Theatrical cut specifically.

So here's one I've pondered about and researched for some time. We all know how the Supes BDs were re-timed for those with new transfers: Theatrical, II, III and IV. Then there has been the long standing mystery about the various audio mixes of I and the split stereo Dolby 70mm test mix.

Well..I think I may have finally figured it out. I saw a vintage 35mm print last night at the local which was obtained form a private source. It had the Bass 70's logo and they played the Dolby stereo mix back with A type. I had some discussion with the projectionist and they said the owner had no idea what mix it was so they played it with what was accurate to the time.
The matrixing picked up some of the music and spread it a little bit, and the theaters subwoofer enhancement picked up most things in the low end. Otherwise it had a very flat feeling, many times going almost mono-ish particularly in the dialogue scenes.
This fits almost exactly with the simple 1978 2.0 mix found on the Blu-ray and corrected DVDs. it also ties in with an interview Michael Thau gave about the restoration in 2001 of Superman and how he and Richard Donner were shocked at how "mono" Donner's personal print sounded.
http://web.archive.org/web/2004062720280...hau_4.html
(this long article also explains how even the 2001 version was re-timed and tweaked over several passes)
Here he mentions that the split stereo 70mm mix was abandoned at the last minute due to technical worries, and that each mix had to be created from scratch due to there only being one working station. Thus each mix is unique and the overall process was quite rushed resulting in mixes that aren't all what they should be probably.

Now, after going back and forth I can absolutely swear to it that the 1990 WS LD that has the whooshing titles and far more active matrix is NOT at all like what I just heard last night nor does it sound like the '78 mix on BD. In fact it sounds so superior that I'm now under the impression it is instead the Dolby 4 track 70mm mix that was done separately--without the split stereo surround. Everything is better mixed and presented, and there is far better usage of the extra channels. The regular 2.0 is so tame by comparison that you would lose very little if played back mono.

Onto color: the print last night had varying levels of brightness between reels. For example the fortress scene was so bright that it practically remained pure white throughout. There were one or two brief moments of pink in one reel, but this was for only one or two shots total. Overall it was in nice shape for the age, and revealed just how much of the blown out light sources are really there. Once we get out of Smallville, they practically dominate and are extremely bright. In the day scenes it appears as fi there is no sky at all, just a big bright grayish-white void. The new BD transfers are accused of infusing teal all over the place, but actually it seems much more subtle than that. In places the new BD is very close to the print, so it leaves me to think that the MPI colorists (who color to a plasma TV) have an issue with wanting to push certain tones into that teal-land. This is what even Gordon Willis decried on the BD of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, saying that all the older copies were correct. They also handled Disney's 20,000 LEAGUES restoration which lead to the itunes HD copy showing teal infusion.
The suit's color is the big culprit and on the big screen never once did it show teal. It did however show a much darker tone, more of a richer dark blue in the live scenes-and only in the many sfx shots did it appear lighter to a sort of teal look, which had to be done at the time to match the footage.

The bright night lights onscreen and the final Earth shot did have some of that green-teal cast to them in the print, so the new BD is again, not entirely off. What needs to be addressed is the overdoing of some levels resulting in too much "popping image". If this can be corrected I think it would be a more faithful scan than the 2001 version which Thau had do do over and over again in more outdated and less accurate video methods. That being said the overall tonality of the 2001 version on BD is better than the theatrical about 90% of the time or more.

And never complain about the BD looking soft. The print last night was so soft that much detail was totally obscured. Soft, soft, soft, soft, soft to the point of wondering if the focus was completely out of whack (it wasn't). This film was shot in such a way to look almost from another time and combined with the stock used and the lighting choices, it will never have much sharpness if any at all. Easily one of the softest prints in any format I've EVER seen. Even the credits are soft.


I can't say that I'm 100% certain on these, but after researching this stuff for some time I'm pretty confident about it now. The 35mm Dolby and BD 2.0 seem a very slight bit different, but I think that comes down to my receiver having only a very simple prologic decoder. They other wise seem identical in their overall weak stereo spread and pale against the LD. So if we could somehow figure out what levels to address for the video and sync the LD PCM; the theatrical Superman would be about as good a presentation as we could get it.

I should also think that similar work could be done to II, and have often wondered what the Donner Cut would play like if it's shared elements were combined with the more polished and of the era elements from II such as the original mix/scoring etc. for shared footage.

I see Booshman started working on IV, and indeed these problems are in all the new transfers that were done for Blu-ray. This has become a common problem on many catalog titles, this infusion but not takeover of teal, and if researched it seems most if not all can be traced back to Warner's MPI.

I think now that the old video transfers for all four do a pretty good job at representing the prints. All are very contrasty in a way to that they in effect seem a bit washed out. why and how this occurred I can't exactly say but I would think it might have something to do with the production and budgeting as other Salkind films such as the Three Musketeers have this same kind of hazy almost cheapish 70's look to them. I got the BD set, but went and found the old DVD box for the older looks to compare. By matching them to each other it should help to try and eliminate the color pushing they did and better approximate the source. The DVDs sourced originally from LDs try and make the source work better with video, and the new BDs reveal more of the source intent such as the blown out backgrounds. That they went overboard with the color timing is really the only issue other than lacking original audio.

Okay, so if you are a fan of the Ridley Scott movie Legend starring a young Tom Cruise from 1985 I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the versions that exist.

The extended version released with the Goldsmith soundtrack vs the theatrical cut with the Tangerine Dreams soundtrack.

I'm personally a sucker for the theatrical cut with the Tangerine Dreams audio and that amazing shot at the beginning of Tim Curry as Darkness with the blue light. So cool and I understand the big reveal in the extended cut but love what I love!

So, any opinions out there?

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-theat...ase-again/

Interesting read if it is indeed true. The big question is wether they are going to spend the bucks needed to present them with a bit of love and care or are they going to just bash them out?

Only time will tell, anyways we always have the Despecialized Editions to watch.

Hi,

Thought I'd leave feedback for you to read regarding my experience of being on this forum.

I've been part of this community now for nearly three weeks. I posted in the presentation thread and was welcomed by some which was nice. There did seem to be a little synasism when I joined. I guess you get a lot of people coming, getting what they want and then leaving. I was always interested in this stuff and I did say I'm not going anywhere.

Now, I have visited this place everyday now since I joined and I guess what I see is, not a lot changes. People are busy and the few I have PM'd have been very nice.

I've posted threads to spark some conversation but ultimately I'm a little frustrated as someone who is trying to engage in conversation I don't find a lot changes. Now as a new user how are you supposed to become a power user without resorting to posting random crap? I started my own project and would like to do more but I find myself a little isolated and restricted to start others.

This is just my perspective and I wouldn't say any of this if I didn't care. Perhaps there are more people who stop by and like me aren't looking for the door as soon as they get what they want. But maybe they don't know where to start or find not much is happening for them to stay?

I hope you are receptive to feedback and take it in the way intended.

Thanks for reading.

As we all know, youtube bitrates, even on 720p and 1080p video, absolutely SUCKS!!!  

However, in many cases, when looking for "rare" extras, youtube ends up being the only source. To make matters worse, it's usually 360p/480p and usually de-interlaced improperly by way of blending or bad-combing, (which is even worse because of low bitrate and produces additional artifacts) plus the framerates are not always 29.970fps (even when mediainfo states that as framerate) but when loaded into avidemux, sony vegas or after effects, I have come to discover that the framerates are actually 29.966 or 29.978 or some other weird sh*t, where I have to demux/remux the video re-applying a "hard" 29.970fps, which interestingly enough usually helps with the audio sync "magically" realigning when remuxed back in using "my mp4box." On occasion, there will be a video which is properly de-interlaced and looks "ok." The audio bitrate is always ~128kbps 44khz aac, while the video bitrates are usually ~450/~1000kbps (360p/480p) AVC codec, usually baseline@l3.

Ok, so I basically just listed all the reasons why this footage should NOT be used (LOL)  

BUT the reason WHY IT SHOULD is this: If you don't use it, you might loose it!      

With how heavy the DMCA notices have been rolling out, some of the stuff disappears and you may not be able to find it anywhere else. As an example, last year I was putting together extras for my "The Last of the Mohicans - Original Theatrical Cut 1080p BD-50" project and some of the footage I found was sourced from things I found online (some from actual .vob sourced DVD material and some from streaming sites) including things I found on youtube. I found some awesome "video assist footage" that is in B&W with no audio, but shows a few scenes while they were being shot and re-shot and re-shot (you get the picture, LOL) and this footage is unique in the fact that it is footage NOT available ANYWHERE else (and I have looked all over the internet) I am really happy that I decided to include this footage (after a LOT of clean-up work, as the original footage is basically a camera pointed at a monitor and there was some MASSIVE flicker issues as a result which created werid contrast/brightness issues that I had to fix)

When most people will look at this, it's still low-quality sh*t that is really just included as a fun, rare, unique extra and most people will ask, "Well then why include it, if those that want to can view it on youtube?" and to them I say, "Because it won't always be available!" as I can demonstrate here, where thanx to FOX, the extra that I included is now gone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhlcCi3IYRg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25PjXqRImw

Interested in hearing other people thoughts on this and whether it would be worthwhile to download certain stuff now, while it's still available, in case it may be next on the "chopping block" of the DMCA uperman:

Well, here I am, alive and kicking (well, more or less...  )

Saturday I was "forced" to go to see a movie, so this was the most voted, and I thought "Well, another superhero movie... why not? I'm pretty sure it will not be a masterpiece, but it could not be that bad, right?"

WRONG!!!

Actors are all... well, not the right one for each of their roles - apart, maybe, the government bad guy; CGI effects are sometimes really noticeable - I recall the ape, for example; story is quite boring, and I was waiting to see the top for a looong time, and it came and finished in few minutes, exagerating everything, following the latest superhero movies "style" (Big Hero 6 was waaay better in this)...

So, I think this is a very weak movie, and the old ones are really better in every aspect!

My 2c of course; waiting to know what do you think about this - but I'm pretty sure many (if not all) will agree with me...

Does anyone have the THX Wow LD http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/19090/, looking for the bit perfect audio capture from it. I know the there's the project that someone did last year, remastering the video and using 5.1 audio. I want the original audio for this instead. Also what this guy did never was 100% in sync through out. Incase anyone wondered what his was like http://www.mediafire.com/download/d42om1...OWFINAL.ts  Though a good attempt.


Here's a youtube LD cap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8AL4mai4 and remastered  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Cpf_MIpfQ

[Image: Im3rQTR.png]

Does anyone have the facilities to transfer professional 1-inch PAL videotape? [Late seventies or early eighties.]

Anyone have any suggestions for this? I got an XBR960 a few weeks back, spent way too long tearing my hair out fixing geometry and overscan in the service menu...only to see that LD looked terrible. Some discs are better than others and after adjusting to VE and it's digital counterpart (thanks for suggesting that Antcu!) it has gotten better but still pretty unwatchable.
My DMR-es25 I used for comb filtering will upscale to 1080i via the hdmi port but it still seems rather fuzzy and I can't decide if it's just better than running straight in through composite and using the set's comb filter. Plus the 25 seems to mess with color and brightness no matter what I do.
Zooming without cropping or distortion works on everything but the HDMI input. For that I have to set the es25 to display full then the TV to Vertical expand. Filling the screen properly just magnifies image problems though.

I'm guessing I need a better unit for upscaling...but sadly I'm broke at the moment.

Thanks for any input guys.