Davnes007
This user is offline.
The one who keeps all of your secrets!pittrek said:
hairy_hen said:
The audio on the Bluray is exactly the same mix as the DVD version, aside from a few tweaks here and there.
Well ... doesn't it mean that it's NOT exactly the same mix ?
I was gonna say exactly the same thing...but I didn't want to get my twig-n-berries cut off. ;)
Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back


If you want Nice....go to France.
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightIt's the same mix, they just corrected a couple errors in effects placement, IIRC. There was a shot where the X-wings are diving and the music dropped out, which has been corrected. I think the swapped channels are still there though, and the levels and everything are all the same. So, technically, it's not the same mix, but in terms of the discussion with regards to correcting the mix it hasn't been fixed, overall. The only way to fix it would be to re-do it all over again. Something like a missing music channel for one moment you can just add that back in, but it's a whole new thing to actually go back to the mix itself and re-balance the whole film. As far as Lucas and the mixers themselves are concerned, that's how the films are supposed to sound.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyThey weren't errors, they were deliberate creative decisions. :p
hairy_hen
This user is offline.
Reginald ScumIn this case, 'not exactly the same' is just semantics. Sure, there are a couple changes in sound effects, a missing music cue added back, some reversed stuff is now unswapped, and the third rear channel is discrete instead of matrixed; but these things don't really amount to much in the way of actual significance. Like zombie said, the entire sound and 'feel' of the mix is vastly different than anything that was made in 1977, and even though the Bluray corrects some of the most egregious technical oversights, this is comparable (if you'll forgive the overdramatic example) to putting a bandaid on a major stab wound. To have a version that sounds right, the only choices are either to do it over again, maintaining similarity to the original in all aspects; or better yet to simply use the real thing and be done with it.
In the course of my audio studies, it has become increasingly clear to me that changes in sound have to be made carefully and with great attention to detail, because the only way to undo them is to go back to the source and start over. Things like equalization and dynamic range compression are impossible to reverse once they've been applied, because they fundamentally alter the tonal qualities of the recording. My professors have emphatically emphasized on many occasions that it is far better to get the sources right from the start and have good quality material to work with, rather than using messed up tracks and trying to 'fix it in the mix' afterwards. The official SW mix has some of the worst-sounding EQ that I've ever heard—together with the screwed up balance between elements, it has the effect of emphasizing distorted and boxy sounds to the exclusion of all else. Even the most talented audio engineer in the world would have a tough time salvaging it into anything remotely listenable.
Fortunately, the original mixes have all been archived at extremely high quality, so the only thing stopping them from being heard is the resistance from those in charge.
Baronlando
This user is offline.
Padawan LearnerUnfortunately this always feels like these guys need to justify the existence and importance of their gig. Not that they don't care or aren't talented, but man. Last year when they did the press for the bluray, at home theater forum, Matthew Wood went on about how harsh and hissy the 77 movie sounded, it was almost verbatim the way they talked about SUPERMAN years earlier, basically if a modern audience heard the old mix your ears would melt, and TERMINATOR is about to come out with the same issue.
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!You'd think somebody over at Dolby would call B.S. on such statements. ;)
thecolorsblend
This user is offline.
give me the unaltered OT and PTLet's run with the premise though. A mono soundmix was included with the special edition Jaws DVD. There is a slightly harsh quality to the soundmix and I swear to hear some Rice Krispies in the opening credits. But there's an authenticity to it that I don't think is replicated in the ultra deluxe badass remix. It's a good mix, don't get me wrong, but the mono version captures my attention everytime. I realize people have to work for a living but -- apart from conflicting with other SE changes -- what do these sound designers think is so horrible about including the original soundtrack? Surely if you're creating a superior product, you needn't fear the comparison, right Mr. Wood?Baronlando said:
Unfortunately this always feels like these guys need to justify the existence and importance of their gig. Not that they don't care or aren't talented, but man. Last year when they did the press for the bluray, at home theater forum, Matthew Wood went on about how harsh and hissy the 77 movie sounded, it was almost verbatim the way they talked about SUPERMAN years earlier, basically if a modern audience heard the old mix your ears would melt, and TERMINATOR is about to come out with the same issue.
All I really want is each film as it was originally seen and heard in theaters; no fixes, corrections, "improvements" or modifications necessary.
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightI think the thinking is that they would rather devote that disc space to something, in their minds, more worthwhile. Because it is true, the more you add, the lesser the quality will be. They may also think that people will buy the BD, take a look at the other options, and think "the hell, I paid to have this new blu-ray and it sounds like crap!" That's the problem with technology when it becomes mainstream. Remember "full screen" DVDs? Jesus Christ. The sad fact is that your average viewer watches Blu-ray but your average viewer isn't really informed enough; on top of it, they have just become accustomed to noisless, multi-channel mixes, and anything less is junk to them. The people in the board room making these decisions are, without hyperbole, probably many such people. They are just businessmen (and women) after all, not film fans.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
Trooperman
This user is offline.
Jedi Knightthecolorsblend said:
Let's run with the premise though. A mono soundmix was included with the special edition Jaws DVD. There is a slightly harsh quality to the soundmix and I swear to hear some Rice Krispies in the opening credits. But there's an authenticity to it that I don't think is replicated in the ultra deluxe badass remix. It's a good mix, don't get me wrong, but the mono version captures my attention everytime. I realize people have to work for a living but -- apart from conflicting with other SE changes -- what do these sound designers think is so horrible about including the original soundtrack? Surely if you're creating a superior product, you needn't fear the comparison, right Mr. Wood?Baronlando said:
Unfortunately this always feels like these guys need to justify the existence and importance of their gig. Not that they don't care or aren't talented, but man. Last year when they did the press for the bluray, at home theater forum, Matthew Wood went on about how harsh and hissy the 77 movie sounded, it was almost verbatim the way they talked about SUPERMAN years earlier, basically if a modern audience heard the old mix your ears would melt, and TERMINATOR is about to come out with the same issue.
The difference is that in the magnetic soundtrack era, every mix was a performance. People like Ben Burtt and other techs would sit at the mixing board and rehearse a scene over and over until they got everything right, and then they would do a take. This would be done for sound effects repeatedly, and also music and dialogue. There there would be more rehearsals when they mixed everything together, then they would do a take and correct anything that didn't seem to work, then do another take, etc.
That's not the case anymore when they do modern surround remixes. That authenticity you refer to may be just the excitement and energy created by having a track recorded live. That is my theory, anyway!

skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightNever mind the status of a blu ray release of the oot, what is the current actual condition of the negative itself. And how long before it is gone forever and all they have is the 2004 master stuck at regular HD 1080P resolution.
I mean supposedly the sep masters were incorrectly done so you cannot make a new negative from them, and falling back on the IP's as a source is possible for blu ray release, but not to restore the film for a true restoration they must return to the original camera negative.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Baronlando
This user is offline.
Padawan LearnerThe cyan layer being out of sync is fixable now I believe. The thing is, they haven't even really tried to do anything since 1996, (or 2003, if you want to be way more generous than me) which is completely the Stone Age now when it comes to restoration. The blu of CABARET, without fanfare, is made only from an interpositive that was all scratched for one reel, but looks great.
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightSo 1996 when they altered and did not restore the films. One year after episode 7 comes out that will have been 20 years without a restoration of the real oot. I mean 2013 is the 30th anniversary for Return of the Jedi, time is becoming precious.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Tyrphanax
This user is offline.
Just a simple man.Fantasy Answer:
Disney should find OT.com and hire all the people here who have worked on restoring the various parts of the film, who really know every frame of the film and every second of the audio better than anybody else and who have worked on the film as a labour of love for years, give them the original assets from Lucasfilm and have them create (or at least use their superior knowledge of the minutiae of the film to consult on) the definitive versions of the OOT.
They should then have someone document all the changes between the versions of the films, the condition of the film before restoration, the errors and defects and uncorrected problems with the films over the years, and what processes needed to be done in order to restore the films to the way they looked originally, turn that into a nice, long documentary special feature and maybe a coffee table book so that the average person could understand exactly why all of this was important and needed to be done.
Then they could make a big deal about how these fans were so dedicated to the films that they spent years working on trying to restore them and talk about film appreciation and the importance of saving our cinematic history and all that good stuff and release it all as a big celebration of how awesome Star Wars fans are and how important film preservation is and all that good stuff.
That would be pretty cool...
"Never Sale Your Laserdiscs! Always keep something at hand for compassion!"
Keep Circulating The Tapes
END OF LINE
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightI would be willing to buy a set of blu rays of the oot, even if it was a bare bones scan of the IP with the dnr knobs set to zero. But would be willing to spend a good amount more if it was a restoration undertaken by RAH.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
CatBus
This user is offline.
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal.If they released the OOT as a non-half-assed Blu-ray set, the sheer weight of all those VHS tapes hitting the landfill at once would knock the Earth off its axis. So really they're doing us all a favor.
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightCatBus said:
If they released the OOT as a non-half-assed Blu-ray set, the sheer weight of all those VHS tapes hitting the landfill at once would knock the Earth off its axis. So really they're doing us all a favor.
That is funny considering Lucas said the original vhs of the originals did not sell well at all and he compared it to E.T.'s sales.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!Video sales and rentals figures were printed in a lot of magazines back in the day. IIRC, the original films did pretty darn well in both charts.
E.T. was in high demand the first time it hit home video after the 1985(?) theatrical reissue.
If the OT didn't sell well, why were they constantly in print, and reissued several times?
CatBus
This user is offline.
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal.skyjedi2005 said:
with the dnr knobs set to zero
That brings up an important question to me. I already know Disney DNR's the living hell out of their film-based animated features, but can anyone tell me how they treat film-based live-action stuff?
AntcuFaalb
This user is offline.
The Interweb is a Series of TubesCatBus said:
skyjedi2005 said:
with the dnr knobs set to zero
That brings up an important question to me. I already know Disney DNR's the living hell out of their film-based animated features, but can anyone tell me how they treat film-based live-action stuff?
Disney has some great releases, but their entire Blu-ray catalog is very hit-or-miss.
Check out: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Petes-Dragon-Blu-ray/40517/
Unfortunately, there's heavy filtering. With that being said, the source was excellent enough to somewhat survive the DNR bloodbath.
"And I'm shocked at you Moth3r for being off-topic, Because if people off-topic you say "stay on-topic, STAY on-topic, STAY ON-TOPIC", and we are not in the Off topic section of OT.com, now are we?" –pat man
"Look again." –Moth3r
danny_boy
This user is offline.
skyjedi2005 said:
Never mind the status of a blu ray release of the oot, what is the current actual condition of the negative itself. And how long before it is gone forever and all they have is the 2004 master stuck at regular HD 1080P resolution.
I mean supposedly the sep masters were incorrectly done so you cannot make a new negative from them, and falling back on the IP's as a source is possible for blu ray release, but not to restore the film for a true restoration they must return to the original camera negative.
A lot of the original negative of Star Wars was not technically "original negative" anyway!
Star War's 1977 edit is saturated with duplicate negatives (wipes /dissolves/opticals)
In order to maintain a visual qualititive consistency Lucas and co intentionally used some 2nd generation internegatives regarding some of the live actions shots(which featured no special effects) so as to make them seamless when they were adjacent to optical composite negative.
My opinion is that when the original negative was washed back in 1995 it was re-assembled without the insertion of any new material.
This cleaned negative was then used to produce a 1st generation interpositive of high quality (which probably explains where they got that intro for the GOUT from)
This interpositive was then converted into a new internegative(again of good quality---and capable of producing upto 1000-2000 theatrical prints)
It was this internegative that was then disassembled.
New CGI material(Jabba /Mos eisley/Death Star battle ect) was then scanned out to film(in negative form and presumably in anamorphic)to create "new negs"
These "new" negs were then attached to the relevant points/parts of this diassembled internegative which was subsequently reassembled.
This is the special edition negative.
It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.
The original negative has been left untouched(although cleaned up substantially)
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
Jaitea
This user is offline.
danny_boy said:
.........It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.
As far as I understand Lowry were handed the 2k files of the 97SE versions, which they were expected to clean up.
J
AntcuFaalb
This user is offline.
The Interweb is a Series of TubesJaitea said:
danny_boy said:
.........It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.
As far as I understand Lowry were handed the 2k files of the 97SE versions, which they were expected to clean up.
J
... and they interpreted "clean up" as destroy.
"And I'm shocked at you Moth3r for being off-topic, Because if people off-topic you say "stay on-topic, STAY on-topic, STAY ON-TOPIC", and we are not in the Off topic section of OT.com, now are we?" –pat man
"Look again." –Moth3r
danny_boy
This user is offline.
Jaitea said:
danny_boy said:
.........It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.
As far as I understand Lowry were handed the 2k files of the 97SE versions, which they were expected to clean up.
J
Yes that is correct.
Rick Dean of Lucasfilm/THX scanned the special edition negative at 1080 X 1920 resolution.
Seeing as that negative consisted of 3rd generation material----a 1080 X 1920 scan would capture all the information on that negative.
On edit:
Interestingly.....Star Wars's negative was shot in anamorphic.
The ratio of a 35mm anamorphic frame is actually 4:3 or 12:9.
Seeing as 1920 X 1080 resolution corresponds to a 16:9 frame
then 12:9 would correspond to 1440 X 1080
So an anamorphic frame scanned at 1920 X 1080 would leave unused 240 vertical pixels on either side of the 12(1440):9(1080) 35mm frame.
Once this is scanned into the computer this 1080 X 1440 image is stretched(scaled) horizontally to 1080 X 2500 to achieve the original scope 21:9 dimension.
CGI work/digital clean up is then done at this resolution.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
Baronlando
This user is offline.
Padawan Learnerdanny_boy said
My opinion is that when the original negative was washed back in 1995 it was re-assembled without the insertion of any new material
I hope so, but is that based on any specific info?
danny_boy
This user is offline.
Baronlando said:
danny_boy said
My opinion is that when the original negative was washed back in 1995 it was re-assembled without the insertion of any new material
I hope so, but is that based on any specific info?
Unfortunately only my very literal interpretation of this statement!
That meant dissecting the original Star Wars negative, washing it, and then reassembling it. "That made everybody suck in their breath, " Kennedy says, recalling the stressfull situation. "Thankfully, Robert Hart, the neg cutter on the second and third films, came in to put the negative back together
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/sped/ssws/pg1.htm
There is no mention in the above paragraph of any insertions of new negative(featuring CGI effects).
Also inserting new negative into the original negative would be counter productive----it would mean that you would have to run the entire original negative(with the new inserts) through a pin registered mechanism in order to print off a new 1st generation interpositive......running the risk of doing even more damage to that original neg.(much like the situation with the Godfather)
Much easier to go back to the original negs(that were not part of the original negative---confusing ain't it!) and use those for your new(as it would have been in 1997) special edition negative....combining these new negs(featuring the CGI) with 3rd generation internegative material.
Sorry I know it is infuriatingly confusing.....when I get time I will do a pictorial representation which should help to better illustrate the points I am trying to make.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8