SW THX is a big piece of $250 shit.
Evan Daum
OK, I've watched my THX box set of Star Wars, and man am I mad.
First of all, the Supplemental stuff just sucks. It looks so bad, and
the choice of what to put on it seems like it was made my a janitor at
Lucasfilm or something. The interviews are completely unstructured and
extremely boring. Ben Burtt rambles on and on for just no good reason.
The audio quality is ironically terrible on Ben's interview as well.
Lucas says nothing new in his very brief interview, he could really use
some caffine or something. The stills are ok, but as Josh Ling said in
a previous post, one of the stills is UPSIDE DOWN. What gives? Also, the
trailers have had the voice-overs replaced by someone who clearly is not
a pro. It's like he worked at Fox video, and they just made him read the
lines. I've seen the trailers recently (can't say where, it was an act of
god) and the ones on the THX set have a different voice on them. They clearly
didn't make new transfers of the trailers either. Other than the re-release
Jedi one (which has a different voice-over), they all were obviously dubbed
from a really old transfer, which appears to have been on VHS or some other
such lame format. The animatics are mildly interesting, but except for the
Death Star sequence, they were all included in previous "making of" videos.
The archive tour is so poor. The whole thing is shot hand-held, which makes
in stink of unprofessional video work. The narration which accompanies the
tour is so stupid as well. After saying what something is, he feels compelled
to say "from the Star Wars movies." No shit. I think we can figure that out.
Everything which was produced specifically for these discs is sub-par in terms
of production. The interviews have no structure, and the tour, which should
have been scripted, clearly wasn't.
Now we come to the movies themselves. Packaged in a rather boring
black box, each disc comes in it's own boring black sleeve with it's own
cheesy plastic cover. Yes, they could have attached the plastic to the inside
of the paper part, but noooo, they went the cheesy way. My Star Wars sleeve
was scratched when I opened the set, so I was off to a bad start already.
It's like they didn't hire a layout company to do the packaging, they just did
it in the basement copy room at Fox Video.
Overall, I'm fairly happy with the new transfers, but I have had
several problems. The following is a list of what is wrong (that I have
noticed) with the new transfers.
Star Wars- Side 2 frame 18088, there is some sort of digital tearing or
distortion near Luke's ear.
Empire Strikes Back- Side 1 frame 29385, there is a shift in the picture
towards the right.
Side 3 frame 23748- There is a strange sound in the left channel which
sounds like someone spraying hair spray. This clearly is not part
of any beefed up sound track, it's rather loud and very annoying.
Return of the Jedi- Side 4 frame 22744, more of that digital garbage in the
picture
Side 5 frame 5025, Luke's face is very distorted by more of that digital
junk.
Side 5 frame 15488, Yet more garbage in the picture near the Emperor's bolts.
This is just what I have noticed so far. If you've bought a set, I'd
love for you to check and see if you have the same problems, and if you don't,
I'll take mine back and get a different one. The CLV versions looked almost as
good, and had none of these stupid flaws. I must admit that the sound is much
improved, and for that reason alone, I will keep this set, but I wish I still
had my CLV ones as well. I welcome any comments, flames, etc... Thanks
for listening to me bitch and moan about my $250 piece of junk.
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
Michael Keene
>Hello,
>
> OK, I've watched my THX box set of Star Wars, and man am I mad.
>First of all, the Supplemental stuff just sucks. It looks so bad, and
>the choice of what to put on it seems like it was made my a janitor at
>Lucasfilm or something.
<rambling omitted>
> Now we come to the movies themselves. Packaged in a rather boring
>black box, each disc comes in it's own boring black sleeve with it's own
>cheesy plastic cover. Yes, they could have attached the plastic to the inside
>of the paper part, but noooo, they went the cheesy way. My Star Wars sleeve
>was scratched when I opened the set, so I was off to a bad start already.
>It's like they didn't hire a layout company to do the packaging, they just did
>it in the basement copy room at Fox Video.
What gives? It's a fine, professional looking set. I couldn't be
happier. Yeah, they could have attached the plastic to the inside...
I think I may spend 45 cents and buy some elsewhere.
I guess I'm biased.. This package is absolutely BEAUTIFUL compared to
the Star Trek movies box set that came out a year or so ago.
> Overall, I'm fairly happy with the new transfers, but I have had
>several problems. The following is a list of what is wrong (that I have
>noticed) with the new transfers.
>
(list omitted)
Jesus! I usually like to watch my movies in "PLAY" mode, not
frame-advance. I know laser-owners are a picky sort (myself
included), but I really don't know what you're going on about. If
these things bother you so bad, return it. While actually WATCHING
the discs, I didn't find any of the defects you listed. If I pick it
apart with a fine-tooth comb (frame by frame) I may find some, but it
doesn't bother me!
The bottom line is, the frigging discs are AMAZING! Absolutely
phenominal picture and sound. 10 times better than the old discs, and
on the same level as AbyssSE and Terminator 2.
I bought the set so I could have the Star Wars Trilogy (Movies) in
their greatest visual and aural glory, and that's what I got. I
didn't buy it just for the supplements. I've seen more "behind the
scenes" crap about the three movies over the last 15 years, I don't
need any more!
If you don't feel it was worth the $250, I'm sure you can get a
refund, and get the old sub-standard discs at a real bargain.
I traded in my inferior discs, pre-ordered, and payed $127... A
phenominal bargain.
>
>-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
>
--
/| Michael Keene |\
\| ke...@apache.dtcc.edu |/
Evan Daum
>What gives? It's a fine, professional looking set. I couldn't be
>happier. Yeah, they could have attached the plastic to the inside...
>I think I may spend 45 cents and buy some elsewhere.
Yes, I guess if professionals are paid to design packaging for a $250 set
which falls apart the first time you open it than yes, it's great.
>I guess I'm biased.. This package is absolutely BEAUTIFUL compared to
>the Star Trek movies box set that came out a year or so ago.
Anything with the words Star Wars on it is going to be better than
something Star Trek.
>> Overall, I'm fairly happy with the new transfers, but I have had
>>several problems. The following is a list of what is wrong (that I have
>>noticed) with the new transfers.
>>
>
>(list omitted)
>
>Jesus! I usually like to watch my movies in "PLAY" mode, not
>frame-advance. I know laser-owners are a picky sort (myself
>included), but I really don't know what you're going on about. If
>these things bother you so bad, return it. While actually WATCHING
>the discs, I didn't find any of the defects you listed. If I pick it
>apart with a fine-tooth comb (frame by frame) I may find some, but it
>doesn't bother me!
I didn't have to slow the thing down to see these flaws, so yes, they
bother me. The CLV set didn't have such problems, why does this one?
>The bottom line is, the frigging discs are AMAZING! Absolutely
>phenominal picture and sound. 10 times better than the old discs, and
>on the same level as AbyssSE and Terminator 2.
Have you seen the CLV discs? They weren't bad at all, and I'm sorry, but
the last disc of Jedi might as well be the same thing as the CLV set, I
could scarcely see a difference.
>I bought the set so I could have the Star Wars Trilogy (Movies) in
>their greatest visual and aural glory, and that's what I got. I
>didn't buy it just for the supplements. I've seen more "behind the
>scenes" crap about the three movies over the last 15 years, I don't
>need any more!
I bought it for the same reason you did, but to go from a perfect transfer
to one with lots of little clitches seems stupid.
>If you don't feel it was worth the $250, I'm sure you can get a
>refund, and get the old sub-standard discs at a real bargain.
I might.
>I traded in my inferior discs, pre-ordered, and payed $127... A
>phenominal bargain.
All I'm saying is that this is called the "Definitive Collection," it should
be FLAWLESS. $250 is a fair price for perfect transfers and improved sound.
Instead we get a sloppy, rushed product with tons of little flaws for $250.
If you are satisfied, I'm happy for you, I'm not.
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
Scott Streeter
Well if you think the CLV set is "as good", then send the THX set back
and get you money back, and spare use your moaning. Also if you paided
top dollar for it, you got ripped off anyways. I ended up paying $138
for the set.
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
Scott Streeter
edaum> In article <27j766...@apache.dtcc.edu> ke...@apache.dtcc.edu (Michael Keene) writes:
>What gives? It's a fine, professional looking set. I couldn't be
>happier. Yeah, they could have attached the plastic to the inside...
>I think I may spend 45 cents and buy some elsewhere.
edaum> Yes, I guess if professionals are paid to design packaging for
edaum> a $250 set which falls apart the first time you open it than
edaum> yes, it's great.
I don't understand all the bitching about the box. Mine was fine. It's
not falling apart, and I don't have any trouble getting the LD's in
and out.
>> Overall, I'm fairly happy with the new transfers, but I have had
>>several problems. The following is a list of what is wrong (that I have
>>noticed) with the new transfers.
>>
>
>(list omitted)
>
>Jesus! I usually like to watch my movies in "PLAY" mode, not
>frame-advance. I know laser-owners are a picky sort (myself
>included), but I really don't know what you're going on about. If
>these things bother you so bad, return it. While actually WATCHING
>the discs, I didn't find any of the defects you listed. If I pick it
>apart with a fine-tooth comb (frame by frame) I may find some, but it
>doesn't bother me!
edaum> I didn't have to slow the thing down to see these flaws, so
edaum> yes, they bother me. The CLV set didn't have such problems,
edaum> why does this one?
I only noticed ONE bad frame in Empire in mine. And there is no way
the entire thing will be 100% perfect. I'm sure if you scan through
your other LD's you will fine just as many tiny annoying little flaws.
>The bottom line is, the frigging discs are AMAZING! Absolutely
>phenominal picture and sound. 10 times better than the old discs,
>and on the same level as AbyssSE and Terminator 2.
edaum> Have you seen the CLV discs? They weren't bad at all, and I'm
edaum> sorry, but the last disc of Jedi might as well be the same
edaum> thing as the CLV set, I could scarcely see a difference.
COME ON!!! The CLV transfers might as well have been tape compaired to
the new set. Don't fool yourself.
>I bought the set so I could have the Star Wars Trilogy (Movies) in
>their greatest visual and aural glory, and that's what I got. I
>didn't buy it just for the supplements. I've seen more "behind the
>scenes" crap about the three movies over the last 15 years, I don't
>need any more!
edaum> I bought it for the same reason you did, but to go from a
edaum> perfect transfer to one with lots of little clitches seems
edaum> stupid.
The CLV transfers were hardly perfect. They were dull and grainy, and
the sound on Star Wars was poor at best.
>If you don't feel it was worth the $250, I'm sure you can get a
>refund, and get the old sub-standard discs at a real bargain.
edaum> I might.
>I traded in my inferior discs, pre-ordered, and payed $127... A
>phenominal bargain.
edaum> All I'm saying is that this is called the "Definitive
edaum> Collection," it should be FLAWLESS. $250 is a fair price for
edaum> perfect transfers and improved sound. Instead we get a sloppy,
edaum> rushed product with tons of little flaws for $250. If you are
edaum> satisfied, I'm happy for you, I'm not.
Too bad. I think the transfer was awsome. I do however wish the
supplements had things that were actually new. Nothing there was new
to me. But there were some good close ups of the model ships that I
will find invaluable when building my model kits :)
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
Starman
Sorry, Scott, but the moaning needs justification. I'm about as big of a Star
Wars nut (if not bigger) than anyone out there, but MORE SO, I'm a smart
consumer. For $250 I should have George Lucas's autograph on the stupid
box like he did with the VHS Trilogy. As for the transfers, they are absolutley
BEAUTIFUL, but there are just too many flaws in the set. You say that some
discs have flaws no matter what. Well....how many are on 'The Abyss'? ZERO!
The video noise is as plain as day when played at normal speed and it's very
distracting. The fact that 'Wookiee' is spelled wrong in the subtitles is
annoying. No, I'd never want my CLVs back, but the reason why Star Wars'
sound is so poor on the CLVs is because it was RECORDED THAT WAY. There are
STILL scratches in the dialog track that haven't been fixed...so now we
have a THX approved sub-standard dialog track! I'm sorry, but with today's
technology and 'THX Approval', I would have expected a LOT more from the box
set. Here are the glitches I've found so far...and NOT by going frame-by-frame:
Star Wars: Scratchy dialog when the audio reaches the high range.
Missing 'tractor beam' line which was present in the second remaster
Empire: Picture shifts a LOT on Leia's "An Impreial Probe Droid" line
Picture shifts a bit when Han says "Come on..COME ON!"
Audio lost of the snowspeeder spinning out of control.
A few seconds lost of Leia welding (not important...bu WHY???)
'THUD' of asteroid hitting the Falcon weaker than CLV version.
Jedi: 'Wookiee' spelled wrong twice in subtitles
Badly mangled garbage on print where Jabba says "Soon you will learn
to appreciate me" That was a reel change, but still.....
Matte boxes MUCH more noticable.
MASSIVE video noise where Chewie gives up his crossbow in the bunker
Slight video noise in Luke's first battle with Vader.
That's it... Don't even get me started on the supplimental shit. That was a
TOTAL waste....not to mention that all three suppliments could have fit on one
disc (although I haven't checked for sure yet...it looks that way). I'm sorry
but if you're going to be a 'geek' about it and say that this is the greatest
thing in the world, I'd say "Get a Life". The A/V transfer is great, but still
has too many flaws to be called "perfect." The supplimental section is totally
useless; especially if you have all the 'making of' books. That's my opinion.
It's a wonderful set to have, but they just could have cleaned it up a bit.
I just cannot believe that this left THX Quality Control! Now where did
I leave Fox's address.....????
===============================Mike Gaines==============================
= WHAT is your name? Captain Jean-Luc Picard =
= WHAT is your quest? I seek the Holy Grail =
= WHAT is the top velocity of a Bird of Prey? Romulan or Klingon? =
= I....I don't know...AAAHHHH!!!! =
=========================meg...@teak.njit.edu==========================
Pentti Lajunen
Could someone describe where the side breaks are on the discs?
"In the beginning there was nothing.
A void of darkness, a cold eternity of silence.
When perfect void was corrupted by light, a great wailing
was heard and all the brethren fled in terror"-The lord of darkness
Steve Copold
I looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary and, apparently,
either spelling is correct. That is depending upon which star-system you
are in, of course. :-)
-Steve Copold
Kevin M. Chin
Evan> In article <27j766...@apache.dtcc.edu> ke...@apache.dtcc.edu (Michael Keene) writes:
>What gives? It's a fine, professional looking set. I couldn't be
>happier. Yeah, they could have attached the plastic to the inside...
>I think I may spend 45 cents and buy some elsewhere.
Evan> Yes, I guess if professionals are paid to design packaging for a $250 set
Evan> which falls apart the first time you open it than yes, it's great.
[stuff omitted.]
Evan> All I'm saying is that this is called the "Definitive Collection,"
Evan> it should be FLAWLESS. $250 is a fair price for perfect transfers
Evan> and improved sound. Instead we get a sloppy, rushed product with
Evan> tons of little flaws for $250.
Sir, you keep harping on the "$250" retail price and somehow your
expectations seem to reside in the stratosphere. What you seem to
have forgotten is that you are getting three (3) movies, not one or
two. $250/3 = $83 per movie, far below Criterions or even Abyss SE
retail prices. If you must harp on the retail prices (which, btw,
none of us here paid, pity if you did), then take a look at the
CLV version of the trilogy at $69.95 per movie. No one would suggest
given the $250 THX vs $210 CLV set, that the THX was only marginally
worth the extra $40 over the CLV. For that extra $40, you get 3 CAV
disks per movie, a $40 book, and supplements, never mind the superior
audio and video transfers. It's too bad if you don't think the THX set
was worth the $40 difference. I have a feeling that you are probably
in the minority here.
Now, let us talk about fair market prices. S&S ordered 1500 copies
of the THX set, of which 80% were pre-orders. I don't know how many
copies Ken Cranes, Laser Craze, or any others had ordered. If these
other outfits want to be competitive, they would have offered the
sets at close to S&S's pre-order prices of $199.95. Some folks who
buy at retail stores other than the mail-order outfits might get
a 10 or 15% discount at the stand. The CLV set, although listed at
retail for $69.95 each, probably sells in the stores for $60 - $64.95
assuming they would even carry new CLV sets. Since most laser disc
player owners tend to be rather discriminating in terms of quality,
they are the likely target consumer segment to buy the LD's, THX or CLV.
Taking into account that nearly every video magazine and occasionally
non-video magazine carries the Columbian House LD club ads, the
actual market value for the CLV discs are probably somewhere between
the $10.91 CH LD price (if you take the CLV discs as your initial
choices) and $180 (3 x $60 for all 3 movies). Now, also consider the
obvious glut of used versions of the CLV sets which S&S, as an example,
is selling for $100 (for all 3). I would guess that the market price
of a new CLV set is probably close to $125-$150. That's if the LD
player owner, who really wants the CLV set, isn't willing to make the
effort to join the CH LD club and commit to buying two more discs at
regular club prices, thereby saving him or herself approximately $114.
Bottom line is this, among the LD player owner community, the CLV
set is going to be worth less and less as more THX sets are sold
over time. Especially, since I know that I can still get the CLV
set for a mere $10.91 by re-joining the CH LD club. Thus, I can
have my cake and eat it too. [For a total of $147, I can get
both the THX and the CLV set. $147 = $125 + $11 + $11]
--
****************************************************************************
Kevin Chin "I've done...questionable things." Texas Instruments
ke...@delphi.dseg.ti.com Dallas, Texas
Big Ed
>frame-advance. I know laser-owners are a picky sort (myself
>included), but I really don't know what you're going on about. If
>these things bother you so bad, return it. While actually WATCHING
I watch my discs in play mode also, I think you're just not as
perceptive. When I buy something with the THX slap of approval on the
cover, I *want* THX material. When new flaws show up on a THX approved
disc that don't show up on the old CLV discs, I'm sorry, but that's
bull shit. You *must* agree with that.
>the discs, I didn't find any of the defects you listed. If I pick it
>apart with a fine-tooth comb (frame by frame) I may find some, but it
>doesn't bother me!
Like I said before, you must not really *know* the movies if you missed
these obvious flaws. I noticed all the flaws that were common to my discs
on the first viewing of each.
>/| Michael Keene |\
>\| ke...@apache.dtcc.edu |/
-Ed
------------------------------- "Well, what's the name?"
**** *** *** ***** **** "Well we're called the Galactic
| * | | | | * Cowboys....and um.."
|*** | | ** *** | * "But it's not a country band?"
| * | | | | | * "No.."
**** *** *** ***** **** "Oh.."
------------------------------- Monty & Sylvia;
EMW...@psuvm.psu.edu "Where Are You Now?"
Kevin Foss
(Starman) says:
>
>Star Wars: Scratchy dialog when the audio reaches the high range.
> Missing 'tractor beam' line which was present in the second
>remaster
was that we didn't have to listen to this rather bad piece of audio. It
doesn't need to be there, and sticks out like a sore thumb on the CLV
version. I consider this line's loss a feature - and not a vital piece of
soundtrack- was it even in the original theatrical release?
> A few seconds lost of Leia welding (not important...bu WHY???)
True, this is unfortunate... and seemingly a needless edit. And the most
blaring example of why this set is not 'perfect.'
> Matte boxes MUCH more noticable.
Just wondering but have you had your monitor checked lately? Perhaps against
the tests on the _A Video Standard_ LD? This is about the opposite of just
about everyone's impression I've read, and from my own experience. Perchance
is the brightest too high? Note this discs were transfered under the auspices
of presumeably some of the best calibrated monitors in the world - if your TV
isn't up to snuff, then don't complain.
-Kevin
(io2...@maine.maine.edu)
Evan Daum
I sold my other set, so I didn't "paided" top dollar. My cost was about
$140. Thanks for the advise, I'm hoping someone will tell me that they
don't have all the problems I have, and that I just got a bad pressing.
If that's the case, I'll exchange mine.
-Evan Daum
Scott Streeter
edaum> In article <SS.93Sep...@wpi.WPI.EDU> s...@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter) writes:
>
>Well if you think the CLV set is "as good", then send the THX set
>back and get you money back, and spare use your moaning. Also if you
>paided top dollar for it, you got ripped off anyways. I ended up
>paying $138 for the set.
edaum> I sold my other set, so I didn't "paided" top dollar. My cost
edaum> was about $140. Thanks for the advise, I'm hoping someone will
edaum> tell me that they don't have all the problems I have, and that
edaum> I just got a bad pressing. If that's the case, I'll exchange
edaum> mine.
The only error I noticed as far as master defects, was one frame in
Empire.
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
Paco Ojeda
ed...@phakt.usc.edu (Evan Daum) writes:
> I sold my other set, so I didn't "paided" top dollar. My cost was about
> $140.
Ah! Then, perhaps your article header should have been "SW THX is a big
piece of $140 shit"
Lighten up!
Paco Ojeda <ffo...@macmailgw.dfci.harvard.edu>
Jamaica Plain, MA
Evan Daum
>Ah! Then, perhaps your article header should have been "SW THX is a big
>piece of $140 shit"
>
>Lighten up!
>
>
>Paco Ojeda <ffo...@macmailgw.dfci.harvard.edu>
> Jamaica Plain, MA
Have you seen this set? Did you spend $140 on it? You'd be mad if you had.
-Evan Daum
Mike Rosenberg
>
>Could someone describe where the side breaks are on the discs?
>
the break between sides 2 and 3 on star wars (the first disc break).
it happens at the exact second the death star blows away alderan (sp?).
this is a terrible place to put a disc break. by the time you get up,
change the disc, sit down, start it, and wait for it, you have completely
lost the impact of the scene...impact that is suddenly felt by kenobi.
imho, the break should have been about a minute later. none of the
other breaks in sw or esb bothered me like that one. (haven't watch
rotj yet).
Big Ed
>>Well if you think the CLV set is "as good", then send the THX set back
>>and get you money back, and spare use your moaning. Also if you paided
>>top dollar for it, you got ripped off anyways. I ended up paying $138
>>for the set.
>>--
>> Scott Streeter
>> s...@wpi.wpi.edu
>
>I sold my other set, so I didn't "paided" top dollar. My cost was about
>$140. Thanks for the advise, I'm hoping someone will tell me that they
>don't have all the problems I have, and that I just got a bad pressing.
>If that's the case, I'll exchange mine.
>
Evan,
If you have 'just a bad pressing' that means that I do too. (Pretty
unlikely...) But anyway, of the 6 posted 'flaws' that you posted, five of them
can be found on my copy of the boxed set. (The Star Wars flaw you posted
doesn't have that digital tearing on Luke's ear). Anyway, my Star Wars LD
has a different flaw. A loud, clicking in the left channel on disc 3 of
Star Wars (when Luke tries to reach 3PO on the comlink-- right before Luke
says 'Where can he be?") Plus there is another 'digital' tearing example
on side 3 of Jedi on a shot of the shuttle as it flies away from the camera.
Interesting.....coincidence, or not?
Either way, I'm upset too....
rodriguez jarod merl
>That's it... Don't even get me started on the supplimental shit. That was a
>TOTAL waste....not to mention that all three suppliments could have fit on one
>disc (although I haven't checked for sure yet...it looks that way). I'm sorry
>but if you're going to be a 'geek' about it and say that this is the greatest
>thing in the world, I'd say "Get a Life". The A/V transfer is great, but still
>has too many flaws to be called "perfect." The supplimental section is totally
>useless; especially if you have all the 'making of' books. That's my opinion.
>It's a wonderful set to have, but they just could have cleaned it up a bit.
>I just cannot believe that this left THX Quality Control! Now where did
>I leave Fox's address.....????
>===============================Mike Gaines==============================
>= WHAT is your name? Captain Jean-Luc Picard =
>= WHAT is your quest? I seek the Holy Grail =
>= WHAT is the top velocity of a Bird of Prey? Romulan or Klingon? =
>= I....I don't know...AAAHHHH!!!! =
>=========================meg...@teak.njit.edu==========================
o
First off this is not a flame or anything like that.
You guys gotta remember when the original movie was made. 77?
OK. For example you dont see a 16 year old version of a beattles
song or whatever old group you choose getting a perfectly remastered
version on CD do you? NO, there is a logical reason for this. The
original versiosns were originally recorded on tape. No matter
how you transfer it you still are going to get some line noise and
other miscellanious BS in the recording. I dont care How many times
that get it filtered This is the case/problems with the SW set
it can only be reworked to a certain extent. The bottom line is
one is still going from analog to digital. Unlike T2 and the Abyss
which I'm almost sure were originally record in digital. So
come guys you gotta give the old tape transfers and the digital equip.
a break. Technology cant fix everything. Plus the better the play
back equip the more flaws that you you will probably hear/see.
Thanx,
J-Rodriguez
*****************************************************************
*** ***
*** Jarod M. Rodriguez ***
*** University of North Carolina @ Wilmington ***
*** ***
*** E-mail rod...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu ***
*** ***
*** Yoda - "Always with you what can not be done." ESB ***
*****************************************************************
Peter John Kunz
>In article <27kle6$d...@phakt.usc.edu>
>ed...@phakt.usc.edu (Evan Daum) writes:
>
>> I sold my other set, so I didn't "paided" top dollar. My cost was about
>> $140.
>
>Ah! Then, perhaps your article header should have been "SW THX is a big
>piece of $140 shit"
not quite. when comparing discs, you have to go by list price, because everyon ecan get some sort of super deal on any disk, given he tries. i mean, nobody
pays list, but it's the greatest common denominator.
plus the $69 list of the clv itself was a slap in the face. a regular one
disc title should run around $34. for $69, you already get supplemented
special eds. the eastwood boxed set was $119 fro three movies, no supplements,
no thx and clv. but it is half the price.
moan now, or fox will keep ripping us off, criterion wil lintroduce $124 as
a minimum price for one set and all the others will raise their prices.
less people get interested, forget newbies, players become more expensive,
less software and the spiral continues. ok, that's doomsday, but think about it.
cu
-pete
--
Peter J. Kunz Vogesenstr. 60 4106 Therwil Switzerland
pete...@iiic.ethz.ch pk...@amiga.icu.net.ch
*If Commodore had to market Sushi, they'd call it cold, raw fish.*
Michael Keene
>
> I watch my discs in play mode also, I think you're just not as
>perceptive. When I buy something with the THX slap of approval on the
>cover, I *want* THX material.
Trust me... I'm extremely perceptive. I'm also pretty realistic.
There's simply no such thing as perfection when it comes to a
laserdisc. I'm just not going to lose my mine because on side 3, frame
21293 has a 2 mm blue speck on the upper black band...
> When new flaws show up on a THX approved
>disc that don't show up on the old CLV discs, I'm sorry, but that's
>bull shit. You *must* agree with that.
>
I'll accept one frame of "imperfection" rather than 150,000 frames of
washed-out high-resolution grain.
--
paul theodoropoulos
rod...@seq.uncwil.edu (rodriguez jarod merl) writes:
>You guys gotta remember when the original movie was made. 77?
>OK. For example you dont see a 16 year old version of a beattles
>song or whatever old group you choose getting a perfectly remastered
>version on CD do you? NO, there is a logical reason for this. The
>original versiosns were originally recorded on tape. No matter
>how you transfer it you still are going to get some line noise and
>other miscellanious BS in the recording. I dont care How many times
>that get it filtered This is the case/problems with the SW set
>it can only be reworked to a certain extent. The bottom line is
>one is still going from analog to digital. Unlike T2 and the Abyss
>which I'm almost sure were originally record in digital. So
>come guys you gotta give the old tape transfers and the digital equip.
>a break. Technology cant fix everything. Plus the better the play
>back equip the more flaws that you you will probably hear/see.
many of the original star wars audio effects are still being used
*today* in movies being mixed *today*. there is no "miscellaneous BS"
in the recordings, at least no more so than can be expected from any
analog audio.
those beatles recordings dumped to CD sound shitty not because of a
deficit in the technology at the time, but because of careless
recording techniques. remember, the beatles were a "pop" phenomenon.
nobody felt that it was necessary to go full tilt in the recording
process for a bunch of "ya ya" music. anyone who has listened to the
Decca recordings ofDer Ring des Nibelungen - begun in *1958*, knows
that recording technology was quite capable of extraordinary quality
back then.
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.
you need a greater understanding of the post-production film audio
process before you can make sweeping assertions about audio quality.
for example, take the two-stroke dirt bike that the kid rode in the
chase with the Semi in T2. the dirt bike was recorded originally on
DAT. that was transferred to 3 track analog 35mm mag for editing.
after being assembled into a unit, the audio from that three track
went through about a tenth-of-a-mile of cable, through a mix board,
through several attenuators and filters and phase shifters and
lexicons and pan pots on the mix board, and onto a six track premix.
later, the signal from that premix traveled through that
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.
not exactly your pure digital experience.
--
paul theodoropoulos p...@crl.com diog...@well.sf.ca.us
<<THE HITMAN>>
well i bought the set and it is a whole lot better then anyof the CLV
LD's or the tapes. The color and the sound are GREAT!!!! If you don't
like it that is your opinion.I have had a ld for over a year and i
consider it a good investment. i did not get it for this set. i consider
this a good investment considering if you buy the widscreen LD
seperately it would cost well over $210.00 and these do not include the
supplemental material,the book, or the sound quality, or picture
quality. So i consider it a good investment!!! L8r!!!!
Doug " The Hitman" Rankin
dra...@mason1.gmu.edu
.
Evan Daum
>Trust me... I'm extremely perceptive. I'm also pretty realistic.
>There's simply no such thing as perfection when it comes to a
>laserdisc. I'm just not going to lose my mine because on side 3, frame
>21293 has a 2 mm blue speck on the upper black band...
>
>I'll accept one frame of "imperfection" rather than 150,000 frames of
>washed-out high-resolution grain.
Yeah, but 8 annoying flaws, a mispelled word, 2 sounds that aren't supposed
to be there, and upside down production still, and supplemental material
that sucks beyond belief? Come on. The old ones aren't that bad. Jedi
is hardly even the slightest bit better.
Scott Streeter
mkr> In article <27kfrc$7...@nntp.hut.fi> peju...@niksula.hut.fi (Pentti Lajunen) writes:
>
>Could someone describe where the side breaks are on the discs?
>
mkr> good question...i'm surprised nobody has complained about the
mkr> break between sides 2 and 3 on star wars (the first disc break).
mkr> it happens at the exact second the death star blows away alderan
mkr> (sp?). this is a terrible place to put a disc break. by the time
mkr> you get up, change the disc, sit down, start it, and wait for it,
mkr> you have completely lost the impact of the scene...impact that is
mkr> suddenly felt by kenobi.
With a player that flips sides, it's not bad at all. A side break like
that seems abrupt becaues you have a time lag til the next scene.
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
tro...@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com
Is it true that you only get 30 minutes per side? So if you don't
have an LD player that flips sides, you are flipping/changing 3 times,
and if your player does flip sides, you change disks half way through?
Is this the case? Has someone come out with a LD changer unit yet?
Does anyone recommend one LD player over another? It seems that
Pioneer is the leader in this...
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.
--
Regards,
Tom Rogers
tro...@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com OR tro...@watson.ibm.com
_____________[ This sig complies with all SAA/CUA Guidelines ]______________
| Disclaimer: The comments in this post are not necessarily shared by my |
| employer, the rest of my family, or even myself. |
| Advertisment: Buy OS/2, Use OS/2, Love OS/2, Live OS/2. |
| Funny Sig: Randomly generated quote below... |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
"Mmm, crumbled up cookie things." -Homer
Paco Ojeda
Evan, you (and others) are right in expecting from the manufacturers
good quality products at good prices. This may or may not be relevant:
I spent five years in music school training for music production and
engineering. I would hope that my ears are better trained than the
average pair or ears out there. I also have a very good memory. I
remember music passages quite well, and I'm very sensitive to music
that is poorly mastered/equalized, etc.
So if I go to a classical live performance, for example, I can easily
tell when a flutist screws up a note, or if tempi are faster than those
that I'm used to from another recording. If I go to the movies, I can
hear good or bad mastering, and I can also hear good or bad mastering
in new CD's that I buy.
So I can make the choice of making my casual listening/watching
experiences miserable by letting the trained/critical side of me take
over, or I can try to shut it off and try to enjoy the musical/visual
experiences as much as possible.
More often than not, for the sake of human imperfection, I make the
latter choice, and bring my critical ears/eyes only to the recording
studio, where I make a living trying my damnest to make sure that
people like you and others enjoy their music better. I end up having a
much better time when I buy new cd's or ld's, or at live performances.
I loved the new THX trilogy in spite of its flaws or its price. It's a
shame that the flaws are there. We should all send letters to the
manufacturing companies in hope that they realize that we have good
ears/eyes and expect the best possible product at the best possible
price from them.
Anthony Horan
[I plan to post a comprehensive review on the Star Wars LD set - a la my
Abyss SE review - once I've had a chance to plough through it all. In the
meantime, Evan has raised some points that I feel are worth following...]
In article <27irii$9...@sal-sun180.usc.edu>, Evan Daum writes:
> First of all, the Supplemental stuff just sucks. It looks so bad, and
> the choice of what to put on it seems like it was made my a janitor at
> Lucasfilm or something. The interviews are completely unstructured and
> extremely boring. Ben Burtt rambles on and on for just no good reason.
> The audio quality is ironically terrible on Ben's interview as well.
First things first. Yes, the supplements are extremely lacking in content and
quality. The arbitary placing of interviews that concern all three films in
the supplement section for a specific film is ludicrous. The choice of
supplemental material is slapdash indeed. Where is the info about the actual
production - a production diary for each film, for example?
> The stills are ok, but as Josh Ling said in
(I don't suppose Josh is any relation to Van..? :-)
> trailers have had the voice-overs replaced by someone who clearly is not
> a pro. It's like he worked at Fox video, and they just made him read the
> lines. I've seen the trailers recently (can't say where, it was an act of
> god) and the ones on the THX set have a different voice on them. They clearly
Well, they certainly do not sound like they were recently recorded. Not
unless they deliberately limited the bandwidth and added distortion to try
and fool us. And why would they bother?
> didn't make new transfers of the trailers either. Other than the re-release
> Jedi one (which has a different voice-over), they all were obviously dubbed
> from a really old transfer, which appears to have been on VHS or some other
> such lame format.
It's *possible* that better copies just don't exist any more. Possible, but I
find it highly unlikely, and it's unforgiveable that there is no mention made
on the discs or in the booklet about the reason for the poor video and audio
quality of the trailers. And yes, I agree, at least a couple of them have
obviously come off a home video format.
> tour is so stupid as well. After saying what something is, he feels compelled
> to say "from the Star Wars movies." No shit. I think we can figure that out.
He is the Lucasfilm archivist, though, not the Star Wars archivist; possibly
he didn't know at the time that they were doing a Star Wars-specific tour;
and maybe there's more material there for future Lucasfilm special
editions... :)
> Now we come to the movies themselves. Packaged in a rather boring
> black box, each disc comes in it's own boring black sleeve with it's own
> cheesy plastic cover. Yes, they could have attached the plastic to the inside
> of the paper part, but noooo, they went the cheesy way.
I don't mind the packaging; it's nice the way the box can stay on the shelf
and be opened to remove one of the films' packages. *IF* the damn things were
easily removable.
> My Star Wars sleeve was scratched when I opened the set, so I was off to a
> bad start already.
The front of my Star Wars sleeve and the back of my Empire and Jedi sleeves
were all scratched. My Star Wars sleeve came unglued as I removed the discs.
This is *unacceptably slack* work from FoxVideo, Image, or whoever it was
that did the packaging. I didn't even treat the thing roughly. Not even
"normal" roughly. I treated it like the gold idol in "Raiders" and still it
fell apart! :-)
> It's like they didn't hire a layout company to do the packaging, they just did
> it in the basement copy room at Fox Video.
I actually quite like the packaging layout.
> Overall, I'm fairly happy with the new transfers, but I have had
> several problems. The following is a list of what is wrong (that I have
> noticed) with the new transfers.
> Star Wars- Side 2 frame 18088, there is some sort of digital tearing or
> distortion near Luke's ear.
[etc]
Well, I wouldn't be THAT picky. On a cursory look at all the films, though,
there seems to be some image instability during Star Wars, visible during the
credit sequences, and excessive graininess on Empire.
BIG problem is that the analogue audio tracks are far too quiet. I haven't
investigated thouroughly yet, but listen to the analogue track during the Ben
Burtt interview. Hear that pumping and sudden volume jump when he says
something loud? Yep, my bet is the idiot who did the mastering has turned the
CX flag on for the discs even though the tracks aren't CX encoded.
Incidentally, Fox's statement on the back of each sleeve that the discs will
play on all players, analogue and digital sound alike, is misleading. If you
don't have digital, you aren't going to hear the films. That poor person with
an analogue player who bought the Criterion Monty Python And The Holy Grail
is advised to beware... :-)
> I'll take mine back and get a different one. The CLV versions looked almost as
> good, and had none of these stupid flaws. I must admit that the sound is much
> improved, and for that reason alone, I will keep this set, but I wish I still
The CLV versions looked, compared to these, awful. And the sound is a pretty
impressive improvement, though someone should have picked up on that
distortion that keeps cropping up during Star Wars - and why they didn't
re-master the Fox fanfare is beyond me. It sounds *awful* on the first film.
Incidentally, a plea to the THX team if any of them or anyone who knows them
is listening;
Can we have the full THX trailer from now on? Home viewers have surrounds
too, and the audience is listening even more intently! :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Horan, Melbourne Australia - ant...@xymox.apana.org.au
"I kind of feel like I'm Metallica..."
- Tori Amos on the perils of long tours, November 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rosenberg
>With a player that flips sides, it's not bad at all. A side break like
>that seems abrupt becaues you have a time lag til the next scene.
i don't know of a disc player (except the late ld-w2) that will change
from one disc to another. the break i'm talking about is between
sides 2 and side 3 (disc one and disc 2).
Joel B Levin
|Is it true that you only get 30 minutes per side? So if you don't
|have an LD player that flips sides, you are flipping/changing 3 times,
|and if your player does flip sides, you change disks half way through?
Yes. Well, with the new set there are four changes for the five sides
each movie takes. With a two-sided player you only have to get up
twice, but don't forget there's a blank time while the machine changes
sides. The disk has to be reversed form 1800 rpm in one direction to
1800 rpm in the other
|Is this the case? Has someone come out with a LD changer unit yet?
|Does anyone recommend one LD player over another? It seems that
|Pioneer is the leader in this...
Yes, I believe there are sets with changers. Not cheap. And you will
still get a side break, you just don't have to get up to make the
change.
/J
=
Nets: le...@bbn.com | "A religion that must depend upon the state to do
pots: (617)873-3463 | what it cannot do is not worthy of existence."
KD1ON (@KB4N.NH.USA) | -- Robert H. Meneilly
Robert M. Carosso
The sound is PHENOMINAL! WOW! John Williams' score has
never sounded better. Great surround effects. The picture is excellent,
too, in color and detail, in 80% of the scenes. These two points
make it worth the upgrade to me.
However, sadly, many of the special effects scenes do suffer from
faded mattes and overlays, and other artifacts -- worse, I think,
than the CLV versions. This is what bothers me the most,
because it makes the best scenes that should absorb me into
the movie, instead appear fake. For example, in the scenes viewing
the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon from behind (looking out into
space), space appears brown and grainy while the foreground
picture is clear. In many battle scenes the matte lines can be seen
clearly. And in RotJ there is a deep black crawly touch-up of some
sort over the Emperor's right eye every time we see him. I turned
down the brightness on my monitor slightly to try to compensate,
but at the expense of some detail.
The supplements mostly sucked, but this I can forgive. The packaging
was not so good, but this I can forgive.
The side break in the middle of the destruction of
Alderon is INEXCUSABLE! What were they thinking?
I was expecting perfection, but just got satisfaction. It's too bad for
Fox Video, who, with just a bit more effort, could have delivered
perfection and made this set their flagship collector's set. Instead,
they will receive a certain amount of criticism for some annoying blunders.
Federal Filings
: My own opinions. I was, in general, pleased with the set.
[...]
: I was expecting perfection, but just got satisfaction. It's too bad for
: Fox Video, who, with just a bit more effort, could have delivered
: perfection and made this set their flagship collector's set. Instead,
: they will receive a certain amount of criticism for some annoying blunders.
That's exactly how I feel about the whole set. Great transfer, poor attention
to detail (content, packaging etc).
The point is this: if something has the THX logo on it, you expect
_perfection_, not just excellence. Their lack of QA and other blunders
just let down the rest of the package. This is NOT what the THX program
is all about (from what I have read). I don't want a refund, I'm happy
with the movies, they look and sound great.
Glenn
Evan Daum
>> trailers have had the voice-overs replaced by someone who clearly is not
>> a pro. It's like he worked at Fox video, and they just made him read the
>> lines. I've seen the trailers recently (can't say where, it was an act of
>> god) and the ones on the THX set have a different voice on them. They clearly
>
>Well, they certainly do not sound like they were recently recorded. Not
>unless they deliberately limited the bandwidth and added distortion to try
>and fool us. And why would they bother?
My guess is that the old transfers they found in the dumpster at
Fox which they used might have been early work in progress transfers, so
they had an intern or editor doing the voice-over until they got the
real thing. Another bad choice for what to include in the supplemental
stuff.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony Horan, Melbourne Australia - ant...@xymox.apana.org.au
> "I kind of feel like I'm Metallica..."
> - Tori Amos on the perils of long tours, November 1992
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Evan Daum <da...@aludr.usc.edu>
I am NOT in denial.
:All I'm saying is that this is called the "Definitive Collection," it should
:be FLAWLESS. $250 is a fair price for perfect transfers and improved sound.
Reminds me of a conversation with "Uncle Bob" Stein of Voyager. He said that
some of their customers expect better quality on disc than they see in
the theatre. 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.
--
--Craig
go...@pixar.com
If Bill Clinton is the answer, then the question was stupid.
R. Cliff Young
>
>Have you seen this set? Did you spend $140 on it? You'd be mad if you had.
I spent $250 on the THX set, and I'm not whining. I don't expect
spit-polished perfection, even at that price. All I wanted were
excellent A/V transfers of SW, ESB, and RotJ, and that's what I got, so
I'm a happy camper.
I do wish the cardboard jackets that hold the three-disc movies had
better glue, but that's my chiefest complaint, and it doesn't really
matter when I've got them all jam-packed back into the collection box.
;)
--
R. Cliff Young cl...@uunet.UU.NET
UUNET Postmaster uunet!cliff
Donald Tsang
>|Has someone come out with a LD changer unit yet?
>
>still get a side break, you just don't have to get up to make the
>change.
Such a player could have two separate "laserdisc player" units built
in, such that when one side ended, the next side on the other player
would start. Note that this effectively doubles the number of discs
you have to load, though, since you have to have Side 1 on a different
disc from Side 2, Side 2 different from Side 3, etc...
(okay, so it's a silly idea...)
--
Donald Tsang | "That Vizzini, he can *fuss*."
ts...@austin.ibm.com | "Fuss, fuss... I think he like to scream at *us*."
| -- The Princess Bride
Peter John Kunz
>>mkr> suddenly felt by kenobi.
>>
>>With a player that flips sides, it's not bad at all. A side break like
>>that seems abrupt becaues you have a time lag til the next scene.
>>
>
yes, it's cav
>have an LD player that flips sides, you are flipping/changing 3 times,
>and if your player does flip sides, you change disks half way through?
yup, plus teh flippers still have som ebeginner's problems, so i am told
>Is this the case? Has someone come out with a LD changer unit yet?
yep, 50 lds for 10 grand
>Does anyone recommend one LD player over another? It seems that
>Pioneer is the leader in this...
among the top
>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+ ?
<<THE HITMAN>>
found one flaw on my set. i am re-watching them to double check!!
Evan Daum
>:
>:All I'm saying is that this is called the "Definitive Collection," it should
>:be FLAWLESS. $250 is a fair price for perfect transfers and improved sound.
>
>Reminds me of a conversation with "Uncle Bob" Stein of Voyager. He said that
>some of their customers expect better quality on disc than they see in
>the theatre. 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.
These flaws weren't on the CLV version, so why are they on the new ones.
Cleary the problem is not with the source material, but either in the
transfer, or in the pressing.
-Evan Daum
Bill Vermillion
>In article <m9u7g0...@news.bbn.com> le...@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>>|Has someone come out with a LD changer unit yet?
>>Yes, I believe there are sets with changers. Not cheap. And you will
>>still get a side break, you just don't have to get up to make the
>>change.
>Such a player could have two separate "laserdisc player" units built
>in, such that when one side ended, the next side on the other player
>would start. Note that this effectively doubles the number of discs
>you have to load, though, since you have to have Side 1 on a different
>disc from Side 2, Side 2 different from Side 3, etc...
No, it doesn't work quite that way. There is only one transport (to
rotate the disks). There are two drawers that are only about 1" apart
that come out (hidden by a fold down panel).
You load one disk, press disk change, and insert the second.
The pickup does it's little withdraw, turn over, and read the otherside
just like a standard two-sided player. You don't need the sides on
different disks.
There is really no difference in changing from the 2nd side of the
first disk to the first side of the second disk.
It's called an LD-W1. Not made anymore. Plays four sides in a row.
>(okay, so it's a silly idea...)
They sold a few - but at $1700 new not a lot. I paid under $600 for
mine when they closed them out. (that made up for a lot bad a/v deals
in my lifetime ;-)
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.uucp OR bi...@bilver.oau.org
Md. F. Zain
Somebody said something about audio problems on this boxed set.
Though I don't have SW THX yet, (at $200 that's some real dough) and I'm
not an audio expert, but I read somewhere (old, old info on a mag) that CDs
used to have those problems too.
Earlier recordings of CDs are so receptive that people complain
that not only they were hearing the music, but also the people making the
music, ie tweaks on the violin etc. So they toned it down a little.
That may be the case with the THX edition. Since SW and ESB are
older recordings than RotJ, and re-rerecording it on THX amplified it a bit
thus the noise.
BUT, since somebody said that even on this set there are some matte
problems in some highly clustered spaceships scenes, I wonder why couldn't
LucasFilm try to eliminate it via digital image processing that they did
with Cliffhanger?? (since it IS the definitive box set to date, what with
the 9 discs and a book too) I could see some matte problems on my RotJ LBX,
so I wonder if you guys had it real bad...
Frank
--
"The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America -- it was
allowed to happen by an array of institutions, all of which failed to
perform their appropriate tasks to safeguard the public health."
Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On.
Angelito Lucena
better than the older clv ones (esp rotj!!). however,
i'm rather disappointed by the supplements. if anything, i would
have loved to had the 'making of...' clips ala 'the abyss'.
i know that ten years from now, i probably won't remember
such trivia like how the empire crew got cut off by
avalances...
lito lucena
li...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
now at : dtmb, cdhq, nwsc 'if the defaults weren't good enough,
formerly: dtrc, carderock they wouldn't be defaults.....'
bill's sister
Lazlo Nibble
> 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.
--
Lazlo (la...@unm.edu)
Scott Streeter
>>Trust me... I'm extremely perceptive. I'm also pretty realistic.
>>There's simply no such thing as perfection when it comes to a
>>laserdisc. I'm just not going to lose my mine because on side 3, frame
>>21293 has a 2 mm blue speck on the upper black band...
>>
>
>>I'll accept one frame of "imperfection" rather than 150,000 frames
>>of washed-out high-resolution grain.
>
>Yeah, but 8 annoying flaws, a mispelled word, 2 sounds that aren't supposed
>to be there, and upside down production still, and supplemental material
>that sucks beyond belief? Come on. The old ones aren't that bad. Jedi
>is hardly even the slightest bit better.
>
drankin> once and only found one flaw on my set. i am re-watching them
drankin> to double check!!
Do you realize how petty this sounds. 8 flawed frames. The frames are
less then a second. So your complaning that out of over 6 hours of
movies there is less that 8 seconds of "flaws". I do agree that the
supplements could have had more, but hell. That was just icing on the
awsome A/V transfer cake. And since I paided little more 3 movies than
I did for movies like Akira and Bram Stoker's Dracula, I'm quite happy
with this set. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of not being a
real fan :P
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
Anthony Horan
> many of the original star wars audio effects are still being used
> *today* in movies being mixed *today*. there is no "miscellaneous BS"
> in the recordings, at least no more so than can be expected from any
> analog audio.
Maybe they are, but the effects used in the mixes weren't from the effects
masters, they were from the various production stems. Any careless
engineering of those back in 1977 (and let's face it, the occasional bit of
distortion was not nearly as much of a concern back then at the dawn of Dolby
Stereo) will have been preserved in the new mix. It's a pity that such
artifacts couldn't have been re-dubbed or otherwise "fixed", but nonetheless,
the audio restoration on "Star Wars" rates as the best pre-1980 film audio
I've yet heard - and it's better than many current films! Did anyone notice
the quality of location sound recording was far inferior to looped dialogue
in the film - and that some of the looping is rather ropey? :-)
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Starman
Scott Streeter <s...@wpi.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, but 8 annoying flaws, a mispelled word, 2 sounds that aren't supposed
>>to be there, and upside down production still, and supplemental material
>>that sucks beyond belief? Come on. The old ones aren't that bad. Jedi
>>is hardly even the slightest bit better.
>
>less then a second. So your complaning that out of over 6 hours of
>movies there is less that 8 seconds of "flaws". I do agree that the
>supplements could have had more, but hell. That was just icing on the
>awsome A/V transfer cake. And since I paided little more 3 movies than
>I did for movies like Akira and Bram Stoker's Dracula, I'm quite happy
>with this set. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of not being a
>real fan :P
>
This is a THX disc, there should be NO FLAWS!!!! ZERO ZILCH!
The flaws that ARE there are so blatantly obvious that I can't see how
the THX group can live up to their own standards. 'The Abyss' had ZERO
flaws (in terms of mastering). When 'The Abyss' was released, NOBODY
complained about the mastering, NOBODY complained about video smears
or unknown pops. It was PERFECT. Now Star Wars comes out with video smear,
some unknown noises, MISSING FRAMES (?!), and missing sound effects.
You call this OK? It blows! Unacceptable. It's like buying a UL Listed
electrical component that blows up in your face. The THX Standard has now
been stained...though slightly. If the T2SE is anything less that perfect,
I'm going to settle for the Yamaha DSP instead of the Lexicon THX system
next month. There's no way I'm going to blow money on a system like that
if their 'standard' doesn't match up to their media.
===============================Mike Gaines==============================
= WHAT is your name? Captain Jean-Luc Picard =
= WHAT is your quest? I seek the Holy Grail =
= WHAT is the top velocity of a Bird of Prey? Romulan or Klingon? =
= I....I don't know...AAAHHHH!!!! =
=========================meg...@teak.njit.edu==========================
Scott Streeter
>>Yeah, but 8 annoying flaws, a mispelled word, 2 sounds that aren't supposed
>>to be there, and upside down production still, and supplemental material
>>that sucks beyond belief? Come on. The old ones aren't that bad. Jedi
>>is hardly even the slightest bit better.
>
>Do you realize how petty this sounds. 8 flawed frames. The frames are
>less then a second. So your complaning that out of over 6 hours of
>movies there is less that 8 seconds of "flaws". I do agree that the
>supplements could have had more, but hell. That was just icing on the
>awsome A/V transfer cake. And since I paided little more 3 movies than
>I did for movies like Akira and Bram Stoker's Dracula, I'm quite happy
>with this set. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of not being a
>real fan :P
>
render1> noises, MISSING FRAMES (?!), and missing sound effects.
Could you point out this video smear. I saw none. Also what unknown
noises, missing frames and sound effects? I saw one bad frame in
Empire.
render1> You call this OK? It blows! Unacceptable.
Send it back...
--
Scott Streeter
s...@wpi.wpi.edu
tro...@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com
>In article <CDpJu...@yktnews.watson.ibm.com> tro...@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>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
have been nice if they compared it in quality/value to the LBX VHS box set,
and the previous widescreen CLV releases of the movies, but alas, they
did not.
Anyone want to do this comparison that has seen all three? I currently
have the LBX set, and no LD player. I have a JVC stereo VCR, so that sound
and picture quality of the LBX set is good, but I am sure that LD is WORLDS
better.
Comparisons? Give us ratings for the 3 versions from 1-10...
--
Regards,
Tom Rogers
tro...@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com OR tro...@watson.ibm.com
_____________[ This sig complies with all SAA/CUA Guidelines ]______________
| Disclaimer: The comments in this post are not necessarily shared by my |
| employer, the rest of my family, or even myself. |
| Advertisment: Buy OS/2, Use OS/2, Love OS/2, Live OS/2. |
| Funny Sig: Randomly generated quote below... |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
Ability (n): The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones. In the last analysis ability
is commonly found to consist mainly in a high degree of solemnity. Perhaps,
however, this impressive quality is rightly appraised; it is no easy task to be
solemn.
Sean Fresk
>less then a second. So your complaning that out of over 6 hours of
>movies there is less that 8 seconds of "flaws". I do agree that the
>supplements could have had more, but hell. That was just icing on the
>awsome A/V transfer cake. And since I paided little more 3 movies than
>I did for movies like Akira and Bram Stoker's Dracula, I'm quite happy
>with this set. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of not being a
>real fan :P
>
>--
> Scott Streeter
> s...@wpi.wpi.edu
>
Yeah, well, I stand with Scott. Lighten up or *SEND IT BACK*!
-sean
Phil Kim
|> In article <27m21j$5...@crl.crl.com>, paul theodoropoulos writes:
|>
|> > many of the original star wars audio effects are still being used
|> > *today* in movies being mixed *today*. there is no "miscellaneous BS"
|> > in the recordings, at least no more so than can be expected from any
|> > analog audio.
|>
|> Maybe they are, but the effects used in the mixes weren't from the effects
|> masters, they were from the various production stems. Any careless
|> engineering of those back in 1977 (and let's face it, the occasional bit of
|> distortion was not nearly as much of a concern back then at the dawn of Dolby
|> Stereo) will have been preserved in the new mix. It's a pity that such
|> artifacts couldn't have been re-dubbed or otherwise "fixed", but nonetheless,
|> the audio restoration on "Star Wars" rates as the best pre-1980 film audio
|> I've yet heard - and it's better than many current films! Did anyone notice
|> the quality of location sound recording was far inferior to looped dialogue
|> in the film - and that some of the looping is rather ropey? :-)
Actually, THX people has done better sounding restoration on Apocalypse Now (1979).
Heath Yates
THX: "We need more time. We are working as fast as we can"
consumers: "Perhaps we can find new ways to motivate them"
Peter John Kunz
>>>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.
Jim Woods
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.
flame on,
--
Jim Woods Harris Corporation
jwo...@ccd.harris.com Controls Division
407/242-5318 Melbourne, Florida
The Idealistic Cynic
>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...@att.com
614 236 5031 (h), 614 860 5743 (w)
Mark S. Wyman
>Craig Good <go...@pixar.com> wrote:
Folks, THX label has nothing do do with video mastering. THX is a set of
requirements for sound not video.
Mark
Pentti Lajunen
>Craig Good <go...@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
Evan Daum
In article <CDtqJ...@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.
>
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.
>---
>Sean L. Gilley
>sean.l...@att.com
>614 236 5031 (h), 614 860 5743 (w)
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
Evan Daum
includes picture as well as sound. These disc should be much better
than they are. End of story.
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
as...@pomona.claremont.edu
>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.
-Aditya
Sean Fresk
>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.
>
Evan, you do let your opinions be known!
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.
-sean
Evan Daum
>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.
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
Joshua Ling
> 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.
_________ _ ____ __ __ __ _ ____ ___ | Josh Ling
| \ \ \ \ | \ \ | | Trilogist
( | /_ | |_ / / /_ | |_ / ( <O> Extraordinaire
__ \ | \ \___ | | \ \___ \ |O josh...@usc.edu
/ | / \ | | / / / \ | / /|L\==_
David W. Blevins
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.
'87 Ibanez / '93 VFR750 / '59 wife
-------------------------------------------------------------------
paul theodoropoulos
>In article <27m21j$5...@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 diog...@well.sf.ca.us
paul theodoropoulos
>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.
as...@pomona.claremont.edu
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
paul theodoropoulos
>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!
Herb Singleton Jr.
|> 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.
|>
|>
|> -Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
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!!!
Herb S.
William Smith (AC)
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?
A
David W. LeCompte
Tim Kalafut <tsk...@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.
Anthony Horan
> 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 - ant...@xymox.apana.org.au
"I kind of feel like I'm Metallica..."
- Tori Amos on the perils of long tours, November 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
paul theodoropoulos
>In article <27q74v$g...@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.
Evan Daum
>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.
>
>-Dave LeCompte
>
-Evan Daum <da...@aludra.usc.edu>
Ken Lui
>Have you ever payed $250 to see a movie in a theater?
>
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, kl...@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
Donald L.C. Blewett
> 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.
>A
Bossk
aka Donald Blewett
aka hat...@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
Anthony Horan
> >> 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
Chris Pelkie
Huh? Is this a new feature on the Emerson 28"?
--
Chris Pelkie
Scientific Visualization Producer
Cornell Theory Center
Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
chr...@tc.cornell.edu
David Ahrens
>ships would be misteriously destroyed. I didn't kill them, so who did?
It's from them shooting at you. They don't seem to be checking their
targets and when they miss you, they hit each other!!
--David
David Ahrens
I should really ask this. Please respond via e-mail so as not
to waste time and space for everyone else.
Anyone know where I can get some good .gifs of vampires?
Again, e-mail......please!
--David <dah...@slab.pr.erau.edu>
Daniel Brewster
edition of SW is. Tell 'ya what, if you're unhappy with your set,
send me mail -- I'll buy it. In case nobody really wants to get
rid of theirs, where can I find one? Does anyone have the phone
number of S&S ? Please post, if so.
A few questions for your THX experts out there:
1. Do I need to have a THX rig to really hear the improvements?
I know it would be nice, but that stuff is expensive!! Will a Pro
Logic system give me a nice sound?
2. What other titles are in THX? Is it true that T2 & Abyss are
also in THX?
3. Any FAQs on THX yet?
Thanks! Dan
Please respond directly if you want to sell your set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
danbrew internet:dan...@microsoft.com compuserve:72002,1322
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimers apply, I think/speak/etc for myself.
Anthony Horan
[Again we do battle! :-)]
> >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.
Depends on what other sources I use to inform myself now, doesn't it!
> THX *never* restores, remixes or remasters *any* film. please
> read up on what THX is. your statements are incorrect and misleading.
No they're not. The original poster said that the THX people had done "Better
sounding restoration on Apolcalypse Now". I wasn't attempting to set him
straight on what it is THX do, but rather that the THX Laserdisc Program were
not involved with this disc, did not certify it, did not even exist when this
disc was prepared. My statements were NOt incorrect and misleading, they
were, if anything, incomplete.
> true - the A.N. remaster was not officially under the auspices of the
> THX LD program.
We agree on that.
> but just because the THX laserdisc program wasn't yet fully formed
> doesn't mean that THX wasn't intimately involved in the remaster.
Well, the THX Laserdisc Program wasn't. It had not been started then. Whether
anyone from THX was involved, who knows? Probably they were. But not as part
of a set laserdisc QC standard program.
> 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.
And they're also used by many US transfer facilities that have never seen a
THX employee in their life. They're not uncommon.
> 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.
Maybe you witnessed the birth of an idea.
> >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.
Aaargh. In the field I work in on occasion, studio audio recording, a digital
mix is simply a mix done to digital tape. Nothing more.
Phil Kim
|> In article <280q8h$5...@crl.crl.com>, paul theodoropoulos writes:
|> > THX *never* restores, remixes or remasters *any* film. please
|> > read up on what THX is. your statements are incorrect and misleading.
|>
|> No they're not. The original poster said that the THX people had done "Better
|> sounding restoration on Apolcalypse Now". I wasn't attempting to set him
|> straight on what it is THX do, but rather that the THX Laserdisc Program were
|> not involved with this disc, did not certify it, did not even exist when this
|> disc was prepared. My statements were NOt incorrect and misleading, they
|> were, if anything, incomplete.
Man, all I meant to say was Apocalypse Now is a better sounding laserdisc than Star Wars laserdisc. Someone said Star Wars has the best audio among all 1970s film laserdiscs.
paul theodoropoulos
>In article <280q8h$5...@crl.crl.com>, paul theodoropoulos writes:
>> >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.
>> THX *never* restores, remixes or remasters *any* film. please
>> read up on what THX is. your statements are incorrect and misleading.
>No they're not. The original poster said that the THX people had done "Better
>sounding restoration on Apolcalypse Now". I wasn't attempting to set him
>straight on what it is THX do, but rather that the THX Laserdisc Program were
>not involved with this disc, did not certify it, did not even exist when this
>disc was prepared. My statements were NOt incorrect and misleading, they
>were, if anything, incomplete.
well, actually, they weren't incomplete, they offered *more*
information than was needed! the first two sentences of the text up
top are superfluous to what you were saying.
%^)
>> but just because the THX laserdisc program wasn't yet fully formed
>> doesn't mean that THX wasn't intimately involved in the remaster.
>Well, the THX Laserdisc Program wasn't. It had not been started then. Whether
>anyone from THX was involved, who knows? Probably they were. But not as part
>of a set laserdisc QC standard program.
THX was involved. and it is not unreasonable for me to state that the
AN remaster was a "dry run" for the program. one of the important
points in all this is that the presence or absence of the THX LD
program is not a prerequisite for an exquisite LD release.
geez, you'd think we're argueing the merits of socialism vs
capitalism!
>> 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.
>And they're also used by many US transfer facilities that have never seen a
>THX employee in their life. They're not uncommon.
to the best of my knowledge, some of those test patterns and tones are
not standard alignment patterns - they were custom THolman -
specifically for the future 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.
>Maybe you witnessed the birth of an idea.
the idea had been born. the only way to test the stuff was on actual
remastering. the specs were still being worked out, obviously - else
it would have been released under the THX "label".
>> >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.
>Aaargh. In the field I work in on occasion, studio audio recording, a digital
>mix is simply a mix done to digital tape. Nothing more.
you're right. i was being my pedantic self. never mind! %^)
paul theodoropoulos
>Surely you're not telling me the LtRt signal is used for a six track
>digital release? Didn't think you were.
right.
>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?
well i'd quibble with the term "pre-final-mix", though it seems that
with the increased number of release formats these days, the term
"final mix" now encompasses a lot more than it did when there was just
35mm optical out there.
however to the point, at least during my tenure, the final mix was
never entrusted exclusively to digital - the digital deck was always
"in parallel" with the analog mix. i'd presume that today many mixes
do go directly to multitrack digital (probably sony PCM 3348 48 track
(with the other 24 tracks kept as mirrors for further insurance). i've
been out of the business for a year now, though my fiance still works
at Skywalker. mixes there still typically go to 3x6trk analog format in
final, then to LtRt and "70's".
>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?
well now you've succeeded in confusing me! %^)
>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...
well, i wasn't involved in the LD, but i'd surmise that that's how it
went. they took the six track digital master (that was a dump from the
analog backup of the digital remix, yeesh), then struck an LtRt from
that (since it has extra effects mixed into it), and used that for the
LD.
>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.
never mind that. repeating from habit. that's the hard S/N of the best
mag stripe - talking of the oxide only. yes, throw SR onto that oxide
and you do much much better.
>> 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? :-)
i've yet to find a copy of the flick on tape to find out the real
story. i'll believe it when i read all the details.
>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.
well, that certainly doesn't qualify!
acc...@vaxa.hofstra.edu
> picture is clear. In many battle scenes the matte lines can be seen
> clearly. And in RotJ there is a deep black crawly touch-up of some
> sort over the Emperor's right eye every time we see him. I turned
> down the brightness on my monitor slightly to try to compensate,
> but at the expense of some detail.
--- snip --- alot...
This touch up on the emperors face is noticable in the video versions
as well. The mattlines also are noticable on video as well.
-spock
David Fletcher
Just Identify all the ships that hyper in.
Wedge
Emacs rules.
--
A furry ambulastic masked affair of shiny marble dice
Some people call 'em snake-eyes but to me they look like mice.
David Fletcher
Georgia Institute of Technology, fun for the whole family.
I never know what you'll find when you open up your letterbox tomorrow....
-TMBG
(annuit coeptis, novus ordo seclorum.) so there!
Daniel Brewster
I finally went out and plunked down the cash for the SW THX set --
in a word, fantastic!
I sat down and watched SW and half of TESB last night. The transfer
was, IMO, very well done. The sound was incredible. Yes, the extra
stuff at the end (trailers, etc.) really sucked. I guess I'm not
much of a fan, but that's not what I purchased the set for.
Anyhow, if you've been thinking about going out and getting this set,
do it. Perhaps you can find a store that will let you preview it??
Regards, danbrew
Peter John Kunz
>Tim Kalafut <tsk...@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.
they left that stuff in?????? i thought it was one advantage of ld that they always edited that out. never noticed one on any of my lds... guess this goes to
show they really didn't care, but then, i dont remember any cues on other fox
titles...
>So, I say to you who want perfect Star Wars laserdisks: Write letters!
>Call your congressman! BOYCOTT Laserdisks with cue dots!
>
>(This is sarcasm.)
now that we have the addresses, we really should write.
cu
-pete
--
Peter J. Kunz Vogesenstr. 60 4106 Therwil Switzerland
pete...@iiic.ethz.ch pk...@amiga.icu.net.ch
*If Commodore had to market Sushi, they'd call it cold, raw fish.*
Evan Daum
I agree, but most of the flaws that bothered me were in Jedi. Please
post again once you've watched that one. Bantha is Banta in the sub-titles.
This is sad.
_______________________________________________________________________________
. . . | | . . . |Evan Daum
| |. . . |()| . * . .|<da...@aludra.usc.edu>
|()| . . | .| . . |University of Southern California
| | | | . . . . |
. . |()| . | | . |"Strike me down with all of your hatred, and
. | | . .. .|()|. | your journey towards the Dark Side will be
. . . . . . |. | . | complete." -The Emperor
_______________________________________________________________________________
Anthony Horan
> >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?
>
> well now you've succeeded in confusing me! %^)
:-) Sorry. What I meant was this: that if a LtRt Dolby Stereo mix was the
only mix done for a film, and then that film was released in a digital
format, then the sound quality improvement would be so negligible as to make
the use of digital sound on the prints a waste of time. Why? Because SR's
bandwidth and dynamic range are pretty damn good compared to, say, DTS 4
channel; and because the mix used for these digital prints would be a Dolby
Stereo LtRt, the surround channel would be mono and bandwidth-limited. Or
something like that. Confused more? I think I am as well, now. :-)
> >What is the reference on the laserdisc of Dracula (Criterion) then to a
>
> well, i wasn't involved in the LD, but i'd surmise that that's how it
I've been meaning to satisfy my curiosity and ask what you did on "Dracula".
You're not in the credits... :-)
paul theodoropoulos
>:-) Sorry. What I meant was this: that if a LtRt Dolby Stereo mix was the
>only mix done for a film, and then that film was released in a digital
>format, then the sound quality improvement would be so negligible as to make
>the use of digital sound on the prints a waste of time. Why? Because SR's
>bandwidth and dynamic range are pretty damn good compared to, say, DTS 4
>channel; and because the mix used for these digital prints would be a Dolby
>Stereo LtRt, the surround channel would be mono and bandwidth-limited. Or
>something like that. Confused more? I think I am as well, now. :-)
no, that all makes sense to me. i think the important point is that
digital currently is only a delivery system - since everything begins
analog and winds up going through stacks of analog stages, a digital
release only ensures that you hear all the defects found in the analog
mix...heh.
>> well, i wasn't involved in the LD, but i'd surmise that that's how it
>I've been meaning to satisfy my curiosity and ask what you did on "Dracula".
>You're not in the credits... :-)
i came on as chief recordist a couple of weeks after premixing started
- the recordist had an independent project come up that took
precedence. the whole issue of credits is nuts. no audio techs get
credit at skywalker sound north - but they do at skywalker south.
however, i got a credit on the _apocalypse now_ LD, even though that
took place at skywalker north - it was coppola's choice to give credit
there. had i been on the dracula mix from the start i would have
gotten credit, but since i came in late, i didn't. crazy...