'2001' - High-Def Digest review

[Murkurial]

Assuming that this is the forum for both blu-ray and hd-dvd discussions, I don't recall seeing a comparison between the transfers on the two formats. Does anyone know which format it looks better on (if there even is a discernable difference between the two)? I'm probably going to have to start increasing my Blu-ray library, but i still have the 360 add-on and HD-DVDs had been consistently better with PQ in the past and I was just trying to determine if that difference existed here as well.

[Blurry]

Assuming that this is the forum for both blu-ray and hd-dvd discussions, I don't recall seeing a comparison between the transfers on the two formats. Does anyone know which format it looks better on (if there even is a discernable difference between the two)? I'm probably going to have to start increasing my Blu-ray library, but i still have the 360 add-on and HD-DVDs had been consistently better with PQ in the past and I was just trying to determine if that difference existed here as well.

They are identical across formats.

[freekedoutfish]

Assuming that this is the forum for both blu-ray and hd-dvd discussions, I don't recall seeing a comparison between the transfers on the two formats. Does anyone know which format it looks better on (if there even is a discernable difference between the two)? I'm probably going to have to start increasing my Blu-ray library, but i still have the 360 add-on and HD-DVDs had been consistently better with PQ in the past and I was just trying to determine if that difference existed here as well.

Its a safe bet they are identical, but HD digest tends to compare them. Did they not this time?

[Blinx123]

BTW: Actually this aren't the forums for both formats. It's the HD-DVD one. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is the one labelled "General Discussion: Both Formats" I'd say.

But. Ok actually changed my mind. Bad idea writing there. Only if you want to point the "intention" of Blu-Ray fanboys on you

[gluasad]

Just got this one and watched it tonight. Beautiful transfer. This might betray my age but I actually went to see it during it's first run in theatres in 1968 and it's rerelease in 1977. Now my present 46 in LCD screen isn't quite the size of the theatres I saw it in but the experience was just as awe inspiring.

A brilliant film and a gorgeous transfer.

[Papallo101]

I just got my copy from DVdpacific yesterday, and I noticed something odd. The case doesnt have the HD-DVD logo printed on the top like they usually do? Is this a common problem with the cases for 2001, or has anyone seen a case like this before?

[freekedoutfish]

I just got my copy from DVdpacific yesterday, and I noticed something odd. The case doesnt have the HD-DVD logo printed on the top like they usually do? Is this a common problem with the cases for 2001, or has anyone seen a case like this before?

Same as mine and tbh I hadnt even noticed. Concidering the box is red your hardly going to get it confused with a regular DVD.

Its probably because it looks like it was printed outside the US, so they used a slightl different box.

Its not a huge deal.

[AllSport11]

Just received my copy last night and was floored by the PQ. Amazing for a 40 year old movie. If only all catalog titles looked this good. Also, my copy does not have the HD DVD logo painted either along with Pan's Labyrinth.

[Lasse86b]

I think this forum should definitely be a place for augmenting or adding observations to the (excellent) reviews posted on highdefdigest.

So I wanted to commit my two cents, and firstly: I do see some slight wavering in the color-balance at the 2h17m mark of the movie. But only in one shot as far as my eyes can tell..

secondly and primarily: I noticed some slight telecine wobble ALL through the movie.
i.e. to new readers: as though the image itself is sort of unsteady. Any still-image like, say the conference-room at the beginning of 2001, will look as though the camera was shaking while filming it. Why no one and especially highdefdigest hasn't noticed this is beyond me.
There wasn't a single time where I didn't see it (try zooming in to 4x or 8x at any time in the movie, especially if there's text on-screen, and you should be able to see it) I only have a 32" screen, so at normal viewing it's almost not noticeable. I will say though that my copy of Blade Runner (Final Cut) on HD-DVD has NO wobble whatsoever.

Thirdly: I DO see some strange miscolourings in some of the dawn of man-shots - it's definitely never present in what would be the studio sets, but always somewhere in the sky. So my guess is that maybe it's an issue with the front projection that they used to create backgrounds for these shots? (shots that were created inside a studio but are depicting the planes of Africa) and thus a problem with the source?


I do know that these concerns are minor, but I think that costumers contemplating whether to buy the movie or not, should know how I perceived the quality.


Other than these three minor issues I can only say that I was litteraly dumbstruck when I put this HD-DVD on. And my screen's only 720p! And I mean every single aspect of the movie. Color reproduction, effects-shots, fine detail, EVERYTHING!

[freekedoutfish]

secondly and primarily: I noticed some slight telecine wobble ALL through the movie.
i.e. to new readers: as though the image itself is sort of unsteady. Any still-image like, say the conference-room at the beginning of 2001, will look as though the camera was shaking while filming it. Why no one and especially highdefdigest hasn't noticed this is beyond me.

I have to say that I didnt notice that at all, and I was glued to the screen most of the time!

I will agree some colours werent perfect, but I think that was a result of the limitation of the time and the technologies they used.

But all in all its an astoundng result which would at times, outshine alot of recent films IMO.

[adiabatic]

Thirdly: I DO see some strange miscolourings in some of the dawn of man-shots - it's definitely never present in what would be the studio sets, but always somewhere in the sky. So my guess is that maybe it's an issue with the front projection that they used to create backgrounds for these shots? (shots that were created inside a studio but are depicting the planes of Africa) and thus a problem with the source?

With my setup (Sharp LC42D62U, HTPC: EVGA GeForce 8600GT video card, LG dual-format drive) I actually see what look like paintbrush swaths in the skies of the Dawn of Man segment but only the long shots that are SFX. The sky in the scene with the apes and the monolith is perfect... that looks like a true sunset image. The "day after" skies are also normal until the first scene with the ape eating meat.

I don't see this as a flaw in the transfer. Rather, I prefer to be amused at what modern equipment can extract from old film.

[Dr_Teeth]

With the B2G1 free sale on Amazon I have given thought to buying 2001 in HD. I just bought the SD-DVD version of it when it came out though. Basically I wanna know is this. Is an upconverted version of this movie gonna be much different visually than the HD version?

[Ange]

The HD transfer is absolutely brilliant and it REALLY blows and SD version right out of the water. I'm normally really picky about this sort of thing, and it's really that much better.

[theHDphantom]

My scores:
Movie: 3.5 outta 5
Video: 4.5 outta 5
Audio: 4 outta 5
Extras: 4 outta 5

I still enjoy the movie today, even though it is a bit on the unnecessary long side.... I will say that I liked the book a lot more though.
Either way, this is still a nice release.

[Rich86]

Well, we finally dragged this puppy off the "unwatched" shelf (since we had seen it about 3 times already) and watched it. The movie is certainly slow and drags in many places - but somehow, you cannot help but become mesmerized by it. It is terrific - and the HD-DVD is excellent with great PQ & AQ and plentiful extras (although not in HD). Sorry for resurrecting an old thread - but a classic film like this one presented in excellent quality high-def warrants it.