Absolutely fantastic! The original 2001 LP cover artwork shows humans working on the unfinished part of the station. Including them might've made this even better! But I quibble. Thank you for this!
You can't work on a rotating structure like that, you'll be thrown off. If the "floor" of the station were to suddenly disappear, all the people, furniture, and other...stuff... inside would be hurled out into space. The only thing keeping people in the station from flying away is the floor against which they are pressed by the illusion of gravity afforded by the centrifugal/centripetal forces generated by the rotation. Even a tethered astronaut working on a spinning station would find him/herself unable to work plus their tools and materials would also fly off into space. The station would have to be stopped for construction and restarted when everything was fastened down and the people safely inside.
Some stunning shots which Kubrick simply wasn't able to do with 1960's technology.Would have been lovely to see the PanAm shuttle docking with all its computer displays
Agree. Also a fault with most space films now is gradual shadows. As there's no atmosphere to scatter light, shadows are either dark or non existent, I.e., no 'gradual shading'. The original film got this right. Check it out. But to me, with the music, this is still the most evocative scene of the whole film. 😁
I know it was just a movie but still when this was released in 1968 a lot of us believed that in 33 years ( 2001 ) we would have a space station like this or close to it. Here it is more than 54 years later and we have nothing like this. We could have though if we didn't engage in constant wars and nations cooperated with each other in building this.
Fascinating how what used to take thousands of dollars and weeks of work with a team of skilled filmmakers can now be done by any one guy for next to no cost
Outstanding ! The shot of the station silhouetted against the moon resembled a Celtic symbol to me. Very Creative. You outdid Kubrick ! Thanks for sharing. I subscribed- hope you're still actively making more.
*That* .....was highly impressive... This was still a space station under construction (the open metal frames ). Wonder though where the engineers hid the solar collectors . One slight hitch must be for the workers in the center of this construction ,where gravity is zero .
Would be interested to find out what modelling software and rendering programme was used for this. It’s a lot of work to construct each part, but relatively simple to render animation frames after that. Just takes a lot of time.
I'm sure you've studied the original footage for reference, and I'm sure that you discovered the station's direction of rotation reverses halfway through the sequence of shots it appears in.
Beautiful work, thanks. I would love to see an attempt at the docking sequence of the Boeing as it enters the space station. And possibly a recreation of the Ares moon shuttle flight and landing. I edited both those sequences to give me the whole Blue Danube episode, for when I don't have time to watch the the whole film.
Мне понравились сцены с на фоне Земли и Луны - такие были Кубрику не доступны. Но, сама станция у Кубрика выглядела реалистичнее... Всё-таки, в большинстве случаев съёмка реальных моделей выглядит лучше CGI, даже сейчас. Хорошо, когда обе технологии используются вместе.
This is a great rendition, was it done Blender? Original Move. Beginning of shot: space station in orbit, earth drifting, shot from six inch colored transparency on an animation stand, SS-5 rotating .0025 of an inch per frame (6mm) stars shot separately to match, then matte it to clear all elements in shots. Space Station model was six feet in diameter. - Taken from J Agel’s book.
@@KiyoshiHiHiHi I'd be very happy to, but I'm really not qualified. I can hear some wrong notes, but that's about all. You should ask your conductor for his opinon. If you play the 2 versions parallel to each other, you will notice a lot of differences.
The "Clarke-Kubrick" space station is a "typical" goverment project. More than five decades gone by and the blasted thing is still under construction. A space version of Boston's Big Dig. I wonder what the cost over-rins were.
I’d be great to see a CG version match the original, scene-by-scene. I still prefer the original over this CG version now 12 years old. (The scene of the space station passing in front of the Moon was very well conceived and executed.)
Im working on my own Space station 5 video in Lightwave 3d , excellent work the re-texturing , Im gonna skinny up the scaffolding . looks great .The music is a local symphony?
The CGI is very good, very sharp, high resolution and grain free BUT somehow it just doesn't look real. The original space station in 2001 DID look real. There's been speculation whether Kubrick would have used CGI, had it been available. The general view is that he wouldn't, because models just look more like the 'real thing', provided there's enough time and effort spent on the exercise.
Unfortunately they didn’t do a very good job of showing Space Station 5 in the high orbit it was in the original film, where it was several thousand miles in altitude. They used low orbit views from the international space station. Even now, we have not sent people that far from Earth since 1972, And the ISS views used here underscore the lack of Crewed space flight ability we still are limited by.
The ISS cost about 100 billion dollars. Apparently the next moon missions planned will cost about the same. Maybe for a similar cost or less, we could have Kubrick's station.
I think this is great. I've dabbled with photographing physical models and CG. One thing that CG eliminates is depth of field issues. Unless your model is very large and you pour enough light on it to melt your model, DOF will give away that it's a model.
Jim, I had the joy of shooting models for some low budget movies in the past . Had an ABS submarine model go limp and catch fire under 10K of wattage , scary. but you do need it for that depth of Field -Obviously thats why Star wars used held exposure/long shutter with their robotic arm.
@@cinewillp6391: I was just doing some hobby stuff, but I did melt the Galactica model I was using. I needed so much light on the ships, that the engine lights were washed out, so naturally, I used bigger ones. Too big. :-) This was before LEDs. It would have been great to have ILM's motion control and do it all in separate passes.
Only when you prove its yours by stating in the following order: your destination; your nationality; and your full name, sur name first, christian name and initial.
At 3:50 change of "point of view": we see the stars rotating and the space station ... stationary. This reminds me that we still do not know how inertia really works: how is this "rotating" Universe generating artificial gravity in the space station? What kind of influence is it really? Strangely enough the nearby Earth plays no role at all, only remote bodies do.
The ‘rotating galaxy’ isn’t providing any gravity for the space station. Tbh, the stars shouldn’t be visible when the sun is in view or lighting up anything: like at midday on Earth. The ‘gravity’ is caused by the first ion of the craft: centrifugal or centripetal force as it’s often termed. There would be zero gravity at the hub, increasing as one heads towards the outer ring. If the rotation wet to radios is designed for, one works experience 1 g inside the perimeter. Think I’ve explained that without getting tied up with the vocabulary.
Very very well made, although I think this serves also as an excellent testament to the beauty of the original, that it looked more realistic than anything CGI could've have done.
Ca vaudrait peut-être le coup de retourner toute les scènes de singes, d'engins spatiaux et de vues du système solaire de "2001" avec les moyens actuels d'images numériques, plan par plan avec la plus parfaite fidélité aux cadrages, images et décors d'origine, de conserver les scènes avec acteurs et d'intercaler les nouveaux plans dans un remontage qui mettrait "2001" au normes actuelles (ultra HD, etc.) sans le dénaturer. Lucas l'a fait en partie avec THX. Il faudrait l'accord de Christiane Kubrick. Cela pourrait être supervisé par un ami de Kubrick dans lequel on pourrait tous avoir confiance, par exemple Spielberg.
I already left a comment but need to mention this: You never show the back of the station. The Aries 1b had to come out of it somewhere. So, it had to be the rear. Isn't it time to show it with the Aries in it?
2:51 Well, there's a problem, straightaway. The space station is orbiting Earth the wrong way - it's going east to west, instead of the standard west/east orbits. Great CGI, all the same. Well done.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I can never get enough of the gracefulness of Space Station V. It's too bad we let earthly woes get in the way of going there.
I especially like the way you begin it, with a slow reveal from behind the shadow of the rim. It emphasises the massiveness of the vehicle.
Excellent. That station almost feels like an old friend whenever I see it in videos like this.
I wasn't going to give it a thumbs up, But I couldn't resist "The blue Danube." I have cherished this piece for nearly 50 years.
Put some skiffle music to it and I'll give it a thumbs up
The imagery is stunning!! No less!!!
Absolutely fantastic! The original 2001 LP cover artwork shows humans working on the unfinished part of the station. Including them might've made this even better! But I quibble. Thank you for this!
You can't work on a rotating structure like that, you'll be thrown off. If the "floor" of the station were to suddenly disappear, all the people, furniture, and other...stuff... inside would be hurled out into space. The only thing keeping people in the station from flying away is the floor against which they are pressed by the illusion of gravity afforded by the centrifugal/centripetal forces generated by the rotation. Even a tethered astronaut working on a spinning station would find him/herself unable to work plus their tools and materials would also fly off into space. The station would have to be stopped for construction and restarted when everything was fastened down and the people safely inside.
You Are Now Cleared Through Voice-Print Identification.
Thank you.
Some stunning shots which Kubrick simply wasn't able to do with 1960's technology.Would have been lovely to see the PanAm shuttle docking with all its computer displays
it was better in the 60s
Every time I see a CG recreation, it reminds me how flatly-lit the original looks.
Fantastica questa scena con questa musica che si diffonde in ogni minimo spazio del filmato...
great work - beautiful shots - gorgeous!
CGI has got fine colours and good details... but it's to cartoon like. Kubrick's model is a little more realistic.
It’s not that CGI can’t do photorealistic things, it just takes more time to achieve.
In due time we could have a hyper realistic model.
@@CarlosOsuna1970 it’s actually quite easy if you use proper textures and lighting
Agree. Also a fault with most space films now is gradual shadows. As there's no atmosphere to scatter light, shadows are either dark or non existent, I.e., no 'gradual shading'. The original film got this right. Check it out.
But to me, with the music, this is still the most evocative scene of the whole film. 😁
This was made in 1967, just incredible. Stanley Kubrick and company were beyond incredible in there skills in producing this film.
You're so Very correct Kevin. Best Wishes. Sincerely, Tom
I was so impressed seeing this in the theater when it was first released. I really like the way they showed the station still under construction.
I know it was just a movie but still when this was released in 1968 a lot of us believed that in 33 years ( 2001 ) we would have a space station like this or close to it. Here it is more than 54 years later and we have nothing like this. We could have though if we didn't engage in constant wars and nations cooperated with each other in building this.
Fascinating how what used to take thousands of dollars and weeks of work with a team of skilled filmmakers can now be done by any one guy for next to no cost
- but some considerable effort and skill...
@@tedf1471 The team I'm comparing to was also comprised of highly-skilled people putting in significant effort.
Maybe minimal cost in dollars....but heaps of time and talent!
Congratulations for your superb recreation work!
Yeh, it will never look as good as the models.
Great CGI work, even better than the previous one. The night-side shots are very nice, too. Must have been a lot of work to put in so much detail.
Amazing, great work!
Kubrick would go absolutely bananas with this. Magnificent!!!
Absolutely Fantastic Work Of The Space Station With The Backdrop Of Earth Behind It!😮🛰🌌🌎🌕🌑🇺🇲
I’m off work I’m gonna close the curtains make a couple of big fat joints and watch 2001 and listen to it’s utter delights , thanks
Beautiful. Thank you.
I like the video. Beautiful. Felt like I was on a joyride around the planet.
"Around them the Starry Wheels of their Giant Sons
Revolve"
-William Blake
Lindo demais! Não me canso de ver e rever!
Very fine work.
FANTASTIC!!!!!!
This is magnificent!
Many fabulous moments in this. I think the unfinished framework should look a bit skinnier, and it would give the rest of the station more mass.
Outstanding !
The shot of the station silhouetted against the moon resembled a Celtic symbol to me. Very Creative. You outdid Kubrick !
Thanks for sharing.
I subscribed- hope you're still actively making more.
He most certainly did not out-do Stanley.
@@nexpro6985 "... didn't out do Stanley"
Please put a link here to share your outstanding creative achievement.
If any.
its so beautiful and very relaxing and its feels like 👍 your there too
dude, this is fu&%in AMAZING!!! Now we just need the live action shots...any ideas for who could play Heywood Floyd?
*That* .....was highly impressive... This was still a space station under construction (the open metal frames ).
Wonder though where the engineers hid the solar collectors .
One slight hitch must be for the workers in the center of this construction ,where gravity is zero .
Kubrick would have liked this rendering. Well done!
Colorful and pretty.
Agreed to a point. The still shots are missing.
Would be interested to find out what modelling software and rendering programme was used for this. It’s a lot of work to construct each part, but relatively simple to render animation frames after that. Just takes a lot of time.
Perfect ! 😎
beautiful!
I'm sure you've studied the original footage for reference, and I'm sure that you discovered the station's direction of rotation reverses halfway through the sequence of shots it appears in.
This work would be perfect if it has 4K full resolution (3840x2160 pixels)
Superb. Absolutely superb!
Beautiful work, thanks.
I would love to see an attempt at the docking sequence of the Boeing as it enters the space station. And possibly a recreation of the Ares moon shuttle flight and landing. I edited both those sequences to give me the whole Blue Danube episode, for when I don't have time to watch the the whole film.
Wow, beautiful!
It’s 2021 now..wonder what it would look like after 20 years?
Wonderful work. Congratulation!
Awesome job ! ...
Whirrrr. “Here you are, sir, main level.”
wow hey, awsome stuff!
Мне понравились сцены с на фоне Земли и Луны - такие были Кубрику не доступны. Но, сама станция у Кубрика выглядела реалистичнее... Всё-таки, в большинстве случаев съёмка реальных моделей выглядит лучше CGI, даже сейчас. Хорошо, когда обе технологии используются вместе.
EXCELLENT !!!
Great, but the recording of the blue Danube, not good
Correct Record of Blue Danube:
Deutsche Gramophone, The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, Herbert von Karajan
This is a great rendition, was it done Blender?
Original Move. Beginning of shot: space station in orbit, earth drifting, shot from six inch colored transparency on an animation stand, SS-5 rotating .0025 of an inch per frame (6mm) stars shot separately to match, then matte it to clear all elements in shots. Space Station model was six feet in diameter.
- Taken from J Agel’s book.
Will Mr. Travers please come to the MET office?
There is some sound editing that just does not seem ok. The graphics and animations are great.
Bad note in the brass section at 00:34 . Timing in percussion section was often a bit off. Berlin Philharmonic did it very much better.
こんなアマチュアオケのライブ録音をベルリンフィルと比較して頂けるとはとても嬉しいです。ありがとうございます。この演奏で私はコントラバスを弾いています。
@@KiyoshiHiHiHi I'd be very happy to, but I'm really not qualified. I can hear some wrong notes, but that's about all. You should ask your conductor for his opinon. If you play the 2 versions parallel to each other, you will notice a lot of differences.
@@martinstent5339 さん
アマチュアのオケって余程上手くないと、上手い下手を論じるレベルでないので、「下手」とも言って貰えないんですよ。
！すばらしい！凄い！綺麗！ＨＩ－ＬＥＶＥＬ！
The "Clarke-Kubrick" space station is a "typical" goverment project. More than five decades gone by and the blasted thing is still under construction. A space
version of Boston's Big Dig. I wonder what the cost over-rins were.
The official in-universe name of the space station is "Space Station V," so there are 4 others floating around up there, no doubt complete. 😊
Очень интересно! Спасибо!
This would make a great screen saver.
Why all the lens flares?
Fabulous work. Kudos
hermoso trabajo felicidades!
isn't the blue Danube supposed to orbit the moon, not earth?
One of the ( worlds ) best films and in history
I’d be great to see a CG version match the original, scene-by-scene. I still prefer the original over this CG version now 12 years old. (The scene of the space station passing in front of the Moon was very well conceived and executed.)
どうもありがとうございました、これはそんなに優れています！
〜ジョー
Great visuals, let down by the poor quality of the recording.
Magnifico
great job!!!!
Bravo!
Kubrick would be proud.
Im working on my own Space station 5 video in Lightwave 3d , excellent work the re-texturing , Im gonna skinny up the scaffolding . looks great .The music is a local symphony?
Thank you. And yes, it's an amateur orchestra. I'm playing Kontrabass in this peformance.
Would like to see this when you can share it.
The CGI is very good, very sharp, high resolution and grain free BUT somehow it just doesn't look real. The original space station in 2001 DID look real. There's been speculation whether Kubrick would have used CGI, had it been available. The general view is that he wouldn't, because models just look more like the 'real thing', provided there's enough time and effort spent on the exercise.
Unfortunately they didn’t do a very good job of showing Space Station 5 in the high orbit it was in the original film, where it was several thousand miles in altitude. They used low orbit views from the international space station. Even now, we have not sent people that far from Earth since 1972,
And the ISS views used here underscore the lack of Crewed space flight ability we still are limited by.
Is the baby conducting the orchestra? It would explain alot...
저 장엄한 우주의 화폭에 배경음악으로 클래식오케스트라가 연주하는 슈트라우스의 왈츠라니 ..
이후 스타워즈 OST가 관현악사운드인게 우연일까? 2001스페이스 오디세이는 이후 모든 SF의 전범이 되었다.
Have you manipulated the sound file or is it the orchestra? It sounds odd.
Had to change it for "copyright" or get blocked by RUclips.
Nice Work! What software did you use?
That scene with the station passing in front of the Moon was HILARIOUS!
Keep it up!
there was no software in 1967
I've to see this version in I Mac or 3 d
このステーション作るためには、日本の国家予算全投入でも厳しと思うが、むちゃくちゃ好きです。
The ISS cost about 100 billion dollars. Apparently the next moon missions planned will cost about the same.
Maybe for a similar cost or less, we could have Kubrick's station.
could of picked a better 'Danube' score (can even hear a kid cry) , music is 50% of any presentation..kudos for the animation
tompo010101 ... you can only use royalty free music. Or pay for the original Karajan version...
Здравствуйте ,можно узнать что за аппарат от Oдисея , что за станция, он на Землю не упадет? Спасибо.
Haven't they finished building that thing yet?
Nope. It all went to the space shuttle then JWST.
will i live long enough to see this thing a float and orbit in reallife
I think this is great. I've dabbled with photographing physical models and CG. One thing that CG eliminates is depth of field issues. Unless your model is very large and you pour enough light on it to melt your model, DOF will give away that it's a model.
Jim, I had the joy of shooting models for some low budget movies in the past . Had an ABS submarine model go limp and catch fire under 10K of wattage , scary. but you do need it for that depth of Field -Obviously thats why Star wars used held exposure/long shutter with their robotic arm.
@@cinewillp6391: I was just doing some hobby stuff, but I did melt the Galactica model I was using. I needed so much light on the ships, that the engine lights were washed out, so naturally, I used bigger ones. Too big. :-) This was before LEDs. It would have been great to have ILM's motion control and do it all in separate passes.
You try to live on a station like that youd get dizzy
Awesomeness
Very nice!... Though I wanted to see the blue lady's Kashmir sweater found in the restaurant!
Only when you prove its yours by stating in the following order: your destination; your nationality; and your full name, sur name first, christian name and initial.
@@robbhahn8897 All right: A Burial Plot in the Cemetery, Citizen of the Earth, Big Sur, Thomas Merton, LGBTQ. There, now where's the sweater?
At 3:50 change of "point of view": we see the stars rotating and the space station ... stationary. This reminds me that we still do not know how inertia really works: how is this "rotating" Universe generating artificial gravity in the space station? What kind of influence is it really? Strangely enough the nearby Earth plays no role at all, only remote bodies do.
The ‘rotating galaxy’ isn’t providing any gravity for the space station. Tbh, the stars shouldn’t be visible when the sun is in view or lighting up anything: like at midday on Earth.
The ‘gravity’ is caused by the first ion of the craft: centrifugal or centripetal force as it’s often termed.
There would be zero gravity at the hub, increasing as one heads towards the outer ring. If the rotation wet to radios is designed for, one works experience 1 g inside the perimeter.
Think I’ve explained that without getting tied up with the vocabulary.
Very very well made, although I think this serves also as an excellent testament to the beauty of the original, that it looked more realistic than anything CGI could've have done.
Loved it! What CGI software do youuse?
that orchestra is terrible! out of tune at 0:31
The tuning doesn't get any better.
Ouch, yes!
It was intentionally I guess...
No worries, because the video is perfect!
Like the average person would notice
Ca vaudrait peut-être le coup de retourner toute les scènes de singes, d'engins spatiaux et de vues du système solaire de "2001" avec les moyens actuels d'images numériques, plan par plan avec la plus parfaite fidélité aux cadrages, images et décors d'origine, de conserver les scènes avec acteurs et d'intercaler les nouveaux plans dans un remontage qui mettrait "2001" au normes actuelles (ultra HD, etc.) sans le dénaturer.
Lucas l'a fait en partie avec THX. Il faudrait l'accord de Christiane Kubrick. Cela pourrait être supervisé par un ami de Kubrick dans lequel on pourrait tous avoir confiance, par exemple Spielberg.
OH❗️NICE 👍
oh this just great love it very good have to say it looks better than the film although the film is great thank❤
2001? We don't even have this in 2023
I already left a comment but need to mention this: You never show the back of the station. The Aries 1b had to come out of it somewhere. So, it had to be the rear. Isn't it time to show it with the Aries in it?
blue-lighted-dock:front-side, red-lighted-dock:rear-side, may be. From where the Aries comes out is a mystery as you said. thank you. ありがとうございます。
2:51 Well, there's a problem, straightaway. The space station is orbiting Earth the wrong way - it's going east to west, instead of the standard west/east orbits.
Great CGI, all the same. Well done.
north down,south up thank you. (^ ^;
@@KiyoshiHiHiHi Hard to see the details, but, yes, I see it now.
Excellent!...next project for you?.....PanAm Shuttle!
We need to be careful with the satellite in space right now
5x5??