| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » Movie Technology Forum » HAL sings the Blues
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Steve Kraus |
 Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or HD-
DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little* blue
there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get junked,
degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have some) or did
it go out that way? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark Dunn |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I remember the scene as coldly lit, but not THAT cold. Since it got as far
as striping, surely it must be a misprinted roll that escaped checking.
Maybe the guy was having a nice cup of Deluxe tea at the time?
What a thing to own. I'd have it on the wall THIS BIG.
"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:13k1g6kgvj70c17@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or HD-
DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little* blue
there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get junked,
degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have some) or
did
it go out that way?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Scott Dorsey |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <13k1g6kgvj70c17@corp.supernews.com>,
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
Quote: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or HD-
DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little* blue
there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get junked,
degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have some) or did
it go out that way?
Wow, that IS blue.
I have a 16mm reduction print that is in decent shape, and it's not that
blue. What is weirder, though, is that this is more cyan than blue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark Dunn |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
That's right, because printers are additive, so too much red would make the
print too cyan. (Could be the opposite. I always have to think about that
one).
'Blue' is just the subjective impression. I think you're right, it's cyan.
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fhs4fg$jod$1@panix2.panix.com...
Quote: In article <13k1g6kgvj70c17@corp.supernews.com>,
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or HD-
DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little* blue
there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get junked,
degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have some) or
did
it go out that way?
Wow, that IS blue.
I have a 16mm reduction print that is in decent shape, and it's not that
blue. What is weirder, though, is that this is more cyan than blue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Art Velordi |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:50:29 +0000, Mark Dunn wrote:
Quote: I remember the scene as coldly lit, but not THAT cold. Since it got as far
as striping, surely it must be a misprinted roll that escaped checking.
Maybe the guy was having a nice cup of Deluxe tea at the time? What a
thing to own. I'd have it on the wall THIS BIG. "Steve Kraus"
screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:13k1g6kgvj70c17@corp.supernews.com...
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or
HD- DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little*
blue there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get
junked, degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have
some) or
did
it go out that way?
Oh yeah! A strip of 70mm (65mm?) footage from 2001. The ultimate
collector item for the Kubrick fan. .....Well....aside from the original
monolith!
Art |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Art Velordi |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:46:44 +0000, Steve Kraus wrote:
Quote: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/filmteknik/misc/2001s.jpg
Yes, it really is this color. Compare 1:38:54 if you have the DVD or HD-
DVD (version with full overture, entre acte etc.). It is a *little* blue
there but not like this. So the question is, did this reel get junked,
degaussed, and used for making test rolls (which is how I have some) or
did it go out that way?
There's an HD-DVD version of 2001?????!!!!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| in Technicolor® |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99ED71892A976screenSPAMBLOCKfilmt@216.168.3.70...
Quote: There's an HD-DVD version of 2001?????!!!!!!
Yes.
Very nice. No, not 70mm-nice but it'll do. The test, as always, is how
well can you see the tiny folks matted or rear projected into the windows
of the space port, moonship, moonbus, etc. and it's fine. And I'm
projecting it at less than full HD (1366 x 768, less 2.2 letterboxing, 3
chip DLP).
I seriously want to do some curved screen experiments.
Were the artifacts that showed up on the DVD where the front projection
screen looked patterned eliminated or less visible on the HD DVD version?
TIA
Morgan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Kraus |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Were the artifacts that showed up on the DVD where the front
projection screen looked patterned eliminated or less visible on the
HD DVD version?
I'm not familiar with that so I'm not really sure what to look for. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Kraus |
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Oh yeah! A strip of 70mm (65mm?) footage from 2001. The ultimate
collector item for the Kubrick fan. .....Well....aside from the
original monolith!
In case anyone cares that is, of course, a composite of two scans, one for
the image in transparancy mode, and another in reflective mode for showing
the tracks better. It was scanned with the base side, where the mag tracks
are, facing the scanner.
That of course leads to an orientation error if anyone was thinking deeply
about it. The image is shown how you see it on the screen and therefore
you are viewing it from the point of view of the projection lamp (though
you'd have to invert your monitor to be truly correct). But that's the
emulsion side facing the lamp. The mag side faces towards the screen.
Scanning it mag side down means it's being viewed from the opposide side.
Flipping it in Photoshop puts the image right but still shows the full mag
striping (with wear patterns) instead of being partly occluded by the edges
of the image, and, on one side, a dark strip down the edge of the 65mm neg
or interneg.
The color is an excellent match as I hold it near the monitor.
Now...where'd I leave that 8-perf sample? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Schemitsch |
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:27:12 +0100, in Technicolor® <cinerama@verizon.net>
wrote:
Quote:
"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99ED71892A976screenSPAMBLOCKfilmt@216.168.3.70...
There's an HD-DVD version of 2001?????!!!!!!
Yes.
Very nice. No, not 70mm-nice but it'll do. The test, as always, is how
well can you see the tiny folks matted or rear projected into the
windows
of the space port, moonship, moonbus, etc. and it's fine. And I'm
projecting it at less than full HD (1366 x 768, less 2.2 letterboxing, 3
chip DLP).
I seriously want to do some curved screen experiments.
Were the artifacts that showed up on the DVD where the front projection
screen looked patterned eliminated or less visible on the HD DVD version?
I second that!
That's what "destroys" (maybe too harsh a word) my viewing pleasure of
2001 on DVD in contrast to the movie theater, where it's perfect and
shines in every department.
If it's still there, no HD (which I don't care for because I project w/
crt-projector without pixels since 2000) in the world may help...
Martin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Hart |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <13k4dinfg4mh306@corp.supernews.com>,
screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com says...
Quote: Were the artifacts that showed up on the DVD where the front
projection screen looked patterned eliminated or less visible on the
HD DVD version?
I'm not familiar with that so I'm not really sure what to look for.
If you run the monkey segment of the film you can see how the painting
of the retroreflective material on the cyclorama was less than perfect.
You don't notice it unless the camera pans or tilts and then you see
that there are blotches in the sky.
I personally don't remember seeing them on the Cinerama screen but Dick
May tells me that the smudges were there all the time.
I have an HD copy of the movie and I'll take a look and see what's
there. If I can spot the smudges I'll put some frames up on the
"Museum" web site for all to admire.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Hart |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Here is a link to a page I've created from an HD transfer of "2001: A
Space Odyssey". The paint roller marks on the cyclorama are painfully
visible.
http://tinyurl.com/2tpbke
It should be remembered that we were closely watching the action on the
gigantic screen and probably didn't give a second glance to the skys in
the background of the film.
Roller marks aside, it was an audaciously executed piece of special
effects that is extremely effective.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Kraus |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surely the Scotchlite material was applied in sheets not by a paint roller.
I know a patent was recently issued for a new shape of tiny "tiles" so that
screens of any size can be constructed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Hart |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <13kcu0st28npqe4@corp.supernews.com>,
screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com says...
Quote: Surely the Scotchlite material was applied in sheets not by a paint roller.
I know a patent was recently issued for a new shape of tiny "tiles" so that
screens of any size can be constructed.
So many years have passed since I read up on the retro-reflective screen
that Kubrick and Unsworth used that I am unclear on a number of details.
I am pretty sure that the surface was painted on. 3M offers many such
materials in both strip and paint versions. I can't swear that I'm
right but I feel pretty comfortable about it. And it sure looks like
roller marks to me.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Schemitsch |
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:13:01 +0100, Mark Dunn
<markrhdunn@nospamatgmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Scotchlite comes in self-adhesive sheets, but it does have to be smoothed
down with a small roller. This needs to be done in straight horizontal
lines
from top to bottom or vice versa. In some of those stills it does look as
though it has been rolled like paint, radially. Perhaps there was just so
much of it they had to work differently. Or maybe it was just done by
decorators more accustomed to paint.
I read three books about the making of 2001.
As you say, Scotchlite comes in sheets. There was no way they could cover
the whole screen in the background in one (or at least a few) piece(s).
They tried to attach it in straight lines as you describe and it didn't
work because this regular pattern could still be made out because of
differences in the reflective quality of adjacent stripes.
So they came up with this irregular, random pattern which, as you state:
Quote: doesn't show in 70mm.
Kubrick simply kept refining the then new process (at least on this scale)
until it was perfect in 70mm. :)
The transfer, contrast and color space reduction, and compression could be
made to keep it that way or at least approximate, but Kubrick isn't around
to do the quality check anymore. :(
Martin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:46 pm
|
|