Kubrick's 2001: greatest argument FOR analog

jtk · May 4, 2018

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-ca-mn-christopher-nolan-2001-20180503-story.html

RattyMouse · May 4, 2018

Beautiful.

warden · May 4, 2018

The McDonald's comparison was excellent. I'll make the trip to NYC to see it.

mark · May 4, 2018

Alas, it will show no where near me.

AgX · May 4, 2018

Thank you.

That is quite surprising. For instance the german Murnau foundation that cares for restauration of german movie classics stopped releasing film copies a few years ago.
I know 70mm screening is somewhat special, but before Dunkirk there no longer was a 70mm Imax movie show in Germany, and I doubt that has changed for Dunkirk.

halfaman · May 4, 2018

2001 must look incredible in that restoration. I hope this kind of initiatives continues to support the film stock case in Hollywood as a neccesary possibility for directors and cinematographers along with imaging sensors.

In Spain there is one cinema in Barcelona with 70 mm projection possibilities, The Hateful Eight was shown there with one of the few 70 mm copies that were done and you have to pick your ticket one moth in advance. I don't know if they made the same with Dunkirk and I will pray every night for they do it with 2001.

faberryman · May 4, 2018

I enjoyed the movie when I first saw it in 1964. I would enjoy in seeing ago in 70mm. It is not going to save analog.

AgX · May 4, 2018

In this context this is of interest too, the introduction of a new 65mm camera
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2018/magellan/index.htm

jjphoto · May 4, 2018

Thanks for posting this. I don't think I can describe just how much i love this film. It is a true masterpiece. Hope to one day see this 70mm version, fingers crossed it comes to Australia.

destroya · May 4, 2018

gonna have to drive up to san francisco to see it! thanks

jtk · May 4, 2018

This version isn't considered a "restoration," it's more of a re-release:

"What most excites Nolan about these new "2001" prints is that they are a completely photochemical process, "which is why we chose to call this the unrestored version."

"The 1999 interpositive had been made with Kubrick's original notes. None of what we did was interpretive, we didn't correct mistakes, we didn't say 'maybe he would have liked to do it this way.' We used our technical expertise to make sure we got the best prints possible."

It's no secret that Nolan is a passionate believer in shooting and projecting film. But he's hardly an enemy of digital, seeing it rather as "a tool in the tool kit, not a be all and end all."

"For restoring films that are horribly damaged, absolutely. For exhibition, it's very consistent, like McDonald's, it raises the standards of the worst theaters. But you lose the magnificence of the best possible exhibition."

btaylor · May 5, 2018

I think it is incredibly fortunate that powerful people like Nolan are bent on preserving the 100 years of photochemical heritage that has been so influential to our culture. There is simply nothing like the unique qualites of film in the digital world. There may be no one to save film after the Nolan’s and Tarantino‘s retire, but they are still working! I hope the next generation shows an interest. A couple of years ago I rented a full 35mm ‘scope outfit to some students at San Francisco State. They were making a sci-fi film along the lines of Star Wars, they wanted to learn how to shoot real film— it was gratifying to see their enthusiasm.

Sirius Glass · May 5, 2018

jtk said:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-ca-mn-christopher-nolan-2001-20180503-story.html

T*H*A*N*K*S*!*!

silveror0 · May 6, 2018

Wikipedia shows an interesting bit on the name of HAL, the computer:

HAL's name, according to writer Arthur C. Clarke, is derived from Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. After the film was released fans noticed HAL was a one-letter shift from the name IBM and there has been much speculation since that this was a dig at the large computer company, something that has been denied by both Clarke and 2001 director Stanley Kubrick Clarke addressed the issue in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001.

...about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence.

AgX · May 6, 2018

Back to the actual topic, that rerelease. I do not know how that interpretation of restoration came up, but still I do not quite understand what this rerelease is based on. Slow on the uptake again...
It is a plain copy of some master footage. But what 1999 editing? I am not that deep into Kubrick's work.

jtk · May 6, 2018

AgX said:
Back to the actual topic, that rerelease. I do not know how that interpretation of restoration came up, but still I do not quite understand what this rerelease is based on. Slow on the uptake again...
It is a plain copy of some master footage. But what 1999 editing? I am not that deep into Kubrick's work.

The original camera film was was a negative...which then printed to an "interpositive" before the internegative from which release prints were made. Here, Christopher Nolan et al generated a new internegative from the original interpositive per Kubrick's 1999 instructions. Nolan's new internegative was thereby the closest possible stock to the internegative that was originally used to make prints for studio release.

That's how I read it anyway. Not mentioned here is the fact that color motion picture stock from that era has been decaying rapidly...first noticed with Tom Jones. That may have suggested this analog l (unlike Sony's recent, magnificent digital Lawrence of Arabia) re-release.

Sirius Glass · May 6, 2018

silveror0 said:
Wikipedia shows an interesting bit on the name of HAL, the computer:

HAL's name, according to writer Arthur C. Clarke, is derived from Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. After the film was released fans noticed HAL was a one-letter shift from the name IBM and there has been much speculation since that this was a dig at the large computer company, something that has been denied by both Clarke and 2001 director Stanley Kubrick Clarke addressed the issue in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001.

...about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence.

At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory we use the high order software language HAL/S, (High-order Assembly Language/Shuttle), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/S], which had another name originally by was renamed because the the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

AgX · May 6, 2018

Thank you jtk. Yes, I thought so. But I worded my question badly. What I actually wanted to know, was this new 70mm release edit wise ever released before, in whatever format?

lantau · May 6, 2018

jtk said:
The original camera film was was a negative...which then printed to an "interpositive" before the internegative from which release prints were made. Here, Christopher Nolan et al generated a new internegative from the original interpositive per Kubrick's 1999 instructions. Nolan's new internegative was thereby the closest possible stock to the internegative that was originally used to make prints for studio release.

That's how I read it anyway. Not mentioned here is the fact that color motion picture stock from that era has been decaying rapidly...first noticed with Tom Jones. That may have suggested this analog l (unlike Sony's recent, magnificent digital Lawrence of Arabia) re-release.

The way I read it it says that back in 1999 they made the interpositive according to the original notes of Kubrick. I don't know much about making films, but it sounds logical to me. Once you cut together that interpositive, which you can look at (pre digital way of doing it), you can then make several internegatives. Those will be used for making prints until the internegatives are worn out.

OTOH, what would they do for four months of preparing the internegatives if they already had a finished interpositive? Isn't it just a matter of giving it to a lab? I find the technical side of the article a little confusing.

jjphoto · May 6, 2018

Maybe that 1999 restoration is the source of the nice dvd, blueray etc that we have now. About a year ago I saw 2001 at a cinema in Melbourne Australia as part of a Kubrick festival, possibly thanks to the 1999 resto.

jtk · May 7, 2018

Someone who commented on the linked thread described what I think is correct. Importantly, he referred to the "timing" which, in a film lab refers to the color balance that's used for the final theatrical release prints (which will suffer wear and damage). In other words, the release prints reflect the IP (interpositive) that was no doubt approved in person by Kubrick.

"From the reporting I can only assume Fotokem is making an IN from the existing IP struck in 1999 (one wouldn't make 100+/- prints off the OCN). That means the timing is built into that IP and the final quality of the IN will reflect the high quality of that IP.

Well, then let's give credit to those hard working folks who made that IP off the OCN back in the day - our crew at CFI Labs, absorbed by Technicolor just prior to work on this project. "

faberryman · May 7, 2018

jtk said:
Someone who commented on the linked thread described what I think is correct. Importantly, he referred to the "timing" which, in a film lab refers to the color balance that's used for the final theatrical release prints (which will suffer wear and damage). In other words, the release prints reflect the IP (interpositive) that was no doubt approved in person by Kubrick.

Why does "timing" refer to color balance. Wouldn't "color balance" refer to color balance?

AgX · May 7, 2018

Timing in cinematography has two meanings. First the common one, and second the adjustment of density and hue between takes. As it is about a sequence of takes with the respective cuts, I guess that is why timing is used here too. Grading is a synomym.

georgegrosu · May 13, 2018

About "timing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading
„The earliest film grading technique, known as colour timing, involved changing the duration of exposure processes during the film development process.
Colour timing was largely used for colour correction, but could also be used for artistic purposes.[citation needed] Colour timing was specified in printer points.
Since it could not be performed in real time, colour timing for film processing involved considerable skill in being able to predict correct exposures.
For complex work, "wedges" were sometimes processed to aid the choice of the correct grading.“

George

AgX · May 13, 2018

That makes more sense indeed!

Kubrick's 2001: greatest argument FOR analog

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency