logo Sign In

Info: Back to the Future - without DNR & EE — Page 18

Author
Time

That's because of some healthy high bitrate, yes it's just your pc.

Author
Time

Just checked out the DCP file briefly, and the quality is absolutely stunning. It looks so much better than the blu-ray and the other HDTV version that I had.

Now I just need to figure out a way to shrink the file slightly without compromising quality too much.

Author
Time

rockin said:

Now I just need to figure out a way to shrink the file slightly without compromising quality too much.

 Ripbot264

Author
Time

So this is a re-encode, anyone have access or is able to get someone who is to find out the media info from the file?

Was it actually 2k or 1080p, bitrate and audio and such? 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I haven't had a chance to check the DCP file out yet, but what are the opinions on its 5.1 DTS track?  I'm assuming it was redone/remastered for digital cinema, but is it still pretty faithful to the original theatrical feel?  I don't recall there being much to complain about with the Blu-ray audio, but maybe that's because I was so distracted by the video problems that I didn't notice audio problems.  And I'm just assuming the 2.0 PCM track is awesome.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

deho said:

About time stretching: Can you elaborate on the downsides to that? Especially when its just used filling a 20 ms gap.

I was also thinking about the analog capture ilovewaterslides made. I have absolutely no experiences with Laserdiscs. If a Laserdisc features an analog and digital audio track, are they always from the same master? Could it be that the analog track is superior to the digital one, because less compression was applied (similar to vinyl captures that offer a higher dynamic range than Audio-CDs)?

Logically if you time stretch a piece of sound that has distinct effects in it, those effects won't be at their original timecode, so won't be in sync anymore. Stretching make no sense in this case, as the same time you solve a problem, you create another one. In a different case, when the piece you want to time stretch is only an indistinct hum with no recognizable sounds, you could say the stretching won't be noticable. But if the piece is so monotonous why would you need stretching? You could just copy-paste instead.

What you have to see is the whole time stretching method contradicts the idea of syncing. If one frame is missing in a material, you have to fill in the space somehow and not do any harm to the rest of the sound. Especially not something that moves them out of sync. See what I mean? Time stretching is of course the right thing to do if there are speed differences, like framerate conversions etc. So all the cases when the sound is "stretched" and you have "unstretch" it.

Stretching is also risky because by default it affects the pitch as well. When it is done a way no to affect the pitch it often sounds poor. There are sound editors out there that can do speed adjustment with no pitch change and in good quality but it depends on the nature of sound (dialogues, music etc.). It's really not the most straightforward thing to do well.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

I haven't had a chance to check the DCP file out yet, but what are the opinions on its 5.1 DTS track?  I'm assuming it was redone/remastered for digital cinema, but is it still pretty faithful to the original theatrical feel?  I don't recall there being much to complain about with the Blu-ray audio, but maybe that's because I was so distracted by the video problems that I didn't notice audio problems.  And I'm just assuming the 2.0 PCM track is awesome.

 It's not bad the PCM sounds better tho 

Author
Time

Anyone know why tsmuxer won't recognize the PCM track?  Trying to get this thing setup for a blu-ray burn.  The image looks TERRIFIC!  Way better than the standard release.

“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

When a pcm is in a mkv for some reason trmuxer won't recognize, at least for me.

You need to demux it with eac3to as a wav then it will work.

Author
Time

Yup. eac3to worked like magic. Gosh. This is an unbelievable way to see the film. Why can't Universal do this?  Complete morons. 

“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”

Author
Time

Because morons buy the bloody discs! why we don't all boycott this stuff I don't know 

Author
Time

DoomBot said:

When a pcm is in a mkv for some reason trmuxer won't recognize, at least for me.

You need to demux it with eac3to as a wav then it will work.

I had the same problem, but will try eac3to now.

I love the fact the DCP has a dirty looking grain structure, it reminds me of how both Ghostbusters and Robocop look in blu-ray (4K versions I mean). In fact, I'd love to see a 4K remastered version of BTTF or the whole trilogy with no DNR - one can dream right?

Author
Time

What a great time to forget my MySpleen username :(

Author
Time

zee944 said:

Logically if you time stretch a piece of sound that has distinct effects in it, those effects won't be at their original timecode, so won't be in sync anymore. Stretching make no sense in this case, as the same time you solve a problem, you create another one. In a different case, when the piece you want to time stretch is only an indistinct hum with no recognizable sounds, you could say the stretching won't be noticable. But if the piece is so monotonous why would you need stretching? You could just copy-paste instead....

Thanks for taking the time to explain that in detail.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I made a simple Blu-ray cover for the DCP sourced version. Here's the link, if someone is interested:

http://s30.postimg.org/90rsr35v1/bttf_dcp.jpg

Author
Time

Not that it hasn't been said before, but I just want to add that this rocks.  Holy damn does it rock. Nice work, everyone involved.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I'm a little lost about the audio. Who got the best theatrical 2.0 audio?

Author
Time

There is no theatrical audio available, but a bit-perfect LaserDisc rip in PCM 2.0, that is supposed to be close to the theatrical audio.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

I haven't had a chance to check the DCP file out yet, but what are the opinions on its 5.1 DTS track?  I'm assuming it was redone/remastered for digital cinema, but is it still pretty faithful to the original theatrical feel?

 

CatBus brought it up, but I'm interested in it too. Can we discuss here what is the problem with BTTF's 5.1 mix?

I just really want to know. Is there anything wrong with it outside the fact it's not the original mix?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zee944 said:

CatBus said:

I haven't had a chance to check the DCP file out yet, but what are the opinions on its 5.1 DTS track?  I'm assuming it was redone/remastered for digital cinema, but is it still pretty faithful to the original theatrical feel?

 

CatBus brought it up, but I'm interested in it too. Can we discuss here what is the problem with BTTF's 5.1 mix?

I just really want to know. Is there anything wrong with it outside the fact it's not the original mix?

Well, to my ears it sounds less pleasing compared with the original mix. And when I say less leasing, I mean that it sounds slightly more flat and less dynamic. The 5.1 isn't a bad mix, but to me it just doesn't sound as good as the original. This is just my personal preference, others may prefer the 5.1 mix.

Author
Time

Just wanted to say this turned out great.  The laserdisc track is stellar.  I've never seen BTTF look and sound so good.  Thanks to everybody who contributed to this project.  It's incredible.

Author
Time

That's all? Noone else has anything to say about the 5.1 mix?

Does it mean it's a genuine remix?

Author
Time

zee944 said:

Does it mean it's a genuine remix?

 There's an oxymoron for you.