Sign In

junh1024

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Jun-2015
Last activity
16-Jun-2018
Posts
55

Post History

Post
#1197984
Topic
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - UHD IMAX Edit
Time

I would rather not do this project at all (or for now) for several reasons:

consumer UHD is in its infancy, and there’s a bunch of professional decoders, etc that aren’t available.

Also, I have conflicting information whether the 4K is upscale or not

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/ < says yes
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3896198/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec < says no

Post
#1197979
Topic
4K Blu-ray vs. Blu-ray Differences
Time

Most UBDs are HDR, but the HDR isn’t done well (especially for older releases).

Also, since most UBDs are older releases, it would be upscaled from 2K or less. Even ones shot on film would’ve most likely had a 2K (for BD) or even reusing 1.2K DI (for DVD, yes, that happens, e.g, bourne M1 looks as sharp as 1.2K on UBD).

Do they require different software or a much more powerful editing rig?

Maybe, but you needn’t a more powerful PC to edit. Many editors commonly edit with LQ clip proxies which they then should substitute for HQ clips before the final render, except when they forget.

Eg. EX_MACHINA: text on BD looked sharp, but the footage looked DVD-quality. Probably a case of forgetting to un-proxy the footage. UBD looks 2-3K quality though.

Post
#1093117
Topic
5.1 surround sound on Despecialized Editions?
Time

hairy_hen said:
My assertion that the stereo mix is preferable for two-channel systems is more of a strong recommendation than an absolute “NO YOU CAN’T DO THAT!” sort of thing. 😉
In the next version (assuming again that I have time to do a next version), I’m hoping that this downmixing problem will be much less of an issue.

If you’re upscaling to 5.1 just for the purpose of including the LFE, I wouldn’t bother as it’s a lot more trouble than it’s worth. Maybe mix in the LFE @ -10dB.

Or there’s a more elegant way of delivering stereo+LFE - direct bitstream configuration.

AC3 & DTSMA can support 2.1 natively, and encoders are readily available.

Post
#1093116
Topic
DTS audio preservation .... UPDATE 07 May 2015 ... Work In Progress
Time

dvdmike said:

Home mixes are normally nearfield and remixed.
These are the original mixes and therefore better and not watered down.

I wouldn’t say ‘normally’, it’s highly dependant on publisher, etc. I’d think with a lot of films they wouldn’t bother remixing it for home.

But I do dread Disney’s DEHT things.

Post
#1074480
Topic
5.1 surround sound on Despecialized Editions?
Time

Anyways, I think using the Dolby Pro Logic IIx 6.1 decoder will yield better results even for mono surrounds than Dolby Pro Logic II 5.1 or Dolby Pro Logic 4.0.

Not necessarily. Decoders/upscalers decode to whatever output config you select.

The upscalers have NO KNOWLEDGE of the config of the source material, all they get is 2ch something. And they WILL upscale to any number of speakers you select.

DPL2x is 6.1 OR 7.1 (Again, whatever you select). DPL2x will (generally) NOT increase the discreteness of your upscale by a large amount, because there is only so much info you can store in (matrixed) 2ch (in fact, the most sortove discrete ch you can store in 2ch is 3ch with the best DPL2 decoding, you can only get more with extremely controlled synthetic conditions.). Using professional 5.1>7.1 upmixers, what’s in the back 4 is basically the same as the previous 2.

You can>: decode to 5.1 (DPL2) and mono the rears. OR decode to 4ch (DPL1) and stereoize the back.

Post
#1072211
Topic
5.1 surround sound on Despecialized Editions?
Time

Moth3r said:

That said, when listening to hairy_hen’s purist mix for Harmy’s despecialized ROTJ, I noticed a significant amount of bleeding of dialogue from the centre channel into the front left and rights. I say significant because, if I play the 1993 mix through my receiver in Pro Logic II mode, this bleed is much reduced. I thought that the 5.1 mix was created from a Pro Logic II upmix in software, so this is surprising.

Most FREE DPL decoders in software are of the passive consumer non-steering type :dolby surround: , which are inferior to the PRO PL1 (with primitive allband steering), & obviously all inferior to PL2. I’m guessing he used PL1/DS things.

As of now, there are FREE PL2 things, only one I know of is freesurround (the foobar implementation being easiest to use imo), which should have much less C ch bleed. (hint, use old defaults preset for maximum discreteness)

Post
#1072199
Topic
DTS audio preservation .... UPDATE 07 May 2015 ... Work In Progress
Time

Turisu said:

I’ve now had the chance to sample the Matrix theatrical DTS and compare it to the BR audio. To me the two sound very similar with any perceived difference possibly being due to levels as hairy_hen mentioned.

That being said, there’s something about knowing I’m listening to the original theatrical audio that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling and an outstanding job has been done syncing it to the BR so this will remain my preferred track for watching the movie. Many thanks Jetrell Fo for making this available. 😃

Seeing how the BD & CINEMA tracks are ± identical, and keeping in mind cinema DTS is presumably worse than consumer DTS, which is about half the quality as AC3 at the same bitrate, it is incredibly daft to listen to the cinema track when BD AC3 is available because you’re listening to much reduced quality for no benefit.

Oh, and thanks hairy_hen for explanation/comparison.

Post
#1069975
Topic
Audio Isolation Using Per-Sample (or near per sample) Mode Averaging
Time

TylerDurden389 said:

I’m wondering if this will help me with my edit Of Terminator 2. I need to isolate and extract all the dialogue, as it’s the only original audio my edit will have. All other sounds are being rebuilt from the ground up. Gunshots, explosions, the T-1000’s noises, ambience, and of course, the score.

No it won’t. You won’t have a 2ry audio source. If T2 is in surround, you can try fiddling with the center chan, if it isn’t satisfactory or 2ch, try dialogue isolate in izotope Rx6.

Post
#1056409
Topic
Audio Isolation Using Per-Sample (or near per sample) Mode Averaging
Time

My 2017 reply.

My thought on this project is based on the “My Neighbor Totoro” original english DUB - I’d love to hear the vocal talent from that release grafted onto the higher quality soundtrack backing the Japanese and Disney DUB. Of course, this only even theoretically works if the audio is in perfect sync.

Cool.

Usually when you combine audio or video, you use a regular mean average. Sometimes when you’re capturing video and want to remove artifacts, you use a median average that eliminates outliers. What you don’t see a lot is MODE averaging, where the most commonly occurring pixel or sample is used.

Okay.

I’m proposing a potential breakthrough in movies with dubbing at least, using a MODE average process to compare and combine audio tracks on a Per-Sample basis (or 1ms basis… just something very small).

No, mode is probably not going to work because probably not perfectly sync. YOu can try, but you will likely not get what you want.

If you wanted to do something roughly using average modes, it wouldn’t work in the time domain, you’d need to use FFT. And it would be eaxsiet to use 2 languages only, to do a ‘minimum of’ bins in the frequency domain, instead of mode. This tool does not exist yet. Lets’ take a look again at the motive:

I’d love to hear the vocal talent from that release grafted onto the higher quality soundtrack backing the Japanese and Disney DUB.

Okay. So if this is ur motive, you can do center channel removal of a stereo track, and then place it behind the mono EN dub.

Or, take the side channel of any stereo track, and then place it behind the mono EN dub.

Drawbacks of both methods: may be too much or too little content, and unstable imaging.

NB: I haven’t tried any of these things btw.