msycamore

Moth3r said:

Centre channel speakers should be matched to the other speakers, and not be weaker.

You can listen to mono soundtracks through the left and right speakers (effectively creating a "phantom" centre) but this is not ideal - you need to be sat dead centre between the speakers. It's better to use a "real" centre if you have one.

1.0 tracks default to the centre speaker because that is the ideal way to hear them.

This is how I listen to some of the mono tracks I have, but I do know it can sound off on some peoples setups, dialogue in particular. What I still don't get is why do most of the releases including a mono track, include it as a 2.0 mono track when the guide at the Dolby-site states it as an "incorrect" and unnecessary way of encoding a Dolby mono track. Any special reason behind why most companies do this? I think many of the Criterion releases have them as 1.0 though.

erri_wan said:

Msycamore, at the moment I can't access the film but before putting this stuff in you should check if the dubbing was indeed made by CDC. I went by memory there but could even just be "CD" or another company. It's either in the titles at the beginning or in the ones at the very end.

Look for the word "doppiaggio" or "voci"

Is the translation right?

con la partecipazione della C.D. - with the participation of C.D.
doppiaggio eseguito presso la C.D.S. - dubbing done at the C.D.S.
edizione italiana a cura di Claudio Razzi - Italian edition edited by Claudio Razzi

SilverWook said:

No "mono movie" mode like Yamaha amps have, or one to spread the sound around your speakers? What do you do with an old movie that hasn't been remixed?

 

This is what the Encoding Guidelines says for mono on the DOLBY site:

Decoders output 1/0 mode (mono) signals to either the Center channel or Left and
Right channels when the Center channel is not available. It is unnecessary and
therefore not recommended to encode mono signals in 2/0 mode.

Many recievers have a listening mode, on mine it is called direct, that bypass all effects and surround settings so that the audio remains as close to the source audio signal as possible. If you don't have it, you could just change your setup and tell it that you don't have a Center speaker, then it will automatically steer the mono to both L and R speakers. The quality of that sound is of course dependent on the quality of the receiver doing the steering to the fronts.

Mike O said:

Isn't the audio on the DVD of The Conversation a remix?

I think the US release have a 5.1 remix, my region 2 DVD have the original mono track though.

Yes, doubleKO that was indeed from a six-sheet, sorry I was just teasing with you, I'll upload my collection as soon as I've sorted them all, I recently managed to find an even nicer Tom Jung one-sheet on my external HD.

Anchorhead said:

msycamore said:

I take Walter Murch's "The Conversation"...over...

 

I know that my comparisons of films wasn't the best ;)

I have to disagree. 

Your film comparison wipes the floor with anything else I can think of.  The Conversation is an audio masterpiece.  There are layers and nuances that have to be heard to to even come close to understanding. 

It's been a favorite of mine ever since I first saw it in the 70s.  It's also one of my absolute favorites to listen to the full audio rip of.  Which, by the way, is something I do regularly every November, December, and January - weekly, and only on rainy days.

 

Later in the week, Sunday maybe. Sunday definitely.

:) I fully agree, one of my favorites as well, also the fact that Coppola made this film and The Godfather Part II in the same year is nothing short of a miracle.

"The tight credits" also have a crude looking transition to the scrolling titles where part of Jack Purvis is still there and even starts to scroll before John Barry appears. Seems to be a slight glitch of some sort. I assume this is the point were the the revised credits begins with a new dissolve in place. I doubt this would be the reason for it, but I just thought I would point it out.

The revised credits much smoother transition from static to scrolling titles:

zombie84 said:

http://www.savestarwars.com/doasisay.html

Inspired by a recent thread here, Lucas Hypocrisy Strikes Again. I think this collection could be a powerful tool in silencing critics that Lucas has the right to do what he wants, and demonstrating how hollow and hypocritical his stance is.

Always nice to read your thoughts and articles, altough most of us already know these absurd quotes, your compilation of his words on that page is a very good and effective tool to inform others who don't really know how incredible sad the situation has become with Mr. Lucas... Keep up the wonderful job you're doing, Zombie.

none said:

SilverWook wrote: http://www.theforce.net/timetales/misc/arcana/arcana.asp

Thanks, need to go through the credits more closely.  Was hoping that there would have been published somewhere a more or less same credit listing (centered sim spacing) and that would either have or not have this space.  The Program scans (pg18) are reformatted.  Need to do more poking around.  Looked at the Art of SW (1979) and the JW credit is closer to the Special Edition version as the words 'Original Music' appears on the first line, they appear in the second line pre-SE.

 The '77 theatrical program was also re-issued, the one SilverWook linked to is the original though. Checked the original LP also, no "none-traces." Honestly, I don't think it have anything to do with Williams.

dark_jedi said:

LOL, with my new audio set up I will take 7.1 over mono any day of the week, and as far as wiping the floor, NO WAY DUDE! these new HD audio's are just SO powerful you can feel it, I just got all new POLK speakers and a Yamaha 7.2 Receiver so this new HD audio is friggin SWEET!

So 7.1 for me over mono any frackin day.

Yes, I'm aware that most people feel that way and are of that opinion, but what I meant by my statement "a mono track can wipe the floor with a 7.1 sourround track" is the artistic value behind it, how much you can hear sound behind you or the bass doesn't equally mean superior in my world, I take a well made original theatrical mix made for when the film was made before anything a technician have come up with for the newest video release just because it is the new shit. I take Walter Murch's "The Conversation", "THX 1138" over a crap 7.1 mix for Fast and the Furious or Triple X, just because the latter are powerful doesn't mean it fit a 70's film especially when it's not done by the people responsible for the films audio in the first place. (I know that my comparisons of films wasn't the best ;) but I hope you get what I mean)

Harmy said:

That I can agree with but in the case of the soundmixes it's also damn difficult to say which one is the real true original. All three would of course be best but that is sadly quite unrealistic.

Yes, all three '77 sound mixes are part of the original theatrical run, so IMO it is an obvious inclusion, what is sad is that I do agree with you that it would be kind of unrealistic to expect it on a potential future video release, if you're going by other video releases nowadays. The audio part of a film is somehow not considered equally as important and holy as the visual part when it comes to preserving the illusion of the world they were trying to present to us then, which is something I don't get. (not directed towards you)

IMO a well made mono mix can wipe the floor with a 7.1 surround mix even though it's not as technically powerful, and even if it doesn't for some people, it is equally important of preservation as the image itself.

I definitely agree Harmy, it's a damn interesting find though...

Audio mixes are a much bigger issue. IMO, exactly the same as altering the visuals but that goes under the radar most of the time for some reason, that alone made the THX/GOUT release inauthentic.

none said:

adywan wrote: That is true with ESB too. The original version of ESB was the 70mm version as this was the one finished first and contained some differences from the 35mm print.

Rinzler's Making of ESB discusses this on page 333 'A Twist Ending' section.  One of the shots they extended and added dialog to was of the farewell at the end.  A shot of the Falcon docked under the cruiser was not in the 70mm.  Anyone know of any others?

* In the Emperor scene, the hologram of the Emperor is already present in the first shot- it does not "tune in" gradually:

GOUT

Puggo's Super 8

GOUT

Puggo's Super 8

* When Luke falls from Cloud City into the Millennium Falcon, the Falcon's radar dish is not added to the shot:

Puggo's Super 8

* After the probot lands on Hoth and moves frame left, there is an optical wipe to the overhead shot of Luke on his tauntaun, instead of a straight cut.
* After Luke wanders through the snow and falls face down, there is an optical wipe to Han instead of a straight cut.
* The bacta tank scene starts on a close-up of Two-One-Bee and pans right to a closeup of Luke in the tank. It then cuts to FX-7 extending it's arm to the tank. There is no cut to Leia, Han and Threepio observing.
* In the snow battle scene, when Luke drops into the snow after throwing a charge into the Imperial walker, the AT-ST in the background has no atmospheric depth. It looks to close and small.
* The Imperial fleet establishing shot after the magic tree scene has a different TIE fighter sound effect.
* The telepathy between Luke and Vader during the "Hyperspace" cue has straight cuts instead of quick dissolves.
* In the final scene, there is no tracked music from "Yoda and the Force". The scene begins with the first establishing shot of the rebel fleet, then cuts inside the Falcon for Lando to say, "Luke, we're ready for take-off" (but a different take of this was used). After Luke says (voice over), "Good luck, Lando" the scene cuts to inside the rebel cruiser where Luke says, "I'll meet you at the rendezvous, " etc. Not in this version are two more establishing shots of the fleet and an interim effects shot over which Lando says, "When we find Jabba the Hutt and that bounty hunter we'll contact you."

Ah, so it wasn't revised for the '81 re-release then... have you compared the credits more close, none? I don't know, maybe there were typos or other people involved in the production missing that were added to the credits on later prints when the film became the huge hit, some typos have never been fixed to this day though so I don't know about that.

Those examples are also just a few of the differences, there is different spacing throughout the credits, from the moment John Barry appears to the end. I can check it, if someone else haven't already.

Thanks! I'll check the name of the company responsible for the dubbing. About the "schermo panoramico", I just have the original theatrical credits written on the back regardless of the presentation of this disc, the actual content is written on the back as well, it is presented in fullscreen with letterboxed opening and end credits.

Nice to see you setting them straight on this over at avs forum, Zombie. What is very frustrating is that whenever this topic is brought up, some moron is starting to talk about it like we want to remove their precious SE from existence or something when this issue has nothing to do with that at all, do these weird people don't understand that a preservation of the original film has nothing to do with if a change that have been made to these films is considered good or not? It's so fucking tiring to be a fan of these films sometimes...

A few more examples of the different spacing. The wipe to the credits doesn't seem to have been redone, I think the new credits kick in when the transition from the starfield background to John Barry appears. (The puggo Grande screen-caps have not correct aspect ratio and are cropped at the bottom.)

1977

1981

1977

1981

1977

1981

^ That is a nice find none, never thought about the GOUT being basically the '81 print with the '77 opening spliced in.

I wonder why the end titles were redone for the '81 re-release.

Thank you guys, at least it is printer friendly with all the white. ;) Thanks for pointing out the typo, Leo.

Nice, thank you erri! makes a lot of sense. :)

Here's the cover I'm going with:

It's very simple but I hope it's ok, I simply don't have the time and skill to do the fancy stuff.

Another one of those 2004 DVD re-comps in Empire, not many original fx-shots left in these films now... both of these are from the same scene, it's at the end of the film just before they go to light-speed.

Original

2004 DVD

Original

2004 DVD

That is really nice. :)

Yeah, I know.

The before and after clip I was referring to, was the snowspeeder shot.

Maybe Mielr meant the '97 SE not the DVD version.

What they said in the documentaries is definitely not lies, it's just that the footage they show when they talk about it wasn't the footage that got recomped. Which is a serious mistake as they do a sort of before and after comparison of footage that actually was untouched.

Updated the part with the German TV-broadcast, the version compared on the site http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=709625 was apparently the Premiere version aired in '78.

If we only could get a hold of this version as well.