@yoda-sama:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-1977-70mm-sound-mix-recreation-stereo-and-51-versions-now-available/post/547363/#TopicPost547363
In a nutshell: loudness war.
PS: scroll down to the bottom of the page for a detailed critique by hh.
Guspaz said:
Thanks for the explanations. Where does the 5.1 1977 mix come from? It sounds like you're saying the original three were the stereo, the mono, and the 70mm, with the 70mm not being one of the three 1977 mixes included in the MKV?
Guspaz said:
I find all the different audio tracks a bit confusing, to be honest. Not complaining about having them, just want to know what the differences are so that I can figure out which to use. Using the v2.0 MKV as a reference here:
There is three 1977 tracks, the difference seems to be the number of channels. Is there a difference between these three? I could understand why there could be a 5.1 and 2.0, but what is the mono track for? Is it different somehow?
What is the difference between the 1977 and 1993 tracks?
Why is does one of the "isolated score" tracks have a bunch of the sound effects and dialog, but only some of it, and the other doesn't?
I guess ultimately it boils down to, should I be listening to the 1977 or 1993 tracks?
Great new Hairy Hen! It's good to know that these mixes can be made better and better. You also mentioned that you weren't sure how Belbucus fixed the flaws in the stereo mix ("I'm not nearly as experienced or capable as Belbucus when it comes to audio work, so left to my own devices I'd probably have been at a loss to correct these errors, but since he took care of them all in the analogue capture already"); FYI, he didn't use any special voodoo, he simply just spliced in the 85 mix in those places
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/GOUT-DVD-using-Faces-PCM-Sound/post/244706/#TopicPost244706
Also Harmy, did you see my post about a possible flaw in your edit of the 2004 DVD commentary? After the Death Star explodes there are two tracks playing at the same time and it makes it difficult to hear the voices.
Just wanted to chime in and ask if the 2004 dvd commentary track is supposed to have the people speaking being drowned out with the film soundtrack just after the death star explodes? Just got done watching it and it's really difficult to hear what people are saying after that point.
Edit: watching it until the end you realize there are two different tracks playing at the same time.
Harmy said:
This means that I'm officially announcing that the BD version will be v2.5.
Hey everyone! Was just curious how one would take harmy's 2.1 and take out a commentary audio track and insert a French one? Thanks for your help!
Right, just finished the whole film and...
WOW.
I watched 1.0 not too long ago (my wife hadn't seen them since she was really young and you were still in the process of making 2.0) and I remember watching it and thinking that it was great but that there were still flaws that popped up every now and then and the transitions from the SE to non-SE were not as seamless as one could have hoped.
But this - this just absolutely blew it out of the water. A glass raised in your honor, Harmy! To a job well done and were I in the Czech republic, I would be getting you silly drunk.
In all seriousness, the colors were so wonderful and filmic, the transitions to non-SE were extremely well done (one would really need a microscope to really catch the seams) and and and... Well I think this is definitely my go to version for Star Wars.
captainsolo said:
The biggest thing is how in the heck did Douglas Slocombe shoot without a light meter? ;)
jero32 said:
edit2: even more evidence of this in empire strikes back, it had a lot of orange and blue lighting in the carbonite freezing room. This seemed to me to be actual lighting vs photochemical enhancement.
I think businesses will just skip on Windows 8 like they skipped on Vista and wait for Microsoft to wake up. I think the hybrid approach was a bit silly and should probably have done two different interfaces depending on the hardware.
In any case, I think arguing over the cons and pros of osx, windows and linux is pretty tiring and done to death. Plus a lot of the common stereotypes are rather overblown- Windows security is pretty good, OSX is actually pretty easy to install on compatible non apple hardware and Android is proof that linux is not just a computer science hobby. I have both Windows 7 and OSX on my machine for a best of both worlds scenario. Plus I can always put linux up there if I want. Bam-more choice and fun for all.
Anyway, thanks for the windows tips, and looking forward to going home to see this thing in action!
Uh, I would have had it this morning if Windows wasn't a dork and automatically downloaded updates and restarted my computer in the middle of the night! Is this a common thing? I have a mac, but needed to bootcamp into windows for work and began downloading the film in the background. At least OS x has the common curtosy to not reboot unless you ask it to!!
Rant over- I can't wait to come back home and watch it!!
From Ohio originally. Now live in France.
Love all of the audio options, Harmy! Can't wait for this to come up on the spleen!
Harmy said:
Mavimao said:
The changes look great, although I also noticed that the shots of luke during his conversation with Leia in the rebel hanger ("Oh I thought he'd change his mind...") were much softer in 2.1.
Those are the shots Laserswert was talking about (see my answer above).
I also wanted to ask what made you change your mind with the color timing? 2.0 was supposedly based off the technicolor prints, and you were very adament about the overall greeness to the film and the brightness in the scene where obi wan appears. Why the change of heart? Was the technicolor not that reliable of a source?
The greenness is still very much there, it was just dialed down in a few places where I took it too far before. As to the Obi-Wan scene, I changed my mind, because I got a chance to see another low fade print, where it looked more like in v2.1, so it does seem that the Tech prints aren't the be-all-end-all color reference, so in v2.1 I cut myself some slack - it's still very acurate to the Tech print - in some cases even more so (like the lightsabre scenes for example) but I did pull back on religiously sticking to the print a tiny little bit.
The changes look great, although I also noticed that the shots of luke during his conversation with Leia in the rebel hanger ("Oh I thought he'd change his mind...") were much softer in 2.1.
I also wanted to ask what made you change your mind with the color timing? 2.0 was supposedly based off the technicolor prints, and you were very adament about the overall greeness to the film and the brightness in the scene where obi wan appears. Why the change of heart? Was the technicolor not that reliable of a source?
poita said:
2K flashscan for Super8
I just wanted to say that I can't access the site on my iphone. I just get a mostly white screen with a few hyperlinks entitled Home, Archive, Contact, Feed, Regular Site.
2.1 fits perfectly. It's tells a person downloading it that it is Harmy's second version revised - and even if in reality it is somewhat heavily modified from 2.0. This helps keep it in line with his 2nd take on ESB and ROTJ.
I would guess that 3.0 would be a 1080p version - perhaps a hybrid of the bluray and the Saving Star Wars project?
team_negative1 said:
It looks like we have access to another print of The Empire Strikes Back. Will come in handy down the road when the time comes.
So that makes it three prints that we will combine to get the best version created.
Team Negative1
Vertical blanking intervals are a product of video - an electronic moving image. I'm talking about film; totally different beast. What I am describing is actually on the film print itself, like a scratch or a piece of dirt.
VBLANK is a pause of the raster after reaching the bottom of the frame, so it can move itself back to the top of the frame and start again.
In this particular transfer, they didn't crop off the top to hide the splice marks. I've seen the same thing happen in the projection booth when a newbie accidently framed the gate too high.
It's negative splices folks. I was a projectionist and these lines were there on about every print in between every shot.
Realize that 35 hot splices are done by cutting off a bit of the frame before or after the first or last frame of the shot, scrapping away the emulsion, and then hot cementing it to the film or slug of your A/B roll. This will inevitably overlap the shots before and after, so that's what you are seeing: a clear piece of celuloid that is cemented over the film.
georgec said:
^ I think people more or less have confidence in Abrams as a director.
For me, it just seems weird having the two major "geek" franchises having been rebooted by the same guy. I just want to see more variety, but from this perspective the Abrams pick feels too obvious and conservative.
SW isn't really sci-fi. SW is an action-adventure-drama that takes place in outer space. Nothing really in common with ST other than the inclusion of aliens, spaceships and such.
All the photoshops of SW+ST characters, or SW+Disney characters, or SW+ST+Disney characters, etc. are kind of funny at first, but then you realize that is actually what's happening. Each franchise is losing it's individuality. It's all blending together.
Maybe that's a pessimistic view. I don't know.
SilverWook said:
Mavimao said:
I don't get all of the love for JJ Abrams - I think he's a decent TV director and producer, but I feel like I'm living in some weird parallel world when people praise his Star Trek reboot. I didn't mind the concept, but the execution was atrotious and totally went against the whole mythos of star trek. The smug kirk eating the apple during the kobiashi maru, him driving a car over a cliff, Spock and Uhura... WTF? It was pretty and exciting but dumb - a play told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It was about seeing Kirk and company on the start of the path that makes them who they are when we saw them in the series. Maturity comes with life experience. That "smugness" and the willingness to take risk have always been part of Kirk, tempered by the responsibility of command.
Uhura flirted with Spock (to no avail) in "The Man Trap". Those scenes were cut out of syndication prints for decades.
I don't get all of the love for JJ Abrams - I think he's a decent TV director and producer, but I feel like I'm living in some weird parallel world when people praise his Star Trek reboot. I didn't mind the concept, but the execution was atrotious and totally went against the whole mythos of star trek. The smug kirk eating the apple during the kobiashi maru, him driving a car over a cliff, Spock and Uhura... WTF? It was pretty and exciting but dumb - a play told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.