Brand new 70mm print of 2001 A Space Odyssey

[Robert Harris]

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

Edited June 11, 2018 by Robert Harris

[Mark Dunn]

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

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Robert Harris]

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, ???

[Mark Dunn]

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.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Robert Harris]

 

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.

[Mark Dunn]

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

[Robert Harris]

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

[Mark Dunn]

I'm grateful.

So, by "dupe neg", you mean second generation copy? OCN>IP>dupe neg?

[Phil Connolly]

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

There was a new 70mm print in the UK for the 2001 re-release in 2001. I believe it toured the UK - I saw it on the Cinerama screen in Bradford. I remember it looking very nice and very crisp and sounding fantastic. It did have more tape hiss then the new prints

 

The new print (as screened in London) was quite a lot softer with much more visible grain (closer to a 35mm look at points) and the sound had lost the low end. Maybe that was due to how the cinema patched in the sub bass crossover - but I doubt that - since its one of the best screens in London, technically.

[Phil Connolly]

To add confusion American Cinematheque commissioned a new print in 2016

 

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t012067.html

 

I wonder if its significantly different from the Nolan effort.

[Tyler Purcell]

Splice, dupes cut in, odd grading choices?

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.

 

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.

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.

 

No cue marks? And it's film?

Yep, zero cue marks. Just like Nolan's other movies.

 

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.

That's pretty interesting. I'd love to know more about this process, for my own stuff of course.

 

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.

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.

 

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

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.

[Tyler Purcell]

To add confusion American Cinematheque commissioned a new print in 2016[/size]

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t012067.html

 

I wonder if its significantly different from the Nolan effort.

 

Yea it looks like poop compared to the Nolan treatment. It's why Nolan put in the effort because the print is that bad.

[Robert Harris]

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.

[Tyler Purcell]

I just don't understand why raised blacks are even a thing if your exposure is fine. There is usually no added detail to be had in shots with raised blacks that I've seen, it's just Nolan likes to see things that aren't necessary to see ya know? That's kinda my beef with the way he times things in his own movies.

[Jon O'Brien]

Saw the new 70mm print in Brisbane. Great sound (to my ear). Wonderful to see real film at a cinema again. They even had the traditional curtain. Brilliant. Was slightly shocked at first at flicker, most noticable on the very bright white (eg. of white floor on space station). Bit of gate weave and wobble too. But a real sense of 'presence' and artistically a richer experience than many digital shows I've seen recently. Film has a more incised or more 'etched' effect on the screen than digital. Yeah, I know it's a print that's had many generations. But still. Film to me is great. I love it. Hope to see more films projected on film in cinemas in the years ahead. That said, I do respect what's happening in digital projection too. Very clear, rock steady, very sharp. The projector lens for 2001 had a strange blurry patch in it, bottom rh corner of the screen, plus a very slight vignette effect in top rh corner of screen that detracted slightly from the experience. But it was truly great to see real film again. Congratulations to all involved for bringing this back to cinemas.

[David Mullen ASC]

There can be raised blacks if printing from a faded negative. Also, in Nolan's case, sometimes the raised blacks are because the exposure was "thin" due to working in low-light conditions.

 

Basically, black level in a print is a function of printer light values which are a function of density of the negative plus desired brightness level of the image. So if the blacks are lifted and the brightness of the image is where you want it to be, the negative wasn't exposed enough to allow using higher sets of printer light values to achieve the desired brightness. Or the negative has aged and the base fog level has increased.

 

Of course, the blacks can be lifted as well because of things like smoke on set, flaring in the lens, etc. Or if the negative or dupe negative has been flashed in any way.

 

But otherwise, Nolan can't just say "raise the blacks" when making a photochemical print, all he can do is say "print it lighter".

[John Holland]

Hence why in the past I always over exposed the neg .I hate the look of a thin neg .

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

OP...enjoyed your website. Thanks for keeping film alive.

[David Mullen ASC]

Saw the 4K digital restoration today in digital IMAX... I have to say that it looks better than the 70mm print released last month, other than the superior black levels of projected prints. The image is back to being pristine, steady, sharp generally, like I remember the way it looked to me when I saw it in 70mm prints in the 1980’s.

 

Maybe this is controversial, but they fixed the visible strips of 3M material in the projected backgrounds in the Dawn of Man sequence. I never noticed them until I saw the blu-ray and 2K DCP made several years ago, but when I saw the 70mm Nolan print, I realized that they had always been there in the image, just that it was less noticeable in the print on a large screen where your eye goes more to the center of the image. But now that artifact has been cleaned up, which I suspect Kubrick would have approved of, he worked very hard to make that movie nearly perfect technically. Certainly it’s a bit controversial to fix what is essentially an effects shot from a classic movie, but the strips in the sky clearly was not an artistic intent and become distracting once you start noticing them.

[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.