Sign In

The Shining - 35mm print opportunity (a WIP) — Page 10

Author
Time

It’s just dual mono with the same information on both channels.

Author
Time

Dr. Cooper said:

It’s just dual mono with the same information on both channels.

Is not the original mono soundtrack? In this print those channels seems to be different:

Criterion has released Barry Lyndon (1975, and also mono according to imdb) with lpcm 1.0, so I can’t understand the reason for those 2 identical channels.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Possibly the Dolby Digital print has the 5.1 remix from the early 2000’s and an optical stereo track. I would think a dual mono track insured compatibility with projectors with a stereo sound head?

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

That newer print has all audio-options: Optical Stereo (most likely Dolby SR), Dolby Digital, a DTS-Timecode and SDDS-sound.

Older Mono-prints just had one channel, I think from sometime in the 60s it became more common to use Dual Mono. Don’t know the exact reason, but SilverWook could be right that it had something to do with the upcoming popularity of Stereo-tracks and the soundheads used for them.

Author
Time

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t008255.html

Brian Dooda draw a very specific timeline when Mono and Stereo-tracks has been used and he backs it up with the noise-reduction types, which were used back in the days. In Conclusion Dr. Cooper nailed it with Dual-Mono and silver-wook with the compatibility of the sound system used in different theatres. 😃

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Possibly the Dolby Digital print has the 5.1 remix from the early 2000’s and an optical stereo track. I would think a dual mono track insured compatibility with projectors with a stereo sound head?

Dr. Cooper said:

That newer print has all audio-options: Optical Stereo (most likely Dolby SR), Dolby Digital, a DTS-Timecode and SDDS-sound.

Older Mono-prints just had one channel, I think from sometime in the 60s it became more common to use Dual Mono. Don’t know the exact reason, but SilverWook could be right that it had something to do with the upcoming popularity of Stereo-tracks and the soundheads used for them.

freedomland said:

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t008255.html

Brian Dooda draw a very specific timeline when Mono and Stereo-tracks has been used and he backs it up with the noise-reduction types, which were used back in the days. In Conclusion Dr. Cooper nailed it with Dual-Mono and silver-wook with the compatibility of the sound system used in different theatres. 😃

You all are absolutely right. I found this:

-There had been experiments with stereo optical tracks, but there was too much noise to make that sound system worthwhile. But when Dolby Laboratories introduced Dolby A in 1965, a noise reduction method originally developed for professional recording studios, the movie industry saw an opportunity to reinvent the optical track.-

Then, before 1965 there could be no dual mono 35 mm prints. So it would be more accurate if sound films shot between 1927 and 1965 were released on Blu-ray and UHD with a DTS-HD Master Audio Mono (1.0) track (or LPCM) instead of the more usual 2.0.

With “The Shining” print (1980) I wonder what year dual mono 35 mm prints start to appear. Maybe it’s hard to determine the exact year, but there would be Blu-ray releases where a DTS-HD Master Audio Mono (2.0) (or LPCM) would be accurate because the 35mm prints already included 2 channels. Indeed, “The Shining” seems to have been released on LaserDisc with dual channel sound as we can see here:

For this preservation, what would be more accurate? 2.0 or 1.0? In principle, both. But not for a film before… what year? I don’t know how you see it.

Author
Time

Laserdiscs were always dual channel regardless of the audio track. There was no 1.0 mode like DVD or Blu Ray. A mono track could be put on one channel to accommodate a commentary on the other, but a viewer would have to manually select either track or both would be heard at the same time. The addition of digital sound to the format in the mid 80’s allowed for four mono tracks, (two digital, two analog) but this was rarely done.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

a_purist said:
For this preservation, what would be more accurate? 2.0 or 1.0? In principle, both. But not for a film before… what year? I don’t know how you see it.

The two channels of the “dual mono” soundtrack are exactly the same, and the sound was intended to be reproduced by a single loudspeaker behind the screen at the center.
In a 2.0 setup, both 2.0 mono and 1.0 tracks would be reproduced the same way, i.e., the same signal coming from both loudspeaker. The impression would be that of a single phantom channel at the center. In a setup with three front channels (e.g., 5.1), 2.0 mono would be reproduced from L and R, while 1.0 from the center. So I believe the latter would recreate more faithfully the theatrical experience.

Author
Time

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

Author
Time

TheHutt said:

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

This is broadly correct except that it isn’t quite handled that way by the current generation of Dolby’s upmixer/dematrixer (which is, perversely, simply called “Dolby Surround” even though that was the original name of the really basic home tech they used back even before Pro Logic was a thing). It seems the current DTS upmixer does route 100% to C (unless you’ve got the AVR set to LPF the low end out to your sub or whatever) but Dolby Surround actually sends mid-low sound via a LPF to the L and R speakers, with the majority (but not the whole thing) going to C.

This is presumably based on the hypothetically improved bass response of L and R speakers (which are potentially, though not necessarily, floor standing speakers) vs a C speaker (which is usually 2 woofers and a tweeter in a horizontal arrangement, with somewhat limited bass response and a focus on mids instead). In my setup, which has fairily mid-to-treble focused side speakers, this fails miserably and sounds ridiculous so I force the DTS mode instead for 2.0 dual mono and use “Direct” mode for 1.0 to route to C based on the number of channels alone with no fancy upmixer/dematrixer stuff being brought into it.

STAR WARS TRILOGY: Millions of Voices | HALLOWEEN: A Symphony of Screams | HALLOWEEN: Evil Waits | NEAR DARK | SNOWPIERCER

In progress: ハチ公物語

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Laserdiscs were always dual channel regardless of the audio track. There was no 1.0 mode like DVD or Blu Ray. A mono track could be put on one channel to accommodate a commentary on the other, but a viewer would have to manually select either track or both would be heard at the same time. The addition of digital sound to the format in the mid 80’s allowed for four mono tracks, (two digital, two analog) but this was rarely done.

valien said:

a_purist said:
For this preservation, what would be more accurate? 2.0 or 1.0? In principle, both. But not for a film before… what year? I don’t know how you see it.

The two channels of the “dual mono” soundtrack are exactly the same, and the sound was intended to be reproduced by a single loudspeaker behind the screen at the center.
In a 2.0 setup, both 2.0 mono and 1.0 tracks would be reproduced the same way, i.e., the same signal coming from both loudspeaker. The impression would be that of a single phantom channel at the center. In a setup with three front channels (e.g., 5.1), 2.0 mono would be reproduced from L and R, while 1.0 from the center. So I believe the latter would recreate more faithfully the theatrical experience.

TheHutt said:

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

pipefan413 said:

TheHutt said:

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

This is broadly correct except that it isn’t quite handled that way by the current generation of Dolby’s upmixer/dematrixer (which is, perversely, simply called “Dolby Surround” even though that was the original name of the really basic home tech they used back even before Pro Logic was a thing). It seems the current DTS upmixer does route 100% to C (unless you’ve got the AVR set to LPF the low end out to your sub or whatever) but Dolby Surround actually sends mid-low sound via a LPF to the L and R speakers, with the majority (but not the whole thing) going to C.

This is presumably based on the hypothetically improved bass response of L and R speakers (which are potentially, though not necessarily, floor standing speakers) vs a C speaker (which is usually 2 woofers and a tweeter in a horizontal arrangement, with somewhat limited bass response and a focus on mids instead). In my setup, which has fairily mid-to-treble focused side speakers, this fails miserably and sounds ridiculous so I force the DTS mode instead for 2.0 dual mono and use “Direct” mode for 1.0 to route to C based on the number of channels alone with no fancy upmixer/dematrixer stuff being brought into it.

I didn’t know Laserdiscs were always dual channel, I’ve never had one. It’s very interesting. Whether you choose 1.0 or 2.0 I’m sure you’ll do the right thing.

By the way, as we know “The Shining” was shot in FullFrame, but how do we know the exact part of the frame that would be shown in the theatres? For example, Blu-ray and UHD releases are 1.78:1 (instead of 1.85:1) and despite having the same wrong aspect ratio, both have different framing.

Blu-ray:

UHD:

UHD has less information in the frame (up, down, right and left).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It would depend on what aperture plate was in the projector at the time? I got to see it on 35mm back 2006, and while technically framed for the 1:85 screen in the theater, the extra picture info was faintly visible above and below the screen.

The airliner in flight shot on the 4K is cropped where previous editions have not.

Here’s a 35mm frame for you. Not the exact one, but pretty close.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Thank you very much! Does that frame represent the final look?

The frame is 1260x1080 (1.16:1), if I’m not mistaken it would be the result of cropping, for example, the optical soundtrack… am I right?

If so, I guess you have to zoom the frames to fit 1.78:1 (1920x1080) and then masking for 1.85:1 (1920/1036).

I know that kind of things can be done with DaVinci Resolve but I have never scanned any film.

Author
Time

When do you think this will be released? Super excited. Also how will we be able to obtain it?

Author
Time

Man, all these screen captures and frame shots bring back memories. Duvall’s expressions… 😃 Thanks for bringing nostalgia hits. I need to watch my blu soon…

Author
Time

That frame is from a few years back, so probably not representative of any work done since then. I have no ETA yet on when this will be done. Just about everybody has bigger problems these days.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

That frame is from a few years back, so probably not representative of any work done since then. I have no ETA yet on when this will be done. Just about everybody has bigger problems these days.

Don’t worry, SilverWook. I’ve found something interesting, maybe this could help for framing…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Any updates on this?? Everyone has so much to deal with these days, I know…but I was hoping for this release for Halloween 20202. This release would mean so much for us fans during these times! How is it coming along? Cannot wait, love this movie too much.

Author
Time

A preview of a WIP version.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?