Slashdot Mirror
Christopher Nolan Returns Kubrick Sci-Fi Masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' To Its Original Glory (latimes.com)
LA Times' Kenneth Turan traces Christopher Nolan's meticulous restoration of Kubrick's masterpiece to its 70-mm glory: Christopher Nolan wants to show me something interesting. Something beautiful and exceptional, something that changed his life when he was a boy. It's also something that Nolan, one of the most accomplished and successful of contemporary filmmakers, has persuaded Warner Bros. to share with the world both at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival and then in theaters nationwide, but in a way that boldly deviates from standard practice.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
Actually it was in Super Panavision 70, you could fangle SP70 to show on Cinerama projectors, but it wasn't filmed with a triple camera setup.
Yes, based upon Clarke's earlier work. But not based upon is book of the same name (which was developed in parallel and came out after the movie premiered).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
film doesn't have discrete pixels), and in color spectrum density (film doesn't introduce any quantization noise).
Film has grain, which has similar effects as discrete pixels, except that the grains are round and spread randomly.
three different band-pass filters selected to approximately match those of the average human eye
Not really. The band pass filters are selected to cover the visible spectrum in 3, more or less, equal parts. The receptors in a human eye are not spread out evenly. We have a blue cone on one side of the spectrum, and then two overlapping yellow-green/yellow-red cones on the other side. The "red" cones also have some sensitivity for extreme blue (that's why that appears as purple).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is noise in both electronic recording and analog recording. Film has grain and mechanical uncertainly from the camera and the projector. This is due to physical positioning uncertainty when a frame is exposed or projected (or scanned). The perfs (square holes) that hold the film in place have tolerances and so do the mechanics of the film gate, which holds the film in place. No two sequential frames are in the exact same location.
Electronic image sensors have intrinsic noise as do electronic projectors. Both also have a quantized grid that limits the spacial resolution. Film also has grain characteristics that limit spacial resolution.
From a practical standpoint, current 4K camera and display technology are very similar to the best motion picture film standards. The electronic production process has no mechanical position variability like film and it is possible to track color from the camera source to the projector, so color reproduction can be better then film. The gamut of electronic projection is greater then any film stock, although film can record subtle shades that seem to be missing in electronic recording and projection.
Why is Snark Required?