>>>Also, did everyone read this month's Entertainment Weekly (Kramer >>>from Seinfield on the cover). It has a two-page article in the >>>back that is a review of the THX set. It gives it an A- rating.
>>what got an a or a+ ?
>Pete, it was rated on its own, not in comparison with anything else. Would
great, so it's worth nothing as a rating, if there aren't any other movies they have rated.
cu -pete
-- Peter J. Kunz Vogesenstr. 60 4106 Therwil Switzerland petek...@iiic.ethz.ch pk...@amiga.icu.net.ch *If Commodore had to market Sushi, they'd call it cold, raw fish.*
It seems to me, as an outsider looking in (ie. I didn't buy the much anticipated SW THX set), that when people see the THX logo on a disc, certain expectations are automatically attached to that logo/product. Those expectations span the entire product, from packaging to suppliments. And I think that those expectations are warranted.
Afterall, from what I have read/heard, THX is supposed to be the Mercedes Benz of laserdiscs. When people purchase a Mercedes, certain expectations are inherent in that purchase, and rightly so. People would have every right to be upset if the paint was peeling/faded, sloppily installed carpeting or a glove compartment door installed upside down.
THX should not be hyped to what it is if it cannot then follow thru and meet those expectations that it sets within the consumers.
I don't agree with the finger pointing and blame laying on whose fault it is that a certain defect found its way into the product. Does it matter whose fault it is? The THX logo stands for a certain level of quality, and if the product does not meet the standards that it itself has set, who cares whose "fault" it is, it shouldn't carry the godlike THX signature.
And let's face it, a suppliment being UPSIDE DOWN?! Come on, you call that quality? Is that what the THX program is all about? I don't care if George Lucas himself or the janitor who cleans up after Lucas was responsible, the fact remains that someone screwed up in an obvious and easily avoidable way.
I hope that the people who are disappointed by this release make it known to those who can do something about it (in the future). I for one will not support this THX release, as from what I've heard, it does not meet my expectations of what a THX release is all about.
And if this is the level of quality/integrity that comes from the THX program/process, I won't be charging out and plunking down $100+ dollars for the upcoming T2 SE until I see if the same rampant disappointment is in r.v.r for it as it is for Star Wars THX.
In article <1993Sep23.150151.6...@ccd.harris.com> jwo...@controls.ccd.harris.com (Jim Woods) writes: >Afterall, from what I have read/heard, THX is supposed to be the Mercedes >Benz of laserdiscs. When people purchase a Mercedes, certain expectations >are inherent in that purchase, and rightly so. People would have every right >to be upset if the paint was peeling/faded, sloppily installed carpeting >or a glove compartment door installed upside down.
>THX should not be hyped to what it is if it cannot then follow thru and meet >those expectations that it sets within the consumers.
Wait a minute.. the quality of the actual films themselves has almost universally been said to be amazing. It seems to me that several people here are confusing the video transfer and sound quality of the films with the extras that came along with them.
The "THX program" is not necessarily meant to produce the best quality disks known to man (and woman). THX is a simply a certification that specific standards in the sound area of the disk have been met. So far, the few THX disks that have come out have also had high quality transfers as well.
But the truth is that a THX could be produced with a horrible video transfer and no supplements and still be THX.. we're talking *sound* quality here. And I fully expect that most disks produced in the future will be THX certified, certainly most will in the next few years, simply because right now that's a selling point, just like digital sound was a few years back.
If you want excruciating attention to detail in *all* areas, don't look for the THX logo, look for the Criterion label. They specialize in that sort of thing.
>And let's face it, a suppliment being UPSIDE DOWN?! Come on, you call that >quality? Is that what the THX program is all about? I don't care if George >Lucas himself or the janitor who cleans up after Lucas was responsible, the >fact remains that someone screwed up in an obvious and easily avoidable way.
I call what I've heard about the films quality. It also sounds like the supplement section leaves a lot to be desired, as does the packaging.
>I hope that the people who are disappointed by this release make it known >to those who can do something about it (in the future). I for one will >not support this THX release, as from what I've heard, it does not meet my >expectations of what a THX release is all about.
See, that's the whole point. *None* of this.. not the supplements, not the packaging, not the plastic disk covers.. none of those things have anything to do with THX. And if you're expecting anything other than fantastic sound from a THX release, you're not understanding what a THX release is all about.
>And if this is the level of quality/integrity that comes from the THX >program/process, I won't be charging out and plunking down $100+ dollars for >the upcoming T2 SE until I see if the same rampant disappointment is in >r.v.r for it as it is for Star Wars THX.
> Jim Woods Harris Corporation
Now if you want to complain because the supplements were so hyped, or for some other reason, fine. But don't complain that it doesn't meet your standards for a "THX release", based on anything but sound quality.
Sean.
--- Sean L. Gilley sean.l.gil...@att.com 614 236 5031 (h), 614 860 5743 (w)
la...@unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: >Craig Good <g...@pixar.com> wrote: >> There is no such thing as a perfect transfer (especially to NTSC). There >> is no such thing as a FLAWLESS disc. I rather doubt that there ever will >> be. >Probably lot, but for $250 and with the THX label on the sleeve, there >isn't much excuse for the sloppy mastering screwups and poor packaging >decisions that people are describing here. Fox set themselves up for some >mighty high expectations with this set, and it's a damned shame they didn't >try harder to meet them. It wouldn't have taken much more work to come up >with a set that *everyone* would have been satisfied with.
Folks, THX label has nothing do do with video mastering. THX is a set of requirements for sound not video.
In article <27otjj$...@triton.unm.edu>, Lazlo Nibble <la...@unm.edu> wrote: >Craig Good <g...@pixar.com> wrote: >Probably lot, but for $250 and with the THX label on the sleeve, there >isn't much excuse for the sloppy mastering screwups and poor packaging >decisions that people are describing here. Fox set themselves up for some >mighty high expectations with this set, and it's a damned shame they didn't >try harder to meet them. It wouldn't have taken much more work to come up >with a set that *everyone* would have been satisfied with.
I expected something like this. $250 WAS just too small price for three famous Star Wars films (remember that we are talking about *CBS/Fox* here). In my opinion it was highly unlikely to expect three Abyss-like releases with as huge suplement section, etc. And especially when the discs are in CAV-format and $40 book is included in the set. If the set was something like The Abyss SE, in addition to features previously mentioned, the price would had been somewhere around $300-$400. CBS/Fox fooled us a little bit. They didn't mention anything about how big the suplement section will be. *WE* assumed that it would be something like The Abyss/Aliens/Alien. Well, it wasn't. (And like I said, it didn't surprise me, when I looked at the price of the set.)
...and that's one reason, why I didn't pre-order it. The second, and more heavier, reason is, that I already own the first two films on CLV discs. (However, I would like very much to have those films with better audio and picture, but $250 just for that is just too much (better audio/video is the only value this set has for me....other opinions may differ)).
-- CENTRAL SERVICES -- we'll DO the work, and you'll do the pleasure...pleasure
In article <CDtqJK....@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> s...@slgsun.att.com (The Idealistic Cynic) writes:
> But the truth is that a THX could be produced with a horrible > video transfer and no supplements and still be THX.. we're > talking *sound* quality here. And I fully expect that most > disks produced in the future will be THX certified, certainly > most will in the next few years, simply because right now > that's a selling point, just like digital sound was a few years > back.
> If you want excruciating attention to detail in *all* areas, > don't look for the THX logo, look for the Criterion label. > They specialize in that sort of thing.
WRONG! THX is both sound and picture when used in terms of laserdisc releases. "The THX Program" as it's called involves ALL aspects of the disc, both sound and everything visual. Therefore, it should be perfect in every way. If the clitches in the picture don't bother you, there are two annoying sound fuck-ups in the THX set, so what do you say about that? Criterion probably would have done a better job, but Lucasfilm doesn't own Criterion, it does own THX. Poor Lucasfilm, all the great movies, and no way to show them properly.
>>> There is no such thing as a perfect transfer (especially to NTSC). There >>> is no such thing as a FLAWLESS disc. I rather doubt that there ever will >>> be.
>>Probably lot, but for $250 and with the THX label on the sleeve, there >>isn't much excuse for the sloppy mastering screwups and poor packaging >>decisions that people are describing here. Fox set themselves up for some >>mighty high expectations with this set, and it's a damned shame they didn't >>try harder to meet them. It wouldn't have taken much more work to come up >>with a set that *everyone* would have been satisfied with.
>Folks, THX label has nothing do do with video mastering. THX is a set of >requirements for sound not video.
>Mark
THX by itself is just for sound. "The THX Laserdisc Program" includes picture as well as sound. These disc should be much better than they are. End of story.
>Folks, THX label has nothing do do with video mastering. THX is a set of >requirements for sound not video.
>Mark
Actually, Mark, that is incorrect. The Lucasfilm THX program is made up of five parts. The first, and most well known, is their THX rating system for movie theaters (I.e. I saw Jurassic Park in THX). Their second part is what they call the Theater Alignment Program (TAP), what they do is rate a movie theater on criteria ranging everything from sound quality, to foot candles of light that the projector runs at, to the amount of lighting in the parking lots of a theater and even the cleanliness and general appearence of the theater, (Note: this applies to many theaters that don't even have true THX sound). Their third part is their film re-recording that is done through Skywalker Sound (you can tell if a film has been re-recorded at Skywalker Sound during the credits because they will have a THX logo saying that this film was re-recorded in a THX-approved theater). THX's fourth component is their recent licensing of (very expensive) technology for home use. Note that THX is not actually a technological process like Dolby Stereo, but more of a collection of rigorous standards that a system must conform to. THX's fifth and most recent component has been their home LaserDisc division. A THX-approved laserdisc is COMPLETELY remastered in regards to both sound and picture quality (which is taken directly from the masters. For a more thorough explanation, check out a recent issue of Widescreen magazine). Thus a THX laserdisc's sound AND picture should be greatly improved.
> WRONG! THX is both sound and picture when used in terms of >laserdisc releases. "The THX Program" as it's called involves ALL >aspects of the disc, both sound and everything visual. Therefore, it >should be perfect in every way. If the clitches in the picture don't >bother you, there are two annoying sound fuck-ups in the THX set, so >what do you say about that? Criterion probably would have done a better >job, but Lucasfilm doesn't own Criterion, it does own THX. Poor >Lucasfilm, all the great movies, and no way to show them properly.
I hope that the many people that have not had a chance to see the box set (transfers, packaging and all) will not form an opinion just from what they have read in this newsgroup(s). It is sometimes unfortunate that strong opinions against something are usually the opinions that are heard (read) the loudest. A lot of the time these opinions come from a minority that just happens to be more vocal than the majority.
My intent with this little note is not to poo-poo people with opinions against the THX release. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, right? I'm not trying to change that. I happen to like the box set mainly for the superior transfers (my opinion), not necessarily the packaging, supplements, etc. But please, if your really unsure about it, see it first and decide for yourself based on *your* experience, not someone elses.
In article <27t96u$...@saturn.wwc.edu> fre...@wwc.edu (Sean Fresk) writes: >My intent with this little note is not to poo-poo people with opinions >against the THX release. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, right? >I'm not trying to change that. I happen to like the box set mainly for >the superior transfers (my opinion), not necessarily the packaging, >supplements, etc. But please, if your really unsure about it, see it >first and decide for yourself based on *your* experience, not someone >elses.
>-sean
I agree completely. Go rent it, for $12 it's a night well spent. I was just simply not happy with it for $250. Other people are clearly very pleased, and that's fine. For whatever genetic reason, little flaws tend to bother me quite a bit (though with people I make large exceptions) when it comes to things I spend a lot of money on. Call me crazy.
In article <CDtqJK....@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> s...@slgsun.att.com (The Idealistic Cynic) writes:
> But the truth is that a THX could be produced with a horrible > video transfer and no supplements and still be THX.. we're > talking *sound* quality here.
No we're not....VIDEO is included in the THX LASERDISC standard. You are confusing THEATER THX sound with LASERDISC THX. The THX label on a laserdisc shows the quality of SOUND and VIDEO.
I've been following this thread with interest; I very nearly bought this set at Quement's during their 20% off sale but they were out. (so we got The Abyss SE instead.)
I'm happy to report that even after seeing the THX SW get slammed, I'm still relieved that I didn't pick up the LBX "original" Star Wars (I), and would still get the THX set if I came across $200 that I couldn't find a use for. However, I'm hoping they'll release each movie separately as a THX version. (And yes, I'd prefer CLV.)
BTW, c'mon guys, we're talking about laserdisks, not the existence/ nonexistence of God for cryin' out loud.
flame away,
------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Blevins Sr. Applications Engineer NeoCAD, Inc. DoD #0157 bl...@netcom.com Campbell, Ca.
anth...@xymox.apana.org.au (Anthony Horan) writes: >In article <27m21j$...@crl.crl.com>, paul theodoropoulos writes: >> further, neither T2 nor Abyss were recorded in digital. many of the >> audio effects were recorded digitally but all audio went through >> several analog generations before final mix - which was also analog. >Analog, but with Dolby SR noise reduction. Big improvement.
non-sequitur. the assertion was that T2 and Abyss were recorded digitally. they were not. the use of SR is an important improvement, but irrelevant to the assertion. and T2 and Abyss were not the first films to use SR extensively, not by a long shot. the first SR release was either Tucker or Willow (i can't remember which). many films have used SR throughout the post-production process.
>> tenth-of-a-mile of cable back to the mix, and through all those >> filters etc on the mix board, and onto a six track master. later, that >> six track master's signal went throug all the above cable and pots and >> onto a a two track LtRt. that LtRt is what's used to strike the >> optical track on 35mm prints. for those special "digital" releases, >> the LtRt signal is merely sent through all the above, and then onto >> 3402 digital, then onto CDS or DTS or whatever. >Bzzztt.
gee, i guess it was a figment of my imagination when i hung LtRt's for digital mastering. i guess it was my special imaginary friend who worked at Skywalker Sound, not me. %^)
>Firstly, the six track master is not used (normally) to make the 4 channel >matrixed Dolby Stereo version. A separate mix is done from the various audio >stems. The six track master is used for 70mm and digital formats. This is the >current method of working, as described by Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories.
the six track masters are *almost always* used to make the LtRt. if you have some actual working experience doing otherwise, please fill us in.
typically, you will end up after final mix with a Dialogue & Foley six track master (LCRLCR), a music master (various track formats, for example LCRSLR, or LCRLCR), and an effects master, LCRSLR. those three six-track masters are used to strike the LtRt. i don't recall having ever made yet another mix from the finals that was then used to strike LtRts.
i misspoke earlier, though. i should have said the LtRt is *sometimes* used for digital releases. you have to keep in mind that all of these things are money-driven. depending on the state of the budget, many, *many* corners may be cut in the mixing process - since the mix is the final step in post-production. you are correct that the six track masters are *usually* used for the 70's and digitals. but not always.
on Dracula, the Dolby Digital box decided to misbehave during the mastering - it wouldn't lock to sync during rock & roll, so the audio kept drifting. luckily, we had made an analog backup (L,Ls,R,Rs,C, Boom), which was dumped back onto the digital in a single pass for each reel. so in a rather bizarre twist, the backup was used to create the original. heh.
when ioan allen describes the current methods, he's describing the current *ideal* methods of working. the reality is that shit happens - sometimes equipment is uncooperative, sometimes money runs out.
>Secondly, apart from the much-maligned 4-channel matrix version of DTS, all >digital theatre systems use the six track mix, with all six tracks recorded >discreetly.
like i said, sometimes the LtRt is used for digital mastering. it's lots easier to hang the LtRt's and run the automation for a 4 channel DTS than to hang the six track masters. and if the production doesn't have the money for six track DTS, that's all that will happen.
and beyond all of this, your still dumping to digital an analog track that has at most 55db - 60db S/N ratio, not even close to digital's 100db, and a frequency response of 100Hz to about 16Khz, +/- 1.0db.
i'm still also waiting for verifiable proof that any film has been recorded in digital in *all* production and post-production stages.
-- paul theodoropoulos p...@crl.com dioge...@well.sf.ca.us
as...@pomona.claremont.edu writes: >Actually, Mark, that is incorrect. The Lucasfilm THX program is made >up of five parts. The first, and most well known, is their THX >rating system for movie theaters (I.e. I saw Jurassic Park in THX).
incorrect. it's not a rating system, it's an approval system. a theater is not rated, it is either THX approved or it is not.
>Their second part is what they call the Theater Alignment Program >(TAP), what they do is rate a movie theater on criteria ranging >everything from sound quality, to foot candles of light that the >projector runs at, to the amount of lighting in the parking lots of a >theater and even the cleanliness and general appearence of the >theater, (Note: this applies to many theaters that don't even have >true THX sound).
the first part of the first sentence is correct, up to the mention of sound quality. the rest is false.
where on earth did you hear this nonsense about theater cleanliness and lighting in the parking lot???
>Their third part is their film re-recording that is done through >Skywalker Sound (you can tell if a film has been re-recorded at >Skywalker Sound during the credits because they will have a THX logo >saying that this film was re-recorded in a THX-approved theater).
this is not a part of the THX program. it is a marketing ploy. and not all films that were recorded in THX approved theatres have the "recorded in a THX theatre" bug in the credits.
>THX's fourth component is their recent licensing of (very expensive) >technology for home use. Note that THX is not actually a >technological process like Dolby Stereo, but more of a collection of >rigorous standards that a system must conform to.
right.
>THX's fifth and most recent component has been their home LaserDisc >division. A THX-approved laserdisc is COMPLETELY remastered in >regards to both sound and picture quality (which is taken directly >from the masters. For a more thorough explanation, check out a >recent issue of Widescreen magazine). Thus a THX laserdisc's sound >AND picture should be greatly improved.
right.
-- paul theodoropoulos p...@crl.com dioge...@well.sf.ca.us
In article <27u4g9$...@crl.crl.com>, p...@crl.com (paul theodoropoulos) writes: >as...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>>Actually, Mark, that is incorrect. The Lucasfilm THX program is made >>up of five parts. The first, and most well known, is their THX >>rating system for movie theaters (I.e. I saw Jurassic Park in THX).
>incorrect. it's not a rating system, it's an approval system. a >theater is not rated, it is either THX approved or it is not.
>>Their second part is what they call the Theater Alignment Program >>(TAP), what they do is rate a movie theater on criteria ranging >>everything from sound quality, to foot candles of light that the >>projector runs at, to the amount of lighting in the parking lots of a >>theater and even the cleanliness and general appearence of the >>theater, (Note: this applies to many theaters that don't even have >>true THX sound).
>the first part of the first sentence is correct, up to the mention of >sound quality. the rest is false.
>where on earth did you hear this nonsense about theater cleanliness >and lighting in the parking lot???
>>Their third part is their film re-recording that is done through >>Skywalker Sound (you can tell if a film has been re-recorded at >>Skywalker Sound during the credits because they will have a THX logo >>saying that this film was re-recorded in a THX-approved theater).
>this is not a part of the THX program. it is a marketing ploy. and not >all films that were recorded in THX approved theatres have the >"recorded in a THX theatre" bug in the credits.
>>THX's fourth component is their recent licensing of (very expensive) >>technology for home use. Note that THX is not actually a >>technological process like Dolby Stereo, but more of a collection of >>rigorous standards that a system must conform to.
>right.
>>THX's fifth and most recent component has been their home LaserDisc >>division. A THX-approved laserdisc is COMPLETELY remastered in >>regards to both sound and picture quality (which is taken directly >>from the masters. For a more thorough explanation, check out a >>recent issue of Widescreen magazine). Thus a THX laserdisc's sound >>AND picture should be greatly improved.
Well, I meant an approval system, not a rating system (I mean either you get THX or you don't, there is no grey area). As for the TAP program, check out (I believe) the Widescreen article on THX (although it may have been another very recent publication). It suprised me too, but the philosophy on the THX people's view was that the entire moviegoing experience needed to be improved, not just the sound (though that is a critical component). -Aditya
as...@pomona.claremont.edu writes: >Well, I meant an approval system, not a rating system (I mean either >you get THX or you don't, there is no grey area). As for the TAP >program, check out (I believe) the Widescreen article on THX >(although it may have been another very recent publication). It >suprised me too, but the philosophy on the THX people's view was that >the entire moviegoing experience needed to be improved, not just the >sound (though that is a critical component). -Aditya
well, if this is the case - that general appearance of the theatre etc are being considered - then TAP has been further bastardized from when i worked at Skywalker two years ago. back then, they could barely keep up with the guidelines of the program, which was that already-approved THX theatres had to be recertified every six months. if they're now playing gum-on-the-floor police, i expect these distractions to continue to water down the their formerly rigorous standards.
feh!
-- paul theodoropoulos p...@crl.com dioge...@well.sf.ca.us
|> WRONG! THX is both sound and picture when used in terms of |> laserdisc releases. "The THX Program" as it's called involves ALL |> aspects of the disc, both sound and everything visual. Therefore, it |> should be perfect in every way. If the clitches in the picture don't |> bother you, there are two annoying sound fuck-ups in the THX set, so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> what do you say about that? Criterion probably would have done a better |> job, but Lucasfilm doesn't own Criterion, it does own THX. Poor |> Lucasfilm, all the great movies, and no way to show them properly. |>
I have tried and tried to find these "sound fuck-ups" and gosh darn it, they just aren't there on my set... you probably got a fucked up pressing... just SEND IT BACK!!!
Hey, I am stuck on tod 1 op2. Its only a recon mission but there seems to be no way to id all the corvettes, i keep getting shot down! And what am i supposed to do with the nav buoy. It says to rendevous with it but the only thing i can do is just run into it. BTW the mouse is fine now, I don't seem to be having as many problems with it that i had previously.
One last thing, is there any way to save your score at the end of each tod so that when i get captured i can somehow "REVIVE pilot" with all of my points?
In article <tsk3328-240993082...@mac2wild2.tamu.edu>,
Tim Kalafut <tsk3...@rigel.tamu.edu> wrote: >... Besides, that little blip that shows up at the end of the >reel bugs me more than anything I've seen in these disks.
Here here. I think that if people are complaining about 8 frames (um, let's see... that's 8/30ths of a second of bad frames), There should be proportionate whining about the image that is obscured twice on every reel by the cue dots. Clearly we who don't need to change the reels don't need to see the cue dots, so we're being cheated out of that fraction of the image.
So, I say to you who want perfect Star Wars laserdisks: Write letters! Call your congressman! BOYCOTT Laserdisks with cue dots!
(This is sarcasm.)
-Dave LeCompte
-- These opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my family, my company, my race, or my species.
In article <27q74v$...@usenet.rpi.edu>, Phil Kim writes: > Actually, THX people has done better sounding restoration on Apocalypse Now (1979).
Actually, THX people did not restore, remix or remaster the sound on the "Apocalypse Now" laserdisc. It was done by Walter Murch and others at Skywalker Sound on *a home THX system*. The THX Laserdisc Program had nothing to do with this disc.
Having said that, it's a shining example of digital remixing at its finest... :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Anthony Horan, Melbourne Australia - anth...@xymox.apana.org.au "I kind of feel like I'm Metallica..." - Tori Amos on the perils of long tours, November 1992 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
anth...@xymox.apana.org.au (Anthony Horan) writes: >In article <27q74v$...@usenet.rpi.edu>, Phil Kim writes: >> Actually, THX people has done better sounding restoration on >> Apocalypse Now (1979). >Actually, THX people did not restore, remix or remaster the sound on the >"Apocalypse Now" laserdisc. It was done by Walter Murch and others at >Skywalker Sound on *a home THX system*. The THX Laserdisc Program had nothing >to do with this disc.
it's always nice to see that consumers actually do read the jackets of their laserdiscs. however, deriving all your knowledge from same doesn't mean you are fully informed.
THX *never* restores, remixes or remasters *any* film. please read up on what THX is. your statements are incorrect and misleading.
true - the A.N. remaster was not officially under the auspices of the THX LD program.
but just because the THX laserdisc program wasn't yet fully formed doesn't mean that THX wasn't intimately involved in the remaster.
take a look at the last chapter on the final side of A.N. - those test tones are forerunners of those used in the THX LD program.
never mind that i had tomlinson holman breathing down my neck and patching fascinating little computerized probes into my test cart while i aligned the six track masters.
>Having said that, it's a shining example of digital remixing at its >finest... :)
it wasn't a digital remix, either. it was an analog remaster to sony two- track 3402 (DASH). the only digital step in the process was the dump onto the digital recorder. every film that gets put on laserdisc with a digital playback track has to go through this step or equivalent.
-- paul theodoropoulos p...@crl.com dioge...@well.sf.ca.us
In article <CDvqA4....@mv.mv.com> tsmas...@mv.mv.com (David W. LeCompte) writes:
>Here here. I think that if people are complaining about 8 frames (um, >let's see... that's 8/30ths of a second of bad frames), There should >be proportionate whining about the image that is obscured twice on >every reel by the cue dots. Clearly we who don't need to change the >reels don't need to see the cue dots, so we're being cheated out of >that fraction of the image.
Have you ever payed $250 to see a movie in a theater?
>So, I say to you who want perfect Star Wars laserdisks: Write letters! >Call your congressman! BOYCOTT Laserdisks with cue dots!
I have yet to EVER see a laserdisc which has cue dots. The source prints that I have seen are always ones which have been spared such abuse.
In article <280sms$...@aludra.usc.edu> ed...@aludra.usc.edu (Evan Daum) writes: >Have you ever payed $250 to see a movie in a theater?
No, but for $250, you can play the movie over and over and over again, whenever you want. You can even stop the movie, and get something to eat, come back and resume play--all at your whim with the laserdisc.
Ken -- Kenneth K.F. Lui, k...@corp.hp.com 3000 Hanover Street M/S 20BJ Corporate Financial Systems Palo Alto, CA 94304-1112 USA Core Application Technologies 1.415.857.3230 Fax 1.415.852.8026
In <27vqlh$...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> will...@ritchie.ec.usf.edu. (William Smith (AC)) writes:
> Hey, I am stuck on tod 1 op2. Its only a recon mission but there seems >to be no way to id all the corvettes, i keep getting shot down! And what >am i supposed to do with the nav buoy. It says to rendevous with it but >the only thing i can do is just run into it. BTW the mouse is fine now, I >don't seem to be having as many problems with it that i had previously.
Since all you have to do is id the ships, divert all your laser power to engines. In an A-Wing, nothing can get near you. All you have to do is go evasive when you get close to one of the enemy capital ships. Its just a matter of not getting to close. Once you id it, get the hell away from it. The one thing that bugged me was that during the mission, some of the enemy ships would be misteriously destroyed. I didn't kill them, so who did? As for the nav buoy, forget it, it's just to tell you where you are/
>One last thing, is there any way to save your score at the end of each tod >so that when i get captured i can somehow "REVIVE pilot" with all of my points?
What I do is, after I complete a mission, i quit the game and "clone" myself. That way, if I get killed the next mission, all I have to do is clone my clone. It's a pain, but better than losing your rank and points.
Bossk aka Donald Blewett aka hatc...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca "What the hell where you do with my whales?" "I was attempting the hell to communicate." Dr. Gillian Carter, Spock, Star Trek IV
In article <27pvtp$...@crl.crl.com>, paul theodoropoulos writes: > >> further, neither T2 nor Abyss were recorded in digital. many of the > >> audio effects were recorded digitally but all audio went through > >> several analog generations before final mix - which was also analog.
> >Analog, but with Dolby SR noise reduction. Big improvement.
> non-sequitur. the assertion was that T2 and Abyss were recorded > digitally. they were not. the use of SR is an important improvement, > but irrelevant to the assertion. and T2 and Abyss were not the first > films to use SR extensively, not by a long shot. the first SR release > was either Tucker or Willow (i can't remember which). many films have > used SR throughout the post-production process.
Okay, that clarifies things a bit - I misunderstood what it was that you were asserting. I was intending to point out that film sound quality in the analog domain has come a heck of a long way since the introduction of Dolby Stereo, as many people seem to believe that all Dolby Stereo films are created equal.
> >> optical track on 35mm prints. for those special "digital" releases, > >> the LtRt signal is merely sent through all the above, and then onto > >> 3402 digital, then onto CDS or DTS or whatever.
> >Bzzztt.
> gee, i guess it was a figment of my imagination when i hung LtRt's for > digital mastering. i guess it was my special imaginary friend who > worked at Skywalker Sound, not me. %^)
:-)
What I meant here is that you won't see a DTS, CDS, or Dolby Digital release that hasn't been mixed in discrete 6-track, though with Universal's promised extensive use of DTS and the abundance (in the US) of the four track DTS system, that may not necessarily be the case in the future. Surely you're not telling me the LtRt signal is used for a six track digital release? Didn't think you were.
> >Firstly, the six track master is not used (normally) to make the 4 channel > >matrixed Dolby Stereo version. A separate mix is done from the various audio > >stems. The six track master is used for 70mm and digital formats. This is the > >current method of working, as described by Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories.
> the six track masters are *almost always* used to make the LtRt. if you > have some actual working experience doing otherwise, please fill us > in.
No, I don't have working experience, just the knowledge gained through conversations with film-makers and sound facilities. I apologise for sounding more arrogant than I had the right to be... :-) More than a few films, though, have been documented as having had seperate mixes done, from the stems, for LtRt and discrete 6 track.
> typically, you will end up after final mix with a Dialogue & Foley six > track master (LCRLCR), a music master (various track formats, for > example LCRSLR, or LCRLCR), and an effects master, LCRSLR. those three > six-track masters are used to strike the LtRt. i don't recall having > ever made yet another mix from the finals that was then used to strike > LtRts.
This is informative - thanks. I notice on the laserdisc of "Kafka" the announcement that the soundtrack was mixed direct from the "24 track digital master". This puzzled me at the time, but makes more sense now; I assume that occasionally a 24 track digital deck is used to store these pre-final-mix masters?
> i misspoke earlier, though. i should have said the LtRt is *sometimes* > used for digital releases. you have to keep in mind that all of these > things are money-driven. depending on the state of the budget, many, > *many* corners may be cut in the mixing process - since the mix is the > final step in post-production. you are correct that the six track > masters are *usually* used for the 70's and digitals. but not always.
Aha. So a six track mix is not done as a matter of course, then? Pity. I guess using the LtRt would result in little improvement on a digital print over Dolby SR, as the surrounds would be mono and limited-bandwidth in the mix, despite being discrete on the print?
> on Dracula, the Dolby Digital box decided to misbehave during the > mastering - it wouldn't lock to sync during rock & roll, so the audio > kept drifting. luckily, we had made an analog backup (L,Ls,R,Rs,C, > Boom), which was dumped back onto the digital in a single pass for > each reel. so in a rather bizarre twist, the backup was used to create > the original. heh.
What is the reference on the laserdisc of Dracula (Criterion) then to a digital six track master used to create a special LtRt mix containing extra surround effects only used in six track versions - this is the same "digital" six track master that's actually analogue? :-) Still sounds great, but that must have been a bit of an annoyance for the sound crew, to say the least...
> when ioan allen describes the current methods, he's describing the > current *ideal* methods of working. the reality is that shit happens - > sometimes equipment is uncooperative, sometimes money runs out.
Uncooperative? Not *Dolby* equipment! :-) Right, thanks again for the clarification. In the lecture he gave he conveyed the distinct impression that there was a standard way of working, and that was it.
> >Secondly, apart from the much-maligned 4-channel matrix version of DTS, all > >digital theatre systems use the six track mix, with all six tracks recorded > >discreetly.
> like i said, sometimes the LtRt is used for digital mastering. it's > lots easier to hang the LtRt's and run the automation for a 4 channel > DTS than to hang the six track masters. and if the production doesn't > have the money for six track DTS, that's all that will happen.
Hopefully this will change, or the public perception of digital will end up being "what's the big deal?"
> and beyond all of this, your still dumping to digital an analog track > that has at most 55db - 60db S/N ratio, not even close to digital's > 100db, and a frequency response of 100Hz to about 16Khz, +/- 1.0db.
Only 55-60dB? I would have thought SR offered greater dynamic range than that. That's not much better than a home cassette deck with Dolby C switched in.
> i'm still also waiting for verifiable proof that any film has been > recorded in digital in *all* production and post-production stages.
"Final Approach" was supposed to have been. Anyone around here who worked on it, or knows someone who did? (Would anyone actually *admit* to it? :-)
And, as I think I've mentioned before, the Australian film "Dogs In Space" was reported to have had all location dialogue and music recorded digitally, though the mix was analog.
Cheers, Anthony
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Anthony Horan, Melbourne Australia - anth...@xymox.apana.org.au "I kind of feel like I'm Metallica..." - Tori Amos on the perils of long tours, November 1992 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
