striped 70mm films all the time, they don't sound that great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a tape guy myself, so I tend to like the sound of mag prints off 70mm. Warm sounding and smooth. I remember watching Apocalypse Now in 70mm mag print and the opening with the helicopters and the Doors playing was spectacular. Still haven't heard things as good as that since in some cases. Star Trek II & IV I also heard on mag prints.

 

I found out The Park Theater is playing a 70mm print July 13th, so I got myself a ticket and will drive to Vancouver to see it. It may not be the best possible way to see it (their theater is very old with a smaller screen and so so sound system), but it should be better then the faded red print I saw in the 90s.

Edited by Scott Pickering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's true, the analog soundtracks have a nice warm sound. However, most of that is the original recordings rather then the delivery format. If there is an analog preamp somewhere in the loop, or maybe a tape machine, it does make a huge difference.

 

Just remember, when you watch an original print, re-watch that film on BluRay first to get an example of what the re-mixed version sounds like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I saw the film this Saturday on a very large screen in Malaga...they have it as their UHD screen.....the film filled the entire screen.....it was impressive and really enjoyed it.....much more than as a kid back in the early 70s when I didn't know what the hell I was watching.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it at the Castro in San Francisco last weekend, can't add much to what others have said here but I would agree that the colors really surprised me. I have seen it on film (maybe 70mm?) a few times over the years but I didn't recall the colors being that vibrant and warm. While the future tech predictions hold up amazingly well, that color palette reminded me of the era the film came out of - almost like an LSD-inspired blacklight painting.

 

The patches in the Scotchlite front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man" sequence were not noticeable to me but I wasn't looking for them. I am amazed how well that sequence holds up in terms of the fg/bg projection match. You can see the slight color tone difference in a few of the shots.

 

There was one giant taped-over tear in the film, on a single frame, toward the end of the that sequence that reminds you that they didn't do any digital clean-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my tickets for the 15th at the Park Theater in Vancouver in July. One question Im am wondering about. They state this as a 3 1/2 hour release. I only remember this film as being over 2 hours long. Why is this release so long? Did they add old footage back in that was cut out before the roadshow release in 68? Or maybe the 3 1/2 hour time is a misprint?

Edited by Scott Pickering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...