r/todayilearned • u/Depressed_Cat_00 • 1d ago
TIL 2001: A Space Odyssey used a $750,000 rotating spacecraft set that was 38 feet across and spun at up to 3 mph. The camera rotated 360° with the set, making actors appear to walk up the walls and across the ceiling, and the cameras had to be specially modified to work upside down.
https://theasc.com/article/filming-2001-a-space-odyssey/•
u/Winstonsphobia 1d ago
In the article … “Kubrick consulted constantly with more than 30 technical experts and the results, with the possible exception of an “uptight” computer, are an accurate forecast of things to come.”
Turns out Kubrick wasn’t too far off with the uptight computers, too. I wonder what he’d think about today’s AI? He lived long enough to see the early stages of AI-type computer programs.
•
u/notfunat_parties 1d ago
Not sure how accurately this AI 'experiment' was reported upon, but it defintely has some 'Open the pod bay doors HAL' vibes to it.
•
u/Telescopeinthefuture 1d ago
This is fucking fascinating, thank you for sharing. Not sure about this particular experiment, but it seems to align with most other safety research I’ve come across.
•
•
•
u/SvedishFish 1d ago
We currently don't have anything close to a thinking AI. Kubrick would not be impressed by our modern search engine/chatbot hybrids.
•
u/leeman9224 1d ago
Hence the reason why there’s conspiracy theory saying moon landing was filmed by Kubrik
•
u/firelock_ny 1d ago
The faked moon landing was filmed by Kubrick. He was such a perfectionist he insisted on shooting it on location.
•
u/kwijibokwijibo 1d ago
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because it's in Kubrick's contract
•
u/violenthectarez 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's a funny gag but as a Kubrick fan it's an annoying one because he notoriously hated filming on location. He filmed an entire Vietnam War movie in London less than 30km from his house.
•
u/ramriot 1d ago
The scope of technical skills & steps in this production is almost too vast for any one or ten articles to encompass. I keep an eye out for new tid-bits & almost weekly I see them.
For example, to get the models in space effects shots looking as perfect as possible Kubrick avoided using optical overlay techniques because each duplication for compositing would decrease detail.
Instead multiple takes were made of each element at esch different exposure onto film. Some were then processed for selection & testing. Only when the final selection of each element move, exposure etc was perfect would the team go back to the specific prime undeveloped element & then add the other elements to that film live one at a time. Which is why every 70mm frame is a prime exposure at full resolution.
Another is the Infographic elements, computers were nowhere near good enough, CRT tubes nowhere near bright enough & post addition via Chroma key was just not viable to match the rest of the scene.
Instead loops of 35, 16 & 8mm film were made using hand animation techniques & projected via rear projection screens into the shot. Unfortunately the projectors for this were not small or able to be inverted & still work. For shots of small screens that required rotation they instead used mini-projectors rigged with custom illuminators & a set of prisms in a weighted mechanical rig that allowed the camera to stay upright while the screen rotated with the scenery & the output stayed upright relative to the scene.
•
u/beachedwhale1945 1d ago
I saw one in an Adam Savage-Andy Weir interview. Adam Savage has a reproduction 2001 helmet, and when you stick your head inside, your breathing sounds exactly like in the film. At some point, Kubrick must have stuck his own head inside the helmet, heard how the breathing sounded, and then decided his film had to have that particular sound, not something similar the foley artists could make in post.
•
u/Digit00l 1d ago
Why wouldn't cameras work upside down?
•
u/Vyncent2 1d ago
The Super-Panavision 70 cameras used to shoot 2001 could not operate properly upside down because gravity interfered with the mechanical movement of the heavy 65mm film inside the magazines
the 65mm film used for 2001 was exceptionally wide, thick, and heavy.
Panavision engineering needed to completely overhaul the internal mechanical design of the 65mm film magazines, switching them from a system reliant on gravity to a system driven purely by motorized control
Excellent question by the way
•
u/Digit00l 1d ago
Thanks, proud to be an idiot at times, generally try to learn
•
•
•
u/Ryoken0D 1d ago
It’s not uncommon for mechanical devices to only work properly one way.. generally a studio film camera would just have to deal with a little pan and tilt, but being upside down fully likely would cause issues with how the film gets pulled through the camera, additionally some parts of the camera might not be secured in such a way that it wouldn’t just fall off at extreme angles/upside down..
•
u/centosdude 1d ago
I wonder if humans will ever build such a structure in reality rather then in art. A spaceship with a centrifugal ring built into it or a ring shaped space station as depicted in the film. Seems like such a thing would be too expensive and difficult to engineer.
I was interested to learn from the article that the airlock in discovery was actually vertically built and flipped to appear horizontal to hide the wires on the actor. They did so many clever things with this production.
•
•
u/beachedwhale1945 1d ago
Probably not exactly like in the film: we’ve had experience with slip rings for electrical systems on spacecraft with rotating platforms (like Galileo), and they often develop problems over prolonged use. The larger they become, the more likely arcing and binding becomes, so it’s not likely viable for a while, though by the time we’re ready for such a mission several decades from now perhaps a solution will have presented itself.
But a spinning spacecraft in some form is intended for long-duration missions, such as a trip to Mars that will take several months one-way. We will want our astronauts to be able to work in the Martian gravity immediately after landing, so some form of artificial gravity is required. Until Solomon Epstein creates his drive, we can’t use thrust gravity, so rotational gravity is required.
One option I’ve seen proposed is to tether two spacecraft together, such as the manned spacecraft and the upper stage. After the final burn to intercept Mars, you could spin the spacecraft together around their common center of mass. There are some technical problems starting the spin and especially getting the spin going again on the way back, and you’d need significantly more delta-v to send a counterweight to Mars, but it’s certainly in the realm of possibility.
•
u/hamstervideo 1d ago
One option I’ve seen proposed is to tether two spacecraft together, such as the manned spacecraft and the upper stage. After the final burn to intercept Mars, you could spin the spacecraft together around their common center of mass. There are some technical problems starting the spin and especially getting the spin going again on the way back, and you’d need significantly more delta-v to send a counterweight to Mars, but it’s certainly in the realm of possibility.
I believe this is exactly how the ship in Project Hail Mary simulates gravity
•
u/Nayzo 1d ago
I took my dad to go see this during the 50th anniversary 70mm rerelease in 2018, and it was incredible. I'd seen it before on TV, and thought it was a bit boring. I firmly believe that this movie is best viewed in a theater with the big, booming music, to really appreciate how spectacular it is.
•
u/AnalFanatics 1d ago
And therein was “The Gravitron” amusement park ride brought into existence; and many hot-dogs and other “show food” was subsequently brought back up into existence as a result…
•
•
u/middaymoon 1d ago
You don't measure rotation in linear units such as miles per hour.
•
u/speaking_moose 1d ago
You would for a walking actor. Though the rotation would be a static value the speed by which the actor walks is dependant upon the radius
•
u/middaymoon 1d ago
Suppose that's fair. My comment was just an emotional reaction to a pet peeve of mine. Too much time reading crazy posts from flat earthers.
•
u/speaking_moose 1d ago
Thank you for the nice reply. I am right there with you, most responses are based on one phrase they read, don't understand, but claim intellectual superiority. That was not your post though. I knew what you meant, I was just clarifying.
•
•
u/No_Bluebird6873 1d ago
So he ripped of the true visionary, Christopher Nolan and his well known film Inception.
•
•
u/AutomaticGrape9263 1d ago
Cameras that could work upside down? Some kind of magic cameras??
•
u/Wezbob 1d ago edited 1d ago
Film in magazines/cameras was threaded through a series of rollers and sprocketed gears to maintain specific tension, and prevent overly tight turns that would ruin the film. The sprocketed gears were motorized and pulled the film, but it also went over rollers that weren't motorized. If you turned the camera upside down that film could just fall off the roller and the whole thing would eat itself pretty fast.
Source - was a AC who loaded film for a few years in the mid-90s.
•
u/AutomaticGrape9263 1d ago
You mean like every single camera before that involving the same effect? How amazing.
•
u/Wezbob 1d ago edited 1d ago
The lighter the film the less of a problem this is. Also varies from camera to camera. Panavision 65s shooting thick, heavy 65mm film needed to be modified so rollers were adapted to behave more like stabilizers (spring loaded tensioners) to keep it working inverted.
Sure the cameras used upside down before were likely chosen because they could. Kubrick chose to shoot Panavision 65, and at the time they couldn't. So he had to alter them.
You can turn a 1940s b&h 16mm upside down without an issue.
I've had an 1960s Arri get tilted barely more than sideways and unspool and crimp the film.
Not all cameras are the same...
•
u/rawspeghetti 1d ago
Kubrick was a genius for pioneering new ways of capturing film.
Famously for Barry Lyndon he wanted to shoot using natural candle light. Modern cameras weren't equipped to film in that setting so he borrowed specialized lenses from NASA. What we got was one of the most unique and beautifully shot movies of all time.