ZigZig

SparkySywer said:

Do you plan on calibrating your monitor when you’re home?

Still no trolling…

UnitéD2 said:

ZigZig said:

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

Is it possible to troll its own thread ?

It seems that everything is possible on this forum for the time being…

Ronster said:

Calibrating my monitor from a hotel room miles away from my monitor is not possible.

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

I do not question (and I understand) the decisions of the moderators of this forum, but I want to say that IMHO, this forum will lose some flavor without the interventions of Frink, Possessed and Collipso. I’ll miss them.

UnitéD2 said:

Dr Dre said that “most of these look good”.

DrDre said:

Ronster said:

towne32 said:

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

You know in Star Wars where the actors have really red faces… That is what i am talking about.

Some here have remarked your corrections are too green and too dark, and I agree with them.

!!!

Wow, thank you for this useful topic !

Ronster said:

But if you don’t like the Gout shifts that i did then oh well.

I’m really sorry to say that but… nobody likes the GOUT shifts that you did.
Because they are horrible.
Because you don’t accept to consider that calibrating your monitor is the first necessary step before trying to make color corrections.

But hey, you are just trolling, aren’t you ?

OK, I just calibrated my monitor.
The difference is astonishing.

Xj éé’fj Slkjqé vndjz §lkq eéjé oi

Ronster said:

Well yeah I beat my head against the wall trying to figure out wtf and why don’t this work properly.

why?

Maybe because you didn’t calibrate your monitor?

Ah ah ah, I did the same thing at the same moment.

Frank’s correction is probably more accurate, because he didn’t calibrate his monitor.

DrDre said:

Ronster said:

I am not trolling.

Look everything I watch Star wars on, It does not look like other films do.

If we go back to say bullitt for instance the actors and actresses don’t have red or overtly red faces in star wars they do. I could compare star wars to a lot of other films and when you compare star wars to other films it certainly looks to me that the problem is Star Wars not my monitor.

So when i hue shift in VLC it might be slight it might have to be a fair amount it makes it look more like a normal film. I am happy with the result of the shifting primarily to rid the film of the weid facial color and make it sjmilar to other films.

Star Wars stands out as having a color shift problem compared to other films in a quite serious way. It is’nt to say it does not happen in other films also as I have already stated but Star Wars has a pretty severe case of it and correcting for that makes it feel much more normal and not so strange.

I like the simplicity of the handling it in such a way and I also think the result is good, I personally really like the result.

Green / Cyan in the shadow seems to be a trait I am noticing about the film. But to be honest I am not looking at it at all right now as I have been doing quite a big job this week.

Yes, but the problem here is:

1. Star Wars has many transfers, each with their own unique characteristics, and each of them not an accurate representation of how the film looked in cinemas. So, to state Star Wars in general has a hue shift problem is a rather bold claim.
2. The VLC filter is about as crude as it gets. You attempt to fix one issue, and a dozen others pop up. Just adding more green to the film solely based skin tones, which can vary greatly from person to person is a mistake. Just because skin tones may be overly red, doesn’t mean all other tones are red shifted as well. In fact the opposite may be true, oranges may come out more red in a transfer, whilst yellows may become more green. A correction that just adds green will seemingly improve the skin tones, whilst worsening color shifts in other areas of the frame.
3. Some of the issues you raise may have nothing to do with hue, but with contrast or saturation.

4. You didn’t calibrate your monitor.

Possessed said:

I feel like we’re being trolled now.

Of course we are.
Mods, isn’t it time to close this topic?

IsanRido said:

It’s neither. Phantom Menace is the best prequel, and Clones is the worst. Revenge is somewhat better, though still not satisfying a movie experience as a whole.

This

You’re right, but we still have some clues: TPM is the first film released in Dolby Digital Surround EX in theaters (this audio format was specially created for TPM).
The TPM Laserdisc is also the first LD to feature a Dolby Digital Surround EX track.
So I guess that we can reasonably think that the LD mix was not redone (it is a particular format, on a LD that was released only in Japan, with few copies, and we already knew that the LD format was at the end of its life, so why would Lucasfilm have lost time and money to redo a mix in in such special circumstances ?).

So we can not be 100% sure, you’ re right, but if I had to bet, I’d bet that the LD contains the theatrical audio AC3 track.

Possessed said:

I feel like we’re being trolled now.

Of course we are.
Mods, isn’t it time to close this topic?

dahmage said:

From what I’ve read on other threads around this forum there absolutely is a difference between the theatrical DTS discs and any mix present on home media.

Yes, everybody agrees (I guess). But is there a difference between the theatrical AC3 and the laserdisc AC3?

There is a difference between DTS dynamics and AC3 dynamics, for sure.
But the question is: is there a difference between theatrical AC3 and laserdisc AC3?

ChainsawAsh said:

Ah, fair enough. Is the AC3 from the LD the same 1999 theatrical mix, or is it a home video “near-field” mix?

I think that the AC3 from the LD is exactly the theatrical Dolby mix and not a nearfield mix. Chewie, do you have other information about it?

ChainsawAsh said:

At either rate, I’d absolutely include both, with the DTS mix as track 1 and the AC3 mix as track 2. Maybe also include the 2.0 PCM as track 3?

That would be the best, IMHO.

PS: I can also provide the CDV 2.0 mix, but I think that it is the same as the VHS one, which is probably the same as the LD.

ChainsawAsh said:

The DTS would have less compression, if I’m not mistaken.

Yes and no. The theatrical DTS algorithm (APT X100) has nothing to do with the home DTS. It is actually compressed at 882 kbps with 4:1 ratio, on 5.0 tracks (the LFE is encoded with the surround channels).

On the other hand, the Laserdisc Dolby-AC3 is encoded at 384 kbps, but with a totally different algorithm than DTS APT-X100, and real 5.1 tracks (or 6.1, if I’m not mistaken, on the Laserdisc of TPM).

So basically, it is difficult to compare both formats.

ChainsawAsh said:

And again, to me it’s preferable for consistency with Schorman’s theatrical ROTS and the fact that pretty much every theatrical restoration for which cinema DTS is available uses that track as the primary.

I agree, I was just talking about the argument “DTS is the original cinema format”. But yes, it seems more logical and consistent with other projects to make DTS the default track.

Williarob said:

Soon… Very soon…

https://vimeo.com/289687216

Holy s…, this is by far the most exciting trailer I ever seen.
It looks gorgeous.

AFAIK, both are theatrical mixes. DTS was “remuxed” in 5.1 by Schorman directly from the theatrical DTS CD-ROM, while LD Dolby 6.1 was directly taken from the theatrical Dolby track.

So IMHO, both deserve the name of “cinema”, and Chewie’s question (which audio will be defaut) is a difficult one…

BTW, does someone know if the theatrical SDDS track can be found somewhere ?

The transition is very subtle, great job!