I'm just watching the previously "lost" (at least in Italy, according to Rai Movie) debut film of Peckinpah, "The Deadly Companions".

So, the Italian dubbing is modern. I found it inappropriate, dunno why... maybe because they used "wrong" voices, and/or modern words/terms which seems out of place for an almost 60yrs old film...

Have you experienced a recent dubbing of an old film? If so, what do you think?

I just read that Nolan is red-green colourblind.

So the way we see the movies, is not at all the way he sees them.

I wonder how interesting it would be to filter the movies in such a way that they resemble what he would see if he saw them.

I finally watched this movie in UHD, now that I have a proper display; I also "resurrected" an old basic home theater setup - far from hi-end, but still nice.

Well, I am pretty sure I'm one of the few who prefer the Godzilla monster of this movie against the old, fat, slow, poor Japanese puppets - and the improved 2014 version - so, beat me for that!

Said so, this version is nice; CGI is well done, story is nice, acting is good, and audio-visually is still a pleasure to watch it twenty years after.

Can't say how much better is this UHD version in comparison to FHD BD; but I can say it's great! Even if "only" SDR H264 8bit, average bitrate is around 68mbps with peaks around 170mbps; every small detail is there, colors seems right, and it has a very filmic look.

Next step: grab a UHD-BD player, along with few movies, and finally watch a HDR UHD movie in its glory!

Project Info:

As reported here:

https://fanrestore.com/thread-1654-page-...t=predator

the iTunes 4K master of Predator has some grain intact unlike the Ultimate Hunter BD. And although it has less grain then the 2008 BD, the master seems to be a better scan (maybe the UH master before the grain was removed?). So this project will downscale the 4K stream (the iTunes master has no HDR) to 1080p and then run a deblock filter to offset this master's streaming origins.

This master also has a different color timing compared to the original 2008 BD (probably the UH color timing) and one that I like better. So for this project, no color correction is done.

For the audio I will add Jonno's sync of the LD's soundtrack and mux in the soundtracks from the 2008 BD.

Note: Project is in sync with the 2008 BD.

See post 30 for final MKV

Video:
iTunes 4K master of Predator streamed and downscaled to 1080p with a deblock filter added

Audio:
1. PCM 2.0 Dolby Surround mix from the widescreen LD
2. DD 4.0 mix from the 2008 BD
3. DTS 5.1 mix from the 2008 BD

Pics:
MKV Pics (Final)


Itunes


2008 BD/iTunes



Thanks:
Jonno - for his PCM LD sync
Doombot- for a test run

Hi guys you might enjoy this podcast, it's an interview with one of the legends of photochemical colour timing, Dale Grahn. Dale timed Predator, Die Hard and a whole bunch of Spielberg films. He also timed a lot of Disney stuff that no other timer would touch, even working with the various art departments to determine which colour paints would register best on film.

http://coloristpodcast.com/episode-008-dale-grahn

I’ve been working on a restoration of sorts for the film Koyaanisqatsi; in my view, the “remastered” soundtrack they used is in many regards not up to par at all.

Through a few sources, such as the laserdisc PCM* and the original album release, that I consider to be the best quality, I’ve been able to put together a “restored” version that I think sounds much improved.

Official soundtrack mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNNJrHR53ZA

Remastered soundtrack mix: https://youtu.be/q86RvSxAy04

This will be released in 5 channel and stereo mixes.

*The laser disc PCM will also be released as a preservation. I performed a complete restoration on it, removing clicks, pops, dropouts, line hum, and reduced hiss and noise.

Only seen comparisons on caps-a holic vs 2D BD; obvious increase in resolution, but grain is almost gone, and I personally prefer BD color grading (don't know if it's due to a wrong HDR-to-SDR conversion, tough).

Opinions?

(This was written for a different forum with a less technical audience than this forum, but given the negativity about HDR, and the misunderstandings contained therein, I thought it worthwhile copy this post here)

"It's important to remember that HDR isn't a color space nor a bit depth; HDR can be used with even REC709 if one wanted, or REC2020 space could be used with SDR. It's better to think of HDR as a new bit value -> optical function intended to replace the gamma function, and as a new brightness range that video is mastered in.

The idea behind the gamma function (REC1886 to be specific) is you can make MUCH more efficient use of the available bits-per-channel by taking advantage of the fact that human vision has an easier time noticing differences in in two close dark shades vs two close bright shades; more bits are allocated to the darker parts of the image. This efficient allocation of bits helps to avoid the perception of banding or stair stepping on smooth gradients. Problem is the gamma function was modeled after CRT behavior which, while decent, isn't necessarily the most efficient use of the bits available; even with 10 bits a REC1886 video signal would still have visible banding.

Before describing HDR, it's important to remember that a white pixel value correlated to about 80-100 nits back in the CRT days, so displays were *generally* calibrated with that in mind, and video transfers were *generally* mastered within the range of 0-100 nits. Given that most Blu-Rays, which *generally* use the REC1886 gamma function, look pretty good using this system, it's fair to say that most of the information the colorist would wish to present resides within that 0-100nit range. Unfortunately, one of the problems with this limited range is that highlights can easily be hard clipped which destroys the detail within those highlights.

HDR is centered around two new developments: a new bit value -> optical function by Dolby called the Perceptual Quantizer, and a new brightness range of 0-10,000 nits (10k nits is about the brightness of a fluorescent tube). Dolby's PQ function is so efficient with it's usage of bits that it can cover the range of 0-10,000 nits using 12 bits without any visible banding. The averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in HDR is, ideally, not much more than the averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in SDR in that the majority of material resides within 0-100 nits (with 100 being the white value we are familiar with), but the colorist has that extra 100-10,000 nit range for elements of the frame that need that extra brightness (such as specular highlights) whilst preserving detail in those areas.

Basically, if the colorist is using the system as intended by the developers of this system, your average brightness within the frame will be similar to Blu-ray, just with the added benefit that highlight detail is preserved and the capability to make brighter elements stand out if necessary. As you can see, if a colorist deems it necessary, they could grade no frame elements above 100nits, keeping the grade similar to SDR. HDR doesn't automatically imply that content need be brighter, it simply provides a framework that accommodates many more artistic intentions vs the older SDR system."

To sum up:
-HDR PQ content makes far better use of the 10 bits per channel than SDR does, and if the disc has Dolby Vision, then the 12 bits per channel is more than enough to prevent visible banding from occurring completely. As such, it is very much superior to SDR.
-HDR content is graded in such a way that it's harder to clip highlights, which means that if color correction or an SDR grade wants to be done by a member of this community, we have more to work with vs SDR content.
-Not mentioned in the article but Dolby Vision discs and streams would be easiest to convert to SDR because part of making a Dolby Vision grade is making a complimentary SDR grade that is bundled in with the Dolby Vision data. You just need a decoder...

I've noticed an unpleasant trend lately. Studios are releasing new 4k transfers with HDR and wider color gamut, etc. and then simultaneously pooping out either a repackaged old transfer or intentionally degraded version of the new transfer as 1080p discs at the same time.

Sometimes the colors are worse for no legitimate reason, frequently they are scrubbing grain like it's 2008.

What is clear from screenshot comparisons is that you can maintain a lot of the improvements of the 4k releases without the actual UHD enhancements.

Anyway, being a staunch anti-4k/HDR person, I've been wondering what would be involved in creating new 1080p discs using the UHD BDs as a master.

I honestly haven't the slightest idea where to start or what software is capable of it. I'm aware the HDR needs to be tone mapped(?) to SDR... and that's about it.

Case in point, The Mummy Trilogy got a recent 4k release that looks great. Except most people agree the film doesn't have 4k worth of detail. The similarly packaged BDs that came out this year are the same 10 year old transfers they keep repackaging.

What might a UHD to BD conversion look like? Check out these screenshots: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?s=...count=1579

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-...chargeable

I just scored one of these vintage badboys for only $5.00 at a local Salvation Army.  It has the rechargeable battery and power cord.  It works like a champ.  Anyone know where I can find a user manual for free online or have one they can
scan?  The expertise would be most appreciated.

For those who don't know or don't remember how these awesome and highly rated machines look ....




Thanks in advance,

Shawn