zee944

That's all? Noone else has anything to say about the 5.1 mix?

Does it mean it's a genuine remix?

CatBus said:

I haven't had a chance to check the DCP file out yet, but what are the opinions on its 5.1 DTS track?  I'm assuming it was redone/remastered for digital cinema, but is it still pretty faithful to the original theatrical feel?

CatBus brought it up, but I'm interested in it too. Can we discuss here what is the problem with BTTF's 5.1 mix?

I just really want to know. Is there anything wrong with it outside the fact it's not the original mix?

deho said:

About time stretching: Can you elaborate on the downsides to that? Especially when its just used filling a 20 ms gap.

I was also thinking about the analog capture ilovewaterslides made. I have absolutely no experiences with Laserdiscs. If a Laserdisc features an analog and digital audio track, are they always from the same master? Could it be that the analog track is superior to the digital one, because less compression was applied (similar to vinyl captures that offer a higher dynamic range than Audio-CDs)?

Logically if you time stretch a piece of sound that has distinct effects in it, those effects won't be at their original timecode, so won't be in sync anymore. Stretching make no sense in this case, as the same time you solve a problem, you create another one. In a different case, when the piece you want to time stretch is only an indistinct hum with no recognizable sounds, you could say the stretching won't be noticable. But if the piece is so monotonous why would you need stretching? You could just copy-paste instead.

What you have to see is the whole time stretching method contradicts the idea of syncing. If one frame is missing in a material, you have to fill in the space somehow and not do any harm to the rest of the sound. Especially not something that moves them out of sync. See what I mean? Time stretching is of course the right thing to do if there are speed differences, like framerate conversions etc. So all the cases when the sound is "stretched" and you have "unstretch" it.

Stretching is also risky because by default it affects the pitch as well. When it is done a way no to affect the pitch it often sounds poor. There are sound editors out there that can do speed adjustment with no pitch change and in good quality but it depends on the nature of sound (dialogues, music etc.). It's really not the most straightforward thing to do well.

deho said:

Well, a lot of editing needed to be done. I had both, the original and the Laserdisc audio, open in Audition and they weren't in sync every 2-3 mins, sometimes even after a couple of seconds.

If it goes out of sync all the time, there is an error. The two (three) sources are may be in different formats (different speed), or one version has many framecuts, perhaps to get rid of damaged frames at scene changes. The third option is that there's a fluctuation in one of the recordings. But there is something for sure.

The best case is the fluctuation, but only if the phenomenon is indeed insignificant. If it goes out of sync by 10 milisecs every 2-3 minutes AND it goes back to sync BY ITSELF in the next 2-3 minutes, it should be fine. But from your description it doesn't seem that simple.

The time stretching method really has to be the last resort. Ever since I realized how wrong it is, I've never used it anymore, for any movie to fill up holes in the audio.

deho said:

That seems to be the issue. I will work on it later today and upload the audio once it's perfectly in sync.

You know that you have to find all the missing frames for perfect sync? I mean every single one of them. And cut & paste editing for filling up the holes. No time stretching.

One frame difference is noticeable for a very trained eye, 3-4 frames difference is noticeable for everyone.

nirbateman said:

Okay, so a very generous member sent me a remuxed mkv of the DCP.

The file is 34 GB, so I have decided to wait for the LD audio that should be ready soon, mux it in and either create a new BD with tsmuxer or upload it as the remuxed mkv it is.

Which is more preferred?

Thanks to that very generous member whoever he is!

I'm not familiar with the HD formats. Am I right if assume that an .mkv container can only have one audio track, while a Blu-ray can have many, so you can put in the "original" audio and the LD audio in there too? I'd say go with the Blu-ray then, as if anything is wrong with the LD audio (not in sync or something else) I can still switch to the 5.1 mix.

AntcuFaalb said: I'm definitely interested in some bit-perfect rips. I don't think the currently-available ones are bit-perfect. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

What does "bit-perfect" mean? I've no idea.

Get over that misphrased or mistyped sentence. It's been cleared up. (Hey, dvdmike helped us getting the Canal+ version when it was gone from the inernet for a long time anyway... we all know that, don't we?)

If those six copies are actually from three different transfers, you're in luck already. There may be just two different transfers. To use that median/average magic properly you'd have to use image registration technique first, which also takes a lot of dedication. The result could be easily better than the NTSC DVD yes, but it doesn't contradict with what I have said: it'd still be DVD quality.

Noone can tell how the BD would turn out. But having a flawed, high resolution BD version to work with is a much better situation than having only SD materials.

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

Plus, there is a third possibility, "a la Batman"... use the 1.95:1 version "as is" for the theatrical scenes, and 2.35:1 for the extended scenes.

I think that's what drngr meant on "impractical" (although he probably just misunderstood your original idea), and I agree that it would be distracting. Keeping it in the same AR (1.95 or 2.35:1) is the right thing to do.

Having said that, there can be a lot of problems. Color matching. The framing could be slightly different each scene and it'd take a rather complicated method to match them. Also 2014 will be the 25 year anniversary, and that means a little higher chance for it to be released officially on BR. Does it worth to risk all this work to end up with a still DVD quality result?

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to be ethical here. Sure as hell I'd get, watch, and enjoy the improved version. But the effort it takes better "spent" on another movie that I don't even like..., but has better quality sources to work from.

Harmy said:

They are absolutely the same frames - they even have the same specks of dirt.

The frames has been replaced. On the original two frames, there were the Doc with the remote control and Marty with the camera (Twin Pine mall scene). Those frames were not exactly the same.

dvdmike said:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/23523

 

The WOWOW is indeed less compressed, being the bigger file it should be,

But this results in little difference in most shots

It seems so, they're not the same frames though.

stretch009 said:

This BD is the best of the 3 movies PQ wise but that isn't saying much :/
so I used the superior wowow cap that had Jap subs burnt in for every spoken
word and used another source to overlay the subs using the patented haroldnipps
method. I prefer this to the BD and so do quite a few other people on the site as
it at least resemebles film and doesn't have major EE, sharpening, and filtering.

Thanks for posting this. It would be interesting to know that why he took all the trouble fixing the WOWOW, instead of fixing the Canal+ which only had a logo in a corner? It's easy to cover the subs in acceptable quality, but quite complicated to do it really well.

I assume the 'haroldnipps method' is kind of a joke, meaning he did it in his own (unknown) way.

stretch009 said:

For what it's worth, someone posted WOWOW part one WITHOUT hard-coded Japanese subtitles to Usenet.  The nfo explains how they removed the subs.   It's 25.73 gb's and hopefully I can trash the canal+ version I just obtained with the annoying logo.

I don't know what Usenet is and how to use it. Could you please post the content of the .nfo file here? I'm curious what they're writing.

---

I've never heard about this hi-def laserdisc either. I mean I didn't even heart about the technology.

The problem is that anything you see on your computer screen isn't reliable. You can find any print, any frame, any theater shot on the net it's still worthless and cannot be used as a reference. At one point, anything you see was taken from an old (thus faded or aged in an other way) print or picture, so it can't look as it original looked to begin with. Add the capabilities of the scanner or the white balance settings of the camera to that, and voila, you're nowhere. It's not even too useful for checking the consistency at least, as different color components can age differently; so scenes shot in different color environment may not suffer from the same fading or color shifting. There are so many uncertainty in the process before you have something on the computer screen, that it's almost useless.

Also, it's even debatable what was original; it depended a lot on the projector. One could project it with a little bluish tint, the other a little yellowish. Not to mention if there's a shift in colors, your eyes will automatically adjust to that after a few minutes into the movie, and you won't notice it's shifted anywhere. Your mind will do the auto white balance. It's the consistency that matters more.

I think BTTF is a relatively simple case. It takes place more-or-less in the modern days and in a realistic universe, and there was no tampering with special tinted filters (which I truly hate in the recent movies) as we all remember. So a reasonably neutral if vivid color balance do this movie justice. And I believe the present transfers are quite OK in this way. You will never now and no one can ever prove if there was a tiny difference to the original anyway.

Thank you.

Could you perhaps do the noise filtering and EQing after the syncing, and keep a copy of the synced (but otherwise untouched) track? Of course only if you're willing to share that as well.

stretch009 said:

In VLC and MPC-HC it was a mess.  It looks great when I play it back in Windows Media Player though.

 

Video players are not reliable for analysis. It should be checked in VirtualDub via AviSynth and not through DirectShow - or in some other reliable video editor.

dvdmike said:

You don't see the janky frame rate mess when anything moves? Eeeewwwww

 You mean interlaced then, not interpolated.

Is it in a stable 3:2 pattern? Then it's just telecined and has to be played accordingly and nothing's wrong with it.

marchello28 said:

Hi everyone!

I found another hungarian audio, from the 1995 Thx vhs edition. It is 1h56min long, so I stretched it for 2h1min what the duration of the deed is. My problem is, despite I synchronize it to the movie, a few minutes later it's being late again. Can you help me, to make that audio fitted?

It's off topic here! So if you want to discuss it pls do it in the technical section. But, in short, you have to be 100% sure that the speed is right. If it is, then you have to be aware of all the cut differences of the two versions, and do the syncing (strictly cutting and pasting) according to those.

Is this the joined 14-15 Gbyte file? Can't be. My checksum is F314711CD228BFBCF3A1AEF2EA085012 (displayed with HJSplit v3.0)

Noone interested in checking out the checksum value?

vbangle, you've just downloaded the file. Can you perhaps take a look at it? With HJSplit you display the checksum of the joined file.

Syncing audio to audio is one of the harder thing in doing hybrids. On what basis do you think it is easy? How many times you've synced audio from different sources? Handling the subs is a piece of cake compared to that.

You can rip existing subs from DVDs with SubRip via OCR (optical character recognition). After it's done you can edit the subs with Subtitle Workshop.

But, first of all, I believe it's already been done by someone else. The very same Japanese Blu-ray with English subs added. Is this all that you wanted to do now? Because syncing the laserdisc audio would be probably much more useful. In case the LD Cantonese audio is really that much better. But, you have to rip the audio from LD together with the video then and be aware of all the frame differences and do the syncing (strictly cutting and pasting) according to those differences.

Matt_Stevens said:

Subtitling it is going to be very difficult for a sub movie like myself so any help is greatly appreciated. 

I don't understand what are you trying to say here. You mean covering up the burnt-in subs?