Discussion:
Is this the way 2001 is REALLY supposed to look?
(too old to reply)
Fota
2017-07-03 23:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

s***@hotmail.com
2017-07-04 05:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fota
http://youtu.be/zWURhn5xQFk
That's a simulation (aka 'smilebox') of how 2001:aso would have looked projected on a curved Cinerama screen. It was simulated by a fan on YouTube; it's not a transfer of a rectified trailer print.

Also, no 2001:aso prints were optically duplicated/rectified for Cinerama projection—it was projected as it was photographed (Super Panavision 70).

These links should help with the technicalities:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr6.htm
http://www.cineramaadventure.com/smilebox.htm
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown1.html

Regards,

Steve
Fota
2017-07-05 23:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Fota
http://youtu.be/zWURhn5xQFk
That's a simulation (aka 'smilebox') of how 2001:aso would have looked projected on a curved Cinerama screen. It was simulated by a fan on YouTube; it's not a transfer of a rectified trailer print.
Also, no 2001:aso prints were optically duplicated/rectified for Cinerama projection—it was projected as it was photographed (Super Panavision 70).
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr6.htm
http://www.cineramaadventure.com/smilebox.htm
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown1.html
Regards,
Steve
Thanks for the excellent links. I was struck by this excerpt from the third link:

“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)…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.”

*

This past weekend I had the pleasure of seeing 2001 in a brand new 70mm print, shown on a large flat screen. It was magnificent, but I did notice more than a few times how objects and figures seemed somewhat distorted at the far end of each side of the frame. This reminded me of something I read in Jerome Agel’s 1970 “The Making of 2001”, where one of the original reviewers of the film compared the flat screen version to the Cinerama version, saying that on the flat screen, people at the sides of the frame would sometimes appear slightly “hunchbacked”, as if the film were not fully stretched out as it was on the curved screen. This was something I noticed as well. He also said the effects, wonderful as they still are on the flat screen, did seem more “fake” than they did on the curved screen.

I understand the smilebox video is just a simulation, but it does seem to give something of an idea of what it might have looked like in Cinerama as well as the greater depth it must have had that way. I would have to see it projected that way to be sure, but curved screens sadly have gone the way of the dinosaur. Maybe with the new curved screen TVs that are available in stores now – and are pretty impressive themselves – maybe we’ll see a return of the large curved screen in theaters as well.
o***@bell.net
2017-07-06 05:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fota
It was magnificent, but I did notice more than a few times how objects and figures seemed somewhat distorted at the far end of each side of the frame. This reminded me of something I read in Jerome Agel’s 1970 “The Making of 2001”, where one of the original reviewers of the film compared the flat screen version to the Cinerama version, saying that on the flat screen, people at the sides of the frame would sometimes appear slightly “hunchbacked”, as if the film were not fully stretched out as it was on the curved screen. This was something I noticed as well.
While Super Panavision 70 used spherical optics, SK was fond of wide-angle lenses, which are prone to an aberration called, "barrel distortion," or a curved appearance at the edges. The curved edges in those shots could appear more optically-correct when matched by a curved Cinerama projection screen. The full extremity of this effect can be seen the "HAL eye" shots filmed with the 160-degree Fairchild-Curtis "fisheye" lens.

Regards,

Steve
s***@hotmail.com
2017-07-06 05:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fota
It was magnificent, but I did notice more than a few times how objects and figures seemed somewhat distorted at the far end of each side of the frame. This reminded me of something I read in Jerome Agel’s 1970 “The Making of 2001”, where one of the original reviewers of the film compared the flat screen version to the Cinerama version, saying that on the flat screen, people at the sides of the frame would sometimes appear slightly “hunchbacked”, as if the film were not fully stretched out as it was on the curved screen. This was something I noticed as well.
While Super Panavision 70 used spherical optics, SK was fond of wide-angle lenses, which are prone to an aberration called, "barrel distortion," or a curved appearance at the edges. The curved edges in those shots could appear more optically-correct when matched by a curved Cinerama projection screen. The full extremity of this effect can be seen the "HAL eye" shots filmed with the 160-degree Fairchild-Curtis "fisheye" lens.

Regards,

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-07-10 03:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is it now available on smilebox? I have all the Smilebox Cinerama teavelogues they released.
kelpzoidzl
2017-07-10 03:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My dad took me to the Premiere of This is Cinerama, so always was a Cinerama fanatic.
kelpzoidzl
2017-07-10 03:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just watched the video....!! I want it.
kelpzoidzl
2017-07-10 03:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's not available on Amazon yet. I have Howbthe West was Won also. Smilebox did a great job with that.
Loading...