This is topic 2001: A Space Odyssey DCP in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001295

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-28-2012, 08:00 PM:
 
Movie arrives as 2 separate DCP's -- Part 1 and Part 2

2K composition -- Label says it's 1.85 -- -- and rumor has it this is just a glorified Bluray master.

Files are smaller than I expected -- 77GB total for both parts

Will post more info after KDM unlocks.

I posted the info that I have in the INFO thread.

This is the "chit-chat" thread.

---------------------------

Has anybody run this already?
Any comment on the aspect ratio or the seemingly-small file size?
 

---

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 11-29-2012, 01:13 AM:
 
This sounds suspiciously like what happened when we got OKLAHOMA - it was a flat transfer of the 1988 Samuel Goldwyn re-issue. Letterboxed inside 1.85, and it was the general release version with the overture and intermission removed.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-29-2012, 02:07 AM:
 
Have not run 2001 as a DCP yet, but when we played Lawrence of Arabia in October, it was two separate DCPs. Part 1 started with the Overture and ended with the Intermission (followed by an on-screen countdown clock once the Intermission music concluded), while Part 2 started with the Entr'acte and ended with the Exit music.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-29-2012, 06:17 AM:
 
On-screen countdown clock?!?
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-29-2012, 08:17 AM:
 
Maybe they should add a permanent burned-in logo in the corner of the screen, but not too near the corner. People expect those theese days and they'll think that something's wrong if it's not there.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-29-2012, 11:24 AM:
 
That speaks volumes!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-29-2012, 12:13 PM:
 
2001 DCP is actually 2.20:1 Letterboxed inside 1.85.

I guess all of those unmanned multiplexed booths need it this way, or they'd end up cropping top/bottom if it was packaged full-width.

I hate to say, this is NOT a stunning example of Film-via-DCP, if you ask me. Looks like the "average" 35mm prints of this I've shown. I was hoping for a better result.

Part One starts with Overture on black screen, ends with "Intermission" card.

Part Two starts with Entr'Acte music on black screen, ends with about 4 minutes of music after "The End" appears on-screen.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-29-2012, 12:24 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

2K composition -- Label says it's 1.85 -- -- and rumor has it this is just a glorified Bluray master.

Files are smaller than I expected -- 77GB total for both parts

---

77GB is a pretty small size for any 2 hour movie in DCP format, much less for a movie as long at 2001.

My theory is Warner Bros. loves to compress the hell out of everything, even if they don't need to do so. I can recall other DCPs from them having relatively small sizes compared to DCPs from other studios.

BTW, the Blu-ray of 2001 is on a dual layered BD-50 disc, but the actual feature portion is the same VC-1 encode used on the HD-DVD (which had a capacity of only 30GB).
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-29-2012, 08:10 PM:
 
call me when the five front channel sound is actually encoded and retains the grandeur of the original 6-track soundmix. If I wanted the home video 5.1 mix, I'd just stay home and watch my bluray/DVD copy.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-29-2012, 09:44 PM:
 
Actually, 2001 was never a true 5 screen channel mix. It was 4-track that expanded to 6 by combining L and C to make LC and R and C to make the RC channels. However, it did have full directional dialog as well as HAL's voice coming from the surrounds, something that's not apparent on the video's 5.1 mix.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-04-2012, 09:18 AM:
 
When we ran that DCP some time ago, it looked to me like an old HD transfer, not a bit like a new scan created for BluRay from 65mm elements. Actually the last 35mm release prints gave a better impression of 2001, although far removed from the original (non-intermediate, direct contact print) 70mm version.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-17-2013, 01:55 AM:
 

quote: Edward Havens

---

when we played Lawrence of Arabia in October, it was two separate DCPs. Part 1 started with the Overture and ended with the Intermission (followed by an on-screen countdown clock once the Intermission music concluded), while Part 2 started with the Entr'acte and ended with the Exit music.

---

quote: Paul H. Rayton

---

According to this website announcement, the BFI (British Film Institute) will be the source of a new DCP of "2001" later this year.

---

quote:

---

BFI to rerelease Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick’s science-fiction masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey will be rereleased nationwide on 28 November as part of our blockbuster Science Fiction project.

20 March 2014

Stanley Kubrick’s spectacular, transcendent epic has been the touchstone for all science-fiction cinema since its original 1968 release. This landmark film will return to cinema screens across the UK on 28 November when the BFI, as part of its 2014 Science Fiction blockbuster project, releases a magnificent digital transfer from Warner Bros.

With a screenplay co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke and developed concurrently alongside Clarke’s novel of the same name, 2001: A Space Odyssey is widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. Critic Roger Ebert described Kubrick’s masterpiece as “a stand-alone monument, a great visionary leap, unsurpassed in its vision of man and the universe”.

The BFI’s Science Fiction Film blockbuster will be presented over three months (October - December 2014) with a historical and thematic exploration of the best of this perennially popular and visionary genre. The UK-wide release of 2001: A Space Odyssey will be a highlight in a wide-ranging programme to be revealed in full in July.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Look, can't we all get together and hire a hooker to seduce this arrogant turd and when he's not looking, have her paint his balls with 200% concentrated capsaicin cream and then sentence him to solitary where he'll be forced to watch MAGIC MIKE 5 times a day, everyday for, oh, I don't know, 11, 12, 13 years...or how ever many more OCEANS he tortures us with.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gavin Lewarne (Member # 5397) on 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
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-26-2017, 04:35 PM:
 

It has been 837 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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?)
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-28-2017, 11:21 AM:
 
It was a very bland DCP and I found the sound to be harsh and shrill!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-30-2017, 05:14 AM:
 
Since most of those studios see providing the movie itself as a nuisance and just want to cash in on their licensing fees, maybe they should be helped in achieving their goals and let the people that still do care about the actual product do the work. It almost sounds like a win-win situation.

Most faded prints can be digitally restored, as long as the fading hasn't reached a certain level. You need a good reference of the original colors though.

You could use the DVD or Blu-Ray release as a reference, although you would need somebody with knowledge of the picture to confirm those colors are pretty accurate. Still, there will be a color gamut mismatch between film and those consumer releases.

The Cintel won't be able to read the mag tracks, unfortunately. Maybe someone with a working 35mm mag setup could help to extract those tracks, but it sounds like a pretty long shot to me. So the sound has to be sourced from somewhere else. Also, you really would want to get as close to the original six-track stereo mix as possible.

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

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.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

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?

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

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...

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

If we were talking about some pretentious 1960s, b/w 1.66 French art movie, that the critics and academics all raved about but no-one else ever saw or ever will see, in which a woman with a beehive hair-do sits drinking vodka and smokes for four hours, moaning about how nasty her boyfriend and life in general is (with Miles Davis playing in the background), and then slits her wrists at the end of reel 13, I would agree with you: that's never going to get a full scale restoration unless one of the big non-profit archives does it, probably with a chunky donation from some celeb looking for a juicy tax writeoff and his or her name added to the opening credits.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

If it's commercially viable to produce the DCP of Hello Dolly we have now, I can't believe that it isn't to do one of 2001: ASO to an equivalent technical standard.

---

I hope you are right, Leo. But in the mean time, they should have a enough respect to TAKE THAT TURD OF A DCP OUT OF CIRCULATION.

Thing is, the cynic in me has a sneaking suspicion that if it weren't for the likes of people who understand the importance of our film legacy, in particular our own Richard A. Harris lighting a barn fire under these suits' asses, many of the titles that he has caused to be restored and thus become available to millions to be experienced them again in their pristine condition, would never happen. Again, Leo, I do hope you are right. And the optimist in me hopes they do it while I am still alive.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-30-2017, 01:18 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Scanning a release print on projection stock (2383 or 93) never produces a very good result. The contrast in a release print is too high for the CCD to "see" all the detail in the midtones. A few kW of xenon bulb will force a lot more detail out of the print than a few watts of LED! That is why scans either for preservation/restoration, or to create digital viewing copies, are done from the camera negative, or failing that, the closest generation of low contrast, fine grain intermediate element that survives and is available.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I believe our print came from the IN that was used to make the prints for the (year) 2001 rerelease. Some work was done on it then, mainly light valve adjustments to correct dye fading, but it wasn't a full scale restoration (with the result that negative scratches and dirt are visible in some scenes, notably the psycho freakout reel, which had lots of analog SFX involving multiple printing passes in it). The audio is DTS, obviously.

---

Also don't feel obliged to anything, but do you know the sound mix on the (year) 2001 dual-DVD release? And would you be able to somewhat objectively compare it to your theatrical DTS version?
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-31-2017, 12:57 PM:
 
The Landmark Loews Jersey in Jersey City NJ is running 2001 this Friday 6/2/2017 in that clunky, old, obsolete, 35mm format.

The point of this post is that there is still a print in distribution from the studio.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-31-2017, 02:17 PM:
 
A 35mm print in decent condition with good color?
Not sure if Warner U.S would ship up here to Canada but if they did it would cost.
When we book a movie from Warner in Canada,if they don't have a DCP,they say "dvd only". $200 vs 35%.

I asked Universal if we could book the 35mm print of "Lost Highway"
after I saw it playing the Music Box in Chicago, they said no.
Told us they only have theatrical rights in the U.S.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 05-31-2017, 02:24 PM:
 
Hey Victor,

In 2009 Warner still had a print of 2001 in Canada with SR and Dolby digital sound. I projected it a couple times and it looked great. Its really sad that almost all the distributors in Canada have dumped their 35mm or given them to TIFF (Eone, Universal). TIFF charges like $300 + just to pull them out of their vaults plus shipping on top of rights holder costs. Crazy.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-31-2017, 02:40 PM:
 
Once you know the figures involved in building and maintaining a temperature and humidity-controlled film archive vault, $300 strikes me as entirely reasonable. That figure is also completely in line with what the rest of the world's big nonprofit archives would charge for a print loan (excluding shipping and clearance). However, I agree that it's a major financial obstacle for a venue that wants to play the print.

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Also don't feel obliged to anything, but do you know the sound mix on the (year) 2001 dual-DVD release? And would you be able to somewhat objectively compare it to your theatrical DTS version?

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

do you know the sound mix on the (year) 2001 dual-DVD release?

---

Are you sure there was a (year) 2001 dual-DVD release?

I've got a dual-disc release from 2001 but the second disc is a soundtrack CD.

It's Dolby 5.1 and has the following in the accompanying booklet:
"The soundtrack was restored and remastered digitally from the original 35mm 6-track stereo magnetic soundtrack masters. Dialogue and effects information was sourced from the separate 35mm magnetic ("stem") units. Music cues were sourced from the original orchestral recording sessions."

(It's also mentioned that the picture was sourced from a new 35mm reduction IP from the OCN.)
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-01-2017, 06:20 PM:
 
Thanks to you, I'm not that sure anymore.

I will try to get it out of the box it's currently stored in. Does yours also come with an actual film frame stuck in the front or back cover of the jewel case?

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I'm afraid I don't: I have the 2007 or 2008 BD, but not any DVD version.

Any objective comparison would be very difficult, because there are so many variables involved, including:

- The type of audio encoding on the DVD (LPCM, AC3, consumer DTS, etc.), vs. theatrical DTS
- The audio bitrate on the DVD vs. the theatrical DTS
- The quality of the decoder and digital-to-analog converters in use for both types of playback
- Power amps and speakers

Playing the DVD in the same theater as the 70mm print would at least give you a commonality in the power amps and speakers, but I bet that you'd hear a difference between the DVD played through a $29.99 no-name player on Ebay and one hooked through a hi-fi DAC costing silly money, for example.

---

Yeah, I'm aware of those things, I understand it's somewhat of a long shot and not extremely objective.

But I was just trying to get an idea where the sound tracks available on the consumer releases came from. I guess the DTS mix accompanying your 70mm copy and the (year) 2001 DVD release had the same origin, at least that would make sense to me. When you "restore" a movie and re-release it both in home consumer markets and in cinemas, I don't expect you to use different sources. Maybe they might "near field mix" those movies for the consumer release, but I doubt they would've done anything like that for this particular release.

I just played back part of my RIP (from the DVD, now located in storage) and there is no DTS track on there, just an AC3 track. On the positive side though, a consumer AC3 track has a higher bitrate than a theatrical one.
 

---

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 06-02-2017, 05:07 AM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Does yours also come with an actual film frame stuck in the front or back cover of the jewel case?

---

It's a silver cardboard box which contains a 70mm frame mounted on a piece of card.


 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 06-02-2017, 09:11 AM:
 

quote:

---

The Landmark Loews Jersey in Jersey City NJ is running 2001 this Friday 6/2/2017 in that clunky, old, obsolete, 35mm format.

The point of this post is that there is still a print in distribution from the studio.
| IP: Logged

---