- Post
- #246231
- Topic
- .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/246231/action/topic#246231
- Time
Arnie.d
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 17-May-2005
- Last activity
- 19-Apr-2015
- Posts
- 1,595
Post History
- Post
- #245976
- Topic
- How Do You Tell If the disk is anamorphic? (not what you think)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245976/action/topic#245976
- Time
Maybe this will help.
- Post
- #245940
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245940/action/topic#245940
- Time
Originally posted by: Raul2106
I wouldn't be much of a friend if I just revealed my source. If my source was ok with me just giving her name out I would have done it already.
I wouldn't be much of a friend if I just revealed my source. If my source was ok with me just giving her name out I would have done it already.
How many female restoration artists work for Lucas?
- Post
- #245938
- Topic
- How Do You Tell If the disk is anamorphic? (not what you think)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245938/action/topic#245938
- Time
So the image will only look stretched in the anamorphic when the picture is froze while in ifoedit right?
Also during playback in ifoedit.
There's a difference between the aspect ratio of the image and the movie within the image. Sometimes the entire image is used, sometimes there are black bars. When there are black bars the aspect ratio of the image is different from the movie.
A TV can have a display of 4:3 or 16:9. A movie can have an aspect ratio of 4:3 (=1.33:1=fullscreen) to 2.35:1 (widescreen) and anything in between like 16:9 (=1.78:1) or sometimes 1.66:1 or 2.40:1.
If you play a 16:9 movie on a 4:3 tv there are black bars. If you play a 16:9 movie on a 16:9 tv there are no black bars.
If you play a 2.35:1 movie on a 4:3 tv there a big black bars. If you play a 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 tv there are smaller black bars (I'm talking about the black bars on top and under the picture here, not on the side).
If a movie has black bars we call it letterboxed.
On the disk in question, when I open with PowerDVD and check the configuration tool, the video information shows this information. Is it enough to get the answer? :
Video Attributes:
Video compression mode: MPEG-2
TV system: 525/60 (NTSC)
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Display Mode: Only Letterbox
Source picture resolution: 720x480 (525/60)
Frame Rate: 30.00
Source picture letterboxed: Not letterboxed
Bitrate: 4.13Mbps
Also during playback in ifoedit.
The picture will appear normal (though less black bars at the top and bottom of the screen) during regular playback correct?
Yes (unless in the setup of your dvd player you select 16:9 when you have a 4:3 TV, then it will look like picture 2 in the previous post).
On some discs you can use it, it depends on the copy protection.
There is a difference between 16:9 and 2:35:1? Your above post seems to indicate that, but I thought there was only 4:3 and 16:9 and 2:35:1 was just another name for 16:9.
Yes (unless in the setup of your dvd player you select 16:9 when you have a 4:3 TV, then it will look like picture 2 in the previous post).
And ifoedit can only be used when the movie is on your HD and not burned to disk right?
On some discs you can use it, it depends on the copy protection.
There is a difference between 16:9 and 2:35:1? Your above post seems to indicate that, but I thought there was only 4:3 and 16:9 and 2:35:1 was just another name for 16:9.
There's a difference between the aspect ratio of the image and the movie within the image. Sometimes the entire image is used, sometimes there are black bars. When there are black bars the aspect ratio of the image is different from the movie.
A TV can have a display of 4:3 or 16:9. A movie can have an aspect ratio of 4:3 (=1.33:1=fullscreen) to 2.35:1 (widescreen) and anything in between like 16:9 (=1.78:1) or sometimes 1.66:1 or 2.40:1.
If you play a 16:9 movie on a 4:3 tv there are black bars. If you play a 16:9 movie on a 16:9 tv there are no black bars.
If you play a 2.35:1 movie on a 4:3 tv there a big black bars. If you play a 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 tv there are smaller black bars (I'm talking about the black bars on top and under the picture here, not on the side).
If a movie has black bars we call it letterboxed.
On the disk in question, when I open with PowerDVD and check the configuration tool, the video information shows this information. Is it enough to get the answer? :
Video Attributes:
Video compression mode: MPEG-2
TV system: 525/60 (NTSC)
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Display Mode: Only Letterbox
Source picture resolution: 720x480 (525/60)
Frame Rate: 30.00
Source picture letterboxed: Not letterboxed
Bitrate: 4.13Mbps
Do you want to know if the dvd is anamorphic or do you also want to know the aspect ratio of the movie?
The aspect ratio of the image is 16:9 so it must be anamorphic (it uses all the vertical resolution, it is 16:9, so the image will be vertically stretched).
I'm not sure about the letterbox thing.
What does the it say on the box of the movie in question?
- Post
- #245893
- Topic
- Seriously, what is so special about PAL? I mean I can only understand if that's the standard where you live, but..
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245893/action/topic#245893
- Time
FILM is NOT NTSC. NTSC is just a video standard film can be converted to, just as PAL.
Did you even read the DVD/laserdisc thread or did you think when you saw the word PAL that's not American, I don't want to have anything to do with it. Why would you assume it would be about NTSC, doesn't the rest of the world, the rest of the world, THE REST OF THE WORLD exist to you?
- Post
- #245717
- Topic
- Forgotten Films
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245717/action/topic#245717
- Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
The Black Cauldron
It's a disney animated movie. It's fun, but no one seems to know what it is. And it's no classic, but is very entertaining.
The Black Cauldron
It's a disney animated movie. It's fun, but no one seems to know what it is. And it's no classic, but is very entertaining.
I love that one. I think it's the very first movie I ever say in the theatre. I'm glad to have it on dvd!
- Post
- #245709
- Topic
- How Do You Tell If the disk is anamorphic? (not what you think)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245709/action/topic#245709
- Time
About the dimensions. A movie with an aspect ratio of 4:3 (fullscreen) will use the entire image and won't have black bars (and can't be anamorphic). A movie with an aspect ratio of 16:9 can be non-anamorphic (not strectched, black bars) or anamorphic (vertically stretched, no black bars). A movie with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 can be non-anamorphic (not vertically strectched, big black bars, see picture 1) or anamorphic (vertically stretched, smaller black bars, see picture 2). As you can see in the anamorphic image more space is used for the actual picture because it's vertically strectched (won't be vertically stretched on playback ofcourse) and less for the black bars -> better image quality.
Picture 1.
Picture 2.
- Post
- #245696
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245696/action/topic#245696
- Time
- Post
- #245663
- Topic
- Info: 2006 OT DVD/Laserdisc - a comparison...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245663/action/topic#245663
- Time
Originally posted by: Red5@Arnie.d, don't you mean it's the vertical resolution (# of scan lines) that is better on the PAL LDs.
Yeah, I guess you are right but it's how you look at it. What I meant was, I'm not happy with the number of scan lines.
Red5, it seems you did a pretty good job on your own capture!
- Post
- #245470
- Topic
- Info: 2006 OT DVD/Laserdisc - a comparison...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245470/action/topic#245470
- Time
PAL THX LD (also, look at Luke's arm):
PAL OUT DVD
PAL THX LD
PAL OUT DVD
- Post
- #245456
- Topic
- DVD copying question
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245456/action/topic#245456
- Time
- Post
- #245427
- Topic
- My COVERS archive, please read if you want or make covers
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245427/action/topic#245427
- Time
- Post
- #245371
- Topic
- How Do You Tell If the disk is anamorphic? (not what you think)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245371/action/topic#245371
- Time
The OUT (also an aspect ratio of 2.35:1) will look normal/unstretched like this:
- Post
- #245140
- Topic
- Seamless Branching / Multiple Angles
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245140/action/topic#245140
- Time
- Post
- #245110
- Topic
- Greedo subtitles outside the 16:9 frame
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245110/action/topic#245110
- Time
- Post
- #245105
- Topic
- Info Wanted: TR47 set audio question
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245105/action/topic#245105
- Time
Originally posted by: Cowclops
For some reason unbeknownst to me, everybody seems to "prefer" the audio of the original version I made to the audio on the discs everyone else has made. Why, I don't know. Perhaps other people are clipping the audio during their recordings, perhaps they're just using cheap crappy sound cards. I think the main reason nobody is talking about the audio is because audio is the easy part.
The very fact that you'd suggest "generic" cables would be somehow detrimental to the signal would lead me to believe that you wouldn't be satisfied even if Tom Holman (the TH in THX) personally showed up and approved the work. While I don't USUALLY like to throw around credentials as some kind of excuse to say whatever crap I feel like, as an electrical engineer that is into audio and video stuff, I can definitely say that only extremely poorly designed cables will be detrimental to the sound. I am using non-specific cables (well, for the audio anyway). http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm has some more info on amplifier->speaker wiring, and while not all of that directly applies to line level connections, the basic theory is the same. Anything of sufficient guage for the signal you're putting through it will be ok. Just don't run the cables next to the power wires and oyu're all set.
If anyone cares, I built my own s-video "cable" by way of building a couple s-video to dual f-connector breakout cables, and then I ran that over separate RG6 cabling, so thats how I hooked the LD player up.
Since you did ask the otherwise fair question "how exactly was it done" i'll just say that I hooked the analog outputs of the CLD-97 to the line in on my Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, recorded at 48khz, and made sure it was close to full level without actually clipping.
Basically, if you didn't find a problem with the audio in the first set, you won't find a problem with the audio in this set either. The analog in on a TBSC has to be at least as good as the analog in on a sony TR7000 digital8 camcorder. Even if it is a more "technically accurate" manner of recording, syncing a digital rip of the audio to the video would be far more of a pain in the ass and imperfect sync will be more of a bother than the quality lost due to going analog to digital to analog (since it has to be resampled ANYWAY, why not just let the ADC on the sound card do it in the process of recording?)
Last bit of info... I checked the brightness, contrast, and color of the set on a crappy directview CRT, and it seems to be as good as I hoped. The color saturation will be FAR better this time around. If you look at the original set, the title scroll in each movie is very pale whitish/yellowish. This time, every color that should be saturated IS saturated, rather than over or under. The title scrolls are unmistakably yellow. Red is red, green is green, blue is blue. Skin tones aren't weird purplish crap, but actual human looking. Lightsabers look considerably better than they do even in the SE DVD release. What it comes down to is, it looks good on my monitor (which I'd like to say is well calibrated, but I don't want to assume its 100% perfect) and it looks good on a TV, and i'll test it on my Panasonic AE700 projector that should be arriving this thursday. If it looks good on all 3 devices, then the main movie video is definitely done. If I don't like it, I'll recapture the entire movie again and tweak it. I don't have enough space to store all ~7 hours of video on my hard drive in huffyuv format, but capturing it again isn't that much of a problem compared to hte length of time it takes to compress it properly. Nonetheless, I like what I've seen so far, so I BET it should be good.
Thats all for now.
For some reason unbeknownst to me, everybody seems to "prefer" the audio of the original version I made to the audio on the discs everyone else has made. Why, I don't know. Perhaps other people are clipping the audio during their recordings, perhaps they're just using cheap crappy sound cards. I think the main reason nobody is talking about the audio is because audio is the easy part.
The very fact that you'd suggest "generic" cables would be somehow detrimental to the signal would lead me to believe that you wouldn't be satisfied even if Tom Holman (the TH in THX) personally showed up and approved the work. While I don't USUALLY like to throw around credentials as some kind of excuse to say whatever crap I feel like, as an electrical engineer that is into audio and video stuff, I can definitely say that only extremely poorly designed cables will be detrimental to the sound. I am using non-specific cables (well, for the audio anyway). http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm has some more info on amplifier->speaker wiring, and while not all of that directly applies to line level connections, the basic theory is the same. Anything of sufficient guage for the signal you're putting through it will be ok. Just don't run the cables next to the power wires and oyu're all set.
If anyone cares, I built my own s-video "cable" by way of building a couple s-video to dual f-connector breakout cables, and then I ran that over separate RG6 cabling, so thats how I hooked the LD player up.
Since you did ask the otherwise fair question "how exactly was it done" i'll just say that I hooked the analog outputs of the CLD-97 to the line in on my Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, recorded at 48khz, and made sure it was close to full level without actually clipping.
Basically, if you didn't find a problem with the audio in the first set, you won't find a problem with the audio in this set either. The analog in on a TBSC has to be at least as good as the analog in on a sony TR7000 digital8 camcorder. Even if it is a more "technically accurate" manner of recording, syncing a digital rip of the audio to the video would be far more of a pain in the ass and imperfect sync will be more of a bother than the quality lost due to going analog to digital to analog (since it has to be resampled ANYWAY, why not just let the ADC on the sound card do it in the process of recording?)
Last bit of info... I checked the brightness, contrast, and color of the set on a crappy directview CRT, and it seems to be as good as I hoped. The color saturation will be FAR better this time around. If you look at the original set, the title scroll in each movie is very pale whitish/yellowish. This time, every color that should be saturated IS saturated, rather than over or under. The title scrolls are unmistakably yellow. Red is red, green is green, blue is blue. Skin tones aren't weird purplish crap, but actual human looking. Lightsabers look considerably better than they do even in the SE DVD release. What it comes down to is, it looks good on my monitor (which I'd like to say is well calibrated, but I don't want to assume its 100% perfect) and it looks good on a TV, and i'll test it on my Panasonic AE700 projector that should be arriving this thursday. If it looks good on all 3 devices, then the main movie video is definitely done. If I don't like it, I'll recapture the entire movie again and tweak it. I don't have enough space to store all ~7 hours of video on my hard drive in huffyuv format, but capturing it again isn't that much of a problem compared to hte length of time it takes to compress it properly. Nonetheless, I like what I've seen so far, so I BET it should be good.
Thats all for now.
- Post
- #244999
- Topic
- Limited Edition Packaging Scans
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244999/action/topic#244999
- Time
Originally posted by: Raul2106
Alien features the original theatrical version along with the special editon and it doesn't say anything about remastering that version. The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. You want anamorphic? You got it! The 2004 editions give you all the anamorphic enhancement and craptacular remastering you could ever ask for. The theatrical versions are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be. Honestly, this release has something in it for everybody especially those who didn't buy the 2004 boxset. Next year when we get the 30th Anniversary boxset people will be complaining again so we should all look forward to that!
Here is the specs for the Alien (2 disc) to prove my point. Notice there is nothing here about "anamorphic". Also you will notice that the original theatrical version is not listed as digitally remastered either.
Features:
Disc 1
Full-Length Audio Commentary by Director Ridley Scott, Writer Dan O'Bannon, Executive Producer Ronald Shusett, Editior Terry Rawlings, Actors Sigourney Weaber, Tom Skerrit, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton and John Hurt (for both versions
1979 Theatrical Version
2003 Director's Cut (Digitally Remastered)
Introduction by Ridley Scott
Disc 2
Behind-the-Scenes Featurettes, Including - "Star Beast: Developing the Story," "The Visualists: Direction and Design," "Truckers in Space: Casting." "The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design, Sigourney Weaver Screen Test, "The Chestbuster: Creature Design
Multi-Angle Scene Studies
Still Photo Galleries
Deleted and Extended Scenes, and More!
Video:
Widescreen 2.35:1 Color
I am as big a fan as the rest of you. I have done some fan editing too. For an "official" DVD I don't have a problem with the theatrical release. Star Wars in not the only film to present it's theatrical version in a non-anamorphic state and that is my entire point. I am not saying that I wouldn't appreciate anamorphic enhancement with some clean up. However this is acceptable in my opinion and if we do not get a remastering next year thats fine too. Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS. Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs. My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position. Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement. Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration. I don't blame him because everybody is a critic and wants things their own specific way. At least by releasing it as is he cannot be bashed because he didn't present the original versions. Oh wait a second... THIS IS A STAR WARS FORUM so no matter what he does people are going to bash him to hell for one reason or another.
Alien features the original theatrical version along with the special editon and it doesn't say anything about remastering that version. The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. You want anamorphic? You got it! The 2004 editions give you all the anamorphic enhancement and craptacular remastering you could ever ask for. The theatrical versions are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be. Honestly, this release has something in it for everybody especially those who didn't buy the 2004 boxset. Next year when we get the 30th Anniversary boxset people will be complaining again so we should all look forward to that!
Here is the specs for the Alien (2 disc) to prove my point. Notice there is nothing here about "anamorphic". Also you will notice that the original theatrical version is not listed as digitally remastered either.
Features:
Disc 1
Full-Length Audio Commentary by Director Ridley Scott, Writer Dan O'Bannon, Executive Producer Ronald Shusett, Editior Terry Rawlings, Actors Sigourney Weaber, Tom Skerrit, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton and John Hurt (for both versions
1979 Theatrical Version
2003 Director's Cut (Digitally Remastered)
Introduction by Ridley Scott
Disc 2
Behind-the-Scenes Featurettes, Including - "Star Beast: Developing the Story," "The Visualists: Direction and Design," "Truckers in Space: Casting." "The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design, Sigourney Weaver Screen Test, "The Chestbuster: Creature Design
Multi-Angle Scene Studies
Still Photo Galleries
Deleted and Extended Scenes, and More!
Video:
Widescreen 2.35:1 Color
I am as big a fan as the rest of you. I have done some fan editing too. For an "official" DVD I don't have a problem with the theatrical release. Star Wars in not the only film to present it's theatrical version in a non-anamorphic state and that is my entire point. I am not saying that I wouldn't appreciate anamorphic enhancement with some clean up. However this is acceptable in my opinion and if we do not get a remastering next year thats fine too. Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS. Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs. My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position. Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement. Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration. I don't blame him because everybody is a critic and wants things their own specific way. At least by releasing it as is he cannot be bashed because he didn't present the original versions. Oh wait a second... THIS IS A STAR WARS FORUM so no matter what he does people are going to bash him to hell for one reason or another.
Are you braindead?!? That dvd is seamless branched. So 99% of the time you are looking at the DIGITALLY REMASTERED image even if you select to watch the original theatrical version!!!!!! It's nice isn't it? A remastered theatrical version. Yeah, you know all about the technical side of things.
- Post
- #244996
- Topic
- Limited Edition Packaging Scans
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244996/action/topic#244996
- Time
Originally posted by: Raul2106
Actually you are clueless... "I think most people could have been pretty pleased with a nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print." - Karyudo
You wanted the "original" theatrical versions not a "nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print."
See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. I know all about the technical side of the argument. The fact of the matter is anamorphic or not this transfer is pretty good.
Actually you are clueless... "I think most people could have been pretty pleased with a nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print." - Karyudo
You wanted the "original" theatrical versions not a "nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print."
See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. I know all about the technical side of the argument. The fact of the matter is anamorphic or not this transfer is pretty good.
What do you think comes closer to the original theatrical version, a new anamorphic transfer of an original print or a transfer of this crappy 1993 DVNR fucked up LD master tape with al new flaws introduced. It looks nothing like it was in the theatre.
- Post
- #244687
- Topic
- Info: 2006 GOUT DVD using 'Faces' PCM Sound?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244687/action/topic#244687
- Time
For synching maybe this helps. It's the first frame of the crawl and the music starts at the same time I think. This is frame number 701 in the PAL release but I think it should be the same number for the NTSC release. Maybe someone can confirm this.
- Post
- #244657
- Topic
- Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244657/action/topic#244657
- Time
Is this the "aliasing" that is being reported on the GOUT version?
- Post
- #244653
- Topic
- Info: 2006 GOUT DVD using 'Faces' PCM Sound?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244653/action/topic#244653
- Time
- Post
- #244651
- Topic
- Stormtrooper with 4 eyes ::( or Stormtrooper showing terrible IVTC/telecine artefacts
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244651/action/topic#244651
- Time
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
I agree fully. If I have to watch a movie in slow motion (or even worse, frame by frame) to notice a problem - then it's not a problem I'm going to waste any energy on.
I watched it all the way through last night. It had been years since I'd seen it and it was fading from memory. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
There were probably others but I didn't see them. I only saw far away worlds, a hero, space ships, and a princess.
Truthfully - I missed the stormtrooper glitch the day before. I only noticed it the second time because someone went to the trouble of screen grabbing it, posting it, and starting an internet discussion about it - good job.
But it's just par for the course these days. We live in a society now where people go out of their way to make sure everyone else is as unhappy as they are. I guess there weren't enough people hating it and something had to be done.
Originally posted by: Mielr
I didn't watch the movie in slo-mo, I didn't watch it frame-by-frame, I just watched it, and enjoyed it. ....whatever flaws that are evident are less objectionable than the flaws in the 2004 DVDs (Greedo shooting first comes to mind....)
I didn't watch the movie in slo-mo, I didn't watch it frame-by-frame, I just watched it, and enjoyed it. ....whatever flaws that are evident are less objectionable than the flaws in the 2004 DVDs (Greedo shooting first comes to mind....)
I agree fully. If I have to watch a movie in slow motion (or even worse, frame by frame) to notice a problem - then it's not a problem I'm going to waste any energy on.
I watched it all the way through last night. It had been years since I'd seen it and it was fading from memory. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
There were probably others but I didn't see them. I only saw far away worlds, a hero, space ships, and a princess.
Truthfully - I missed the stormtrooper glitch the day before. I only noticed it the second time because someone went to the trouble of screen grabbing it, posting it, and starting an internet discussion about it - good job.
But it's just par for the course these days. We live in a society now where people go out of their way to make sure everyone else is as unhappy as they are. I guess there weren't enough people hating it and something had to be done.
I didn't have to watch it in slow motion or frame by frame to notice it.
I watched it and enjoyed it too. I didn't post this to show how bad the release is. I just thought it was funny. Don't be such a cry baby dude.
- Post
- #244432
- Topic
- Info: 2006 GOUT DVD using 'Faces' PCM Sound?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244432/action/topic#244432
- Time
I don't know if he processed the audio in any way though... - Post
- #244421
- Topic
- Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244421/action/topic#244421
- Time
Originally posted by: boris
name 1 official DVD with PCM audio
name 1 official DVD with PCM audio
There are lots of official dvds with PCM audio especially music dvds (the eagles, robbie williams, direstraits etc.), but not many movies because they're mostly multi channel.
- Post
- #244415
- Topic
- Info: 2006 GOUT DVD using 'Faces' PCM Sound?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244415/action/topic#244415
- Time
If you have the PCM audio why would you also want the DD 2.0???
@MoveAlong
If I remember correctly tr47 had PCM captured with coax cables and cowclops v2 has PCM captured digitally. That's why I want to use the PCM audio of cc v2 because I think it's an exact digital copy. I hope someone can confirm this.