Thursday, July 3, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
I have a 42 inch 1080i LCD tv connected to Verizon FIOS and watched 2001 a space odyssey on 7/2/08. I wanted to turn it off but I was memorized by the quality of the picture. The clarity and crispness of the movie was amazing. It looked so good I had to watch the sequel 2010. 2001 was filmed in 1968. Why does it look so amazing 40 years later? It looked better than some movies created today in high def. Did they use a special process or something? Any insights would be appreciated.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
2001 does look pretty amazing.
I believe it won some awards for picture quality on hidef. John J Puccio wrote in his review of the HD DVD version of this film "take any frame at random from the film and you could hang it on your wall". Very true. The film is that beautiful to look at. By the way the HD DVD and Bluray versions look the same as the same transfer was used for both versions.
They basically restored the film much the same way George Lucas restored the original Star Wars trilogy except I think they spent more time on 2001 which is why it looks so insanely clean.
Here is a link to John's review...
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey/5312
By the way, this is a quote from Dean Winkelspechts review of the bluray version...
Wow. That one word easily describes my first thoughts when the image quality of "2001: A Space Odyssey" first appeared on screen. There was a long wait to actually see something as a musical selection occupies a black screen for a lengthy period of time before an image of apes finally appears. However, the wait was well worth it and I was quickly blown away by the picture quality of this 1968 film. I have always used Warner Bros. "The Searchers" as reference material for how well a catalog title can look, but after seeing Stanley Kubrick´s masterpiece, John Wayne might be retired. This is just an awesome transfer and the film easily looks better than ninety percent of the more recent science fiction films released.
You can read Deans joint review with John on the bluray version here...
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey/5322
[Post edited by Falcon01 on Jul 3, 2008]
They basically restored the film much the same way George Lucas restored the original Star Wars trilogy except I think they spent more time on 2001 which is why it looks so insanely clean.
Here is a link to John's review...
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey/5312
By the way, this is a quote from Dean Winkelspechts review of the bluray version...
Wow. That one word easily describes my first thoughts when the image quality of "2001: A Space Odyssey" first appeared on screen. There was a long wait to actually see something as a musical selection occupies a black screen for a lengthy period of time before an image of apes finally appears. However, the wait was well worth it and I was quickly blown away by the picture quality of this 1968 film. I have always used Warner Bros. "The Searchers" as reference material for how well a catalog title can look, but after seeing Stanley Kubrick´s masterpiece, John Wayne might be retired. This is just an awesome transfer and the film easily looks better than ninety percent of the more recent science fiction films released.
You can read Deans joint review with John on the bluray version here...
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey/5322
[Post edited by Falcon01 on Jul 3, 2008]
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Thanx Falcon, nice review. Hopefully more movies can have the visual impact like 2001.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
That would be REALLY nice. Hopefully this new "restored" Godfather trilogy coming out soon will get the same treatment.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
"2001" is from Warner Bros. (originally an MGM film), and "The Godfather" films are from Paramount. Moreover, Kubrick filmed "2001" in utmost clarity, whereas Coppola purposely wanted "The Godfather" to look a burnished-gold and brown in tone. So, we shouldn't expect the same look to the two films after restoration.
John
John
Friday, July 4, 2008
Member since:
January 2008
January 2008
The funniest thing I found while watching 2001, was, if you look really close to the background scenery, during the ape scenes, at the beginning, you can actually see paint brush strokes
Friday, July 4, 2008
Member since:
September 2002
September 2002
I think I am the only one here who dislikes 2001. I think it is way too overated. Don't know if HD improves any experience for me
Friday, July 4, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
ranjan,
tim and i both also dislike it.
eddie
tim and i both also dislike it.
eddie
Friday, July 4, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
I'm sure that part of the image quality thing was due to using large format 70mm film. Plus the front projection allowed lots of light too for the backgrounds.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Member since:
September 2006
September 2006
Quote:
ranjan,
tim and i both also dislike it.
eddie
I don't like it either, I can't make it all the way through without falling asleep.