Discussion:
Slightly OT: '2001: A Space Odyssey' being shown in 70mm in a few theatres.
(too old to reply)
Peter Trei
2018-05-23 14:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.

Schedule here:

http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-23 16:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
There was a review on (I think) Slate a few days ago. The guy
who did the restoration is a *film*, as opposed to* video, fanatic
and the release he's releasing is a mostly-cleaned-up version of
the original film, with some ineradicable scratches here and
there, and those little blobbles in the upper left corner that
appear to signal the projectionist to switch projectors.

To each his own. I have a nice DVD of _2001_, including the
overture and intermission music (with blank screens), and
because I am old and tired and creaky I'll stay home and watch
the DVD.

_____
*And I do mean "opposed to," not "distinguished from".
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Jack Bohn
2018-05-24 13:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
There was a review on (I think) Slate a few days ago. The guy
who did the restoration is a *film*, as opposed to* video, fanatic
and the release he's releasing is a mostly-cleaned-up version of
the original film, with some ineradicable scratches here and
there, and those little blobbles in the upper left corner that
appear to signal the projectionist to switch projectors.
There's a George Lucas commentary on his THX-1138 where he says his composer wanted to make the soundtrack have the sound of distant thunder, as the film was made of vast expanses of white, which would show every scratch, and after a few runs, it would look like it was filme in the rain.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
To each his own. I have a nice DVD of _2001_, including the
overture and intermission music (with blank screens), and
because I am old and tired and creaky I'll stay home and watch
the DVD.
I'm not up on the drug laws in California, would they be able to add a certain commemorative item to the concession stand?
My nearest showing is in Columbus, Ohio, and I'm seriously considering seeing it on a big screen. But I probably won't.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
*And I do mean "opposed to," not "distinguished from".
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I don't want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows a person a whole picture at a time, while video gives only a single dot, therefore, one cannot grasp the totality, or something, as if persistence of vision were something that happened to other people.
--
-Jack
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-24 16:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
There was a review on (I think) Slate a few days ago. The guy
who did the restoration is a *film*, as opposed to* video, fanatic
and the release he's releasing is a mostly-cleaned-up version of
the original film, with some ineradicable scratches here and
there, and those little blobbles in the upper left corner that
appear to signal the projectionist to switch projectors.
There's a George Lucas commentary on his THX-1138 where he says his
composer wanted to make the soundtrack have the sound of distant
thunder, as the film was made of vast expanses of white, which would
show every scratch, and after a few runs, it would look like it was
filme in the rain.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
To each his own. I have a nice DVD of _2001_, including the
overture and intermission music (with blank screens), and
because I am old and tired and creaky I'll stay home and watch
the DVD.
I'm not up on the drug laws in California, would they be able to add a
certain commemorative item to the concession stand?
My nearest showing is in Columbus, Ohio, and I'm seriously considering
seeing it on a big screen. But I probably won't.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
*And I do mean "opposed to," not "distinguished from".
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I don't
want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows a person a
whole picture at a time, while video gives only a single dot, therefore,
one cannot grasp the totality, or something, as if persistence of vision
were something that happened to other people.
He's full of it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-05-31 01:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jack Bohn
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I don't
want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows a person a
whole picture at a time, while video gives only a single dot, therefore,
one cannot grasp the totality, or something, as if persistence of vision
were something that happened to other people.
He's full of it.
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?

If TV screens looked like a little dot moving around, so that we couldn't
actually see the picture... TV would never have become popular.

John Savard
Kevrob
2018-05-31 01:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jack Bohn
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I don't
want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows a person a
whole picture at a time, while video gives only a single dot, therefore,
one cannot grasp the totality, or something, as if persistence of vision
were something that happened to other people.
He's full of it.
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
Post by Quadibloc
If TV screens looked like a little dot moving around, so that we couldn't
actually see the picture... TV would never have become popular.
Kevin R
Greg Goss
2018-05-31 04:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
In the eighties, I had a computer that was designed around a really
good TV chip. Unfortunately, a 480i output sucked as a computer
screen. To get the max resolution out of the screen, I had an amber
monitor sitting next to the colour one. Even with different images in
adjacent NTSC lines, it was rock solid, because the phosphors took
about a half second to fade. When I was working on text stuff, I used
the amber monitor in 30 Hz mode. THIRTY Hz! But a persistent
phosphor prevented all flicker.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-31 07:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
In the eighties, I had a computer that was designed around a really
good TV chip. Unfortunately, a 480i output sucked as a computer
screen. To get the max resolution out of the screen, I had an amber
monitor sitting next to the colour one. Even with different images in
adjacent NTSC lines, it was rock solid, because the phosphors took
about a half second to fade. When I was working on text stuff, I used
the amber monitor in 30 Hz mode. THIRTY Hz! But a persistent
phosphor prevented all flicker.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
A photograph or mechanical stroboscope observation
of an older CRT - or waving your hand vigorously in
front of it - may show the image being drawn brightly
on the glowing glass, then quickly fading - that is
to say, there is a dark region, then a bright area,
then not so bright.

And then there's a screen like yours, where the screen
stays lit for a lot longer. But, not so good for
watching moving pictures; Napoleon Solo dodges a bullet,
but on the screen he is still standing there when it
arrives...

What I think of as screen burn is different - a permanent
impression, usually photo-negative, of what the screen
spends most time displaying. You'd see it on a cash ATM,
a cash register display, or the on-screen menu of the
word processing software that is what the computer runs
most of the time; when the screen is supposed to be blank,
it's haunted by the ghost of previous activity.
Peter Trei
2018-05-31 13:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
In the eighties, I had a computer that was designed around a really
good TV chip. Unfortunately, a 480i output sucked as a computer
screen. To get the max resolution out of the screen, I had an amber
monitor sitting next to the colour one. Even with different images in
adjacent NTSC lines, it was rock solid, because the phosphors took
about a half second to fade. When I was working on text stuff, I used
the amber monitor in 30 Hz mode. THIRTY Hz! But a persistent
phosphor prevented all flicker.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
A photograph or mechanical stroboscope observation
of an older CRT - or waving your hand vigorously in
front of it - may show the image being drawn brightly
on the glowing glass, then quickly fading - that is
to say, there is a dark region, then a bright area,
then not so bright.
And then there's a screen like yours, where the screen
stays lit for a lot longer. But, not so good for
watching moving pictures; Napoleon Solo dodges a bullet,
but on the screen he is still standing there when it
arrives...
What I think of as screen burn is different - a permanent
impression, usually photo-negative, of what the screen
spends most time displaying. You'd see it on a cash ATM,
a cash register display, or the on-screen menu of the
word processing software that is what the computer runs
most of the time; when the screen is supposed to be blank,
it's haunted by the ghost of previous activity.
Thus the invention of the "screen saver", which ran a moving
image (eg, flying toasters) on the screen when it was not in use.
Not really needed on LCD/LED screens.

Not useful for screens which had to display the same thing *all* the
time, but helpful.

Me? I would turn the monitor off.

pt
Greg Goss
2018-05-31 14:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Not useful for screens which had to display the same thing *all* the
time, but helpful.
Plasma screens (considered modern until 2012 or so) can get burn-in.
My bedroom TV is a large HD screen that I got for $10. I probably
spend more on power for it every three months than I did for the TV.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Peter Trei
2018-05-31 16:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[re screensavers]
Post by Peter Trei
Not useful for screens which had to display the same thing *all* the
time, but helpful.
Plasma screens (considered modern until 2012 or so) can get burn-in.
My bedroom TV is a large HD screen that I got for $10. I probably
spend more on power for it every three months than I did for the TV.
Which is the reason I specified "LCD/LED screens"

Back in the mid-80s we had some very early plasma displays in data center of
the bank where I worked - each could display four 80x24 terminals, in amber
only.

Showing the same network traffic status screens for months on end soon
burned them in.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-31 15:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Thus the invention of the "screen saver", which ran a moving
image (eg, flying toasters) on the screen when it was not in use.
Not really needed on LCD/LED screens.
For a while I worked for a professor whose office and labs (and
my office) were on the sixth floor of the Biochemistry building.
Just down the hall from my office was a small room with a printer
in it, and a computer connecting the printer to a local network.
It was a UNIX system, so no flying toasters; it played Lissajous
patterns all day. It was supposed to be kept locked, and
everyone who had the right to use it had a key.

But one day I went to get some printout, and found that the door
had been left unlocked and there was this, um, slightly weird
(even in the context of Berkeley) fellow sitting in front of the
monitor, earnestly observing the Lissajous patterns.

I gently asked whether he was a student, or any other kind of
member of the University community. He wasn't, so I did have the
right to ask him to leave. (Every entrance to the campus has
this little plaque in the sidewalk reading "Property of the
Regents of the University of California. Permission to pass over
may be revoked at any time.")

I forget now what-all I said to persuade him to leave. I finally
succeeded, and he wandered off, and I got my printout and went
back to my office and called the campus police. He LOOKED
harmless, but he was definiately not in the same reality as the
rest of us (even in the context of Berkeley), and I wanted the
cops to know about him.

I must have persuaded him to leave campus altogether, because
they never saw him.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-31 20:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Thus the invention of the "screen saver", which ran a moving
image (eg, flying toasters) on the screen when it was not in use.
Not really needed on LCD/LED screens.
For a while I worked for a professor whose office and labs (and
my office) were on the sixth floor of the Biochemistry building.
Just down the hall from my office was a small room with a printer
in it, and a computer connecting the printer to a local network.
It was a UNIX system, so no flying toasters; it played Lissajous
patterns all day. It was supposed to be kept locked, and
everyone who had the right to use it had a key.
But one day I went to get some printout, and found that the door
had been left unlocked and there was this, um, slightly weird
(even in the context of Berkeley) fellow sitting in front of the
monitor, earnestly observing the Lissajous patterns.
I gently asked whether he was a student, or any other kind of
member of the University community. He wasn't, so I did have the
right to ask him to leave. (Every entrance to the campus has
this little plaque in the sidewalk reading "Property of the
Regents of the University of California. Permission to pass over
may be revoked at any time.")
I forget now what-all I said to persuade him to leave. I finally
succeeded, and he wandered off, and I got my printout and went
back to my office and called the campus police. He LOOKED
harmless, but he was definiately not in the same reality as the
rest of us (even in the context of Berkeley), and I wanted the
cops to know about him.
I must have persuaded him to leave campus altogether, because
they never saw him.
Hmm...

Maybe I've said, I've got some collections of articles
from _Scientific American_ about nathematical recreation,
by Martin Gardner - reproduced with readers' letters -
wherein I learned about the "flexagon", a hexagonal
(or other) construct of paper with two outside faces
of triangle segments, and several more inside.
Fold it so, unfold it thus, and a new facet appears.
It's rather hypnotic.

And one reader wrote that he'd seen a friend get their
necktie caught in the thing, they kept folding it,
and seconds later they had been engulfed.

Someone else then wrote that their own flexagon
had emitted a strip of colored fabric, followed by
a confused, amnesiac, rather hungry tie-wearer...
and he really didn't want to go back in.

The "screen saver" may have a practical benefit
of hiding by default sensitive information on the
computer screen, as well as the entertainment of
swirly shapes or comical cartoons. As an art form,
government regulation of energy-saving screens
that switch off instead was the opposite of supportive.
Although I hear that determined artists still create
"video installations" that theoretically play for
500 years, though not many people are going to watch
all of that.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-31 23:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[dazed visitor to campus immersed in Lissajous screen-saver]
Post by Robert Carnegie
Maybe I've said, I've got some collections of articles
from _Scientific American_ about nathematical recreation,
by Martin Gardner - reproduced with readers' letters -
wherein I learned about the "flexagon", a hexagonal
(or other) construct of paper with two outside faces
of triangle segments, and several more inside.
Fold it so, unfold it thus, and a new facet appears.
It's rather hypnotic.
And one reader wrote that he'd seen a friend get their
necktie caught in the thing, they kept folding it,
and seconds later they had been engulfed.
Someone else then wrote that their own flexagon
had emitted a strip of colored fabric, followed by
a confused, amnesiac, rather hungry tie-wearer...
and he really didn't want to go back in.
Suuuuuure.
Post by Robert Carnegie
The "screen saver" may have a practical benefit
of hiding by default sensitive information on the
computer screen, as well as the entertainment of
swirly shapes or comical cartoons.
Oh, if the screen-saver hadn't been on (e.g., if someone had hit
Return to wake it up), the screen would have displayed merely

[Name of server]
login:

And if you didn't have an apppriate login and password, you'd get
no further.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Greg Goss
2018-05-31 14:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
In the eighties, I had a computer that was designed around a really
good TV chip. Unfortunately, a 480i output sucked as a computer
screen. To get the max resolution out of the screen, I had an amber
monitor sitting next to the colour one. Even with different images in
adjacent NTSC lines, it was rock solid, because the phosphors took
about a half second to fade. When I was working on text stuff, I used
the amber monitor in 30 Hz mode. THIRTY Hz! But a persistent
phosphor prevented all flicker.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
A photograph or mechanical stroboscope observation
of an older CRT - or waving your hand vigorously in
front of it - may show the image being drawn brightly
on the glowing glass, then quickly fading - that is
to say, there is a dark region, then a bright area,
then not so bright.
And then there's a screen like yours, where the screen
stays lit for a lot longer. But, not so good for
watching moving pictures; Napoleon Solo dodges a bullet,
but on the screen he is still standing there when it
arrives...
What I think of as screen burn is different - a permanent
impression, usually photo-negative, of what the screen
spends most time displaying. You'd see it on a cash ATM,
a cash register display, or the on-screen menu of the
word processing software that is what the computer runs
most of the time; when the screen is supposed to be blank,
it's haunted by the ghost of previous activity.
Yeah, screen burn is different from quadii's "persistence of
phosphor".

I came out of a near-decade of semi-employment and still have pretty
high debts. So luxuries wait. My bedroom TV is a 56 inch plasma that
I got for ten bucks. It's unreadable for 1 to 10 minutes till heat
stabilizes some circuit inside, then it's ok. Except that it has
three burns. A prominent CTV logo in the upper right, and two blobs
along the top. And the colours can't be made quite right.

But it's a hell of a lot sharper than the old 480i I had till 2009.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Peter Trei
2018-05-31 16:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Never mind persistence _of vision_, what about persistence _of phosphors_?
aka "screen burn?"
In the eighties, I had a computer that was designed around a really
good TV chip. Unfortunately, a 480i output sucked as a computer
screen. To get the max resolution out of the screen, I had an amber
monitor sitting next to the colour one. Even with different images in
adjacent NTSC lines, it was rock solid, because the phosphors took
about a half second to fade. When I was working on text stuff, I used
the amber monitor in 30 Hz mode. THIRTY Hz! But a persistent
phosphor prevented all flicker.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
A photograph or mechanical stroboscope observation
of an older CRT - or waving your hand vigorously in
front of it - may show the image being drawn brightly
on the glowing glass, then quickly fading - that is
to say, there is a dark region, then a bright area,
then not so bright.
And then there's a screen like yours, where the screen
stays lit for a lot longer. But, not so good for
watching moving pictures; Napoleon Solo dodges a bullet,
but on the screen he is still standing there when it
arrives...
What I think of as screen burn is different - a permanent
impression, usually photo-negative, of what the screen
spends most time displaying. You'd see it on a cash ATM,
a cash register display, or the on-screen menu of the
word processing software that is what the computer runs
most of the time; when the screen is supposed to be blank,
it's haunted by the ghost of previous activity.
Yeah, screen burn is different from quadii's "persistence of
phosphor".
If you took a very fast photo of a monochrome CRT, you'd find that most
the screen was fairly dim, but with one intense point where the electron
beam was exciting the phosphor at that moment, with the brightness rapidly
falling off in the parts of that line it had earlier traced (modulo what was
actually being shown, of course).

I've seen screens reproduced where the attacker trained a telescope with a
rapid photocell on the back wall of the room through a window; the time
variation of the brightness of the light on the wall was used to
reconstruct what was on the screen, even though the screen itself was not
visible.

pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-24 18:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Bohn
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I
don't want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows
a person a whole picture at a time, while video gives only a
single dot, therefore, one cannot grasp the totality, or
something, as if persistence of vision were something that
happened to other people.
No, that's not how video works. It's *not* the same as a film
projector, but that's not how video works. And unless the guy's a
100% genuine freak of nature, he's physically incapable of telling
the difference (on that score - there are some other differences you
can see if you know what to look for).

He's like the audiophiles who can hear the difference between plastic
and wooden volume knobs on their stereo (as long as they know it's
there, whether it actually *is* there or not). Loony.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-05-30 15:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jack Bohn
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys, but I
don't want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that film shows
a person a whole picture at a time, while video gives only a
single dot, therefore, one cannot grasp the totality, or
something, as if persistence of vision were something that
happened to other people.
No, that's not how video works. It's *not* the same as a film
projector, but that's not how video works. And unless the guy's a
100% genuine freak of nature, he's physically incapable of telling
the difference (on that score - there are some other differences you
can see if you know what to look for).
He's like the audiophiles who can hear the difference between plastic
and wooden volume knobs on their stereo (as long as they know it's
there, whether it actually *is* there or not). Loony.
Back when we were dealing with CRTs, it was possible to get some interesting jaggies when watching OTA broadcast TV by moving your eyes rapidly across the image when there were fast moving objects in view.
NTSC had a frame rate of only 29.97 fps. (refresh
rate was double that, with interlaced half fields).

With higher frame rate transmission (typically 60
fps), the technology is quite different, and
you can't really do that anymore (But see 'Soap Opera
Effect').

It's a bit like the guy over on rassf who claims to be
able to see flicker in CFLs - sure, he could do it
on old fashioned mains-ballasted long fluorescents,
which flickered at 60 Hz. But he asserts he can
detect it on 20 kHz CFLs, which is nonsense.

pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-30 16:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:18:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jack Bohn
Some film critic -- I think it was one of the thumbs guys,
but I don't want to accuse anyone by name -- explained that
film shows a person a whole picture at a time, while video
gives only a single dot, therefore, one cannot grasp the
totality, or something, as if persistence of vision were
something that happened to other people.
No, that's not how video works. It's *not* the same as a film
projector, but that's not how video works. And unless the guy's
a 100% genuine freak of nature, he's physically incapable of
telling the difference (on that score - there are some other
differences you can see if you know what to look for).
He's like the audiophiles who can hear the difference between
plastic and wooden volume knobs on their stereo (as long as
they know it's there, whether it actually *is* there or not).
Loony.
Back when we were dealing with CRTs, it was possible to get some
interesting jaggies when watching OTA broadcast TV by moving
your eyes rapidly across the image when there were fast moving
objects in view. NTSC had a frame rate of only 29.97 fps.
(refresh rate was double that, with interlaced half fields).
There are all manner of weirdness possible with CRTs, yeah.
With higher frame rate transmission (typically 60
fps), the technology is quite different, and
you can't really do that anymore (But see 'Soap Opera
Effect').
It's a bit like the guy over on rassf who claims to be
able to see flicker in CFLs - sure, he could do it
on old fashioned mains-ballasted long fluorescents,
which flickered at 60 Hz. But he asserts he can
detect it on 20 kHz CFLs, which is nonsense.
Though CFLs fail in odd ways sometimes, too. But we do not
experience the world in realtime, only in a virtual world as
interpreted by our brains. Or, as they say, we don't see with our
eyes, we see with our brains.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2018-05-24 03:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
When I went to L5-IV, MGM released a new 70 mm print just for us. We
were told that "quality control" had seen it, but our showing was only
the second time that print had been run.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-24 20:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
pt
I perhaps should have mentioned - or perhaps did? -
that digital "BBC Radio 4 Extra" is playing a reading
in 15 minute instalments, which I record but don't get
to hear because of my commute at or after 6pm and my
involuntary loss of consciousness some time before
midnight, often two hours before in fact. I did
recently hear Frank fixing the antenna (on _2001_,
not on my radio).
Christian Weisgerber
2018-05-29 22:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
Probably not even worth looking, I mean what's the chance that
there'll be a showing within a reasonable travel distance...

... Wait, Paris? I can do Paris!

... And I did Paris today.

Thank you!
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Peter Trei
2018-05-30 12:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Peter Trei
Its 50 years since 2001 was released, and MGM is circulating 5 new 70mm prints
to various theaters in the US and abroad.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
Probably not even worth looking, I mean what's the chance that
there'll be a showing within a reasonable travel distance...
... Wait, Paris? I can do Paris!
... And I did Paris today.
Thank you!
Glad to be of help. I have tickets in a Boston suburb for this coming Sunday.

pt
Loading...