Sign In

GZK8000

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Jul-2017
Last activity
24-Feb-2019
Posts
209

Post History

Post
#1205991
Topic
Request: Kiki's Delivery Service (1998 Disney English dub)
Time

Well, I have read some discussions, and it seems they started degraining their releases after the first JP bluray of Nausicaä. There are some online pics of the original JP bluray of Nausicaä, and in those pics you can see that, despite the faded colors (although most of the red comes from the different color temperature they use in Japan), it is quite grainy (as it should be), whereas the second JP bluray of Nausicaä is much colder and the grain structure is not well defined.

There may be some additional problems I’m unaware of, though.

I would donate to fan projects involving scanning original japanese prints. It would be interesting to see how it looked back then in theaters.

Post
#1205816
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

NeverarGreat said:

GZK8000 said:

Handman said:

Since most of the latter two prequels are CG anyway, you could probably get a pretty decent 4K image if you redid it all. Of course the actors would still look not so great.

cgi ghost hayden lol

This legitimately creeps me out.

Me too. But I was saying in some years they’ll be able to remake the entire prequel trilogy with CGI Hayden if they want to.

Post
#1203826
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

I don’t really like the age/birth year/generation argument. As one factor, sure. But as the defining factor, not really.

My birth year is closer to 1999 than to 1977, and yet while I kinda liked TPM in theaters as a kid, I greatly disliked RotS the first time I saw it (and that was when I still appreciated RotJ). If age/generation is a huge factor here, I should probably be more inclined to enjoy the PT, or at least to be more forgiving of it, since I should be more familiar and prone to liking modern, more impressive blockbusters than older people, and yet that hasn’t been the case (and I’m sure many other people around my age are like me, so it’s not like I’m a demigod or a superior being, LOL). I was already familiar with the OT when I watched RotS, though, but I didn’t love TPM as much as the OT, or I probably disliked it by 2005 (I don’t remember when it was the first time I watched the movie since the only time I saw it in theaters).

Additional factors may be parents, friends, exposure to other movies, etc.

Post
#1203726
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

Collipso said:

i’m surprised by how popular TPM is here. everyone i know IRL or elsewhere thinks it’s the worst by far.

Most people only remember Jar-Jar and ignore or forget all the other flaws TPM had, and since most people loathe Jar-Jar, it’s not strange that they would consider TPM the worst PT movie, since AotC and RotS lack a similar character. They also seem to like what Lucas was trying to do in AotC and RotJ with Anakin and the Jedi, regardless of the memes that those movies spawned, and I don’t know why.

But I do think this is a flawed argument. Jar-Jar is to TPM what the Ewoks were to RotJ, K-2S0 to R1 or BB-8 to TFA. They’re very lousy, unnecesary, unfunny, pointless, forced one-dimentional characters, but they aren’t the worst elements of their respective movies. Not even close.

And if you are able to go beyond your hatred of Jar-Jar, and you start considering TPM’s flaws, the movie isn’t as bad as AotC and RotS. It shares some of the problems the latter movies had (clueless Jedi, boring, stiff dialogue, bad pacing, nonsensical, underexplained plots, bad CGI, filler, etc), but there is no forced romance or darkness and murder and younglings everywhere, or a bizarre, laudable explanation for a character going evil. Even the secondary villain, Maul, as pointless as he is, he’s not as awful as Grievous (although it is clearly not as good as Darth and the Emperor). It still feels like an adventure, kinda Star Wars-y movie, unlike the latter two, which aren’t even Star Wars-y.

The people who are saying TFA or TLJ are worse than the prequels have a very weird point of view.

Post
#1203497
Topic
2016 High-Res Star Wars Soundtracks
Time

I am reading some comments at jwfan.com, and it seems the 2018 releases are messy, with the Empire score being particulary criticised (drops in sound quality, some theories about poor preservation of the original material, etc): http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?/topic/28377-remasters-of-the-first-6-star-wars-soundtracks-now-available-shawn-murphy-disney-records-2018/&page=22&tab=comments#comment-1477806

Post
#1203474
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

I have a kinda unrelated question, but I do remember seeing the 4K77 WIP version of the Reel 6 scenes poita has posted, and in the “lock S-foils in attack position” scene the starfield seems to have more resolution than in the SE. Could it be that the CGI in 1997 was too primitive, or maybe the Technicolor prints have more detail than the SE prints, or maybe I’m imagining things?

And thank you poita for your work!

Post
#1203455
Topic
2016 High-Res Star Wars Soundtracks
Time

Joel said:
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/digital_audio.html
See the part about “sample rates” in the middle of the page.

It literally says what I have been saying in my previous comments:
“Higher sample rates allow higher audio frequencies to be represented. Provided that the sample rate is more than double the highest audio frequency present, the waveform can be reconstructed exactly from the digital samples.”

Forgive me if I rely on my audio recording degree, 15 years as a recording engineer, and 30 years as an audio hobbyist over your ability to google something.

Nonsense. I see professional, well known audio people spreading myths about digital audio, including the myth that vinyl is better than Redbook (it’s 2018, jeez). They could also claim that their years of professional audio engineering makes their points more solid, despite the little problem that vinyl cannot even reach 96db of dynamic range. But hey, they’re professional engineers!!!111

Meanwhile, I haven’t just made some quick google search in these last weeks. I have googled about these topics over several years already and I have learned to stop relying in whatever bizarre stuff people say at sites like Steve Hoffman’s forum.

I don’t claim to be anything other than a hobbyist (and a very poor one), but even if I were a recording engineer I wouldn’t use the argument of authority unless I’m really confident about what I am saying.

Nyquist stated that to reproduce a certain frequency, you need a sample rate of at least twice that frequency. This doesn’t mean that a higher sampling rate only gives you more high frequencies/more frequency response. It does allow for a wider frequency response, but the point of it is to capture more plot points to reconstruct the signal (as per the chart in the link above).

You are confusing the need for a minimum Nyquist rate with “more samples means better time-domain accuracy, and Redbook has very small time resolution”. I have already posted a link that shows that Redbook has, at the very least, time-domain accuracy up to the nanosecond level, which is already impresive and makes any claim about the need for “Hi-Res” audio even more pointless.

If you want to tell me more about what I don’t know, feel free to PM me here, but we can stop cluttering up this post with the technical discussion.

I’m not gonna PM you because you’re showing me you’re ignoring my arguments. It’s hopeless, and I gain nothing from continuing this conversation.

Good day, Joel.

Post
#1203402
Topic
2016 High-Res Star Wars Soundtracks
Time

Joel said:
It actually does work exactly as I’m describing it, unless I did a poor job above. A 20khz sine wave sampled at 44.1Khz gets exactly 2 samples to describe it. At 192Khz? it gets 8, or quadruples. But the bigger difference is in the dynamic range anyway. Meanwhile, frequency is a time-based phenomenon (cycles per second). The word length determines the bit depth, or dynamic range.

Again, you’re not understanding how Nyquist works. Nyquist says that, given an analog signal, if you have X samples, then you can reconstruct the original analog signal up to X/2 Hz. In PCM audio, you will also have a time-domain performance of (I have googled): 1/[(sampling rate) * 2^[bit depth] * 2Pi)], not the commonly used formula of 1/(sample rate). This means that Redbook audio has a time resolution of 1/(44100 * 2^16 * 2Pi), or roughtly 60 picoseconds. Which is much lower than the smallest time delay our ears can recognize anyway. Therefore, time resolution in Redbook audio is not an issue.

In real life, if you want to avoid aliasing, you can only reconstruct up to a point below the Nyquist frequency. In sox, you can easily apply a low-pass filter with 99% bandwidth, which would allow you to reconstruct up to ~21830 Hz, which is beyond the limits of the human era. If you’re worried that’s a too steep filter, then go to 95% bandwidth. That would be ~21000 Hz, still beyond our limits.

A bigger sampling only really means you can reconstruct higher frequencies. The “step” model that is typically used to describe digital signals is misleading: that discrete signal is mathematically equivalent to the continuous signal of the original analog source. You can believe that ultrasonic frequencies are somehow important for playback, fine (I disagree, but whatever), but saying that higher sampling rates are more accurate in the time domain is false. Or, better said, it may be, but Redbook is already much more accurate than the accuracy our brain demands.

A bigger bit depth gives you a bigger dynamic range, yes. But, as I said, Redbook audio can have more than 96db, if it’s properly dithered (even old TPDF helps here). And I don’t understand why any music track would have a dynamic range of 120db, unless the producer really hates us and our ears.

Anyway, the purpose of this thread was to ask about the hi-res versions. If you don’t believe that there are real benefits, I’ll refer you to the following website:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5891db5329687fadaad172d7/t/59c0e856cd0f6804b6b43ed3/1521034351544/?format=1500w

I was merely replying to your own reply to Density, and because I’m tired of people spreading the myth that somehow “Hi-Res” is a huge improvement because “there’s more data!!!”, when it’s not even an improvement at all. Yes, there is more data, but no one is asking for ultraviolet information in home video formats, yet somehow ultrasonic information is very important because… reasons. You’re saying that “Hi-Res” is actually better for playback purposes (and therefore relevant for this thread’s topic), which is not.

The mastering behing “Hi-Res” versions can still be better, though. But you have that problem with Redbook releases too.

Speaking of releases and remasters, personally I think only comparisons between releases involving loudness normalization and/or double-blind tests should be accepted, really. We humans have a very small, unreliable “audio cache”. But the typical “audiophile” hates double-blind tests. I wonder how well the Empire tracks in the “Ultimate Digital Collection” fares against ABC’s fanmade remaster.

Post
#1203397
Topic
Han - Solo Movie ** Spoilers **
Time

Hal 9000 said:

I sort of wonder if this movie will at all acknowledge or reference that Chewbacca once stood next to Yoda during a Jedi Council meeting the day of the Jedi Purge, and then howled sentimentally as Yoda gave him a somber goodbye and blasted off into the night sky.

I think they’re trying to play safe. There has been a few references in the ST (enough to make PT fans happy), plus stories set in the PT years, but I don’t think they’re gonna reference a few scenes from RotS that have been criticised a lot among fans.

Post
#1203245
Topic
2016 High-Res Star Wars Soundtracks
Time

And another problem (and a really dirty trick from discographies) is to make people believe that anything labered “Hi-Res” is automatically better, even when the source material is 16 bit or <48kHz digital audio. In this link there are some examples: http://archimago.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html . Plus no DAC can reach actual 24 bit resolution unless I’m mistaken. And the soundtracks of the OT are, well… very old at this point. Even if 24/192 were better, I hardly believe those soundtracks has non-random high frequency information. They were recorded with already very old and limited technology.

The mastering behind 24/192 releases can be better than the mastering of earlier and newer Redbook releases, but how do we know the latter are been intentionally sabotaged or are the same mastering as the “Hi-Res” version? You have that problem with SACDs, or digital releases.

Post
#1203243
Topic
2016 High-Res Star Wars Soundtracks
Time

Joel said:

Density said:

Just FYI, “high res audio” is a fraud, a marketing gimmick based on pseudoscience. It is not physically possible to hear frequencies that high. A standard CD already captures everything within human hearing range and then some, after you’ve reached the age you’re likely to care about audio quality your hearing won’t even be able to reach that, and the vast majority of music does not make use of anywhere near the dynamic range supposedly offered by this “higher resolution.” All it does is waste disk space. It’s useful only in studios for purely technical reasons, utterly useless for the end consumer.

Unfortunately, this is misinformed and based on misunderstandings about sound, among other things. There’s nothing “pseudo” about the science, it is what is. While it’s true that humans can’t hear fundamental tones above a certain threshold (20K if you’re a kid, for instance), high frequency response is only part of what’s happening with high res audio. I won’t go into a lengthy discussion about it, but, as an example if you are trying to recreate a waveform, the more plot points you have, the more accurate that waveform is going to be. Higher sample rate = more accurate waveform.

The time resolution of Redbook audio is not as high as the time resolution of “hi-res audio”, but it’s still more than enough for any of your playback and production needs: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/time-resolution-of-red-book-45ns.85436/ Sampling does not work as you’re describing it. The reconstruction filter reconstructs the original analog signal up to a certain time resolution, which is very high in Redbook audio. I also think the time resolution only depends on the amount of bits per sample, rather than the sampling rate, but I don’t remember where I read that.

Secondly, all music is extremely dynamic, and while most popular music is compressed and doesn’t make use of 120+ db of dynamic range (nor would you want it to), dynamic range isn’t the entire point. It’s the fact that going from 16bit to 24 bit gives you way, way more info: 16 bit = 65,536 possible volume levels, and with every bit, that number doubles. So at 24 bit, we now have 16,777,216 different volume levels. Further, the digital noise present in every digital recording (the “noise floor”) is moved even further into the background.

24 bit audio has more dynamic range, since the noise floor is lower, but 16 bit audio has more than 96 db of dynamic range. The article Density has posted already gives an explanation of why that commonly cited number is misleading. When I convert from 24 bit to 16 bit, I use the gesemann noise-sampling curve from sox (it’s supposed to be much more transparent to the human ear than regulat TPDF and other noise-sampling curves), and the resulting audio has more than 96 db of dynamic range.

Hi-Res audio is a scam.

Post
#1203241
Topic
Empire Strikes back 35mm restoration feedback thread (POUT)
Time

Joel said:

poita said:
It is in two parts, download both and use WinRar or similar to decompress to a single file.
https://we.tl/KTFi9G8t9B
https://wetransfer.com/downloads/53e6c1141a27d2891c9bb2a15bffe3dd20180503053533/8258e5aa2b976c5a31ddeb3fac69704820180503053533/ce0e7c

I’m on a mac and I’m having a bear of a time trying to get these open. I generally get “incomplete” or “file damaged” error notices. Is anyone on a Mac able to watch these, and if so, what did you use to unwrap?

I used the unrar CLI tool (“unrar e esb-uk-r1-sound.part1.rar”), because I was unable to unwrap it with GUI tools (same error messages)

Post
#1203240
Topic
Han - Solo Movie ** Spoilers **
Time

SilverWook said:

Haarspalter said:

joefavs said:

New clip!

http://youtu.be/DgaC0ytqdv4

“The Asteroid Field” theme gave me the biggest, dumbest grin.

The pacing and energy in that scene feels off. Besides the Asteroid Field theme nothing gave me any excitement. Am i dead or is this more about “I have a bad feeling about this movie”?

Has a copy of this book turned up in your home recently?

If so, you’re mostly dead. 😛

Not sure what’s Haarspalter’s view about the inclusion of the asteroif field theme from Empire, but I don’t think it’s an unfair criticism to say that for some fans it may feel like a cheap emotional trick. I don’t see the point of using the theme in that scene from Solo.