Sign In

Aladdin 35mm (Released) — Page 3

Author
Time

I would wait to see if there will be another open invite to Blutopia. I am not sure as I am not a member there but I believe they may have more restrictions in place for the members to randomly send out invites.

Author
Time

Guys please stop asking for invites, it’s annoying. Members have to earn and then exchange reward points to make invites there, your requests for invites are not practical.

__Valeyard.net

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RU.08 said:

Guys please stop asking for invites, it’s annoying. Members have to earn and then exchange reward points to make invites there, your requests for invites are not practical.

This.

No more asking for invites for Blutopia as per RU.08’s request - thank you.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

Some private trackers, if they ban a user who got in through an invite, they will ALSO ban the user who invited that person (meaning the inviter is responsible for what the invitee does). Not sure if Blutopia is one of those, but I used to be a member of such a tracker.

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

Guys please stop asking for invites, it’s annoying. Members have to earn and then exchange reward points to make invites there, your requests for invites are not practical.

My apologies, didn’t know how that worked, thanks for the info, and sorry for the bother! 😃

Author
Time

well can someone upload to tpb??

Author
Time

eventually it’ll be on public trackers like everything else.

Author
Time

Thanks for the release! Quite extraordinary.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Long time lurker, first time poster. Thanks for sharing RU.08, I just saw this thread and unfortunately missed out on the open registration to Blutopia.

Could I please also either have an alternate link to this release or be invited to Blutopia, at least two ratios can be provided, thanks again.

Author
Time

Would love to see this. What a great initiative!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Avatar_Emil_Borg said:

MadSpecialist said:

It’s by no means a replacement of the optical track but for anybody that’s interested, I think I managed to sync ADigitalMan’s restored 5.1 surround audio track with this release by decreasing the tempo of it by 0.750 seconds then muxing it with a delay of 500 ms.

Sounds great! Put it up somewere to share!

I’ve updated my comment on the release’s page at Blutopia with a link to it, otherwise, just drop me a line.

Author
Time

Has this release been uploaded anywhere else?

Author
Time

hi! if anyone have a link for this version, it could be awesome to see it!
thanks a lot!

Author
Time

What kind of differences are between the optical, LD and Bluray tracks, other than the optical track being described as better than the LD and far-field while the LD is near-field?

Author
Time

Does anyone know if it leaked outside of Blutopia? I’d like to download it

Author
Time

@Superrayman3, RU.08, ScruffyNerfHerder

Since some of you keep mentioning the LD, can you please be more specific about what LD release you mean? There are plenty different ones including the 1662 CS which according to DiscLord is supposed to have the unaltered far field mix as PCM.

However, your mentioning of 48kHz suggests AC3 as this is the only format on the LD which uses that sample rate.

@Superrayman3: Maybe you mean the content which might in fact be different fidelity-wise but just in case you were referring to the technical aspects in general, a few remarks as this is very often stated wrong:

Superrayman3 said:

I’d like to try doing the same with the optical track as well but that one may be a bit trickier to work with since it’d be at a much higher bitrate and have a higher fidelity in comparison to a CD which would probably make such an edit noticeable when compared to the LD track which has a similar bitrate and fidelity to a CD but I’m open to trying it if it means I can help preserve a piece of Disney history).

What do you mean by ‘higher bitrate’ in comparison to “a CD”? If you refer to sample rates and bitrates, there is good news or bad news (depending from the point of view): there is no “higher fidelity” than what the good old, soon getting 36, CD provides. At least not as long as human beings don’t develop better ears. Much better ones as actually, the CD specs already exceed them severely in most situations. Both the sample rate and the bit depth in PCM provide such high quality (in theory, we better don’t get into nowadays charts music) than there is not a single blind test which has proven any high resolution audio to be discernible from it’s “old-fashioned” CD counterpart (given the same mastering of course).

I just ran some basic tests using the LD audio and restoring the original line is somewhat possible but there’s two caveats at play, first the LD audio will have to be down-mixed from 48000 to 44100 in order to keep a consistent quality with the CD audio (from what I understand if my research is correct, the audio track on LDs was originally encoded at the 16-bit 44100 sample rate prior to the introduction of AC3 so theoretically there should be little to no noticeable quality loss if my understanding of LD audio is correct)

With nowadays software, the conversion of 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz should be completely transparent and these few kHz one loses on the Nyquist frequency, virtually no one can hear anyway. AC3 is technically worse than PCM of course given the same source, but even here … at 384 kBit/s maybe, I haven’t had a change to really ABX them. At least it shouldn’t be entirely impossible. 😃

Author
Time

little-endian said:

@Superrayman3, RU.08, ScruffyNerfHerder

Since some of you keep mentioning the LD, can you please be more specific about what LD release you mean? There are plenty different ones including the 1662 CS which according to DiscLord is supposed to have the unaltered far field mix as PCM.

However, your mentioning of 48kHz suggests AC3 as this is the only format on the LD which uses that sample rate.

Yes that’s the LD the rip is from, it was a bit-perfect rip of the PCM track and up-sampled from 44.1kHz so should have no loss in quality.

__Valeyard.net

Author
Time

Ah, I see. However, I am then successfully confused in terms of your former comment which was “Also, the optical audio is better quality than the LD”.

Due to Disclord’s review, I thought that the PCM of the US THX-LaserDisc was the version to get:

Quote:

“The CLV used the 9db headroom limited Dolby Stereo SR soundtrack while the THX WS CAV used the 20db headroom SR master that was created for the Dolby Digital release prints. The CAV discs sound has a power and clarity that the CLV cant match with its more limited headroom.”

Author
Time

ScruffyNerfHerder said:

Basically, as I understand it, a near-field mix is a remix of the theatrical audio for home theater. Near field because you’re near the speakers in a home theater, and in a far-field mix (i.e. a commercial theater) you aren’t. So, the Laserdisc audio is redone to sound better in a home, whereas the original optical track sounds better in a movie theater.

Maybe I am missing something here, but thanks to RU.08 I had the chance to listen to the “optical track” in comparison now and to my eyes and ears, the LD audio is technically better in every aspect.

Not that the optical track wouldn’t be worth being preserved due to the different sound and historical value alone of course, but the LD audio features a significantly higher dynamic range (just like DiscLord reported it) and is also “clean” whereas the (I assume analog) optical track has distortions which are especially noticeable during the dialog.

Thus I’d rather assume that it was in fact the LD audio which was originally created as the cinema master back then and not vice-versa. If they would have adjusted it to sound “good” on home theaters afterwards, normally that would have meant a reduction of dynamic range, not an increase as many nowadays low-end soundbar stuff (or worse) actually sound better with higher compressed sources. And given that it the mass market, no surprises here. However, the LaserDisc would predate that loudness-war era anyway so I wonder where the “near-field mix theory” comes from.

At least from what I’ve heard now, the optical track sounds like a decent attempt to reproduce the original master, however with all the limitations of these analog optical systems that time whereas the LD gives you the raw, dynamic deal.

Author
Time

Keep in mind this was from a regular scan. It is possible to get audio transferred using specialist equipment, and that should get you results that will match digital quality. It’s also possible to get audio transferred directly from a projector’s output and that would be similar quality to what you get from scans.

__Valeyard.net