logo Sign In

Chewtobacca

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
25-Jul-2009
Last activity
19-May-2021
Posts
2,093

Post History

Post
#1073654
Topic
Info Wanted: Is there 5.1 surround sound on the Despecialized Editions?
Time

hairy_hen said:

True, the surround channel delay is supposed to be implemented by playback hardware only. And it is only supposed to happen during upmixing, not when playing 5.1 mixes.

In this case, the ‘hardware’ is the Dolby Media Decoder application that created the upmix.

Ah, I believe that I understand now. The receiver applies the delay when upmixing, so whatever software performs the upmix has to do the same. What about the -3dB attentuation though? If that is “baked in” to a 5.1 mix, does setting the surrounds to -3dB on the receiver have an effect only when upmixing?

(The LFE channel is, of course, the only reason for even bothering with making it 5.1 in the first place; if not for this, I would have distributed my edits in stereo and just let people upmix them in their receivers like they would anything else.)

This statement surprises me a bit. If true, why not make a 2.1 track? I thought that the process that you use gives better results than a standard upmix performed by a receiver. Thanks for all the explanation by the way!

Post
#1073449
Topic
Info Wanted: Is there 5.1 surround sound on the Despecialized Editions?
Time

^ That confuses me too. Many (software) upmixing profiles implement a 20ms delay and -3dB attenuation of the surrounds, which leaves me wondering how to configure hardware when playing back such an upmix and why the upmixing profile doesn’t leave it to the hardware to perform the adjustment in the first place.

hairy_hen said:
If you don’t find this to be an issue, then playing the 5.1 on a 3.1 system would certainly still provide a benefit, since you’ll still get the dynamics and extra bass, just not the surroundy-ness. The stereo mix is rather less dynamic and doesn’t have much bass, so on a more powerful sound system it may seem somewhat muted in comparison.

That’s what I found when I had a 3.1 setup for a while.

Post
#1071523
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

Handman said:

That’s so weird. I think the original uncorrected images (at least the desert) are more appealing to the eye, but evidently I must be mistaken.

You can’t really be mistaken when it comes to your impressions of what appeals to the eye. 😃 Original (or intended) looks were not necessarily aesthetically appealing ones. As it happens, I too prefer the Grindhouse, but the 16mm match looks good as well.

Post
#1057174
Topic
The theatrical colors of the Star Wars trilogy
Time

DrDre said:

I would like to add, that I believe it’s important to preserve the original theatrical print colors (or one of them) without interpretation, or subjective taste. (emphasis added)

That’s a good point, but once we have one such preservation, giving the film authentic but consistent color in future projects is a worthy goal. Recreating color inconsistencies is a waste of valuable time if they vary from print to print anyway.

Post
#1039679
Topic
Neverar's A New Hope Technicolor Recreation <strong>(Final Version Released!)</strong>
Time

I’m amazed that it’s that simple. I wonder if this is the case for all three films.

@NeverarGreat
Some versions of Premiere have been known to use the wrong set of coefficients when handling HD video. If I recall correctly, they use Rec.601 for everything. That might explain what you are seeing.