a_purist

imsorrydave2448 said:

a_purist said:

imsorrydave2448 said:

It looks like the person who did the scanning had some trouble syncing up the bluray tracks and he’s really busy so he can’t spend anymore time working on it. I’m going to see what I can do. If I can’t figure it out I know someone who should be able to.

There can be problems with syncing because of this:

Runtime:
1h 24min(84 min) (United Kingdom)
1h 26min(86 min) (unrated)
1h 33min(93 min) (R-rated) (United States)
1h 45min(105 min) (Integral) (Germany)

What is the runtime of this 4k 35mm scan?

This is the unrated cut. The tracks from the Arrow Video bluray are all unrated. But they still seem to drift out of sync.

I really don’t understand why the unrated is 7 minutes shorter when the r-rated is supposed to be cut.

imsorrydave2448 said:

It looks like the person who did the scanning had some trouble syncing up the bluray tracks and he’s really busy so he can’t spend anymore time working on it. I’m going to see what I can do. If I can’t figure it out I know someone who should be able to.

There can be problems with syncing because of this:

Runtime:
1h 24min(84 min) (United Kingdom)
1h 26min(86 min) (unrated)
1h 33min(93 min) (R-rated) (United States)
1h 45min(105 min) (Integral) (Germany)

What is the runtime of this 4k 35mm scan?

No, I’m planning to convert other films and I want to know which are the best options.

ykarus1974 said:

a_purist said:

ykarus1974 said:

Ok this is what I did and i think the colors are the same as the screencaptures I found online :

Import in Davinci Resolve
Drag video in timeline
in Proprieties (clic wheel bottom right)
Color Management :
Color science : ACEScc
ACES vrsion : ACES 1.2
ACES input Transform : Rec.2020 ST2084 (2000 nits)
ACES output Transform : Rec.709

Any other suggestions?

I’ve seen the videos you sent me, thank you very much. But I meant if you had checked if there is any difference using, for example, ACEScct instead of ACEScc and 1.3, 1.0.3 or 1.1 instead of 1.2.

Oh i didn’t do the comparision, when going from one to the other in the preview box, i didn’t see any difference. Maybe i could do that if you are interested…

Don’t worry, I just wanted to be sure which one gives the best results.

ykarus1974 said:

Ok this is what I did and i think the colors are the same as the screencaptures I found online :

Import in Davinci Resolve
Drag video in timeline
in Proprieties (clic wheel bottom right)
Color Management :
Color science : ACEScc
ACES vrsion : ACES 1.2
ACES input Transform : Rec.2020 ST2084 (2000 nits)
ACES output Transform : Rec.709

Any other suggestions?

I’ve seen the videos you sent me, thank you very much. But I meant if you had checked if there is any difference using, for example, ACEScct instead of ACEScc and 1.3, 1.0.3 or 1.1 instead of 1.2.

ykarus1974 said:

a_purist said:

ykarus1974 said:

in the color management, should I chose Color Version : ACEScc or ACEScct ? and what version ? ACES 1.0.3? or 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3?

thanks so much, i really appreciate 😃

Very interesting. I haven’t used DaVinci Resolve in years. So this doesn’t make any difference?

Does it matter if you choose ACEScc or ACEScct? Does it matter if you choose 1.0.3, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3?

I haven’t notice any difference but there might be one, i am using my laptop. To give you an idea of the result. Send me a pm so i can give you a link to download a segment 😃

Ok, sent.

ykarus1974 said:

in the color management, should I chose Color Version : ACEScc or ACEScct ? and what version ? ACES 1.0.3? or 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3?

thanks so much, i really appreciate 😃

Very interesting. I haven’t used DaVinci Resolve in years. So this doesn’t make any difference?

Does it matter if you choose ACEScc or ACEScct? Does it matter if you choose 1.0.3, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3?

SnooPac said:

a_purist said:

PsyKovic said:

a_purist said:

SnooPac said:

With the blessing of @elendil42, you can also pm me for links.

Have FOTR & ROTK 1080p/2160p. Also have FOTR BluRay ISO.
TTT 1080p preview hopefully coming soon.

SnooPac, why is the FOTR BluRay ISO you sent me copy-protected? It is impossible to play it.

Even if I remove the AACS protection with DVDFab I can’t play the disc properly either. As a sample, this shot from the movie where Elrond appears:

This way you can see the whole movie

Sounds like a Bad Rip

SnooPac said:

How are you playing it?

My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have discovered why I see the movie that way. This is due to the codec used for Blu-ray encoding, VC-1 instead of AVC. The same thing happens to me with all Blu-ray discs with VC-1 codec.

I see that TTT and ROTK are now available. Will a Blu-ray version of TTT and ROTK ever be released or only FOTR?

No problem. Glad it’s working.

There’s a bluray iso version of TTT, but it’s different. It’s just the movie, no menus or special features. Its not really available yet, but it could be if you are interested.

I would be delighted if we could have a bluray ISO version with menus, just like FOTR, for the complete trilogy. If I can help in any way let me know and I’ll do my best.

FOTR menus are very nice, I really like them. Maybe we can adapt it a little bit by modifying some things to get 3 similar bluray discs for these 3 masterpieces.

PsyKovic said:

a_purist said:

SnooPac said:

With the blessing of @elendil42, you can also pm me for links.

Have FOTR & ROTK 1080p/2160p. Also have FOTR BluRay ISO.
TTT 1080p preview hopefully coming soon.

SnooPac, why is the FOTR BluRay ISO you sent me copy-protected? It is impossible to play it.

Even if I remove the AACS protection with DVDFab I can’t play the disc properly either. As a sample, this shot from the movie where Elrond appears:

This way you can see the whole movie

Sounds like a Bad Rip

SnooPac said:

How are you playing it?

My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have discovered why I see the movie that way. This is due to the codec used for Blu-ray encoding, VC-1 instead of AVC. The same thing happens to me with all Blu-ray discs with VC-1 codec.

I see that TTT and ROTK are now available. Will a Blu-ray version of TTT and ROTK ever be released or only FOTR?

TonyWDA said:

ykarus1974 said:

what do you mean by “properly mapped” ?

Converted, really. This is known as HDR to SDR “tone mapping.” convert the HDR content in question to 8-bit standard dynamic range (SDR) video with a REC.709 color space

Which software did you use to convert Prince of Egypt to get this image?:

2023 4K Transfer [Tone mapped from HDR Blu-ray]

I also want to get properly mapped results from HD Blu-ray and what you show is fantastic.

SnooPac said:

With the blessing of @elendil42, you can also pm me for links.

Have FOTR & ROTK 1080p/2160p. Also have FOTR BluRay ISO.
TTT 1080p preview hopefully coming soon.

SnooPac, why is the FOTR BluRay ISO you sent me copy-protected? It is impossible to play it.

Even if I remove the AACS protection with DVDFab I can’t play the disc properly either. As a sample, this shot from the movie where Elrond appears:

This way you can see the whole movie

Yes, The Driver looks horribly teal.

a_purist said:

Southern Comfort (1981)

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

The Shout Factory Blu-ray does not look like the original color timing. Skip to minute 4:45:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9NX2b8M8Y0

I’m wondering what the original color timing of these 2 Walter Hill films is. Does anyone have the Laserdiscs to find out if a color correction is needed?

I show you these Blu-ray vs. DVD comparisons. The Driver appears to have a greenish cast on the Blu-ray, but I don’t know if that was the case on the original. Southern Comfort also shows differences in some scenes. What do you think?

The Driver (1978)

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

Southern Comfort (1981)

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

DVD:

BLU-RAY:

a_purist said:

Very excited about this project! I guess what you’re looking for is this 1999 release with Bowman on the cover.

This one does not have “Digitally restored and remastered” on it. The MGM DVD master is different and does not include a line of dialogue. I’ll see if I still have it and if so I’ll send you an ISO copy of that Warner 1999 DVD.

The Nolan version sucks!

Sorry for the delay, I don’t have that 2001 DVD anymore. Everyone has probably gotten rid of all those non-remastered Kubrick DVDs by now.

Very excited about this project! I guess what you’re looking for is this 1999 release with Bowman on the cover.

This one does not have “Digitally restored and remastered” on it. The MGM DVD master is different and does not include a line of dialogue. I’ll see if I still have it and if so I’ll send you an ISO copy of that Warner 1999 DVD.

The Nolan version sucks!

gweedo16 said:

Update on Eyes Wide Shut 35mm Print-

The Film has been scanned and is being sent to me and an early collaborator soon. Unfortunately, the scan turned out to be 1.85:1, not 1.33:1. Although, I looked at a preview of the scan and the colors, grain and all look truly beautiful. This project was a bit more expensive than I expected, though.

The total costs of obtaining the reels, scanning, shipping, drives etc. was around $962.

So far, I have around 9-10 interested donators who have given around $30 each. If anyone is interested in seeing this 35mm scan and funding this project, private message me.

So far, I have around $230. Let’s reach the goal of $730. Private message me if interested. This scan is definitely worth seeing!

Could you post frames of your print?

These are apparently 35 mm. frames. Different colors than blu-ray and DVD. Very grainy…

Mango said:

a_purist said:

Hi, Mango!

What have you decided for this scene?

Second Sight UK 40th:

Second Sight Seriously Ultimate Edition UK:

The Seriously Ultimate Edition is much closer to the laserdisc, so mine will be similar to that.

Perfect!

Mango said:

V4 Coming soon!

Great news! But for a flawless finish, in my humble opinion, this film should have:

• The OAR, all Blu-ray releases are open matte (1.78:1 all but german UHD) and should be 1.85:1 (1920x1036, black bars on the top and bottom 22px each)
• Bryanston Pictures logo at the beginning. You can find it on the Blu-ray release of John Carpenter’s “Dark Star”.

https://www.closinglogos.com/page/Bryanston_Pictures

Let me know if you need any help.

Thanks a lot!

Hi, Mango!

What have you decided for this scene?

Second Sight UK 40th:

Second Sight Seriously Ultimate Edition UK:

When we go to imdb.com and take a look at “Technical Specifications” we can find this (SOUND MIX):

Dolby, Dolby Stereo, Dolby SR, Dolby Digital, DTS…

I’d like to know the exact number of channels of each sound format to be sure that their blu-ray releases have the original mix. For instance, Robocop, 1987 (IMDB):

Sound Mix - Dolby SR (35 mm prints) | 70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints) | DTS (special edition)

So, 70 mm (blow-up) 6 track, but, 35 mm? How many channels? Then, I went to blu-ray.com:

English: Dolby Digital 4.0 (Original) (Robocop)

Therefore, is Dolby SR always 4 channels? and what about the other sound formats? From what I understand…

Dolby = ?
Dolby Stereo = 4.0
Dolby SR = 4.0
Dolby Digital = 5.1
DTS = 5.1

One more example, Child’s Play, 1988 (IMDB):

Sound Mix - Dolby Stereo

Blu-ray (MGM):

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description

DTS-HD Master Audio English 3687 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3687 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB / Dolby Surround
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 448 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio French 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB / Dolby Surround
Dolby Digital Audio Portuguese 448 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB

• Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB

Blu-ray (Shout Factory)

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description

DTS-HD Master Audio English 3660 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3660 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
DTS-HD Master Audio English 2095 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 2095 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB

I can’t see 4 channels. No release has included the original mix?

SilverWook said:

That frame is from a few years back, so probably not representative of any work done since then. I have no ETA yet on when this will be done. Just about everybody has bigger problems these days.

Don’t worry, SilverWook. I’ve found something interesting, maybe this could help for framing…

Thank you very much! Does that frame represent the final look?

The frame is 1260x1080 (1.16:1), if I’m not mistaken it would be the result of cropping, for example, the optical soundtrack… am I right?

If so, I guess you have to zoom the frames to fit 1.78:1 (1920x1080) and then masking for 1.85:1 (1920/1036).

I know that kind of things can be done with DaVinci Resolve but I have never scanned any film.

SilverWook said:

Laserdiscs were always dual channel regardless of the audio track. There was no 1.0 mode like DVD or Blu Ray. A mono track could be put on one channel to accommodate a commentary on the other, but a viewer would have to manually select either track or both would be heard at the same time. The addition of digital sound to the format in the mid 80’s allowed for four mono tracks, (two digital, two analog) but this was rarely done.

valien said:

a_purist said:
For this preservation, what would be more accurate? 2.0 or 1.0? In principle, both. But not for a film before… what year? I don’t know how you see it.

The two channels of the “dual mono” soundtrack are exactly the same, and the sound was intended to be reproduced by a single loudspeaker behind the screen at the center.
In a 2.0 setup, both 2.0 mono and 1.0 tracks would be reproduced the same way, i.e., the same signal coming from both loudspeaker. The impression would be that of a single phantom channel at the center. In a setup with three front channels (e.g., 5.1), 2.0 mono would be reproduced from L and R, while 1.0 from the center. So I believe the latter would recreate more faithfully the theatrical experience.

TheHutt said:

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

pipefan413 said:

TheHutt said:

Nope, 2.0 mono would be also reproduced from the center. In a Dolby Surround system, if L and R are identical, they are routed to the center.

This is broadly correct except that it isn’t quite handled that way by the current generation of Dolby’s upmixer/dematrixer (which is, perversely, simply called “Dolby Surround” even though that was the original name of the really basic home tech they used back even before Pro Logic was a thing). It seems the current DTS upmixer does route 100% to C (unless you’ve got the AVR set to LPF the low end out to your sub or whatever) but Dolby Surround actually sends mid-low sound via a LPF to the L and R speakers, with the majority (but not the whole thing) going to C.

This is presumably based on the hypothetically improved bass response of L and R speakers (which are potentially, though not necessarily, floor standing speakers) vs a C speaker (which is usually 2 woofers and a tweeter in a horizontal arrangement, with somewhat limited bass response and a focus on mids instead). In my setup, which has fairily mid-to-treble focused side speakers, this fails miserably and sounds ridiculous so I force the DTS mode instead for 2.0 dual mono and use “Direct” mode for 1.0 to route to C based on the number of channels alone with no fancy upmixer/dematrixer stuff being brought into it.

I didn’t know Laserdiscs were always dual channel, I’ve never had one. It’s very interesting. Whether you choose 1.0 or 2.0 I’m sure you’ll do the right thing.

By the way, as we know “The Shining” was shot in FullFrame, but how do we know the exact part of the frame that would be shown in the theatres? For example, Blu-ray and UHD releases are 1.78:1 (instead of 1.85:1) and despite having the same wrong aspect ratio, both have different framing.

Blu-ray:

UHD:

UHD has less information in the frame (up, down, right and left).

SilverWook said:

Possibly the Dolby Digital print has the 5.1 remix from the early 2000’s and an optical stereo track. I would think a dual mono track insured compatibility with projectors with a stereo sound head?

Dr. Cooper said:

That newer print has all audio-options: Optical Stereo (most likely Dolby SR), Dolby Digital, a DTS-Timecode and SDDS-sound.

Older Mono-prints just had one channel, I think from sometime in the 60s it became more common to use Dual Mono. Don’t know the exact reason, but SilverWook could be right that it had something to do with the upcoming popularity of Stereo-tracks and the soundheads used for them.

freedomland said:

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t008255.html

Brian Dooda draw a very specific timeline when Mono and Stereo-tracks has been used and he backs it up with the noise-reduction types, which were used back in the days. In Conclusion Dr. Cooper nailed it with Dual-Mono and silver-wook with the compatibility of the sound system used in different theatres. 😃

You all are absolutely right. I found this:

-There had been experiments with stereo optical tracks, but there was too much noise to make that sound system worthwhile. But when Dolby Laboratories introduced Dolby A in 1965, a noise reduction method originally developed for professional recording studios, the movie industry saw an opportunity to reinvent the optical track.-

Then, before 1965 there could be no dual mono 35 mm prints. So it would be more accurate if sound films shot between 1927 and 1965 were released on Blu-ray and UHD with a DTS-HD Master Audio Mono (1.0) track (or LPCM) instead of the more usual 2.0.

With “The Shining” print (1980) I wonder what year dual mono 35 mm prints start to appear. Maybe it’s hard to determine the exact year, but there would be Blu-ray releases where a DTS-HD Master Audio Mono (2.0) (or LPCM) would be accurate because the 35mm prints already included 2 channels. Indeed, “The Shining” seems to have been released on LaserDisc with dual channel sound as we can see here:

For this preservation, what would be more accurate? 2.0 or 1.0? In principle, both. But not for a film before… what year? I don’t know how you see it.

Thanks, I’ll take a look at that list.