▶ Comparison of 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K Dolby Vision vs 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-Ray Edition

[@TheTerryGene]

It’s great to see a classic film get a true 4K upgrade. One wishes that Lawrence of Arabia will receive the same treatment.

[@Mymoonization]

He received. Just wait until it comes out on 4K support !

[@kameleddinetaibi6797]

indeed me too and by the way RiVER KWAi got a good 4K HDR master and considering lawrence was is PANAViSiON 65MM let's hope for better

[@jackmosley2218]

I'm assuming there will be a release soon as on Amazon Video there is a UHD version of the film for streaming

[@tom11zz884]

It's coming. Too great of a movie not to.

[@Victor-Vargas]

Hey this aged well, they're doing it go look it up online!!

[@SSmith-fm9kg]

Probably the greatest visual experience of all time. I don't remember these enhanced colors in the film in 1968.

[@richardscally694]

I couldn't agree more.

[@GeneSavage]

They just can't stop punching up the reds and greens in these 4K remasters... *sigh* Is it especially difficult to reproduce green in NTSC? I know red used to be a problem, but I wasn't aware of green being something we were missing... the way they punched the reds up in this one makes everything looks like it's cherry colored instead of red/orange. In some places they've made improvements, turning the cream print into true white, but in other cases... not so much. Some day we'll have to get remasters of the remasters... Thanks, as always, for the excellent comparison video.

[@HugoStiglitz88]

Tbh I think it looks a lot better. But are you saying it's less accurate to the original film? That's a shame but tbh I think it looks better visually.

[@jeffcrenshaw9932]

“My God, it’s full of stars!” Wow, do the stars pop or what? Looks like an amazing upgrade!!

[@SturmAH]

I feel mixed about this release, things look very pink in places but at the same time some colors are better as well. I just hoped we would finally get perfect black space, but I didn't see that anywhere during the movie, only very dark grey.

[@SteveJobbed]

If there was one movie that needed true black it would be this one

[@walkergibbs6984]

It’s probably true black with an hdr display

[@jsampson8088]

@@walkergibbs6984 it’s not on my LG CX

[@tlatosmd]

The problem with these comparisons is that they require two conversions: One from HDR to YUV (or whatever you call the digital variant of it), to make the 4K truly comparable to the BD, and one from YUV to RGB, to look right on KZbin (or rather, on desktop monitors, laptops, tablets, and cellphones). It's obvious here that at least one of them wasn't done, and that's why we don't get pure black.

[@tlatosmd]

@@Jb991-q9x I doubt that's what you'll see when actually watching the 4K on a 4K TV monitor. As said, the uploader of this video didn't do a good job.

[@tkusterb]

In some of these comparison shots, the difference in contrast is astonishing.

[@csjcsj2906]

The '2018 edition' Blu-ray you're referring to is actually the 2007 Blu-ray. It's because the actual 2018 Blu-ray has been remastered as well, essentially being the same one as the 4K edition.

[@johngalt9262]

some 4k stuff looks awesome, some looks like the contrast is blown out.

[@olee8268]

Also note that with Dolby Vision or HDR10+, each scene (or even frame) is adjusted and fine-tuned separately. So they are usually a lot better in regards to this than what regular HDR is. And yes, to actually see this, you need a TV and 4K player supporting HDR (preferably Dolby Vision). In fact; looking at comparisons like these on KZbin doesn’t make that much sense, as they are not even close to the actual difference in quality you’d see on a high-end TV with DV support.

[@sinajakelic]

@@olee8268 so does that mean the shot shown at 11:00 is not actually so red? it seems yellows dissapeared, along with details of lower part of the face. wondering would this shot look better on dolby vision. also is the cropping the result of recoding for youtube or is the 4k actually cropped like this (hd version has a bit more image width)

[@roseoftibet]

They f.... up a masterpiece. The Blu-Ray edition is how people (of my age) remember 2001. You cannot improve Mona Lisa. Have you noticed the green fringe on the monolith at 13:43 ?

[@JosephDickersonUX]

No question the 4K version is absolutely better. I have it and watched both on the same gear and it's an astonishingly better version. Looks like it was shot yesterday.

[@nicholas790]

I saw this in Cinerama Super Panavision 70 numerous times when first released in 1968, (I guess that makes me old), and no home video version I have seen (including this 4K version) can compare to that theatrical experience! I've seen some restored Cinerama films in the Smilebox format and that does begin to approach that experience so why isn't this in Smilebox?. Somebody even made a Smilebox trailer and uploaded it to You Tube (check it out). For color reference I remember how screaming bright those Dim chairs were in the space station (but I don't recall the flesh tones being so red.) Also no mention of that spectacular soundtrack from this masterpiece, my ears are still ringing from when the "computer" malfunctioned! and everybody in the audience jumped! Also has anybody found that lady's Cashmere sweater left in the Howard Johnson's on the space station? that multi track detail is lost in all the video versions I have seen. Here's hoping a restoration will come in Smilebox with accurate colors and that multi track sound restored to its original grandeur with accurate color and detail as Kubrick designed it.

[@Mymoonization]

Hello Nicolas Thank you for this very interesting comment. You should know at the time I made this comparison, the HDR function did not yet exist on KZbin. However, I plan to do a new comparison with the last 4K version released by comparing it, this time, to a version produced by A.I. So stay tuned !

[@emoxvx]

The movie looks astonishing in Blu-Ray, but this 4K upgrade just blew the old version out of the water. What an incredible update. The details are more clear this time around and the colours, oh boy, the colours pop much more in this one!

[@JoeyEsqueda]

Finally sat down to watch this and it was the second best experience I've had watching 2001. The quality of the transfer is consistent and immersive.

[@rationalthought846]

I have many version of 2001 from video tape to DVD, Blue Ray and 4k (I have 7 different releases/versions now)- as well as the several versions of the soundtrack. I find the 4k the best on my 77" OLED. The Blue Ray (until the release of the 4k) was the best but compared to the 4k is a bit to dim and a little washed out with low contrast. Red is too strong on the 4k on my computer monitor but on my OLED I have not noticed it as an issue. The clarity on the 4k is otherworldly- the ship details and the stars are crystal clear. Not sure how it looks on LCD and other types of TVs but on OLEDs the black of space are absolutely black and the stars are pinpoints. Even the scene transitions are black. The prelude music and intermission are included in the 4k as it was on opening night when I saw this movie as wide eyed four-year-old in Manhattan. Bravo reproduction. May not be perfect but probably as close as I will ever see.

[@Zach_Films]

It's interesting to me how this differs from the trailer for the 4K version, I'm seeing a lot more pink/magenta in this. Is the trailer not an accurate representation of the 4K Blu Ray itself?

[@Mymoonization]

This is exacly the accurate representation of the 4K BD Zach. This version is very new, supervised by Vitali and price and not the Nolan version on IMAX !

[@Mymoonization]

@waylon lewin What do you mean ??

[@Mymoonization]

@waylon lewin Without any hesitation, the 4K version !!!

[@Mymoonization]

Well Waylon you will not regret it 👍 !!!

[@tlatosmd]

I'd say neither is accurate. The 4K trailer was drenched in Nolan's trademark teal tint, whereas this upload here forgot either the conversation from HDR to YUV, or from YUV to RGB, or both.

[@madahad9]

I worked at a movie theatre and every Sunday we had classic film series. One particular morning we screen the King Kong remake from the 70's. The 35mm print was obviously an original that had been languishing in a vault or studio warehouse and in an advanced stage of decomposition. Every human had a violet tint. The manager was so embarrassed he wasn't even charging anyone who wanted to see it, but were warned of its condition. It also had a distinct vinegar scent. Watching the 4K version of 2001 revived these memories of King Kong. It's really terrible. The blu-ray version seems vastly superior, especially in skin tones. While watching the comparisons I kept thinking: Was the 4K version done by a colour blind individual? I got to see it (finally) on a proper big screen in 2018 when it was on a limited for the film's 50th anniversary and cannot recall this over saturation of violet. I'll stick with my blu-ray version.

[@thomasmiller5057]

I like the color better on the older version (1080) for the Dawn of Man section. Other than that the 4k HDR version looks warmer with more reds and looks great but I hope the edge artifacts on the 4k examples here aren’t on the 4k disc

[@FirstPlace97]

If only I had 4K player and TV... I'm getting addicted to the thought of 4K movies from the past, haha. 2001 is one of the greatest visual experiences ever

[@fuzzywzhe]

Looks like the over-saturated the colors in 4K.

[@elvisspringsteen72]

The 4K transfer is simply stunning. I was genuinely moved to tears when watching this film by the beauty of the cinematography when I watched this version.

[@txmoney]

Thank you so much for this wonderful comparison! Looks like you really worked hard to get this uploaded so soon! This is the one classic film I’ve been waiting years for a proper 4K treatment. I finally got my 4K UHD Blu-ray edition in the mail yesterday. I needed to clear my schedule so I can devote my undivided attention to this viewing on my LG 65” 4K OLED with 7.1 surround. From this comparison, it looks like I don’t have to worry that the producers (Nolan?) screwed with the original color palate.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

The biggest difference is the MUCH higher bitrate now on the 4K Remaster release. Back when the old 2001 Blu-ray came out, the Bitrate was already way too low because Warner Bros. was using a Singlelayer Blu-ray. And it also suffered a bit from crushed blacks. Colour-wise it was closer to the 1989 Criterion Collection Laserdisc release, which Kubrick himself supervised and approved. However it was done using a 35mm source. Not the original Super Cinerama 70mm camera negative.

[@milesmontemore5060]

Good comment. But wasn't the original camera negative 65mm Super Panavision which was projected in a Cinerama theatre? Cheers.

[@SomeJu4n]

If i make a really Really REALLY *REALLY* good lossless compression algorithm for motion picture...then the bitrate associate with any movie compressed by it can be super Super SUPER *SUPER* low, *while preserving all the information*. Hopefully im wasting my time and you already understand this...But if not...please stop with this ignorant higher bitrate bullshit -___-

[@MrMatterhorn89]

The original blu-ray used a dual layered 50GB disc.

[@beadelf8158]

4k is stunning

[@blakewillshowyou]

YIKES!!! I wonder who graded the 4K HDR version as it is WAY too warm and blown out. The 2018 version looks much better! I actually color graded the CAV Laserdisc version and it was no way as warm as the 4K version shown here! On the 4K HDR version the skin tones inside the Discovery are extremely red.

[@harrisoncastleberry458]

I can hardly wait for this ! I always thought the leopard over the zebra carcass was a black leopard!

[@ninjawacker5442]

This new 4k remaster is in another level!! 4K disc, oh yes please!

[@jacotromp59581]

The only bad thing is this, the model spaceships looks more like models than ever before.

[@jimmyl324]

The 4K is excellent. Watch it often.

[@ChrisPeteG]

Every classic film deserves this kind of upgrade.

[@Trevski2001]

Thanks for this. 2001 is probably my favourite film and I have purchased it on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-Ray, each being an improvement on the last. I haven't planned on 'upgrading' to 4K and this comparison hasn't changed my mind. While appreciating that I'm watching this on a computer monitor, the increase in sharpness is obvious but why go overboard with the red shift? Overall, I'd say at least half of the examples given are, in my opinion, better in the blu-ray version.

[@scorpionjimmy8734]

I don’t like how some shots just became reddish, especially in the scene in space, which kind of make the visual effects worse and portrayed in way that’s more of a real small size model. The bluish saturation do make these space scenes more realistic and believable

[@HenryLoenwind]

A hint to the people who did this transfer: When humans have the same skin color as in the pic on your cover, you messed up the colors.

[@Martinkellydop]

Looks fantastic, although I think they overcooked the skintones. Unless it's just my phone. Probably not the best thing on which to view such an epic. Thanks for uploading.

[@vidimur1977]

TOO MUCH MAGENTA!!!

[@kameleddinetaibi6797]

brilliant mate the edit is great just simple without pushing it too far just a bit disappointed by the little crop in the 4k master beside that the colours are vibrant but not too orange as the NOLAN's 70MM print was but i think more dynamic

[@nateds7326]

Great restoration. Makes sense cause it was shot in 8K. If 8K Blu-ray’s ever become a thing this is a good test run.

[@gavbob7879]

Night and day difference! Great comparison video again

[@JohnSmith-zl8rz]

I just see a saturated thing on the 4K, looks more clear, but saturated, why? Example 7:24

[@djsoulfilter]

It looks amazing on a 4K tv with HDR!

[@mauriciomurga20]

For what i know, they make this new 4k from the original 65mm negative and this version is what it was intended by Kubrick

[@n7cartmangh897]

I like the blue ray a bit more. I love this music on it.

[@swifty1969]

why in hell is the 4k cropped a bit compared to the blu-ray version? Why did they do it?

[@skylandmountain]

Im doubtful now - the red is running very hot and there is a magenta push. In one still Bomans eyes GLOW white like the god from Stargate (The original movie) whilst his face is pure red

[@brubeck1]

the first time i watched 2001 was on a 35 inch black n white tv (they were big in those days )its an amazing film blueray is what i got now.

[@teamyordle23]

I got to see the original unrestored 70mm version. It was beautiful, but my god the ringing noises from the monolith messed my ears up.

[@castironchaos]

At 7:32, the 4K color seems oversaturated. Is this intentional? Did the 2018 version deliberately mute the colors?

[@JamesClark1991]

Am I missing something here? The 4K version has TONS more pink in all of the highlights to the point where it looks ridiculous. The white balance looks ruined. Is this how it actually bad it is when viewed in person? Or is a KZbin conversion thing?

[@richardgoddard5412]

10:51 this is dissappointing. you can no longer see the sweat on daves face on the 4k counterpart

[@2011littleguy]

Gee, thanks. Now I gotta buy the 4K HDR.

[@texranger1012]

I love this one, I can’t get enough of it

[@buzzcrushtrendkill]

Thank you for this great comparison. The 4k is superior except the skin tones, too red.

[@andrewattenboroughtwothumb4697]

one of my favourite classic movies by Stanley Kubrick and a masterpiece saw a 4K version at Byron Bay palace cinemas and incredible music and picture

[@christopherquinlan7839]

This looks amazing. Sorry to see that some fans werent totally pleased but these images are stunning to me.

[@linjicakonikon7666]

The blue ray is a better version of my favorite movie of all time.

[@JacobHeldt]

The 4K is too bright and a little to red in my opinion - maybe its was originally like that , but i like the look of the blu-ray better.

[@Lethgar_Smith]

A couple of complaints. First of all Kubrick always wants his scenes to look as though they are lit from the natural light that would be in an actual location. He went to great lengths to create "natural" light sources. Even in 2001, the natural lighting would be the florescent tubes that were the most modern form of lighting at the time. The interiors are SUPPOSED to look like florescent lighting 6:19 Dont eliminate the green tint that comes from florescent lighting. It was common in a era for indoor photographs taken inside institutions, department stores, etc have a greenish tint due to florescent lights. 7:39 Also, dont kick the colors so hard that faces are beet-red. This scene looks horrible. There is no reason for that mans face to be that red with the actual lighting that would be in that scene, coming from HAL's control panel console. It's like in A New Hope. Luke does not wear pinks pants. But if you notices in all the scenes on Tatooine, his pants are now pink because they have kicked the colors up so hard because they want everything to look like it was photographed digitally. The pants were originally a very pale light green that was barely noticeable in the original prints. now they're pink. Is that supposed to make 20 somethings buy more copies? I dont get it.

[@RandySelzer]

The 4K looks sensational! Thanks for another great comparison!

[@Mymoonization]

My pleasure Randy !!

[@tablehetfield9508]

i really wish i could have gotten into this movie a year ago, i really would have loved to see it in imax

[@iampedro101]

It was great man...

[@JEdmund81]

I felt lucky to have seen it. It was just me and one other person in the theater, and I couldn't help but think people were really missing out on something special.

[@goneoffbeans2768]

I only watched 2001 yesterday on DVD but I hope I can get my hands on the 4K soon,so thanks for the video it was very helpful

[@Mymoonization]

Enjoy !

[@jonathanmurphy3141]

My parents bought a Beta video, in late 1983. The first film that I rented, from a Camelot Records store (pre- Blockbuster) was 2001: aSO. I read the novel, a few months before. I was 14 years, and a Geek. Is it possible to find and compare a Beta video to 4K???? When the 2018 restoration played in limited cinemas, I went to see; only the second time I’ve seen 2001 in cinema. (Other vhs, dvd, Blu)

[@skyeslaton3435]

4k is just pure beauty

[@erikgabrielsen]

I WANT THE 4K ONE SO BAD!!

[@jamesgarrison7397]

I'm sold on the 4K And I already thought the HD Bluray was near perfect!

[@jeffreypryor4549]

In all the shots of the models, the blu ray is superior to my eyes. That was my only gripe about the 4k disc.

[@zippos7952]

Great vid Finally picked this up yesterday and the 4k is just mind blowing Definetly my favorite and the best 4k I got now in my library This is everything that 4k is about It's just stunning

[@Mymoonization]

Then enjoy it !

[@zippos7952]

@@Mymoonization For sure I'm actually probably gonna watch it again tonight lol

[@Mymoonization]

Then do it man because this film is a masterpiece !!

[@wesleytaylorviadomus]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confused here. What standard blu ray version is the uploader comparing the 4k to, the 2007 version or the 2018 version? I only have a standard blu ray player and 1080 tv. Are both the 2018 blu ray and 4k remastered the same? Ten years from now we will be talking about the 8k version and or being immersed in a virtual reality version of the film! CANT WAIT!!!

[@csjcsj2906]

The uploader is comparing to the 2007 one. The actual 2018 one is from the same remaster as the 4K one.

[@magicsammy1]

Is there a reason for the magenta color cast? I also notice it is cooler colored at moments. I appreciate the increased dynamic range and resolution, but did they re-color grade the film in the 4K version?

[@magicsammy1]

@@cursedfakenewscfn967 Ah, that may be right. KZbin's compression isn't the best.

[@JimBob_Joe77]

It sure made the skin tones look pinkish and red.

[@consciousgentile5141]

Oompa loompas

[@Joshonthenet]

this video is not an entirely accurate representation of how it looks on the actual 4K HDR disc

[@konnordaniels7459]

What an upgrade

[@saveriocorti1972]

the color palette altered from cyan to magenta. SHAME

[@hmombius2717]

one question: Isn't this version a little too different from the original film? I mean Kubrick would have wanted this kind of effect? to me it seems a bit too digital compared to film I had read in a forum that Kubrick had decided to shoot certain scenes in the dark on purpose to make the viewer feel a feeling of claustrophobia. In this 4k version, hasn't all this been lost a bit? Or is the 4k process done based on the original color grading and respecting certain rules?

[@Mymoonization]

2001 was shot photochemically on 65 mm film in Cinerama, Todd-AO, and Super Panavision 70 formats using Mitchell and Panavision cameras. For this new 4K Ultra HD release, the film was scanned from the original camera negative (and presumably the master internegative for optically-printed VFX shots) in 8K resolution and down sampled to 4K for this release at the proper 2.20:1 aspect ratio, a process overseen by Ned Price (VP of Restoration at Warner Bros.) along with longtime Kubrick confident Leon Vitali. The image was then graded for high dynamic range in both HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

[@MichaelLaing71]

I really dislike the colour conversion. Work on the image and sound quality but changing the colours so dramatically is a sin.

[@BobAdragna]

I was skeptical at first, on my 4K LG set the new 4K is better, plus the audio..

[@grantmcgowan8399]

It's sad that the master himself is not around to appraise this.. I wonder on his thoughts...

[@joeldb]

The exposure and color timing seems way more natural and consistent than the 4K. It looks overly bright and the color is all over the place.

[@Joe-we4zy]

Confessing my unpopular opinion, I like the Blu Ray better than the 4k.

[@Joe-we4zy]

James St. John Smythe is the tunnel white or peach colored on the blu-ray? I know it’s not white on the 4k which is frustrating

[@nacthenud]

@@Jb991-q9x The 4K version is actually the correct theatrical aspect ratio. The old blu ray showed more of the image than was intended, due to the way in which it was scanned

[@nacthenud]

You may not be getting the true effect of the 4K version if you're not watching it on an HDR display in HDR though.

[@MrSimi71]

There could be a simple reason for this in terms of screen calibration. The 4K version will have HDR/Dolby Vision. The bluray version won't have access to this, therefore, the calibration will not be the same.

[@JanPBtest]

Yes, the 4K version is incorrectly timed.

[@gustavofigueroa2.030]

CHANGE ORIGINAL COLOR OF THE MOVIE CLASSIC 1968, BLU-RAY: THEATRICAL COLOR CUT, ULTRA HD BLU-RAY: EXPANDED NEW COLOR CUT

[@Lama-Su]

NASA should 4k Kubrick's filming of the moon landing

[@SoshiMECH]

I'm guessing you are just poking fun at the moon landing conspiracy nuts... Having said that, getting actual moon landing footage in 4K would be amazing!!!

[@Lama-Su]

@@SoshiMECH Be careful who you call a Nut, while you are probably right. You dont know for 100%, Rememner the victor always writes the history books. Doesnt mean its always true, not saying it isnt but when you use the word Nuts and end up being the one thats wrong you dont look so good in the end.

[@SoshiMECH]

@@Lama-Su I'm sorry... They are not nuts, just uneducated... If it helps Mythbusters devoted an entire episode to systematically debunking the moonlanding hoax theory point by point and there are numerous other articles and videos that have debunked this theory including Nvidia who created a 3D digital modal of the moon landing using photos taken from the moon showing where all the light sources both direct and reflective were coming from and why you can't seen the stars in the photos and then they recreated the photos using the 3D model. But I guess if you educated yourself and you still don't believe, then the only explanation left is that you are in fact a nut.

[@castironchaos]

@@SoshiMECH Actually, they're nuts. The only reason why the moon conspiracy nuts say Kubrick filmed the moon landing was because of pop culture. 2001 was a smash hit, and that made it appeal to conspiracy nuts. The same as with today's tinfoil hat crowd who worship The Matrix.

[@1000000man1]

@@Lama-Su No, we can say with 100% confidence that Kubrick did Not Fake the Moon Landing. If we can't say we're sure of that then we might as well say that we're not sure whether Santa exists.

[@RamiFive4Five]

I see it's been a little bit cropped. Is there an Open Matte edition?

[@rashpalbhati]

Thanks, how about a comparison using the Dolby Vision version, I imagine the HDR effect would be more pleasing and subtle than the HDR 10 always on oversaturated punch grading.

[@Mymoonization]

Rashpal, this video has the Dolby Vision 😉. And the HDR10 in my opinion contains far too many exagerated colors. For me, Dolby Vision remains unbeatable. Cheers !

[@rashpalbhati]

@@Mymoonization Thanks, the HDR or Dolby Vision does not activate over KZbin on your upload, normally HDR works fine for me over Chromecast Ultra and playback on my LG OLED TV, should your upload playback in HDR?

[@Mymoonization]

All my video captures on KZbin contain already the standard HDR10 or Dolby Vision !!

[@Mymoonization]

One more thing, if it does not work, well it will have to activate manually because I have an LG OLED Signature too. And as far as I'm concerned, it works perfectly well.

[@rashpalbhati]

@@Mymoonization Thanks I'll try it again later, it didn't work earlier when I either cast the video from my phone to the TV (in-built KZbin app) then cast to Chromecast Ultra which normally plays other KZbin HDR encoded content just fine.

[@walttanner5813]

Any comparisons with the new BluRay 50th edition? Or is this it?

[@Mymoonization]

Is this it !

[@walttanner5813]

@@Mymoonization Yup :)

[@russell_szabados]

A little too much red and indigo for me in some scenes... look at HAL in the background when they're talking in the space pod about disconnecting HAL. The background looks like it's floating in a blueberry ice pop. I'd say they messed up the white balance but they did a better job than I could ever do.

[@lawrenade]

These videos don’t represent the 4K version accurately enough for me. I bought this on 4K and was blown away. I might not have done going on the strength of this clip

[@cp070476]

So they've added a pinky magenta type colour to it resulting in worse looking skin tones. People are not pink... Id be disappointed with this!

[@stinky5565]

Don't get me wrong the 4k looks nice, but I can help but think that it takes away from how some of these shots were meant to be seen.

[@JEdmund81]

This is very helpful, thanks! Some shots look a lot better, but I'm actually not liking some of the uptick in brightness, and I really don't like how skin tones all look so red! Maybe it's my monitor (iMac...should be good), but that does give me some hesitation. Can anyone confirm is this is true while watching the 4k disc?

[@foxas5]

Why there is so much red filter in 4k edition?

[@eipplusone3395]

foxas5 exactly. It looks way too red to me, specially some faces that shouldn’t be so red.

[@blaggzear3152]

Wow. A MUST BUY!!!!! Absolutely love it Next pleeease Lawrence of Arabia PLEASE

[@msd5808]

It looks too red and contrasty - that shot at 1:56 loses all its blue. Maybe it's just my SDR screen?

[@CarlaHassKing]

Wow!

[@richardscally694]

I wonder what Kubrick would have thought of this restoration, a dreadful loss he wasn't there.

[@richardscally694]

@David Wright Yes I think you're right. Messing with his Masterpiece.

[@ddmsf1]

@@richardscally694 Indeed. A simulated 3D version of the Mona Lisa, next, huh?

[@richardscally694]

@@ddmsf1 Yep!

[@Gaelginzu]

I was concern by colors on other compared images but this one seems incredible

[@cameron1975williams]

I can't believe you haven't included comparison shots of the home video version's biggest bugbear, the visible panels of reflective paint on the rear projection screens during the Dawn of Man sequence. Are they still visible in the HDR version?

[@Mymoonization]

Well Cameron, honestly there is a lot of change on this new 4K edition. The colorimetry has changed, the visual global has changed, the sound has changed, there is sooooooo much to say about this masterpiece !

[@cameron1975williams]

@@Mymoonization You did a very nice job with this video. Could you post a few more clips from the 4K Dawn of Man sequence? Particularly the daytime shots showing the entire set. In the Blu-ray and DVD versions you can clearly see the panels of reflective paint on the rear projection screens. I just want to know if the new colorimetry, visual global and contrast settings have eliminated the problem. I believe that the original 70mm film would have been projected brightly enough that the backdrop wouldn't have been as noticeably an artifice. It's only since the film came to home video that Kubrick's exacting standards have been compromised.

[@Mymoonization]

I have a lot of videos in preparation. And unfortunately I will not have the opportunity to do this sequence particularly. However, I send you to a very interesting link that explains everything you need to know. Looking forward to proofreading. Have a great holiday 👍 ! digitalbits.com/item/2001-a-space-odyssey-uhd-bd

[@chrisantoniou4366]

Has anyone noticed that the reflective patches for the front projection process during the ape scenes and which were painfully obvious in the Blu Ray dic are absnt in the 4K disc? There also seems to be some discontinuity between the foreground and background during these scenes.

[@micjoseph6250]

I gotta get 2001 4k.

[@elijahd.techgnostic]

Since I don't have a 4k player or TV, is the new Blu ray any better than the release from 2007?

[@Mymoonization]

Frankly you have one of the best BD for sure 👍 !

[@elijahd.techgnostic]

@@Mymoonization So no improvement for the 2018 Blu ray? If not I might just get the 4k release anyway just in case I do get the right player and TV later.

[@Mymoonization]

Only the 4K otherwise the standard BD still perfect !

[@chrisjohnson8033]

The standard Blu-Ray that comes with this new 4k version is the same print as the new 4k version. Obviously it's only on an ordinary Blu-Ray disc but it is the new 4K version on a standard 2K disc. A massive leap forward from the previous BR. What annoys me with most 4K releases is when they just stick the old BR disc in as an extra. This is certainly worth getting even if you are not yet 4K ready.

[@elijahd.techgnostic]

@@chrisjohnson8033 Thanks. I'll definitely try to get a copy then.

[@BigJwlz]

If I had to pick a version, it would be the 4K but I have gripes. The transition at 7:00 shows that the 4K has a bit too much color saturation. The colors of the flag in the background really 'Pop' and I like it, but the people seem a little too pink. It's not saturated to the point that it offends me but I took notice of it. Then I saw the next shot at 7:21 with Kier Dullea holding a picture, and "Whoa." That is an Oompa Loompa in space if I've ever seen one. The shots at the beginning of the film that showed pre-historic Earth look way better on the 4K. The visuals of objects in space also look better, all around. The shots of the ship interior are the controversial ones to my eyes.

[@ULTRAWIDE.]

Looks a bit too...pink :/

[@ZZ-ou7gp]

You can't use a brush so heavy-handedly and tar it all. It is such a shame. I know time is limited and a cash grab by the studios is their sole purpose in life. But the 4K is haphazard...note the hazard part. It does some things so beautifully and others so badly. All these films are yours except please leave the bleep Kubricks stuff. Pretty please

[@thatblenderguy7566]

Do You Know 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Had A Sequel Called 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

[@Mymoonization]

Yes…..great sequel with Roy Scheider (just my opinion) !

[@LuisVazquez-hx3bk]

Imagine in 2001 we will have plains that can travel to space, space stations with artificial gravity, astronaut dress like entrepreneurs, AI that can make their own decisions and fast travel to Jupiter. I hope to be alive to see it.🤤

[@Noname-yu8qw]

Kubrick never planned it for hdr and why the colors were changed?

[@Mymoonization]

Let's say Kubrick wasn't even aware that there would be a future technology called HDR, so it's hard to give an opinion on that for him. However, for this new 4K Ultra HD release, the film was scanned from the original camera negative (and presumably the master internegative for optically-printed VFX shots) in 8K resolution and down sampled to 4K for this release at the proper 2.20:1 aspect ratio, a process overseen by Ned Price (VP of Restoration at Warner Bros.) along with longtime Kubrick confident Leon Vitali.

[@Noname-yu8qw]

@@Mymoonization Exactly there was no hdr and true black, so there is no chance this remaster can show Kubricks vision. if you can see now more details doesn't mean Kubrick meant this details to be seen for example and Hals eye is obviously wrong, and other colors also look wrong. I have a piece of 2001 film and I will check and I will also check a great 2001 book I have to see the differences...