my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 2001: A Space Odyssey DCP (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 2001: A Space Odyssey DCP Gavin Lewarne Master Film Handler Posts: 278 From: Plymouth, UK Registered: Aug 2009 posted 02-09-2015 04:44 AM                     we played the BFI copy of 2001ASO DCP (the re-released on) a couple weeks ago. seemed to me it was just a bluray rip, each part was 55gb and although looked good, was not "great" like 2001 should be it was also labelled wrong. The DCP claimed it was Flat (was named with a F) but it actually maintains the original Cinerama ratio, so I played it back in scope with a wee bit of zoom to get rid of the borders. looked much better that way  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-09-2015 06:50 AM                     You'd likely played it wrong then. If it said "F", it should have been "F-220" using today's vernacular. 3996 x 1816 yields more pixels than 3776 x 1716...what you played it in (except you threw away 100 vertical pixels and didn't get any horizontal pixels to start). The ratio is the ratio. But it is very evident in the pixels above which of the two (stupid) containers that a 2.20 70mm feature is best represented in. Yes, you'd need to "zoom" your lens for either, but zooming a flat container would have required less zoom. Now could could have done some of the scaling in the DLP, if you wanted by creating an input file and used that (define the input as 3996 x 1816 with a 2.20 ratio)...the DLP will bring it up to 4096 x 1862 and then zoom as necessary the rest of the way. The down side is that you will have introduced some scaling artifacts. What the studios SHOULD be doing is to release 70mm movies in "C-220" which would start with 4096 x 1862 and let people that want to run "70mm" features create a new format on their projectors. Push come to shove...run it in their "Scope" format and deal with some cropping in height. We are talking about 146 pixels there (in 4K or 73 in 2K). I see that sort of cropping all of the time with people that don't understand the ratios when they pick their screen size. I'm not condoning it.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 02-09-2015 07:01 AM                     quote: Gavin Lewarne we played the BFI copy of 2001ASO DCP (the re-released on) a couple weeks ago. Is this re-release in 4K or just another 2K release like the previous DCP version? At 55 GByte it doesn't sound like it would do 4K any justice, especially given the runtime of the movie. There are plenty of 1080p Blu-Ray releases that go into similar territory... I'm pretty sure BFI is sufficiently competent to label it F-220. But I totally agree with Steve, those 70mm releases should really be released as C-220, as long as the source was a sufficiently high-resolution scan from the original film material. From what I know though, this wasn't a new scan, just a "polished up" version of a previous digital scan.  |  IP: Logged Gavin Lewarne Master Film Handler Posts: 278 From: Plymouth, UK Registered: Aug 2009 posted 02-09-2015 07:25 AM                     Steve / Marcel It was a 2k release, at least the one I got was. I tested it in flat, had borders all around. In scope, it still had borders all around, hence I zoomed it a bit to fill the screen. Im not sure what the actual container was, but it definitely wasn't using full width or height of either format. we only crop about 3 pixels from each edge in either of our formats, so to give the best "cinematic" experience I played it to fill the full scope width screen. In zoomed flat it just looked pathetic  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-26-2017 04:35 PM                 It has been 837 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-26-2017 04:35 PM                     I'm confused,why would zooming out flat look worse than zooming out scope? To fill the screen. I'm running this crap dcp tomorrow so I have to get this figured out in the morning. Create a new screen file I guess. The dcp arrived late so I'm doing this on my day off.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-27-2017 01:43 AM                     What it and all 70mm features should have been mastered in was C-220 rather than F-220 or S-220. With S-220, people don't have to do anything since if you have a "Scope" screen it will merely not fill the whole width but no new screen file is really necessary. For F-220 you have an image that works better on a 1.85 screen where again, a new screen file isn't needed and fills more than a scope image. The reason for F-220 is that more pixels are used but that comes back to that C-220 would use the most pixels.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-27-2017 09:51 PM                        Geez, I don't get it; you mean to tell me that with all the specifications the DCI has issued, they have nothing about how original film aspect ratios should be authored as DCPs so that they take full advantage of the digital capability of the projection system? Even if you count the odd ARs, there aren't any film ARs that are unknown. Authoring any one of them to digital should be preset and defined -- it's not brain surgery and each should be set and standardized by the DCI. And where is the SMPTE that has a specification for everything about film down to which way the projectionist wipes his butt...why aren't these issues specified? It shouldn't be a guessing game or a flip of the coin by the authoring house. Especially when one way gives less presentation quality than another. Isn't the whole point of the DCI regs is to get digital to give repeatable and highest quality in the theatre? And where is the SMPTE Digital Committee or the Projection Practices committee on stuff like this? Seems pretty essential to me that authoring a DCP from a 70mm film should be a given, not a guess. (Is there still an SMPTE Projection Practices Committee?)  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-27-2017 10:42 PM                     With DCI, they settled on three containers and two officially recognized ratios. This isn't to mean that no other ratios are valid but that two specific ones are defined (1.85 and 2.39). So, in a sense, if a studio authors their product as F-220, they have done diligence in that the Flat container was specified and that within that container the final ratio is 2.20:1. Whereas there is no standard for screen ratio (could be constant height or constant width), who is to say what is most right? I claim that C-220 satisfies that since the theatre running such content, at worst could use either of the other containers with minimal cropping or, if they have the expertise (and if the studio explained it), could create a suitable format within the projector to take full advantage of it.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-28-2017 11:21 AM                     It was a very bland DCP and I found the sound to be harsh and shrill!  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-28-2017 02:59 PM                        It's sh!te. It has arguably the poorest technical quality of any DCP rerelease of a high profile classic/archive title from a major studio currently in distribution. As Gavin notes, it was probably made from the same precursor files as the BD that was published about a decade ago. The lack of anything better in circulation, and the fact that none of the 70mm prints made for the (year) 2001 rerelease are now easily available was essentially the reason why we paid $20k to have our own print made. But this doesn't help all the arthouse and rep theaters out there that have significant audience demand for this iconic title, and currently have no way to play it to a quality that does it any sort of justice. Given the status of this movie, I'm sure that it would make economic sense as well as cultural sense for Warners to have a proper, 4K and high bitrate DCP made, preferably with both the Todd-AO and 5.1 audio mixes.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-28-2017 06:34 PM                        For non-70mm venues, there are some very nice 35mm prints of this title that have been made in the last few years. They look about a million times better than the DCP.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-28-2017 07:54 PM                     Those 35mm prints are not available in London Ontario Canada. Hardly anything is anymore. The Canadian offices of the studios will say "pay shipping from California" if we're lucky. Doing that just puts us in the red.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 05-29-2017 08:38 AM                     So, let's presume I could provide a proper 35mm film scanner in mainland Europe, is there anyone who could provide a good 35mm copy and would be willing to ship it? Also, does anyone know where the audio on the double-disc DVD release was sourced from? Although it's in AC3, in my humble opinion, it's far cleaner and more dynamic than the latest Blu-Ray release.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-30-2017 02:09 AM                        It just amazes me that this is what film lovers would be willing to do to be able to show a classic to a decree of quality that it deserves, yet the copyright owners, for which they fight tooth and nail to retain, couldn't care less that what they are offering to the public is so far below par and so far into the "it's good enough" gutter, that it is a disgrace to the filmmakers and those thousand of talented people who worked to create that classic. All those talented, creative people decades ago in an earlier century and a much different mind-set vs. today, this handful of these small-minded, venal Philistines...mercenary suits who measure the value of a classic like Kubrick's 2001 in terms of how much it will cost them to author a quality DCP or how much it will cost to them store a 70mm print on a shelf in a vault vs. its "rental potential." May they all have maggots in their scrota. Marcel, I happen know the whereabouts of a 35mm 4trk mag print which would be available for such a purpose, but alas, the last time it was screened, deep space was turning deep purple, and what adds salt to that wound...if it weren't for the fading, it's a pristine, NBP (never-been-plattered) print! Yes, Virginia, Life can be very cruel.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.