2001: A Space Odyssey -- should I watch it?

[Ed Gordon]

Actually 2001 has several "correct" aspect ratios. Theatrically it was shown in both the 2.21:1 flat 70mm ratio, and the 2.35:1 anamorphic (scope) 35mm format.

2001 was shot in Super Panavision 70, a process which involved principal photography on a 65mm wide, 5 sprocket hole high film frame (standard photography is on 35mm wide 4 sprocket hole high frame). This was projected back from a 70mm print, the extra 5mm being two 2.5 mm magnetic soundtrack strips "outboard" of the sprocket holes. Taken together with two magnetic strips on the inner edge of the sprocket hole area, this gave 2001 a 6 track stereo sound. In the original Cinerama installations, the film was projected on a deeply curved "louvered" screen which wrapped the image around the audience, sweeping them into the image. The Super Panavision version of Cinerama had an aspect ratio of 2.21:1 (the three-film and "rectified" Ultra Panavision versions of Cinerama were noticeably wider with an aspect ratio of 2.59:1). The sound was played back from 5 speakers behind the huge screen, with a monophonic surround track, known as an "effects" track in films of the 50s and 60s because it was only sparingly used for particular effects, such as the space station announcements: "Will Mr. Travers please contact the MET office..." and "A Blue Ladies Cashmere Sweater has been found...". During its original "roadshow" (reserved seat) run, 2001 was also shown in flat screened 70mm theaters -- which were spectacular, but had somewhat less of the "you are there" feel rendered by the curved screen Cinerama presentations.

After the 70mm run was ended, 2001 was released in a 35mm version "at popular prices" in regular theaters with a monophonic soundtrack, mixed from the 6 track original. This version was transferred to 35mm film by optically squeezing the wide image onto 35mm Scope film. It was then projected back through an anamorphic lens which would unsqueeze the compressed image onto a CinemaScope or Panavision style screen. Because 'scope has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, the top and bottom of the 2.21:1 65mm image were cut off in producing the prints. Although nothing important was eliminated, a comparison viewing of a 35mm source and 70mm source will reveal the elimination of some parts of the sets, most readily visible in the moon-shuttle galley scene.

Source: 2001's Original Projection Format by Thomas E. Brown (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown1.html)

Frame grab from Bluray:
2001 A Space Odyssey (Bluray frame grab).jpg

[Marcel Birgelen]

Stanley was a pioneer on many fronts, including product placement.

I wonder if they served fried clams in the Earthlight Room, and if they had a Korova Milkbar up there too.

[Jim Cassedy]

> Steve G & Allan Y - both say the 35mm aspect ratio of "2001" is standard 35mm
Scope (2:39:1), which is how I recall it, although it's been many years since I've run it in 35mm.

> Ed G sez the aspect ratio 2.20: 1- - - which is more like what I was seeing on screen when
projecting it on Saturday. - - but I didn't want to 'play' with the masking once the show started.
I had at least a foot between the edge of the image & my masking on both sides of the screen.

I'll be running it again on Tuesday nite- - and before then I may run a reel with the masking
set at 2:20 & see how that works. (Before the Sat show, I had run RP-40 loops, so I KNOW
the right lenses & aperture plates were in place. . and that the masking was set right.)

[Leo Enticknap]

Per Wikipedia, the movie was actually shot with Super Panavision 70 cameras and (non-anamorphic) lenses, which is a 5/65 negative format giving a 2.20:1 aspect ratio, like Todd-AO (Ultra Panavision 70 used the same cameras and frame dimensions, but the lenses were anamorphic).

That having been said, I've a vague recollection of playing one of the 35mm prints that were actually released in 2001 (a re-release was done in that year for the somewhat obvious reason), and that it was vertically cropped to give a 2.39:1, conventional 35mm 'scope picture. Whether Kubrick wanted that for the 35mm release or not, I have no idea.

[Marcel Birgelen]

> Steve G & Allan Y - both say the 35mm aspect ratio of "2001" is standard 35mm
Scope (2:39:1), which is how I recall it, although it's been many years since I've run it in 35mm.

> Ed G sez the aspect ratio 2.20: 1- - - which is more like what I was seeing on screen when
projecting it on Saturday. - - but I didn't want to 'play' with the masking once the show started.
I had at least a foot between the edge of the image & my masking on both sides of the screen.

I'll be running it again on Tuesday nite- - and before then I may run a reel with the masking
set at 2:20 & see how that works. (Before the Sat show, I had run RP-40 loops, so I KNOW
the right lenses & aperture plates were in place. . and that the masking was set right.)

Do you have any clue when and where your print was struck and what the source was of that print?

Maybe the "unrestored" re-release by Nolan back in 2018 had some transfers made to 35mm that kept the original aspect ratio?

Whether Kubrick wanted that for the 35mm release or not, I have no idea.

I don't pretend to understand what was going on in his mind, but looking at his track record, Kubrick strikes me as the kind of guy that always wanted to get the most out of the medium. I guess that's why he shot the last three movies in open matte. So, I guess he didn't want his 35mm release to be pillar-boxed.

[Jim Cassedy]

Early this morning, I took another look at the 35mm "2001" print I'm running and it definitely seems
to be more like "2001, V2.20" I even put a reel up on screen, and set the masking to the 2.20 preset
we usually use for 70mm, and it definitely "fits" better than using the usual 35mm SCOPE setting.
Due to differences between my 35mm & 70mm lenses & aperture plate filing, there's still a bit of
black on each side of the image and a slight vertical shift. Unfortunately, I can't manually 'bump'
my horizontal & vertical masking or easily make a new pre-set. If I had time, I'd actually bump
the projector positions slightly to make it 'almost perfect' - - but I have another 35mm show right
after 2001 tomorrow night, which is also SCOPE, and there just wouldn't be time to jigger everything
back into place between shows.

As you can see from this photo, the
image is actually printed underssized
2001_A.jpg

At one time I owned a 1970's vintage 35mm roadshow print
of "2001" and it was definitely printed in normal SCOPE , as
were the other 35mm prints I recall running in the late 70's & 80's.


Marcel Asked:

Do you have any clue when and where your print was struck and what the source was of that print?

This print physically came from the WB Archives in Burbank. I don't know its' elemental lineage.
The edge code sez: 2383 646 223 023 K°ODAK 17 2001 V
So, I'm guessing the print is from 2001 (imagine that!) but I don't know from what source negative or internegative.
The original head & tail leaders have all been replaced, so I can't look there for clues.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Thanks for all that info. I've never seen the 2001 rerun of 2001 in 35mm, but apparently they choose not to crop the image to perfectly fit the 35mm scope profile, but decided to maintain the aspect ratio of the 70mm release. Why they choose this process rather than using existing 35mm prints as reference would be interesting to know.

[Paul Finn]

It would be informative to know which sound track Mr. Cassedy used for the showings and his impressions of it?

Thank you,
Paul Finn

[Ed Gordon]

I would venture to guess that if Stanley Kubrick was alive, he would have preferred that the 70mm image he created not be cropped.

Leonardo painted this:

Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg

Not this:

Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched-cropped.jpg

Maybe they shipped Stanley Kubrick's personal 35mm print!

[Marcel Birgelen]

I would venture to guess that if Stanley Kubrick was alive, he would have preferred that the 70mm image he created not be cropped.

I'm not so sure about this.

First of all, the 35mm prints that were made during his lifetime were cropped. Maybe this was a studio decision, but I somehow doubt that, given the amount of control he exerted on those same studios.
Secondly, he shot his last three movies in open matte, so the picture could be cropped to optimally fit the screen size.

He's also known for delivering his sound mixes in mono, because of the miserable state of stereo in most venues at the time. Apparently, the guy really insisted on consistent quality...

So, I'm a little over-confident here, but somehow I'm pretty sure that the guy would've considered a 35mm show with black bars visible at both sides of the screen as a sub-par experience.

[Ed Gordon]

...
So, I'm a little over-confident here, but somehow I'm pretty sure that the guy would've considered a 35mm show with black bars visible at both sides of the screen as a sub-par experience.

I agree with you on this point. I also agree with Thomas Brown who I quoted above:

Because 'scope has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, the top and bottom of the 2.21:1 65mm image were cut off in producing the prints. Although nothing important was eliminated, a comparison viewing of a 35mm source and 70mm source will reveal the elimination of some parts of the sets, most readily visible in the moon-shuttle galley scene.

Cropping horizontally could be done to render a scope image, but each scene would have to be evaluated. As Jim pointed out, the vertical black bars on each side could be eliminated during exhibition, but his masking setup made it too difficult to do quickly.

With all the aspect ratios now being used, I can see why so many theaters are just giving up on masking entirely.

[Jim Cassedy]

Paul Finn Said:

It would be informative to know which sound track Mr. Cassedy used for the showings and his impressions of it?

The DCP version apparently has a choice of sound track mixes. The 35mm print only had a choice of
playback technology formats (DolbyDigital/SR/SDDS /DTS. I'm actually not sure what the 'mix' was.
Aside from wandering into the auditorium for about a minute last Sat during the 1st show mainly to
get an idea of sound level & quality, I didn't really pay much attention to the track/mix layout. I'm up
to my ears in 35mm shows this week, so when I wasn't waiting to do a change-over, I was inspecting
and/or rewinding other reels or transferring digital content for the DCP shows I had o prep for the week.
So whatever mix version is on the DolbyDigial™ track of the 2001 35mm prints of "2001" are- - that's
what they heard in the auditorium.

[Allan Young]

So whatever mix version is on the DolbyDigial™ track of the 2001 35mm prints of "2001" are- - that's
what they heard in the auditorium.

There was a Dolby 5.1 mix done in the late 90s which was approved by Kubrick not long before he died. I guess it's likely that's what would be on a 35mm print from 2001.

[Leo Enticknap]

An alternative take on the Richard Strauss piece that opens the movie:

Definitely not conducted by Karl Böhm...

[Randy Stankey]

... Kubrick strikes me as the kind of guy that always wanted to get the most out of the medium. ...

Like the way he went to NASA and Carl Zeiss to get ƒ-0.7 camera lenses so he could shoot indoor scenes by candle light for the movie Barry Lyndon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Z...nar_50mm_f/0.7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon