Post Random Movie-Related Thoughts You Have

[LoathedVermin72]

Jesus Christ, this 2001 print stuff is even worse than I thought.

The current prints are derived from a third generation, duplicate negative, which itself has built-in dupes. Meaning that those prints represent anywhere from fourth to sixth generation copies of the original, and are no more than, and possibly below 2k resolution.

That is absolutely absurd, considering 70mm is capable of holding, like, up to 16K of detail. Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

Thankfully, it still sounds like there's hope that the 4K UHD Blu-ray is NOT going to be derived from this "unrestored" bullshit. Fingers crossed...

[E.H. Ruddock]

Jesus Christ, this 2001 print stuff is even worse than I thought.

The current prints are derived from a third generation, duplicate negative, which itself has built-in dupes. Meaning that those prints represent anywhere from fourth to sixth generation copies of the original, and are no more than, and possibly below 2k resolution.

That is absolutely absurd, considering 70mm is capable of holding, like, up to 16K of detail. Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

Thankfully, it still sounds like there's hope that the 4K UHD Blu-ray is NOT going to be derived from this "unrestored" bullshit. Fingers crossed...

When is the 4k UHD coming?

[LoathedVermin72]

Jesus Christ, this 2001 print stuff is even worse than I thought.

The current prints are derived from a third generation, duplicate negative, which itself has built-in dupes. Meaning that those prints represent anywhere from fourth to sixth generation copies of the original, and are no more than, and possibly below 2k resolution.

That is absolutely absurd, considering 70mm is capable of holding, like, up to 16K of detail. Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

Thankfully, it still sounds like there's hope that the 4K UHD Blu-ray is NOT going to be derived from this "unrestored" bullshit. Fingers crossed...

When is the 4k UHD coming?

October 30th

[Jorge]

Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

What is his logic behind doing this?

[LoathedVermin72]

Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

What is his logic behind doing this?

I have no goddamn idea. It’s lunacy. He’s does it in all his own movies too. There’s no reason the recent 4K releases of his movies shouldn’t be beautiful based on how they were filmed, but nope. They are underwhelming at best and abject garbage at worst.

[epilogue]

Jesus Christ, this 2001 print stuff is even worse than I thought.

The current prints are derived from a third generation, duplicate negative, which itself has built-in dupes. Meaning that those prints represent anywhere from fourth to sixth generation copies of the original, and are no more than, and possibly below 2k resolution.

That is absolutely absurd, considering 70mm is capable of holding, like, up to 16K of detail. Fucking Nolan and his moronic aversion to using the original camera negative.

Thankfully, it still sounds like there's hope that the 4K UHD Blu-ray is NOT going to be derived from this "unrestored" bullshit. Fingers crossed...

Can you give me more links/info about this? Everything I've seen says that he went back to the original camera negative.

From Filmaker Magazine:

Nolan’s explanation is that he’s gone back to the original camera negative to come up with a print that looks like what the very first public audience to view 2001 would have seen. This isn’t entirely accurate, since the 21 minutes Kubrick cut out after that disastrous premiere haven’t been added back in.

https://filmmakermagazine.com/105557-ch ... 2X6o9VKgdU

From Variety:

Collaborating with a team at the FotoKem laboratory in Burbank, Nolan and Ned Price, Warner Bros.’ VP of restoration, first had to spruce up that material. According to Price, the lab spent more than six months cleaning the 50-year-old negative and checking the splices, which included removing a number of older, imperfect repairs. Then they made an answer print, color-timed it by closely adhering to the original timing notes and documentation, and finally made an interpositive and an internegative in 65mm for striking prints. (Hoyte van Hoytema, Nolan’s director of photography on “Interstellar” and “Dunkirk,” had a hand in the effort.)

The team also went back to the original six-track soundtrack and faithfully transferred it to the new prints. “The film is mixed in a very extreme way,” Nolan says with awe. “There are incredible sonic peaks that are beyond anything anyone would do today.”

For Price, it’s been a new, exciting adventure with one of the most revered assets in the Warner Bros. vault. “I’ve worked on this film a number of times, and every time I return to it, I find it’s a different film, because I bring to it a different experience,” he says. “And this is the first time I’ve been able to finish it with 70mm theatrical prints. All the previous visits have finished in digital form.”

That includes an upcoming 4K UHD home market version, with which Nolan was also involved.

But while the photochemical process bears a certain alchemy and magic, the director contends that he’s not attracted by the romance alone. “That tends to obfuscate the greater truth, which is that photochemical is a much higher-quality image format,” he says. “Showing people prints in the cinema is the way you best make that point, and if you could choose one movie to try to show that to people, it would be ‘2001.’”

https://variety.com/2018/artisans/produ ... 202811669/

From Reason:

Nolan's print was made from an interpositive—an intermediate stage in the film development process—that was produced using the original camera negative and based on Kubrick's personal notes. From there, the goal was to produce a clean print that otherwise changed as little as possible.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/chri ... 2001-a-spa

From Indiewire:

“For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” Nolan explains. “This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits.

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/04/2001- ... 201955137/

From the LA Times:

"Ned Price offered to show me some reels from a print made from the original 70-mm camera negative, and they were amazing," he recalls. "He told me that in 1999 Warners had made interpositives from the original camera negative, which Vince Roth had very carefully repaired, but they never had the funding to take the next step to make an internegative and strike new prints."

(An interpositive is a type of film stock that's essential in going from an original camera negative to a final print.)

[...]

"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."

[...]

"There is a natural tendency to mistake sharpness for added information but with the photochemical process you have a direct physical relationship with the original light that came through the lens. The same shadows the filmmaker saw are the ones

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mo ... story.html#

The New York Times does make mention of having to clean or improve or work on the original negatives:

In 1999, as part of a preservation project, Mr. Price’s team had made an “interpositive” of the film — essentially a protection copy of the original camera negatives, made up of 20 reels tucked away in a Burbank studio. To accomplish this in less than a year, the Warner Bros. team carefully cleaned the original negatives, removed old repairs and created new interpositives. The negatives, from which the preservation copies were made, were slightly shrunken and had some color fading. That was where the work stopped. The copies of the original reels were meant only for preservation, not for distribution.

[...]

Mr. Price and Mr. Nolan began by making duplicate negatives and then initiated a complex method of color correction. This process required some imagining of what Kubrick would want, with prompting from the faded source material.

Is that what we're talking about?

Also from the Times piece:

“If the filmmaker intended the walls to be sort of green and you try to make them white, then other things will be problematic,” Mr. Price said. “The flesh tones will go off. The whites will turn magenta. Strange things will happen. To a certain degree, you have to listen to the camera negative itself.”

I promise I'm not trying to be combative or anything. I'm just trying to understand your frustration. I keep finding article upon article, essay upon essay from people who know what they're talking about that are raving about this thing. And it's not that I don't think you're a smart guy or that you're reading bad sources or that you don't know what you're talking about. It's just trying to wade through all the takes to get to some semblance of understanding and agreement.

My main point earlier (which has been echoed by a ton of people who have actually watched the 70mm print) is that it's a remarkable experience. And I would absolutely encourage people to go see it. I don't want to scare people off of this. The depth, the texture, everything that 70mm offers is all there and in spades. It's a unique and palpable experience that any fan of cinema should experience.

Even if the colors or the whites are off (and I'm still not certain that they are), I promise most people won't give a shit when they're immersed in the experience and seeing all that a true 70mm film print has to offer. Maybe mistakes were made. I genuinely don't know. I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough. But I can tell you, the joy and suspense and awe that filled while taking it in is something I would never trade for the world. I can live with a color timing we aren't used to, or that some think is off or whatever. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone is wrong or that I don't care about this stuff or anything like that. But actually taking the time to see this is worth it. That's all I'm saying.

At least, that's true for me. Maybe it's not for others. But here we are back around to that whole perception issue.

[LoathedVermin72]

First of all, one thing you gotta accept when talking about stuff like this is that the reporting is pretty much always contradictory, subjective, speculative, vague, biased, and often just flat-out incorrect.

Second of all, saying that "elements were produced using the original camera negative" means almost nothing. Almost ALL major restorations are, in one way or another, derived from the OCN. That doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of pointless generations between the OCN and the release print. On top of that, Nolan became involved in the project after WB had already gone back to the OCN. He wasn't a part of that stage.

Here's where the problems begin:

Mr. Price and Mr. Nolan began by making duplicate negatives

Immediately, from phase one of Nolan's "unrestoration," they are working one generation removed from the OCN. This removes fine detail. It's unavoidable. It's not only completely unnecessary to ultimately strike release prints from elements so far removed from the OCN - it's absolutely mindboggling. Soooooo much fine detail has been lost by the time it hits projectors.

Here's another problem:

a complex method of color correction. This process required some imagining of what Kubrick would want, with prompting from the faded source material.

Color correction is, of course, a part of restoring a film. Has to be done. But Nolan saying there isn't any potential revisionism here is just wrong. The goal, usually, is to get as close to the source as possible, but interpretation is involved at this stage. And this is often molded by contemporary grading trends and - when you have someone like Nolan involved - his own biases. (Speaking of modern trends, raised blacks is another one Nolan loves, and I'm terrified of seeing that in 2001, a film which is full of the deep black of space.)

And his own movies look like shit. He has proven time and time again that he has no idea about how to properly present a film for home video release, let alone an "unrestoration" for projection prints.

Also, that goddamn word. "Unrestored." It's completely meaningless, and betrays just how little Nolan actually knows about what a "restoration" is. He acts like restoring a film is what George Lucas did when he created the OT Special Editions or something. Just utter cluelessness.

And here's one last little kicker: Christopher Nolan is red-green colorblind. It's mystifying that he would be allowed to have a hand in color correcting 2001 with that knowledge in mind.

[LoathedVermin72]

Even if the colors or the whites are off (and I'm still not certain that they are), I promise most people won't give a shit when they're immersed in the experience and seeing all that a true 70mm film print has to offer. Maybe mistakes were made. I genuinely don't know. I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough. But I can tell you, the joy and suspense and awe that filled while taking it in is something I would never trade for the world. I can live with a color timing we aren't used to, or that some think is off or whatever. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone is wrong or that I don't care about this stuff or anything like that. But actually taking the time to see this is worth it. That's all I'm saying.

At least, that's true for me. Maybe it's not for others. But here we are back around to that whole perception issue.

One last thought: I do not care how "most people" will feel when they're watching it. Most people still buy fucking DVDs (or stream in shit quality). Most people do not give a shit about stuff like this at all. Film restoration/preservation is a very niche subject. I care about it. It matters to me. It's great that most people will be amazed by watching this on the big screen, but that's just because it's a deeply powerful work of moviemaking. The point is: there's no reason it can't be a technically perfect presentation as well. And it likely would have been if they hadn't involved Nolan as a publicity stunt. And if his involvement effectively ruins the accuracy and quality of home video presentations for years to come? That's a crime.

[epilogue]

First of all, one thing you gotta accept when talking about stuff like this is that the reporting is pretty much always contradictory, subjective, speculative, vague, biased, and often just flat-out incorrect.

Good to know. So then some of the reporting you've posted is subjective, speculative, vague, biased, and possibly flat-out incorrect. When you report/post stuff is it just sources you trust? How do you research to discern what is less biased and most accurate?

Second of all, saying that "elements were produced using the original camera negative" means almost nothing. Almost ALL major restorations are, in one way or another, derived from the OCN. That doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of pointless generations between the OCN and the release print. On top of that, Nolan became involved in the project after WB had already gone back to the OCN. He wasn't a part of that stage.

Here's where the problems begin:

Mr. Price and Mr. Nolan began by making duplicate negatives

Immediately, from phase one of Nolan's "unrestoration," they are working one generation removed from the OCN. This removes fine detail. It's unavoidable. It's not only completely unnecessary to ultimately strike release prints from elements so far removed from the OCN - it's absolutely mindboggling. Soooooo much fine detail has been lost by the time it hits projectors.

But doesn't "The negatives, from which the preservation copies were made, were slightly shrunken and had some color fading" address that point and help to explain it?

Here's another problem:

a complex method of color correction. This process required some imagining of what Kubrick would want, with prompting from the faded source material.

Color correction is, of course, a part of restoring a film. Has to be done. But Nolan saying there isn't any potential revisionism here is just wrong. The goal, usually, is to get as close to the source as possible, but interpretation is involved at this stage. And this is often molded by contemporary grading trends and - when you have someone like Nolan involved - his own biases. (Speaking of modern trends, raised blacks is another one Nolan loves, and I'm terrified of seeing that in 2001, a film which is full of the deep black of space.)

And his own movies look like shit. He has proven time and time again that he has no idea about how to properly present a film for home video release, let alone an "unrestoration" for projection prints.

Also, that goddamn word. "Unrestored." It's completely meaningless, and betrays just how little Nolan actually knows about what a "restoration" is. He acts like restoring a film is what George Lucas did when he created the OT Special Editions or something. Just utter cluelessness.

This is a good example of bias in reporting you were talking about above. I can certainly understand your frustration with the term, though. That is dumb. But you're taking it way too seriously. I'm not sure even he takes it that seriously. Feels more like a marketing or differentiation thing. But, yes, it's silly.

For those out there that my doubt your acumen and expertise in this field, can you go into more detail about why/how you know so much more about this than the professionals that "restored" the thing? I mean, if it's all subjective and biased anyway, why should we trust you above Price and Nolan and others who make their livings making films? I'm sure that reads as really condescending. You'll just have to trust that I don't intend it to be. I really want to know why I should trust you over these guys.

I certainly have no expertise here. I'm in the dark about it. All I've got is my own personal experience. So, help me out here. What makes you more trustworthy and credible and reliable and correct than these other professionals?

And here's one last little kicker: Christopher Nolan is red-green colorblind. It's mystifying that he would be allowed to have a hand in color correcting 2001 with that knowledge in mind.

I didn't know that about him. That's super interesting. I remember taking a perceptions class in college. We talked at length about all kinds of errors in perception. I don't remember the exact stats at this point, but it's something like 1 in 12 men have some kind of colorblindness or deficiency.

[epilogue]

Even if the colors or the whites are off (and I'm still not certain that they are), I promise most people won't give a shit when they're immersed in the experience and seeing all that a true 70mm film print has to offer. Maybe mistakes were made. I genuinely don't know. I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough. But I can tell you, the joy and suspense and awe that filled while taking it in is something I would never trade for the world. I can live with a color timing we aren't used to, or that some think is off or whatever. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone is wrong or that I don't care about this stuff or anything like that. But actually taking the time to see this is worth it. That's all I'm saying.

At least, that's true for me. Maybe it's not for others. But here we are back around to that whole perception issue.

One last thought: I do not care how "most people" will feel when they're watching it. Most people still buy fucking DVDs (or stream in shit quality). Most people do not give a shit about stuff like this at all. Film restoration/preservation is a very niche subject. I care about it. It matters to me. It's great that most people will be amazed by watching this on the big screen, but that's just because it's a deeply powerful work of moviemaking. The point is: there's no reason it can't be a technically perfect presentation as well. And it likely would have been if they hadn't involved Nolan as a publicity stunt. And if his involvement effectively ruins the accuracy and quality of home video presentations for years to come? That's a crime.

Okay. That's fair enough. Though, I'd say if it moves the viewer and it's profound, then it's worth it. What I saw is the most amazing version I've ever seen of a film that I adore with all of my heart. Nothing felt "ruined." And I think perception plays a much bigger role in this than you want to give credit to. Which, as you say, is fine. I'm sorry you hate a thing you haven't seen so much. I hope someday there is a version that is perfect for you. I genuinely mean that. Overrated as "perfection" is, I hope you find it.

[epilogue]

My wife tried to watch 2001 about a decade ago. She hated it. She fell asleep. I told her I was going to this screening, expecting her to tell me to go alone, but she wanted to come. Her love and adoration for what she experienced was amazing. She said, "it's not a movie, it's a visual symphony; it's an opera." And that pretty much sums it up for me. That's enough. Totally worth it.

We talked for hours after about how amazing the movie is and about how clearly responsible the film is for just about everything that came after it. She's a photographer and she raved and went on and on about things in that I frankly don't totally understand because I don't have her knowledge and experience with film/digital/photography/etc.

I think that shit is worth it. More than worth it. And I hope people don't run away from this opportunity (if they have it) to see this movie in 70mm. That's all.

[run2death]

I'm not trying to butt in, but I can't comprehend how someone could like the shitty yellow version of 2001 over the stark white version.

[run2death]

I'd rather a shitty, old VHS copy of the original over a 70MM version of that garbage. Colors matter.

[epilogue]

I'm not trying to butt in, but I can't comprehend how someone could like the shitty yellow version of 2001 over the stark white version.

Have you seen the restoration in theaters?

It's difficult to explain if you haven't seen it. But the first thing is that, having no knowledge of any of this before the movie, I didn't notice it. Not even a little bit. So much so, that I'm genuinely not sure that's it true. So many of the image pulls/comparisons I've seen are from the trailer. I'm not expert, but is it possible the trailer's color timing could be different from the film? Maybe not. I have no idea.

But even if it's true, it's really unimportant in the context of the viewing experience. At least it was for me. As you're watching the film is rich in color, depth and texture. It looks so fucking good and you are so immersed in the story and the art of the thing that it's just not noticeable. Or it wasn't to me. Or I didn't care.

Furthermore, it's all about perception. Some people will think it looks better. There are a lot of the comparison shots I've looked at that I think are better. But that's just me.

I think finally, I can't tell if anyone really has any grasp on what Kubric's actual intention was. There are strong arguments on both sides. But at the end of the day, if you feel that way now, without seeing the movie, it might bug you enough that it'll ruin it for you. Which is what LV's been talking about. So it could be this really isn't your jam. Fair enough. But I'd really encourage you to check it out regardless. You might be surprised how little impact it has on you. Or not. We're all different. I just wish I could implant my experience in your head. Because holy shit.

[epilogue]

I'd rather a shitty, old VHS copy of the original over a 70MM version of that garbage. Colors matter.

They do. And these colors are gorgeous. Maybe they aren't what you're used to. Maybe they are finally the way they were meant to be. I don't know. Maybe Nolan and Co fucked it all up. But it's still really beautiful.

[run2death]

To say that Kubrick didn't intentionally pick out his color palette, is to not know Kubrick at all.

He had a legendary love of red and to turn that into blue is heresy.

[epilogue]

To say that Kubrick didn't intentionally pick out his color palette, is to not know Kubrick at all.

He had a legendary love of red and to turn that into blue is heresy.

I'm not saying he didn't intentionally pick out his color palette. Of course he did.

[LoathedVermin72]

This conversation is exhausting. There are so many things to address that I don’t even know where to start.

[epilogue]

This conversation is exhausting. There are so many things to address that I don’t even know where to start.

I hear you. I'm worn out too. Let's just let it go. Unless there's anything specifically you want to educate me on. Otherwise, I'm fine just saying that I need to keep reading and trying to understand this stuff on my own and make up my own mind about it all.

But thanks for trying. I'm sorry I made it super complicated. There was probably a better way to go about it, but I promise it's coming from a good place.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I'd rather a shitty, old VHS copy of the original over a 70MM version of that garbage. Colors matter.

They do. And these colors are gorgeous. Maybe they aren't what you're used to. Maybe they are finally the way they were meant to be. I don't know. Maybe Nolan and Co fucked it all up. But it's still really beautiful.

I think r2d said what he said about picking colors intentionally because of this. I think they were meant to be originally, not now and "finally" because of Nolan