2001 stargate sequence
davelaroc
did the stargate sequence for 2001. I absolutely love it and want to
know if there is more stuff out there like that.
peace,
dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doesive Two Shoes Diddle Dee Dee John
can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none of it will equal the
paint on the glass technique used - analog!
Johnson
hels...@my-deja.com
with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
photography.
Agree about analog -- am still stubbornly clinging to laserdisc over DVD
(compression artifacts really bother m
boaz...@my-deja.com
hels...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <387B43D2...@mindspring.com>,
> Johnson <gene...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't paint, was it?
> >
> > Doesive Two Shoes Diddle Dee Dee John wrote:
> > >
> > > The stargate sequence is awesome, even after all these years. The
> biatches
> > > can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none of it will
equal
> the
> > > paint on the glass technique used - analog!
> >
> The stuff during the trip that looks like nebula formations was done
> with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
> old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
> photography.
It's interesting that you should mention the ABC "Movie of the Week"
openings, as they were done by Douglas Trumbull, who also did the
Stargate sequence in "2001." Trumbull did it as a work-for-hire job
after "2001" to keep money coming in so he could pursue bigger things
later, which he eventually did (I believe he also did commercials and
other promos, but I can't remember exactly which ones they were).
(It's also interesting to note that the "Movie of the Week," a weekly
series that showed original movies made specifically for television,
began in the fall of 1971, and would feature a rather stunning little
thriller called "Duel," directed by a very young Steven Spielberg.)
Trumbull's previous experience to "2001" was on a film for the 1964
World's Fair on space travel, which caught the attention of Kubrick,
who hired the then 24 year old to be among the special effects team
on "2001." Trumbull also directed "Silent Running," did the special
effects for Spielberg's "Close Encounters" and did about half of the
effects for the first "Star Trek" feature (if you've seen it you can
probably guess which sequence he did).
The process to do the Stargate sequence was a device called a "slit-
scan" machine. According to the Jerome Agel book on "2001," the device
could produce two seemingly infinite planes of exposure while holding
depth of field from a distance of fifteen feet to one and a half inches
from the lens at an aperture of f/1.8 - with exposures of approximately
one minute per frame. The book goes on to mention that much of the
images used came from such abstract artwork as high contrast film
negatives of op art paintings, archtitectural drawings, moire patterns,
printed circuits, and electron-microscope photographs of molecular and
crystal structures.
Actually, what was done in that sequence was a more expensive variation
of many of the works done by other experimental filmmakers during
the '60s, but more people will remember this film because it was seen
by a wider audience.
If anyone has other detailed information about the sequence and the
films that influenced it to share on the newsgroup, it certainly would
be welcome.
Boaz
And, if you have the chance, check out "The Honeymooners/I Only Have
Eyes For You," a parody in four unnatural acts by Boaz8741 and
Ichorwhip. It's still there!
http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/files/honeymoon_intro.htm
Johnson
wasn't "screen-"ing paint, and instead was, as I thought, exposing light
onto stock.
hels...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <387B43D2...@mindspring.com>,
> Johnson <gene...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't paint, was it?
> >
> > Doesive Two Shoes Diddle Dee Dee John wrote:
> > >
> > > The stargate sequence is awesome, even after all these years. The
> biatches
> > > can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none of it will equal
> the
> > > paint on the glass technique used - analog!
> >
> The stuff during the trip that looks like nebula formations was done
> with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
> old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
> photography.
>
> Agree about analog -- am still stubbornly clinging to laserdisc over DVD
> (compression artifacts really bother m
>
hels...@my-deja.com
> The process to do the Stargate sequence was a device called a "slit-
> scan" machine. According to the Jerome Agel book on "2001," the
device
> could produce two seemingly infinite planes of exposure while holding
> depth of field from a distance of fifteen feet to one and a half
inches
> from the lens at an aperture of f/1.8 - with exposures of
approximately
> one minute per frame. The book goes on to mention that much of the
> images used came from such abstract artwork as high contrast film
> negatives of op art paintings, archtitectural drawings, moire
patterns,
> printed circuits, and electron-microscope photographs of molecular and
> crystal structures.
>
> Actually, what was done in that sequence was a more expensive
variation
> of many of the works done by other experimental filmmakers during
> the '60s, but more people will remember this film because it was seen
> by a wider audience.
>
> If anyone has other detailed information about the sequence and the
> films that influenced it to share on the newsgroup, it certainly would
> be welcome.
>
> Boaz
>
As far as the slit-scan portion of the trip, the genesis of the approach
lies with computer graphic guru John Whitney. There were some early
laserdiscs featuring his work (short animated films set to music) issued
by Pioneer in the '80's, though now they're hard to come by. If you've
ever seen Criterion;s 2001 disc, then you can see samples of his work
firsthand. There's fairly heavy documentation regarding Whitney's work
in the magnificent Christopher Finch book SPECIAL EFFECTS - CREATING
MOVIE MAGIC (out of print, but occasionally on eBay), in the chapters
featuring 2001 and its production history.
Keep an eye out for CINEFEX magazine about a year from now -- we'll have
a helluva retrospective on the making of 2001, with all sorts of never
before published interviews -- the article has been a quarter-century in
the making (off & on)!
Kevin / Cinefex
Earlyfilm
>The stargate sequence is awesome, even after all these years.
>The biatches can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none ]
>of it will equal the paint on the glass technique used - analog!
Whoa!
The technique used for this effect was slit-scan.
Yes, they used painted glass, reflections off foil, inked animation cells and a
lot of other stuff including pseudo-solarization.
The film process was analog, but the stepper motors (or were they selsyn?) used
to animate the slit-scan may well have been the first use of computers in a
feature motion picture film (other than as a stage prop)!
Earl.
feurio
>scan" machine. According to the Jerome Agel book on "2001," the device
>could produce two seemingly infinite planes of exposure while holding
>depth of field from a distance of fifteen feet to one and a half inches
>from the lens at an aperture of f/1.8 - with exposures of approximately
>one minute per frame. The book goes on to mention that much of the
>images used came from such abstract artwork as high contrast film
>negatives of op art paintings, archtitectural drawings, moire patterns,
>printed circuits, and electron-microscope photographs of molecular and
>crystal structures.
>
individually fitted for the specific theatre).
The trailer is actually called a slit-scan.
Feurio.
red...@pacbell.net
Johnson wrote:
>
> It wasn't paint, was it?
>
red...@pacbell.net
DVD player when I saw the picture quality. Different, but
ultimately...dare I say it?...better, I think. Quality is relative to
purpose, of course, but I think DVDs have the edge. Still, my Criteron
pressing of 2001 is still pretty awsome, much better than the DVD
version. No reason why the two formats cannot co-exist in my library.
It's funny how we form emotional attachements to a form of technology.
hels...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <387B43D2...@mindspring.com>,
> Johnson <gene...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't paint, was it?
> >
> > Doesive Two Shoes Diddle Dee Dee John wrote:
> > >
> > > The stargate sequence is awesome, even after all these years. The
> biatches
> > > can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none of it will equal
> the
> > > paint on the glass technique used - analog!
> >
> The stuff during the trip that looks like nebula formations was done
> with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
> old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
> photography.
>
> Agree about analog -- am still stubbornly clinging to laserdisc over DVD
> (compression artifacts really bother m
>
red...@pacbell.net
bonus feature several examples of early "underground" versions the the
slit-scan methods described in Agel's book. Not NEARLY in the same
league as the stargate sequence, as it turns out, but very amusing all
the same.
boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <85fvd9$gvo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hels...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <387B43D2...@mindspring.com>,
> > Johnson <gene...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > It wasn't paint, was it?
> > >
> > > Doesive Two Shoes Diddle Dee Dee John wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The stargate sequence is awesome, even after all these years. The
> > biatches
> > > > can spend million$ on the digital effects, but none of it will
> equal
> > the
> > > > paint on the glass technique used - analog!
> > >
> > The stuff during the trip that looks like nebula formations was done
> > with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
> > old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
> > photography.
>
> It's interesting that you should mention the ABC "Movie of the Week"
> openings, as they were done by Douglas Trumbull, who also did the
> Stargate sequence in "2001." Trumbull did it as a work-for-hire job
> after "2001" to keep money coming in so he could pursue bigger things
> later, which he eventually did (I believe he also did commercials and
> other promos, but I can't remember exactly which ones they were).
> (It's also interesting to note that the "Movie of the Week," a weekly
> series that showed original movies made specifically for television,
> began in the fall of 1971, and would feature a rather stunning little
> thriller called "Duel," directed by a very young Steven Spielberg.)
> Trumbull's previous experience to "2001" was on a film for the 1964
> World's Fair on space travel, which caught the attention of Kubrick,
> who hired the then 24 year old to be among the special effects team
> on "2001." Trumbull also directed "Silent Running," did the special
> effects for Spielberg's "Close Encounters" and did about half of the
> effects for the first "Star Trek" feature (if you've seen it you can
> probably guess which sequence he did).
>
> The process to do the Stargate sequence was a device called a "slit-
> scan" machine. According to the Jerome Agel book on "2001," the device
> could produce two seemingly infinite planes of exposure while holding
> depth of field from a distance of fifteen feet to one and a half inches
> from the lens at an aperture of f/1.8 - with exposures of approximately
> one minute per frame. The book goes on to mention that much of the
> images used came from such abstract artwork as high contrast film
> negatives of op art paintings, archtitectural drawings, moire patterns,
> printed circuits, and electron-microscope photographs of molecular and
> crystal structures.
>
> Actually, what was done in that sequence was a more expensive variation
> of many of the works done by other experimental filmmakers during
> the '60s, but more people will remember this film because it was seen
> by a wider audience.
>
> If anyone has other detailed information about the sequence and the
> films that influenced it to share on the newsgroup, it certainly would
> be welcome.
>
> Boaz
>
> And, if you have the chance, check out "The Honeymooners/I Only Have
> Eyes For You," a parody in four unnatural acts by Boaz8741 and
> Ichorwhip. It's still there!
>
> http://homestead.deja.com/user.boaz8741/files/honeymoon_intro.htm
>
red...@pacbell.net
mass-distributed film featuring the Showscan format (during the scenes
depicting "shared experiences"). Unfortunately, when Ms. Wood died, the
extra funding needed to film in Showscan was withdrawn.
Matti Haveri wrote:
>
> In article <85g2p2$jni$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Trumbull's previous experience to "2001" was on a film for the 1964
> > World's Fair on space travel, which caught the attention of Kubrick,
> > who hired the then 24 year old to be among the special effects team
> > on "2001." Trumbull also directed "Silent Running," did the special
> > effects for Spielberg's "Close Encounters" and did about half of the
> > effects for the first "Star Trek" feature (if you've seen it you can
> > probably guess which sequence he did).
>
> Didn't Trumbull also direct Brainstorm (which was Natalie Wood's last
> film)?
>
> --
> Matti Haveri <matti....@sjoki.uta.fi> <http://www.sjoki.uta.fi/~shmhav/>
Brian Siano
hels...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The stuff during the trip that looks like nebula formations was done
> with chemicals dropped on slides; the streaking stuff that looks like
> old ABC-TV movie logos was done with artwork photographed with streak
> photography.
>
The old ABC TV-Movie logos were done by Douglas Trumbull, using
the same slit-scan system. Believe It or Not.
--
Brian Siano: bsi...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
"The underground roads
Are, as the dead prefer them,
Always tortuous."
-- W.H. Auden
Andrew Foley
red...@pacbell.net wrote in message <387C3...@pacbell.net>...
>Yes, and that film [Brainstorm] was originally supposed to be the first
>mass-distributed film featuring the Showscan format (during the scenes
>depicting "shared experiences"). Unfortunately, when Ms. Wood died, the
>extra funding needed to film in Showscan was withdrawn.
It's not quite as simple as that. The bulk of the film had already been
shot when Natalie Wood died. Showscan is a 70mm process which photographs
and projects at 60 fps, much faster than the conventional 24 fps. Trumbull
created this process to create a more intense image; he discovered that once
you get above a frame-rate of 50 fps, the image stops looking photographic,
and starts to seem "real" - indeed, the opening of the original Showscan
demo features an actor pretending that the demo hasn't started yet, and that
the screen is just a transparent scrim he's standing behind (perhaps the
ultimate >trompe l'oieul<).
Showscan would have been too expensive to install in theatres, which are
traditionally resistant to new technologies which aren't compatible with
their existing equipmment. And the original plan for Brainstorm, to have
the "reality" sequences in 24 fps, and the "Brainstorm" sequences in
Showscan, would have been murderously difficult to implement; the compromise
finally reached (shooting "reality" in 1.85:1 35mm, and "Brainstorm"
sequences in 2.20:1 65mm, and printing the lot onto ordinary 70mm) was quite
sufficiently confusing for what little audience the film finally got.
Brian Siano
boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The process to do the Stargate sequence was a device called a "slit-
> scan" machine. According to the Jerome Agel book on "2001," the device
> could produce two seemingly infinite planes of exposure while holding
> depth of field from a distance of fifteen feet to one and a half inches
> from the lens at an aperture of f/1.8 - with exposures of approximately
> one minute per frame. The book goes on to mention that much of the
> images used came from such abstract artwork as high contrast film
> negatives of op art paintings, archtitectural drawings, moire patterns,
> printed circuits, and electron-microscope photographs of molecular and
> crystal structures.
>
> If anyone has other detailed information about the sequence and the
> films that influenced it to share on the newsgroup, it certainly would
> be welcome.
If I'm reading the lit correctly, the "slit-scan" machine involved
"scanning" the contents of an eight-foot-long transparency setup
onto individual frames of film.
The transparency setup was, basically, a backlit pane of glass where
the techies would place transparencies of the stuff Boaz described above,
along with light gels to add color in certain areas.
Only a thin area of this transparency setup was visible to the camera
at any time-- this "slit" would travel across the transparencies, and thus
the image would be "scanned" onto the frame in the same way a
Xerox machine "scans" a sheet of paper. Given the angle the camera
used, its keeping the slit in constant focus, and the like, and the
"streaking" artifacts of the process, the end result would be a seemingly
infinite plane, with the transparency image "stretched" out into the
distance.
One thing I've never been completely clear on was the way in which
the farthest end could stretch from each side of the frame. If the camera
came at the transparency at a perpendicular, then yeah, the fifteen
foot width of the transparency could fill the width. But the "slit" would
have to travel vertically, in order to provide the illusion of depth. And
the transparency'd have to be not only fifteen feetwide, but probably
fairly high as well, for the sequences to have any duration. (Unless
I'm undertestimating the degree to which the slit-scan process could
"stretch" the image, that is.)
But, if the camera came in at an angle _along_ the width, and
moved horizontally with each frame, then the farthest end of the
transparency would diminish with parallax, a la the title cards from the
Star Wars movies.
It's hard to illustrate this in an Email message, but here's what I'm
wondering.
Imagine you're a single-frame camera, and your shutter stays open for a
long duration. You have a backlit sign in front of you, fifteen feet wide,
one foot high-- let's say it reads "Eyes Wide Shut." Let's say that if
you're
ten feet away, the sign reaches both sids of your frame.
Your shutter opens, and the image is exposed. No problem, you're
just taking a picture of a sign.
Okay. Now, your shutter opens, and this time, the sign is exposed to
your view only through a narrow slit that moves either across or down the
sign. If you don't move, you'll just get that sign again. (Kinda like a
Xerox
machine.)
Here's where things get interesting. Now, when your shutter opens,
you move in towards the sign while it stays open. Now, your image is going
to
be a bunch of letters that streak towards the camera, kind of like the
titles
from the Chris Reeve "Superman" movies.
Now, if you combine the moving in and the slit-scan, you get an
interesting result. If the slit travels _downward_ across the sign, and
you're moving in, then the _top_ of the sign will appear to be very far
away-- you're seeing the full fifteen-foot width there. But the bottom of
the sign will appear very close-- you're probably looking at maybe
a single foot's width, or less. The result will look a lot like one-half of
one
frame of the Stargate sequence.
(If the slit travels horizontally, the results may be very strange, so
it doesn't seem likely that that's what Trumbull did.)
Well, that's just one frame. To give the impression that you're zooming
over that stretched sign, then you're going to have to move that sign a
little
for the next frame. So, you'll also need a sign that's got more stuff above,
so that you can get a few moments of virtual travel.
The problem with this is that it requires creating a _very_ large sign,
fifteen feet wide, and perhaps four or five feet high-- unless the scanning
can _really_ stretch the image, that is.. And if you look at the Stargate
slit-scan shots, you'll notice that at the end of each snippet, the
light seems to grow large and diffuse-- and the above method wouldn't
have those results, at least not unintentionally. And the slit being an
inch high and fifteen feet wide is a little unweildy, but it's not
impossible:
it's only moving a foot or two.
Okay. Same sign. Only this time, the camera's at one end, and it's
angled
so that the sign sort of looks like the Star Wars titles. The shutter opens,
the slit moves from the far end of the sign, to the close end of the sign,
and the camera keeps it continually in focus. That'll give us a similar
out-to-infinity image, and if the camera moves across the sign a tiny
bit with each frame, we'd have some nice, long Stargate shots.
But the far end of the sign wouldn't reach from side to side of our
frame:
in fact, it'd be narrower than the portion in our foreground.
So, one method gives us a nice, wide horizon, but the sequences are very
short-- but the other gives us long sequences, but a fakey horizon.
So as much as I like to think I understand the process, I'm sure I'm missing
something here. Little help?
red...@pacbell.net
interview given by Trumbell to Cinefex Magazine. I know all about the
differences between conventional 35mm (and 65mm) film technology and
those intrinsic to Showscan.
Regardless of whether or not you think that projecting Brainscan in two
formats woulkd have been difficult, it was nevertheless what Trumbell
claims to have been the plan.