Idea & Info: Cinerama 70mm '2001' preservation. Is it possible? — Page 2

AntcuFaalb said:

... DeFish with an fov of 84°.

Unfortunately, those are just as inaccurate as my proof-of-concept attempts further up. Lens correction is not the right approach. Getting a Cinerama screen look is a continuously variable perspective correction problem.

Properly done, the edges of the screen would become thinner and taller and the center of the screen would remain normal proportioned. It also means the widescreen picture would become more fullscreen-ish.

Automatic re-proportion would be great (a resize equation) but manual grid re-positioning (if there is such an Avisynth filter) should do as well, granted with one-shot grid-adjustment work.

And if I may be so bold to add ... the released Cinerama simulations are just that ... simulations and wrong.  :)

Can you see how in How The West Was Won?

The above How The West Was Won smilebox was a wrong simulation of Cinerama for a few reasons. First, they cropped the picture -- enough said on that. Second, the screen top/bottom curvature is a circle without it's proper flattened perspective. Third, there is no (or almost none) perspective-compressed picture on the far sides due to the screen curvature. Fourth, they didn't offer me the job to do it right.  :)

This is strange to visualize correctly, so I worked up a graphic to demonstrate the principle:

The picture is the original size source and the full area for the target curved-screen projection. The yellow 146° circle is the true width of the curved screen (ticked off in 10° increments, with the last 6° at the top). The green marker lines are the re-proportioned 3D screen to the 2D projection.

As clearly shown, the equidistant increments of the true screen translate into ever-greater-compressed horizontal picture on the target projection, toward the sides. The picture would first be proportionally resized larger to cover the width of the curvature (one can count the number of pixels per 10° across the top of the curve). Then it is horizontally resized into smaller widths of the target strips. (This demonstration shows only broad adjustment strips. The actual processing would be for resizing narrower strips for pixel-wide target strips.) That's for the horizontal.

The vertical is similarly approached with the resized height of each pixel-wide target strip to follow how much the circular screen is perspectively flattened (top and bottom need not be the same -- in fact, the bottom should be less and the top, more, to correspond to the best stadium-seat position).

SilverWook said:

I own nearly all of the editions mentioned.

Can you verify as per
DVDBeaver 2001: A Space Odyssey comparative review
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview/2001.htm
"ORIGINAL WARNER VS MGM: The first unrestored release from Warner (not shown here) is identical to the MGM edition in every way except packaging."

that the MGM (1998) and Warner (1999) DVDs:

have this anamorphic main menu:

while only the Warner (2001) DVD:

has this cropped, fullscreen one:

?

Spaced Ranger said:

The above How The West Was Won smilebox was a wrong simulation of Cinerama for a few reasons. First, they cropped the picture -- enough said on that. Second, the screen top/bottom curvature is a circle without it's proper flattened perspective. Third, there is no (or almost none) perspective-compressed picture on the far sides due to the screen curvature. Fourth, they didn't offer me the job to do it right.  :)

This is strange to visualize correctly, so I worked up a graphic to demonstrate the principle:

The picture is the original size source and the full area for the target curved-screen projection. The yellow 146° circle is the true width of the curved screen (ticked off in 10° increments, with the last 6° at the top). The green marker lines are the re-proportioned 3D screen to the 2D projection.

As clearly shown, the equidistant increments of the true screen translate into ever-greater-compressed horizontal picture on the target projection, toward the sides. The picture would first be proportionally resized larger to cover the width of the curvature (one can count the number of pixels per 10° across the top of the curve). Then it is horizontally resized into smaller widths of the target strips. (This demonstration shows only broad adjustment strips. The actual processing would be for resizing narrower strips for pixel-wide target strips.) That's for the horizontal.

The vertical is similarly approached with the resized height of each pixel-wide target strip to follow how much the circular screen is perspectively flattened (top and bottom need not be the same -- in fact, the bottom should be less and the top, more, to correspond to the best stadium-seat position).

Just thought I'd mention this bit of information from the wikipedia article for How the West was Won:

"Even though the aspect ratio of Cinerama was 2:59:1, Warner's new BD and DVD releases of the film offer an aspect ratio of 2.89:1, incorporating image information on both sides that was never meant to be seen when projected. The BD-exclusive SmileBox alternative has the intentional cropping intact."

Also, a mention of this from hidefdigest.com about the blu-ray:

"The Letterbox version has a slight bit more picture information on the left and right sides of the frame than the Smilebox does. According to David Strohmaier (director of the "Cinerama Adventure" documentary), this was done intentionally. During the video transfer, Warner scanned each camera negative from edge to edge, including parts of the frame that would never be seen during Cinerama projection. The studio opted to include all of that image in the Letterbox presentation as a sort of "bonus material," while the Smilebox version retains the small amount of cropping as it would have been seen in a Cinerama theater."

So their Smilebox version sounds like the image was correctly framed as it was meant to be projected - the non-smilebox version contains additional information that wasn't meant to be seen during projection. So they didn't crop it incorrectly from the sounds of this.

Also, there's some interesting info on this smilebox presentation over on this site:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/aspect-ratio-oddities-page-2

"According to David Strohmaier, director of the Cinerama Adventure documentary contained on the Blu-ray Disc, SmileBox was created with input from the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and some top visual-effects talent in Los Angeles. The process was designed to re-create the viewpoint of a seat in the 12th to 14th rows of the Seattle Cinerama theater."

Perhaps they faced some technical issues that made their decisions the best choice? It sure sounds like they spent an awful lot of effort handling this smilebox transfer - it wasn't just done on a whim.

Well ...

... when I hear arguments of "original intent", it's mostly from self-appointed champions and not the authors themselves. Except Ray Harryhausen ... and he actually wanted his old black & white movies colorized (for example).

On the other hand, Smilebox, whether produced after intense study or on a whim, is a poor simulation of the curved screen Cinerama (for the reasons previously stated). Not that I'm a specialist ... I simply can believe my eyes.

This demonstration should've been done in a 3D rendering program but I didn't have one set up. Using a paint program took a little longer than expected but it was only some high school math and allot of pixel counting.

In 3D space, the flat picture to be Cinerama-ized is wrapped to the screen's curve. This means that the viewer watching from a distance sees the center of the picture in it's proper proportion but the edges as ever more thinner, as in this top-view diagram:

So, with 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example, we start with the image's full frame, which includes top and bottom space due to it's cinemascope size within the widescreen TV frame:

The picture is then cut into equal slices. This follows the diagram's rough (for this demonstration) 10° spacing, except for the leftover 6° that I placed in the center of the picture for symmetry sake (making it easier for me). The gaps are for ease of viewing what's going on with the slices:

The slices are horizontally re-sized for their proper widths when seen in perspective. Notice from the diagram that full sized 3D slices show much thinner in narrow angles. That makes for an overall narrower picture:

Now, to remove those slice gaps ... ah, that's better:

That is the real view ... horizontally. Next, as this is a real world representation, there is perspective in the vertical direction as well. As the screen curves towards the viewer, both top and bottom show that perspective:

Each slice is then vertically re-sized to it's screen length:

This looks crude, of course. In an automated production, the finish result would be perfectly smooth as each slice would've been processed on the pixel level. As for me, it's shortcuts when I'm doing it by hand. Fortunately the paint program has a flat-perspective-angling tool, which I applied to each slice in the direction of the curve (with the bottom mirroring the top):

There, that did it quite well for this rough rendering. And here is how it would look on your widescreen TV:

Finally, the comparison of the flat cinemascope format to the same picture curved in 3D space for Cinerama. :

I think considering that 3D is doing somewhat well out there, and considering many tv's now come with it whether you want it or not (my set has 3D but I specifically wanted that feature because I'm a 3D fan myself), this was a missed opportunity by the studio to use 3D to create the true curved feel of the Cinerama format.

They could have mapped out the "smilebox" type of screen, but in 3D, requiring the viewer to use their 3D glasses. The movie itself of course would not be in 3D - it would be 2D, just mapped correctly onto the 3D Cinerama "smilebox" screen. Instead of false curves and distorted angles, it would look like you were actually looking at a true Cinerama curved screen. On a larger 3D tv especially (say 46" or anything larger), this would look stunning. It would be like you were literally looking at a curved Cinerama screen inside your set, with the film being displayed in 2D onto the curved screen as originally intended.

Why have a flat 2D smilebox presentation of a format like Cinerama that just begs for a true 3D curved screen, when so many tv sets now have a true 3D mode, and blu-ray supports 3D? They easily could have included a 3D smilebox version and I bet people would have found it stunning to see a real curved "screen" displaying that film.

Oldfan said:

I think considering that 3D is doing somewhat well out there, ... this was a missed opportunity by the studio to use 3D to create the true curved feel of the Cinerama format. They could have mapped out the "smilebox" type of screen, but in 3D, requiring the viewer to use their 3D glasses.

That is an excellent idea, Oldfan! Long Live 3D!
But let's not stop there. I say, as the Cinerama screen of necessity reduces the movie's size, fill in all that new black space with (for example) ... the Vinterpalatset Cinerama (Stockholm) or some other opulent cinema of your choice, viewing from the seat of your choice:

[16x9 sized example would fill your widescreen TV]

poita said:

There are plenty of 2001 film prints available as a colour reference.

Unless we could get the vaulted master separations (B&W), we would be stuck with (any-kind-of)-fade color stock. From what I've read, only Criterion's 1989 "special edition" laserdisc was color corrected to director Stanley Kubrick's personal specifications, http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/00997/CC1160L/2001:-A-Space-Odyssey:-Special-Edition-%281968%29
which, by that release, should be the only other permanently non-fading record of the movie.

I would be interested to know whether that particular edition was released, intact, as one of the successive DVD releases.

Spaced Ranger said:

Oldfan said:

I think considering that 3D is doing somewhat well out there, ... this was a missed opportunity by the studio to use 3D to create the true curved feel of the Cinerama format. They could have mapped out the "smilebox" type of screen, but in 3D, requiring the viewer to use their 3D glasses.

That is an excellent idea, Oldfan! Long Live 3D!
But let's not stop there. I say, as the Cinerama screen of necessity reduces the movie's size, fill in all that new black space with (for example) ... the Vinterpalatset Cinerama (Stockholm) or some other opulent cinema of your choice, viewing from the seat of your choice:

[16x9 sized example would fill your widescreen TV]

Just seeing that picture makes me wish I could see a film like 2001 on a screen like that.

... once characterized by someone as the book that ripped off everyone and everything. Now that's what I call good reading and a bargain at only $1.50 (book-cover price)! Just don't tell'em you bought it for the pictures (96 pages worth).  ;)  Too bad the pictures are all B&W.  :(

And too bad that the one really promising source for color-correction-worthy-material had the plug pulled on it:

2001: Beyond the Infinite - The Making of a Masterpiece - Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EspoBBvhKdQ
Douglas Trumbull, director of Silent Running and Special Effects Supervisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey, is readying a documentary about his time with Stanley Kubrick. The detail in this undertaking is amazing. The filmmakers are literally crawling into never-before-seen-images.

poita said:

I think the issue is ... trying to create a 2D texture map, that would look correct if projected onto an actual Cinerama screen?

Sitting in a good seat at Cinerama, the image doesn't look compressed ...

That's right, and such a projection is correct in both directions.

However, my last (this) approximation is also inaccurate in that the projection lines from the curved screen to the flat screen (see that top-view diagram) are parallel, as if to an infinite focus. The focus should be somewhere in the audience. That ups the level of manual labor. (I was trying shortcuts for quick mock-ups, but each time I'd think about it and come back to throw more work into it. Somebody stop me!)

Of course, the best projection would be to fill it upto the widescreen (16:9) area while maximizing the normal-proportioned center to it's cinemascope (2.35x1) boundary. Or, if putting it in a cinerama theatre setting, do it proportionally smaller to fit.

Are you still thinking of trying a stereoscopic representation of a 3D cinerama screen? With or without the theater?  :)

Asaki said:

Heck, while you're at it, you can turn it into a real game ... Imagine the multiplayer possibilities, as you and your friends debate the best plan of action against the "noobs" behind you, kicking your seat and throwing popcorn ... maybe I've gone too far @_@

Well, maybe just a little.  :D

But we have to give Oldfan, and all of us for that matter, the original experience of 2001. To that end, I was thinking of additional theatre-centric ambience (no popcorn):
 * curtains opening & closing at beginning & end
 * dimming & lighting (the theater) at movie start, intermission, movie exit
 * theater reflection-lightness in sync with movie lightness (?)
 * the slight concert-hall-sized hollow/echo sound

Sorry to make even more work for ... whoever wants to pick up this gauntlet.  :)

Some interesting ideas here for sure. In a way I like the idea above where the theatre itself and seating is visible, but on the other hand, I think the screen size would be maximized by bringing it up full front and center, basically like the smilebox that was done for the blu-rays. I would love to see 2001 mapped onto a true stereoscopic Cinerama screen like I mentioned above, but I'm guessing that might be rather tricky to pull off?

However it's done, I'm definitely interesting in seeing what ends up happening with this idea. Unfortunately I'm not skilled in these areas so I don't know how much help I would be, but I'm certainly interested in seeing what you guys think you can do with this.

With the ideas of a proper Smilebox® (but a "proper" one would no longer be Smilebox®), and stereoscopic 3D viewing, and an "in theatre" experience, I looked around for a good, and cheap (free?), and easy to use, and continuously interactive, and powerful 3D program. I know, I'm an optimist. Fortunately, optimism pays off and I came across the once awesome program from Caligari, sold to Microsoft for their Virtual Earth online program, later discontinued by Microsoft when it moved on, and now freeware with the blessing of both the original author and Microsoft. How's that for optimism? Sometimes I amaze even myself.  :D

It'll probably be quite some time before I could get around to this. So anyone with an inclination towards 3D design and rendering might like to give it a shot. Start at the Flat2D website to get the now completely free program with links to more resources (tutorials, plug-ins, and such):

Flat2D - trueSpace 7.61
http://www.flat2d.com/Truespace_en.aspx
trueSpace 7.61 is a powerful 3D modeling and animation [program], with several years of tradition. Its first version was launched in 1994, and the program has been refined over time, slowly becoming one of the most respectable of its area. In 2008, the production company was acquired by Microsoft, and then the software is now distributed free.

Start at United3DArtists forum's "Links that you might need one day using TrueSpace" and trueSpace:

 Major Geeks - trueSpace 7.61
http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/truespace.html
trueSpace is a 3D modeling software for creating models, photo-realistic objects, and landscapes.
Work in real-time giving you the best possible modeling environment, and the ability to render an image in seconds rather than hours, or an animation in minutes rather than days.