criterionforum.org

I saw the same print in it's opening run at the Village East. If that was the case, I didn't notice it. But again: if in Nolan's version there was purposefully no restoration or minimal work done...that doesn't shock me.

I gathered that the main objection was to the implication that the Nolan prints closely approximate what audiences would have seen when the film was originally released. When in fact that is apparently very far from the truth, with some commentators saying Kubrick would be aghast at seeing the film being presented this way, it being completely contrary to his intentions.

dshooker wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:44 am New video compares 50th Anniversary Remaster of 2001 to previous Blu-ray edition.

This is the same video which has been linked to twice previously in this thread (in June and last month), but for those who haven't seen it...(I shudder every time I view it)

Roger Ryan wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:18 pm

dshooker wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:44 am New video compares 50th Anniversary Remaster of 2001 to previous Blu-ray edition.

This is the same video which has been linked to twice previously in this thread (in June and last month), but for those who haven't seen it...(I shudder every time I view it)

I've read online that Nolan has Red-Green colour blindness. Anyone know if this is true?

One of the comments says "2018: A Yellow Odyssey".

That's incredibly bad. No one said anything during the entire process?

I think the 2007 BD is almost perfect (even being an early format release), so I'm happy to skip this 'upgrade'.

That video is not representative of what the upcoming disc will look like. It's merely the old transfer retimed for the purposes of the trailer showcasing the "Nolan" re-release.

And the "Nolan" prints recently exhibited also have nothing to do with how the new transfer will look.

EddieLarkin wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:25 pm That video is not representative of what the upcoming disc will look like. It's merely the old transfer retimed for the purposes of the trailer showcasing the "Nolan" re-release.

And the "Nolan" prints recently exhibited also have nothing to do with how the new transfer will look.

Exactly. I'm glad that you pointed this out.

If anyone has seen one of the recent digital projections of 2001, that is probably a good indication of what the future 4K UHD Blu-ray will look like. (As opposed to the Nolan-sponsored 70mm prints, which were created photochemically - an entirely different workflow from the digital restoration.) But most likely we will just have to wait until reviews of the actual disc start showing up.

Warner has a very good track record overall with their digital restorations. It might not look the same as the earlier Blu-ray of 2001, but in some ways it might end up being closer to how the film looked in theaters during its original release. Or possibly not, but who can be completely sure?

EddieLarkin wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:25 pm That video is not representative of what the upcoming disc will look like. It's merely the old transfer retimed for the purposes of the trailer showcasing the "Nolan" re-release.

And the "Nolan" prints recently exhibited also have nothing to do with how the new transfer will look.

Thanks to you and David for restoring some sanity to this thread.

david hare wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:23 pmThe yellow shit passing as a restoration has to be a joke, hasn't it?

Ritrovata did it again with The Producers just recently, so I guess the member who heard they fixed their grading issues sadly was misled.

I dont think it's an ego problem, but a reasoning one. They have their reasons for doing what they do, but it's the whole thing which isn't right and is a bad idea.

Technical ones : they really seem to think it makes sense to replicate this Release print look. As Danny Duchesneau wrote on blu-ray.com : "Back in 1972, when you went to the theater to watch a movie, they would project a Release Print of the film, not the OCN, right?"

But as he also wrote : "The thing is, a Release Print film stock has characteristics that modifies the colors and contrast of the OCN so even though you color correct the OCN properly, it will never look like when it was projected at the theater back in 1972."

So, it has a logic with a workflow etc that I'm sure Ritrovata or Eclair could defend in a very rigorous way, but it doesn't mean there isn't a flaw in the reasoning. What always surprises me most with this grading debate is :
- how the laboratories don't seem to realise what a heavy signature they're leaving on their restorations, which of course is totally opposite to how transparent to the source a restoration should be.
- how it took years for cinephiles, technophiles and connoisseurs to give this traction instead of brandishing the whole "we're finally getting the true look of these movies !" shenanigan.

I saw quite a few release print screenings in 1972 (and throughout that decade and earlier) and recall very few, if any, that had the urine-soaked look of these "restorations" (apart from something like The Godfather I and II that appeared to be deliberately graded to emphasize yellow and brown). Specifically, I've seen 2001 screened in 35mm and 70mm in 1971, 1980, and 2014 - all three times, the palette closely resembled the Warner Blu-ray from 2007 and not the 2018 70mm re-release demonstration. If the intent is to replicate the look of a faded print being projected using an aging projector bulb, then the Ritrovata and Eclair restorations are successful. If not...

Roger Ryan wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:42 pm I saw quite a few release print screenings in 1972 (and throughout that decade and earlier) and recall very few, if any, that had the urine-soaked look of these "restorations" (apart from something like The Godfather I and II that appeared to be deliberately graded to emphasize yellow and brown). Specifically, I've seen 2001 screened in 35mm and 70mm in 1971, 1980, and 2014 - all three times, the palette closely resembled the Warner Blu-ray from 2007 and not the 2018 70mm re-release demonstration. If the intent is to replicate the look of a faded print being projected using an aging projector bulb, then the Ritrovata and Eclair restorations are successful. If not...

THE GODFATHER and especially the Vito Corleone sequences in GODFATHER II always had that yellow to golden look -- it was a conscious choice on the part of Gordon Willis, I seem to remember it had something to do with the look of gaslight. I quite agree about 2001 never looking urine-soaked until Christopher Nolan decided that if he couldn't reach Kubrick's level, he'd bloody well drag Kubrick down to his.

FWIW, I saw 2001 in 1971, and don't remember it looking anywhere close to yellow. Saw it again around 1980, same thing.

Just wondering if anyone can answer a burning question for me on this film:

Is it supposed to look yellow?

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:20 pm Just wondering if anyone can answer a burning question for me on this film:

Is it supposed to look yellow?

Okay, I'm sorry about bringing this up again. I know we're all pretty much in agreement on this site in regards to what an accurate/decent transfer looks like. I guess the cumulative effect of seeing that comparison trailer combined with the caps-a-holic comparison of the (unbelievably-bad) restoration of The Producers plus those Death in Venice screengrabs just forced me to hate-post!

It's fine, it just feels like this thread's tires are in mud and we won't stop hitting the gas. At least let some screengrabs from the new Blu release come out

Saw this the other night, advertised as the new restoration. I had absolutely no Issues with the color, lots of deep blacks and true white, no yellow tinting at all as I could tell. The problem I did have is that It seemed to have motion smoothing applied. Many camera movements and ships moving in space were almost nauseating. Has anyone else experienced this?

I saw the 4K restoration about a week ago at Austin Film Society; it looked much closer to the 2007 Blu-Ray in that "comparison" video and almost nothing like the "unrestored trailer." No yellow bias that I could see, most ships/spacestations/etc. were variations of white/grey/eggshell. The only shot that seemed very different was the tunnel inside Discovery to the pod-bay, but in the 4K restoration, it looked much more warm-orange, rather than yellow, while the view of the pod-bay at the end of the tunnel (in the same shot) has the a white/grey/eggshell color. And then when the tunnel is seen in the background of shots from inside the pod-bay, it has the orange tinge, which indicates to me that it's either supposed to be that way, or they would have had to have gone out of their way to isolate those background pieces in every shot from inside the pod-bay and change only that part, which seems unlikely.

ng4996 wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:57 pm Saw this the other night, advertised as the new restoration. I had absolutely no Issues with the color, lots of deep blacks and true white, no yellow tinting at all as I could tell. The problem I did have is that It seemed to have motion smoothing applied. Many camera movements and ships moving in space were almost nauseating. Has anyone else experienced this?

I didn't notice anything like that.

So just to reiterate: a few of us did see the Nolan prints and thought it looked great. The people who saw the 4k/new restoration digitally are reporting it looked great, with colors seeming off in possibly one scene at most. That means 6 months spent fretting over trailer for the non-official restoration.

Drucker, I'm deleting your post because it doesn't say "yellow" in it

I know you love Coldplay, mfunk, but cmon

I struck new prints
I struck new prints for you
Looked like the old ones do
And they were all yellow