little-endian

MJBenito said:

Hi, I’m quoting your last post but I’ll try to answer every question you’ve asked in this thread.

Thanks. But let me pick up those which got unnoticed:

• What tool(s) do you use for that kind of color adjustments?
• Do they offer any option to apply dither the output before the encoding stage?

BUT it is the only version available in 1.78.

Except for that HDTV version which jakeandelwooduk mentioned, isn’t it?

I tried to compare it with the scope version and besides the fact that not all shots are open matte but sometimes slightly zoomed, the geometry of the shots are also not always matching. After thoughts, I decided it would be too much work to blend 2D and 3D images together cause it would have to be done shot by shot.

I concur, same diagnose. I supposed the effort is also tremendous with “only” the color correction, isn’t it?

But my work on Titanic will stop with the 4K Filmized Open Matte Remaster.

Fair enough.

And the whole project that will also get the 4K Filmized Remaster treatment with adjusted color grading.

What would be great!

V2 is now available and should sync with you all.

Many thanks for sharing and all your great work. Will be enjoyed, backed up and cherished.

Again I wondered what could be accomplished if anyone sane would get access to the original negative and scan that with only minimum color adjustments so it looks right on today’s screens with pristine HDR, preserved film grain, open matte, etc.

Sigh …

A few further thoughts on that project which might call for a “V3”:

While MJBenito’s color adjustments are great and the slight noise layer maybe rescue at least some filmic style, it cannot hide the already “scrubbed”, de-noised and somewhat waxy nature of the source.

Also, directly comparing the 2D Blu-ray release with the upscaled 3D one, the former still has a bit more resolution (visible on the clothes) so I wonder whether an open matte version could be created out of the 2D source with its higher quality and the missing information above and below stitched together from the 3D open matte version. However, the image angles seem to be a bit different and I’m not sure if either eye frame (left & right) from the 3D BD matches the original 2D film frames.

https://ibb.co/VCCCG5C
https://ibb.co/sPwHC6p

There is also an extended cut floating around from 35mm where the additional scenes don’t seem to be sourced from the film, but rather some Web-DL streaming video.

Sigh, all in all, it is so damn frustrating considering that those morons are sitting on the best source possible, the negatives, and apparently can’t simply release that stuff without screwing things up.

I can’t decide what I find more retarded: the stupid AI sharpening on the UHD-BD, the goddamn orange & teal ugly color gradings on both the Blu-rays or the filtering of the 3D-Blu-ray (the latter one maybe being the least non-sensical in regard to the noise which might distract in a 3D experience, although I doubt even that as our human vision isn’t noise-free either thanks to retinal-noise which can be very visible as well). Even if, there is no good reason not to release the open matte in 2D without the damn noise filtering.

So at the end, neither version is really great.

@MJBenito: maybe you could consider to release also a regraded version like this one here, but based on the 2D cinema scope source with its better quality or test another version with even more noise added as the Blu-ray has a lot more (color) noise than its 3D counterpart:

https://ibb.co/C8tfQ09
https://ibb.co/W6kqXKp

That’s great news. Thanks in advance from my side for all the effort!

Some remarks about banding: While I’m not too familiar as of now when it comes to video encodings, in the audio domain, it is always (!) advisable to use dithering in order to transform distortion (in the video domain that corresponds to the infamous ugly banding) into an equally distributed error, resulting in way more pleasant (and often enough not even noticeable) noise.

With video, that may raise the data rate requirements in conjunction with lossy codecs - which would also be my guess why dither is apparently rarely used (besides pure ignorance I suppose) as technically, no bit depth has banding as a direct consequence, but only determines the noise floor under ideal circumstances. Even with 10 bit or whatever bit depth, dither should be applied in theory, but I suppose it is much less of a problem with > 8 bit / color, just as it is neglectable when dealing with 24 bit PCM audio.

So in case you encoding software actually supports (random) dither like the renderer “madVR” does, maybe you can enable that for the next release.

@MJBenito

Having ranted in several forums including Youtube about that insane UHD release of this - from today’s perspective - real classic, I’d love to get a download link as well and highly appreciate the chance to have this movie in a less flawed variant so to say.

Besides the hip AI sharpening, it is beyond me, what moron invented that shitty orange & teal - based kind of color grading in the first place, spreading like a decease. It is so incomprehensibly ugly, unnatural and annoying, grrr. Why can’t they just scan the damn thing and refrain from fiddling around with it, is it so difficult not to mess it up?

Out of interest: with what tool(s) did you perform the color adjustments?

Since the open matte 3D version of the Blu-ray is still more processed than the 2D one, I wonder whether it would be possible to take that as the source instead and extend the missing frame parts with the ones from the 3D version.

sidshady12 said:

All I care about is maintaining the accurate sound but presenting it in a 5.1 format, as this film makes heavy use of surround sound.

Then eac3to is probably the tool you wanna use. Just call it with the -down6 parameter and it will mix down any 7.1 or 6.1 source to 5.1.

johnkimble said:

one flew over the cuckoo’s nest - another point less 5.1 mix w/ added foley.

Well, besides that any LFE is pure legacy to begin with and wouldn’t really be required in any PCM form, in case of such movies, that “.1” doesn’t make any sense at all of course. Given the dialog-heavy genre, here it boils down to being essentially a 3.0 mix disguised as marketing-friendly 5.1 as usual.

Anyways, since I recently acquired the LaserDisc mono track from a friendly member at fanres.com, I have to say that I actually prefer the remix to that one as the LD’s audio for some reason has a noticeable metallic/tinny/roary sound in the background in several scenes which I personally find awful. I have no idea what causes this as I’ve already noticed that in other, way more modern releases from time to time. Sounds a bit like the effect called “sleepy hollow”, like being played through an echoing metallic tube (also the newer mix of “Léon - the professional” has it as I reported here).

Apparent scenes are:

08:57 (McMurphy having a seat in the doctor’s office)
59:10 where they are on the boat

In both cases, the LD sounds very tinny with the sounds of the waves in the boat scene barely hearable whereas none of this happens with the 5.1 AC3 provided by the Blu-ray.

Since I cannot say for sure whether it is just the way it was originally recorded (and magically removed later on) or something which went wrong with the contact’s capturing, any other of your experiences to be shared would be appreciated.

My words about four years ago, when I had given it a boost as well. Nothing wrong in doing so, rather the opposite. 😃

Thanks a lot for providing those further details, even if they make any DTS release rather unlikely to have existed in the first place.

I’d say, it continuously is the stereo audio from the Japanese LaserDisc or alternatively the surround mix from the Japanese DVD then, unless any other promising source ever shows up.

Depends on how much the BD from 2015 again differs to the former Skynet Edition (by the way, why release a movie once in a proper way if you can release it instead uncountable times in mediocre quality, right?), as at least the AC3 has already been successfully synchronized years ago by Jonno here in the forum.

@sch4rk: after a few years since you’ve started the thread, it would be interesting to “round it up” with at least some consensus. 😉

So, I guess we can all agree that at Shout!Factory they were pretty pleased with themselves when they got the lameassed 2.0 mix and decided to “let it be”.

However, what do you guys now think about the Web-DL vs. Cinema DTS mix? Meanwhile, we also got two more versions on Blu-ray from the UK and Germany, both providing the English mix in 5.1 - the one according to Shout!Factory never existed.

Hence there should still be a few points left up for discussion, so wake up, old thread!

There are even two. One with DTS and one with AC3, which has the specialty of coming alone with a somewhat different sounding Dolby Surround Mix as PCM.

Not in HD, but at least not intentionally messed up either.

Scream - also an all-time classic.

While I was searching for a HD variant of the unrated director’s cut myself a while ago, I have given up. The unofficial release might be a nice effort to combine the HD video with the missing scenes, but actually I wouldn’t bother with the Blu-ray video to begin with due to its awful sharpening and color-retiming.

Here, her face on the HD master looks somehow cheesy and pale:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=610&y=211&d1=6566&d2=6568&s1=61916&s2=61936&l=0&i=5&go=1

Whereas on this frame one can see that the - yeah a bit - higher resolution of the HD version is pretty much unraveled by the use of retarded filtering and sharpening:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=552&y=239&d1=6566&d2=6568&s1=61914&s2=61934&l=0&i=3&go=1

As for the Japanese DVD which I possess as well - skip that too because it has severe aliasing.

Hence overall, the German DVD by Kinowelt is the only way to go here so far.

Great attempt to revive a little rusty thread, I’d be interested as well and could throw the 5.1 “alleged” CDS mix in the AC3 container from the first US DVD onto the pile.

However, since you’re referring to the “detail” of the UHD-release which indirectly is hinted to only require some grain to be added for the theatrical experience, I want to put up the question about that detail in the first place, as exactly some of that very detail of course got lost in the process of the retarded filtering. Not that frequency-response-wise there wouldn’t be more to resolve compared to the former HD-variants, but for me overall it is somewhat a sad and frustrating “pick your poison” - case.

I predict already that True Lies will suffer a similar, silly fate, although I’d love to be proven wrong. I’ll never get how one can be (or become) so ignorant of one own’s formerly great work. But, yeah, the whole world is holding its breath for Avatar 17 … way more important.

In order to help reviving an old thread - I could provide the AC3 audio from the first US DVD, PCM from the Japanese LaserDisc as well as DTS from the US LaserDisc if required. The Cinema DTS source would be very interesting to compare and nice to have as well of course. Anyone in possession of that by any chance?

Thanks for this thread, I’d definitely be interested in having a more faithful representation of the movie. I guess “faithfulness” works on several levels as also the version from 1997 is way more authentic in regard to the original story and in my opinion way better than the toned down and almost comedy-like Kubrick version.

I suppose you’re talking about the DVD versus the German Blu-ray, right? As far as I am aware, it’s the only official HD release so far. While overall it is definitely a decent upgrade, not only is the color grading different but also the contrast has been boosted a bit:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=442&y=188&d1=5198&d2=5199&s1=48485&s2=48496&l=0&i=2&go=1

Would be interesting to see a HDTV rip if it has been ever shown on TV.

Just as a remark for all holding the 25fps version and wanting to watch it in proper speed - you can adjust the audio back to the slower speed and re-flag the video accordingly by using the great tool “eac3to”.

Which release is “this” referring to after all “please please” - the 35mm or the ‘open matte video’ one?

I suppose we essentially agree. 😃

Of course, it’s a matter of taste. I’d welcome a bit more detail in darker areas but the gritty look is really neat and literally a nice contrast to the more video-like experience with the HD versions. Unfortunately (or luckily maybe as otherwise I’d be even older than I already am) I was too young to watch True Lies in the cinema, but I guess this was just the way it looked.

Will be interesting to see what they do with any official Blu-ray* release if Cameron ever cares to get it done instead of planning half a dozen Avatar sequels.

(*) considering how late they are, they could skip it right away and rather dump a 4K scan from the negative onto UHD. 😉

Well, while I am confident that the 35mm print was professionally captured as good as possible and probably virtually shows everything what the LPP film print had to offer, considering that the video releases (from whatever source they come from) show a lot more detail in dark areas, I think it’s fair to consider the blacks to be “crushed” compared to some original negative which must be lying around somewhere - at first independently of where that happened (during the film to video transfer or from film to film).

In other words - I didn’t mean to say that any dark detail was crushed on purpose within the scan project, all I am saying is - given the original negative - it should be possible to have all the grainy and cinematic look the current scan has plus the details in the dark areas (which would be nice). After all, one has to have dreams, right? 😉

Taking that aside, it is absolutely marvelous to have both versions so my highest respect to all who were involved creating that 35mm film scan.

In order to give this thread an update and hopefully a little boost as well - there is a parallel thread about True Lies, mainly about the 35mm film print scan.

In terms of HD versions floating around which have both advantages and disadvantages to the 35mm scan, I got three different ones at hand:

• D-Theater with untouched MPEG2 1080i60/1.001 video stream, muxed to Matroska with a bunch of German DTS and AC3 tracks and English DTS, about 25.7 GB in size

• Web-DL from Amazon with H.264 1080p24/1.001 open matte video stream, muxed to Matroska with E-AC3 audio, about 12.1 GB in size

• HDTV from an unknown source with custom cropped H.264 1080p24/1.001 open matte video stream, muxed to Matroska with the same bunch of tracks like the D-Theater one, about 16.7 GB in size

Whereas the video streams of the Amazon Web-DL and the HDTV are roughly the same (the total size difference being only due to the muxed audio streams), the Amazon release has a slightly better sharpness and less data reduction artefacts after a quick check. Also the frame vertical stretch is slightly different.

Compared to the 35mm print, the SD and HD video versions have way higher detail in dark areas/scenes but on the other hand a little lower resolution and - risking to highly speculate here - probably not the color timing which was originally intended. Hence overall, the 35mm print of course provides a rougher cinematic experience, but at the cost of quite some severe black crush, a fact which can’t be embellished either.

Depending on the interest here, I’ll go ahead and provide screenshots for comparison later on.

By the way, there is also an open matte version floating around in HD.

Well, to be strict, the D-Theater release on D-VHS in fact is an official HD release and the only one so far. 😉

A big thank you to RU.08 for pointing out that great release!

ScruffyNerfHerder said:
My point was that a near-field mix is created to sound better in a home. That’s all. 😃

Well, but you also put an assumption that the LaserDisc audio would have a near-field mix created to sound better at home.

And just in case I gave that impression unintendedly: I don’t know it any better for sure, so I am not claiming to know the truth here, just trying to get a discussion going to find it out.

Because from what I see and hear, and judging by the dynamics, the LaserDisc PCM track doesn’t feel like some compromised near-field mix to me so I would be interest why you guys apprently think so.

ScruffyNerfHerder said:

Basically, as I understand it, a near-field mix is a remix of the theatrical audio for home theater. Near field because you’re near the speakers in a home theater, and in a far-field mix (i.e. a commercial theater) you aren’t. So, the Laserdisc audio is redone to sound better in a home, whereas the original optical track sounds better in a movie theater.

Maybe I am missing something here, but thanks to RU.08 I had the chance to listen to the “optical track” in comparison now and to my eyes and ears, the LD audio is technically better in every aspect.

Not that the optical track wouldn’t be worth being preserved due to the different sound and historical value alone of course, but the LD audio features a significantly higher dynamic range (just like DiscLord reported it) and is also “clean” whereas the (I assume analog) optical track has distortions which are especially noticeable during the dialog.

Thus I’d rather assume that it was in fact the LD audio which was originally created as the cinema master back then and not vice-versa. If they would have adjusted it to sound “good” on home theaters afterwards, normally that would have meant a reduction of dynamic range, not an increase as many nowadays low-end soundbar stuff (or worse) actually sound better with higher compressed sources. And given that it the mass market, no surprises here. However, the LaserDisc would predate that loudness-war era anyway so I wonder where the “near-field mix theory” comes from.

At least from what I’ve heard now, the optical track sounds like a decent attempt to reproduce the original master, however with all the limitations of these analog optical systems that time whereas the LD gives you the raw, dynamic deal.

Ah, I see. However, I am then successfully confused in terms of your former comment which was “Also, the optical audio is better quality than the LD”.

Due to Disclord’s review, I thought that the PCM of the US THX-LaserDisc was the version to get:

Quote:

“The CLV used the 9db headroom limited Dolby Stereo SR soundtrack while the THX WS CAV used the 20db headroom SR master that was created for the Dolby Digital release prints. The CAV discs sound has a power and clarity that the CLV cant match with its more limited headroom.”