The AC3 track of the first Live/Artisan US-DVD can’t be easily synchronized to the recent BD’s video master either so yet another hint that the DTS audio of these obscure Japanese releases might be in fact based on the same mix. So the issues getting it aligned are to be expected. Maybe you can save yourself some trouble by contacting Jonno who created the custom AC3 file back then. In theory, the same treatment should be successful with the DTS source.
What do you mean by DTS track? The track I talk about contains the cinema DTS audio which is a completely different codec than the home video DTS variant but can be easily decoded via a Foobar plugin to 5.1 PCM. Hence no “classical” DTS involved here which could be decoded by AV-receivers directly.
Not sure whether schn4rk is still working on this but for the time being I could provide you the “raw” DTS APT-X100 footage so on a rainy day you could go ahead and sync it together on your own which in the case of Hackers luckily isn’t that difficult.
Many thanks for replying on that somewhat dated topic, MrBrown.
So your introduced “PIBF-92119” was a typo then and doesn’t exist, correct?
In terms of the two Japanese DTS releases being the same or not, guess there’s once again only one way to find out …
Luckily they are not expensive, especially if one is in Japan anyway with thus moderate shipping costs. 😉
I’d like to revive this thread as at least for me, this whole Terminator-2-CDS-mix-or-not-thing still hasn’t been fully examined, let alone of an official confirmation which we’ll probably wait for forever.
So I went through this thread again and also some others and the following points are still unanswered for me.
Let’s start with probably the most tricky one as playback devices are even rarer than the tapes -
The D-Theater release - has anyone had a chance yet to check out which mix had been used for this one back in the days?
So there seems to be at least some kind of consensus now that the AC3 data on the first Artisan/Live US DVD is in fact not the only source for the allegded CDS mix, but also available in form of the DTS data carried by some Japanese DVD.
In that regard …
Maybe I have the Japanese PIBF-92119 DVD with the Full Rate DTS Track here next Month.
Are you sure about that catalog number? Because I’ve “only” found the two so far which is confusing enough actually to have again two different releases with DTS included apparently:
PIBF-91219 and PIBF1219.
Besides from that - again - if that is true, then the “always been right” user DiscLord must have been wrong back then when he stated “For example, the original T2 DVD theatrical cut used the 5.1 mix made for the Kodak/ORC CDS (Cinema Digital Sound) system - no other DVD and no LaserDisc ever used that mix.” in this thread.
If I am not mistaken though, Gary started the remixing work in 2001 for the Ultimate Edition of the DVD so any former ones including LaserDiscs would have been released too early to carry any altered mix of the original?
Which leads to point
- Does the US LaserDisc with AC3 LD68952-2DD carry the CDS mix now or not?
The mentioning of “remastered” is a bit irritating, although “remastered” doesn’t necessarily mean “remixed”. Maybe the term rather tries to emphasize on the fact that it is in 5.1 now in contrast to the former Dolby Stereo releases and thus “remastered”.
- How many 5.1 mixes are known for Terminator 2? To my knowledge only the 2 of Gary Rydstrom before and after he revised his own work, but on the other hand, there are tons of releases and sometimes customized versions assumingly done by the releasing studio itself, like it happened with a the “platinum edition” DVD of Se7en if I remember correctly.
Sooner or later, I’ll figure it out on my own (yet have to get a D-Theater compatible D-VHS player, the LD and one or two of the Japanese DVDs with DTS) but I’d like to keep the discussion going and maybe someone has been “already” able to compare all these versions.
As I apparently got it pretty wrong when it comes to my recent rant about the Starship Troopers UHD (HDR->SDR issue though), just in case a disclaimer right away - all what I’m writing now is assuming the screenshots at caps-a-holic represent the final look and are not a result of yet another tone mapping or some other flawed conversion process:
The 10th Anniversary Edition of ‘Memento’ looks fantastic!
Well obviously it appears to be a matter of taste after all but I wouldn’t call clipped highlights and boosted contrasts to ‘look fantastic’. Might be in the minority apparently as the new disc got decent ratings overall.
About on par with how a 35mm projected print looks like, with boosted contrast (acquired from the stages of printing - ON-IP-IN-Release print)
How about the filtered black and white - scenes which look way less ‘film like’ than on the original release thanks to the lack of grain and spatial resolution?
The original Blu-ray looks horribly dull and flat. Movies projected on film do not look so dull and lifeless.
Well, at least the contrast could still be boosted during playback of the original master whereas you won’t be able to recover the highlights on the boosted remaster. Since the details originally have been there, they obviously are part of what was captured at the set and hence should be there - whether the overall look is too dull for someone’s personal taste or not.
Many thanks for your replies and sorry for being a bit late catching up.
@Turisu: you are right, they actually have indeed. That I’ve somewhat painfully realized by now.
After all, I put too much trust in the correct result of having madVR converting it including the usual comparison sources and based all my arguments on that.
Hence the only reason I opened that thread here was because I felt stuck there with no explanation before Geoff_D luckily pointed it out.
So it seems to be a general issue depending on the target brightness mastering, but this thread here might still be interesting in terms of having a comparison with a 35mm copy one day to really be sure.
You seem to be right as well, as of now I guess we can entirely forget the usual image comparison sites and methods which most of us are only too used to. 😦
My mistake, used the wrong syntax. They should work now.
A great, cheesy, gory and satirical classic from the 90s, recently re-released on UHD.
As far as I remember, both the DVD and also the Blu-ray (sadly I haven’t had a chance to check the LaserDisc yet) were considered to be decent releases considering the medium at that time.
Now while the UHD release seems to beautifully preserve the original resolution and grain structure of the 35mm original, the contrast looks hopelessly boosted to me. This is especially visible during the football match but also faces which even have a slightly orange tint.
I have to stress the “to me” here because - yes, of right now I don’t have the proper equipment to really check whether the blown out whites are due to the tone-mapping when using madVR or my Note 8’s hardware decoder (yeah, 4K on 6 inch might be overkill, but still should be good enough to judge whether the resolution and contrast are decent or not).
When I found a thread at avforums where at least a few mentioned the boosted HDR, I tried to bring that issue to further attention but instead I mostly got the heat of being a newbie there and raising a stink without even owning HDR-capable equipment and thus “haven’t seen” (which misses the point as it should be possible to get it displayed correctly via madVR and MPV). So I guess protocol and formalities are more important than content these days.
So just in order to rule out any flawed playback on my side, I’d be interested in knowing your experience when displayed on a decent TV. Also, maybe someone got his hand on a 35mm print so it would be possible to compare the UHD release to the theatrical presentation in terms of color and contrast back in the days.
Interesting that Nolan himself is instigated in the production of this remaster. Maybe we’ll see a theatrically faithful version yet?
Well unfortunately, Nolan can hold up as a prime example that the involvement of a director is no guarantor that a remaster turns out to be better:
With Memento, we yet again had a master with the contrast boosted (which seems to be a spreading decease these days just like the loudness war with audio) and lower resolution black and white scenes.
You’re welcome. The only combination which personally I used to be successful with, I described in another forum.
Even editors like Audacity or Cool Edit Pro screwed up the data on my system, however that doesn’t seem to be the issue in your case.
In terms of comparison, I’d just rely on built-in tools like “fc” under Windows or something similar and a hex editor of your choice for synchronization as after all, you’ll hardly be able to catch exactly the same position of several recording runs.
If the first shorter run was successful, then there is no reason to change the recording software or format I’d say and of course technically, 16-bit-PCM is just right.
First thing I’d do is to make a second recording and compare the resulting files if they are identical to rule out any playback problem.
Thanks rymo, would be nice if any other here has a backup of the second disc for the sake of archival.
In terms of the content, a while ago I started this thread, so you might be interested:
Yes, those were the times. The times of decent mixes and no retarded loudness war and huge dynamic ranges … sigh.
Luckily, that logo intro was also contained in the 35mm scan which was floating around a while ago. With all the dirt and scratches one has the true nostalgic experience of that movie, haha.
Ah yeah okay, the channel assignment has to be adjusted. But the biggest leap is that this decoder plugin takes care of the mixing whereas the Winamp plugin puts out the raw 5.0 audio “as is”.
This plugin is so inconspicuous and unadvertised that it took me a while as well to discover it. Good find and very well worth archiving - which I would recommend doing with your DTS CD also. One never knows …
Doesn’t that plugin already output the correct mix including generating the LFE out of the bass part contained in the rear channels? Actually it should be possible to create a FLAC file or other format “on the fly” directly in Foobar as well.
It’s actually quite simple meanwhile thanks to a Foobar plugin available here:
So the big challenge isn’t to decode it but to get one’s hands on those DTS CDs in the first place. 😉
Great find indeed and “classic” as well worth being preserved.
That weird UK censorship is really beyond ridiculousness, instead of messing around with dozens of altered releases worldwide, these morons should better concentrate on releasing it in a decent way once.
Unfortunately I just saw this thread so could I still somehow sign up for the ride and get a copy? Financial contribution as a matter of course.
However, another thing I see here all the time:
If already taking all the effort to preserve that kind of stuff - why the hell the limitation to some at least ten year old media such as BD-25? I mean who burns Blu-rays these days?
25GB might be halfway decent considering the runtime just for the main movie but I don’t see any rational reason to limit the bitrate that way if we could easily bump it up to 40 GB.
If there’s anything cheap these days, then it’s internet traffic and storage space.
Yes, but at least for project usage, this shouldn’t be a major drawback as the English cast could easily be taken from the US Blu-ray then.
However, I’d just take it as it is, I wouldn’t mind. Sometimes German Blu-rays have a German video master as well but as long as I get the best quality, it’s not a major turn off for me.
Deleted the first part as I made a mistake by assuming the seller I contacted offered Titanic as well but it’s a different one, sorry.
Anyway, I’d also be interested and willing to financial contribute to a project here.
Thanks for that supplement. Forgive me my sarcasm but hurray, after about a decade we’re back where we started. I mean, neither did the first US release have the stupid filtering and while they managed it to get it slightly sharper and propably more efficiently compressed thanks to H.264, it’s hardly a huge difference:
Absolutely pathetic in my eyes, considering they had 10 years to properly re-release it.
Back to True Lies:
Since that seller obviously resides in America and is as keen on as most sellers from America to ship internationally, I wonder if anyone would be interested in getting a project running.
While I’d be actually interested to buy it, unfortunately I have neither the equipment nor the expertise to properly scan a 35mm film at 2K or even 4K (although I doubt that the original’s details go up that far anyway).
So many we could join our forces.
Damn you, now you made me wanting this baby. 😉
I’m actually really considering it but of course wonder if the price is halfway decent.
If I really should end up buying it, of course I would also intend to make a project out of it thus releasing it properly scanned with the original Cinema DTS.
True Lies in decent at least 2K resolution without any stupid filtering or smearing, oh boy, that would be something.
Having said that, it remains a mystery to me how a director can make such a cool movie (T2 would be another example) and then not giving any an about a good release. I mean how often was T2 released on Blu-ray now? And all made from the same shitty outdated and postprocessed master. Shame on him and all the other idiots who make such decisions!
Were you already able to get it running in the meantime? Unfortunately I don’t even have a PC at hand now, otherwise I’d test it myself.
In order to hook up with Mjvmovieman:
Since it was mentioned that the Cinema DTS has been archived here as well - is there any significant difference to the DTS, the US LaserDisc provides?
While I’m all with you when it comes to your subjective perception about the different appearance, I only wanted to point out that these differences essentially don’t lie in the fact that one information is analog on film and the other one is digital but that the differences are caused by other things. The sensors in electronic cameras have quite a different characteristic compared to film chemics, I certainly give you that. But that has nothing to do with the digitalisation process itself.
And yes, the DNA consists of 4 bases which perfectly fits the definition of being digital as long as we’re talking about discreet values. Digital doesn’t necessarily mean binary, another very common misconception - it’s just the most prominent variant.
Other digital sets are:
English alphabet (26 values)
ISDN: (3 values)
Chinese: (several thousand)
Doesn’t matter, by definition any limited character set can be losslessly converted to any other base, hence it can be mathematically proven that digital data doesn’t have to be binary.
To summarise that: your observation in practise is correct but you’re drawing the wrong conclusion about what causes it as digitalising something while sticking to the rules of Nyquist/Shannon certainly doesn’t take any “life” out of anything.