zombie84

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

zombie84 said:

One way to appreciate what good mono would sound like is to simply listen to a good stereo mix in mono;

Really?  In some cases, listening to a stereo mix in mono will cause some low end phase cancellation, depending on if the stereo mix was engineered specifically to be listenable in mono or not. The better mono mixes are separately-made mixes produced with mono listening in mind.

By the way, the mono mix used in the PG was from the 16mm film, not from VHS.

 I agree. But for someone who's main point of reference comes from the Belbucus restoration as DJ's does, the clarity and fidelity of a stereo fold-down offers a clue as to the potential quality of a true professionally-presented mono mix of a more recent film. A lot of releases from the late 1970s-early 1980s, when mono mixes were done separately alongside stereo mixes at the height of the technology, have not been released, opting for the stereo mixes as a substitute. Instead, you normally have stuff from the 1960s and earlier, which lacks the fidelity of the twilight of the era starting around 1975. Mono mixes from the latter 1980s were usually stereo fold-downs, and so are suplerfluous. This is why I wonder about the availability of stuff like Taxi Driver, Close Encounters, or maybe ST: The Motion Picture and Alien. If you want to hear a good mono mix, listening to King Kong and Citizen Kane, with all of their recording and layering limitations, are not necessarily going to bowl you over. Some releases never even had distinct mono mixes, like Superman, which I believe only had a stereo mix in its original release.

Come to think of it, Tales from the Bounty Hunters was the last EU novel I ever bought, in 1998. It's weird to think back to that time when I actually anticipated new novels. There was only one or two a year at that point!

@ Harmy: My memory is that Puggo's has more clarity, but also a more abbraisive and scratchy sound. This makes sense considering it was from a scratched 16mm optical while Belbucus Mono Restoration Project was mainly from a VHS broadcast tape.

As to what might be a good mono test drive, Jaws was released a few year ago with the original mono mix intact. Terminator has the original mono as well, but Terminator is a lower budget film that is a bit rough around the edges. Mad Max has the original mono too, but again a low budget flick. I wish I could be more helpful in recommending a good mix. Most films from the 70s, before stereo caught on, haven't had their original mono included, but most classical-Hollywood films from the 50s, 40s and 30s have. I think the DVDs of Robin Hood and Citizen Kane only have the mono, no remixing or anything. It's actually a bit hard to find a really well-preserved mono mix for more recent films, because they usually either remix in 5.1 or present the stereo version instead, thinking no one cares about the mono. It's only in the last five or six years that the practice has started gaining ground, partly in reaction to all the 5.1 remixes (as in the case of Terminator and Jaws). Maybe someone else can recommend something--Taxi Driver or Close Encounters? Star Wars should be the showboat example of mono mixing, but unfortunately it has never been formally released, instead pieced together from second-hand sources by fans. I have a feeling that when the Academy gave the film its sound awards, they were basing it off the mono mix, which not only was the most common but the one considered the best by the filmmakers and therefore more likely for submission.

dark_jedi said:

See, and I am getting grief over this, and being told my system "sucks balls" when I have been sampling a mono audio that "sucks balls".

 This is not totally correct, in that even a good mono source played through the centre channel will sound poor. The centre channel not only gives you bad audio spread, but it's a very weak speaker. Ideally you should be playing it back through at least one left and one right tower/bookshelf speaker. So, it's more that your equipment setting sucks balls. I don't know why they put the default to be centre-channel though, that's probably a consequence of compromsing for 5.1 defaults or something.

Yeah, the SW mono mix as far as I remember is mainly based off an old VHS recording from a European tv broadcast in the 1980s, and the Story of Star Wars LP record from the late 1970s. The completed reconstruction sounds listenable, but it's basically a 1980s VHS recording in terms of quality, so this should explain a lot about why it lacks bass, sounds muffled and has poor dynamic range. It had a lot of noise clean-up too, which may have taken some of the edge off of it in other respects. It would be unfair to expect it to compete with a new, professionally ripped mix.

One way to appreciate what good mono would sound like is to simply listen to a good stereo mix in mono; most receivers have the options of "monoizing" any sound input so as to fold both channels into a single one and then play it back from the left and right speakers. The mixing levels might not be right, but the sound quality in terms of its crispness and bass might give you an indication. In theory, a mono mix, a stereo mix, and a 5.1 mix all made today would be 100% identical in quality, just utilizing more directional effects depending on the format. Of couse, most if not all mono mixes are from the 1980s and earlier, and so the recording quality of the master is not as good as today, so they won't be able to completely compete with a new mix in whatever the format is. But, properly presented, the sound quality should be good.

No, mono has no true discrete directional effects, because it is a single channel for all the audio. Done well, of course, you don't need to have directional effects to immerse you in the audio; if it is played at sufficient volume with sufficiently good equipment, you won't be paying attention to it because the quality of the mix itself is good. This is much like if you've ever been to a rock concert, where there is a 50/50 chance the mixer is sending one mixed channel to all two dozen speakers in the venue. In the case of Star Wars, unfortunately, the mono mix is a handmade slapped-together version made out of various sources, none of which were designed for home theatre viewing, and so it is understandable to find this less than enthralling. It was reconstructed as a historical curiosity more than anything. But, since all viewable versions of Star Wars are of equally subpar quality, I find it to be surprisingly consistent when paired with the image.

DJ, all people were doing was helping you understand why mono sounds lacklustre on your system. You don't like mono because it plays from your centre speaker only, but ideally mono shouldn't be playing from your centre channel only, so your distaste for it is based on an improper equipment setting. In fact, you could probably set it so that mono sound is played back by all 5 speakers; I don't know if Pro Logic does this or if that was just for two-channel situations, but there may be a solution.

When you see a mono mix in theatres, it isn't just playing from one speaker at the front of the house, it is played back by all the speakers in the building, it's just one discrete channel and so there is no effects separation. A lot of amplified concerts you see have this production--there may be a wall of PAs on stage, but everything coming at you is mixed into one single wave of sound, delivered by multiple speakers but without discrete channels.

Sometimes, mono mixing can be much better than stereo or 5.1 mixing. Most people have only heard the Beatles in the stereo mixes, but the stereo mixes were done after-the-fact, the original releases which are highly prized in the collectors market mixed the sound in mono and are usually considered more natural sounding. I think they released the original mono mixes on CDs a while back though, because of the building demand in the collectors market.

Again, the mono mixes aren't supposed to be played back through a single channel. Like concerts of the day, they are amplified by many speakers, typically two if you have a living room because that is all that is needed to fill the space perceived by your left and right ears. But, there may also be some setting you could play with to utilize the surround speakers, at lower volume levels so as not to disrupt the volume balance, if you want a more "immersive" quality of sound.

Again, no one is trying to paint you as a bad guy or anything. You just haven't really been listening to mono sound in the way it was meant to be heard, like playing back a 5.1 mix through stereo speakers and remarking how out of balance the levels are. That example would yield a more noticeable difference, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't both with mono if it was just putting out through my little centre channel. You need a pair of good, three-way tower or bookshelf speakers, which it seems you have. If you have one of those all-in-one player/receiver home theatre combos your mixing/playback options may be more limited but as I said, it is pretty standard to be able to send the mono signal through more than one speaker. Try it out and see if it sounds more tolerable.

Mono tracks don't come from just the centre speaker, it is just one discrete channel of sound. Most receivers automatically split the sound over at least your two front stereo speakers. Up until recently, a lot of TV broadcasts were in mono, but you didn't just hear it from the right speaker, you just didn't get the directional effect of stereo. It's like mono mixed records from before the 1970s, you usually had more than one speaker but you didn't have multi-channel discreteness.

It is quite admirable actually, a very, very big improvement on the film. Gives it a darkness and maturity missing from the original.

As was mentioned, it's just the refresh rate. Film is projected at 24 frames per second and the higher refresh rate exceeds this effect and creates the 29.97 frames per second of video.

The other fact may be that films shot in HD video have a sharper look than film. Film has softer edges and less contrast, while things shot on HD video have a mirror-like clarity to them. So, combined with the refresh rate, it will not resemble the motion picture film you are used to seeing.

If you have your TV settings properly then HD releases shot on film and the film-like 24fps video cameras will look as they should. A lot of newer TVs have the default being the higher refresh. I don't know where this setting would helpful, maybe broadcast HD like sports that doesn't film at 24fps?

Me and None have already made tentative plans for an August visit.

We'll report our findings, of course.

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.

I think when people think of LOC, they think of the NFR, forgetting about the copyright depository.

I have a feeling the copyright depository doesn't have very good storage conditions (otherwise why create the NFR?).

But the thing is, just because a new 1997 or 2004 copyright is registered, the old ones don't go away--otherwise, Star Wars would revert back to Fox or become public domain and you'd have video re-issues of it in any case. So the new copyrights exist alongside the original copyrights, or they become merged into one. I'm seriously contemplating asking an entertainment lawyer about how this actually works.

The Marcia Lucas thing may have some truth to it in the sense that she probably received a portion of Lucas' gross points for SW but only for the 1977 version, but I can guarantee you that has absolutely nothing with why Lucas made the SE, it just might be an added bonus (if true).

Hmm, so you are right. The 2004 DVD credits may have been a holdover from the 1997 release, since they updated the credits to included individuals who worked on the 1997 version (although not the 2004 version I think, which is maybe why they left the 1997 theatrical credits as is). The other materials though, clearly state 1977 only, so I don't know what is up with that. It may have to do with a loophole regarding derivative works, that promotional and descriptive materials use the earliest copyright/release-date. Otherwise, they would technically have to have had a 1981 copyright date in there too, at some point, right?

none said:

zombie84 in avsforum wrote: The SE, unfortunately, shares the same copyright, because they chose not to file an additional copyright but instead filed it under the original one.

I don't think this is the case.  Here are the LoC SE records:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Save-Star-Wars-Dot-Com/post/461093/#TopicPost461093

 

Here are the Special Edition Library of Congress records:

 

1997 - Star Wars A New Hope Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/97510343

Acquisition Source:    Received: 4-1-1997; viewing print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

 

1997 - Empire Strikes Back Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/98502262

Acquisition Source:    Received: 3/17/97; ref print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

 

1997 - Return of the Jedi Special Edition
http://lccn.loc.gov/2006642053

Acquisition Source:    Received: 5/23/1997; viewing print; copyright deposit--RNR; Copyright Collection.

and in those records is the statement:

Notes Copyright: Lucasfilm, Ltd. NM: new visual effects, sound and new footage throughout. DCR 1997; PUB 11Feb97; REG 18Feb97; PA784-125.
Summary taken from Baseline document.
Sources used: copyright data sheet; copyright data base; Baseline data base.

Not sure what NM means.  New Medium, maybe.  So these record shows that it's a new copyright claim, but built off a previously filed one.

 When you see the films, the copyright is 1977. It's 1977 in the onscreen credits, the box, the poster and all other official references, even ones from FOX. So, the new filing was merged into the existing one it seems. Whether it was a separate filing or whatever, it still shares the same copyright foundation of the 1977 original.

Damn, reading some of the ignorance there made me have to make my first ever post at that place. I don't get some people's attitudes--at AVSForums of all places! The Lucas Virus has spread far indeed.

It is an honour on one hand, but it's also a bit sad, isn't it? This is something that professional restorationists should be working on. The fact that I have become an authority on the film elements speaks to how neglected they are.

I have to agree with Anchorhead here. Roleplaying/cosplaying/etc is much different from the experience of watching a film, reading a book, seeing a play, listening to music. They both have similarities, in which you escape to and enter another world, but the difference is that in one you are an active participant and in the other you are a passive observer. It's the difference between "story time" and "make believe." In the first, you listen to a tale being told and lose yourself in the story and its manner of telling; in the second, you enter the world as a character and become a decision-making part of it.

Yeah, the formatting I think is from the pasting of his posts. I'll correct it soon, and also I forgot that Tim doesn't live with you anymore. :p It's weird, because looking at the article in Chrome the formatting is correct, be in IE it's all inconsistent. Looks like I'll have to do some HTML editing.

None: I will happily update or correct the article if there is any significant contributions to the discussion in the future.

For those interested, I have adapted this study into a cohesive article:

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/yodaspeak.html

Yep.

Among my other duties, one of them is clapping the slate. Sometimes, you have no exit because the camera and lighting/grip equipment prevents you from getting behind the lens so you just have to crouch down in the corner off camera, typically facing away from actors so you don't get in their eyelines. I scratched my neck and I guess he heard it, because he said something along the lines of "would you PLEASE stop that scratching, it's very distracting!"

What can I say, some actors are pampered.

(on that note, some aren't, case in point Tim Roth on the same shoot was an amazing guy and would hang out with us, I think one time he even came down to the camera truck to play Halo with us camera folk).

I was scratching my neck.

Edward Norton was a bit of dick in that he threw his weight around a lot because he had a lot of control in that film. Every film he works on has control issues with him. Good actor though. Liv Tyler wouldn't take shit from him and I thought that was really cool because she's so meek and quiet.

I did get yelled at by William Hurt once though.