[Help] The Thing (1982) -> Best Mix?

[Plissken1138]

nice write-up, sporv. only, stevie wonder wasn't superstitious, he just had a superstition

[spoRv]

nice write-up, sporv. only, stevie wonder wasn't superstitious, he just had a superstition

...because I thought he was superstitious...  

Corrected, thanks!

[spoRv]

Checked the laserdisc tracks (Signature and Widescreen) - compared several dozen short pieces: apart the level (that is 2.44dB lower for the Widescreen), they are almost identical - both according to the waveforms and by ear.

Signature has less noise, and sometimes higher level (when leveled with widescreen), like when the thing comes out of the blood plate, while some others are lower, like chopper around 37m - we are in the 2-3dB ballpark.

Widescreen missing about 172ms around 1:08:23, a silence that should not be there around 1:26:41 - apart "A TAD?!?" at side change; the only difference I spotted is around 1:28:18 where is more "phasey" - can't express better...

According to this, is not impossible to think that the Signature is just a fold down of the 4-track stem - clues are higher level in general, and in particular on some spots; the lower noise floor; the better fidelity (that I noticed in just one spot, but could be there somewhere else); in that case, the Signature AC-3 should be the best track available!

If someone has that laserdisc, a simple test could be made; a surround system is needed, though.
Select the AC-3 track, and just go around 15m, when "Superstition" is playing; check if the song is playing from the surround speakers continuosly after Naul's shot, or just briefly only when the meeting room is shown.

EDIT: I also compared the PAL Cinema Collection with the NTSC Widescreen, and they are the same.

[allldu]

Ok, so much information on here my head is spinning! So am I correct to think that there are NO original mixes, be it 2.0 matrixed or 70mm six track, found on any of the home media, but the closest we can get to it is the LD Signature collection, which has the best of both worlds - matrixed 2.0 (although a fold-down of 5.1) and descrete 5.1 derived from the 70mm six track mix?

[spoRv]

Until someone would prove that the Signature Collection laserdisc AC-3 track is different from HD-DVD and BDs - and I strongly hope so! - we could think that the Signature Collection laserdisc PCM track is the Dolby Stereo mix, while there is no proper 70mm mix available.

But if the Signature Collection laserdisc AC-3 track WILL be different - I mean, with similar surround info as the PCM track - then THIS will be the 70mm mix... and the PCM track could be its fold down version or the Dolby Stereo mix - if/when the former will be available, we'll discover that.

[zoidberg]

I'm confused as to why you think the 4.1 track is not the 70mm mix spoRv

[spoRv]

I'm confused as to why you think the 4.1 track is not the 70mm mix spoRv

I'm confused as to why you DON'T think the 4.1 track is not the 70mm mix zoidberg  

AFAIK the only really different 70mm mix from a 35mm mix is Alien - and Disclord (R.I.P.) explained it was not the final mix later found on 35mm.

Even Star Wars mixes have very slight differences - in three or four effects IIRC.

So, why a mix with a sterilized surround should be thought to be the 70mm?
It is the same of the DVD - apart the revised LFE; was this considered the 70mm mix? I'm genuinely asking.

For a moment, let's assume Arrow (Shout, Turbine) 4.1 IS the real deal, the 70mm mix - that could be not the case anyway, because it's not L-LC-C-RC-R-S but L-C-R-LFE-S, but let's assume they do the right steps to convert the baby boom channels to LFE, and mixed the 80 (100?) to 250hZ part back to L and R (and C?)

If it's the case, where the Dolby Surround have taken the surround parts that are missing (read: silenced) in the 4.1 track?

Or, at the contrary, the 70mm mix should have those parts shaved; do you really think that in 1982, with only six blow-ups 70mm prints, and with a very strict timeline and mostly a budget that was already surpassed, they took the time and effort to "shave" the 4-track stem? Wasn't the audience of 70mm movies supposed to get more, and not less? More dynamic, sure, more noise suppression, great, more separation between channels, right... and then, less (I mean A LOT less) active surround?!?

Final conclusion: this is a speculation, I have no proofs of course but according to the Occam's Razor, it *must* be that the 4.1 is NOT the real deal - or, like Bond said: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

[allldu]

Ok, but from what I can understand, even if it's not a proper 70mm mix, it can still be something they used (rushily, with no money to spend) to put on those 6 lousy 70mm prints. So it is still a possibility that 4.1 mix found on all three BD's IS the mix those few lucky people heard in premium cinemas where 70mm prints were shown... I don't see why not.

[spoRv]

Sure, everything could be.

Still, following the clues, it's quite hard to believe - or, if you believe the fairytale of "approved by DOP" for Shout first, then Arrow second, well, yes... everything could be!

[Scavenger]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php...st12697975

The 70mm "spread" transfer was done at night at Goldwyn sound by Bill Varney alone after we had completed the 35mm mix ( they were already mixing another film during the day ). I said "transfer" because as I remember there was essentially no remixing done. This was a technical process done over 4 evenings performed by Varney and a couple of technicians in the machine room. I was there, and remember him standing at the console, setting things in motion and then leaving until the reel was completed...
"