Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Nov 2, 2018.
Whenever I've seen a 35mm print of TSWLM it's been mono.
Yeah I've come to the conclusion that all prints outside of London were mono only. Not enough Dolby processors in the summer of 1977 and they were all tied up with Star Wars.
We do know that a 70mm mix of Moonraker was made in 1979 as that was reportedly the source for the old 5.1 on the laserdisc and THX dvds. No documentation exists that suggests that prints of it were made though.
That's interesting. I wonder why the mono has never resurfaced as it's been stereo surround on video since 1988 at least.
For what its worth, the mono mix is on all the US domestic CBS Fox and European Warner video releases..
Doh! That never occurred to me. I have the P/S older LD release but it's time compressed to fit one disc. I'll have to track down the older CBS Fox VHS then.
That's one of the most perplexing comments I've ever read on this board. Every superhero movie since 1987 is "solely about the CGI effects"?
They didn't even have CGI Effects in the first three Batman movies!
If you mean the Burton movies I’m pretty sure there was some cgi in the first one.
Wouldn’t the animated Batman cape shadows be cg?
Given that Batman isn't a superhero, just a normal male with a lot of cool gimmicks, so what?
Those was plain ol' cel animation.
'89 doesn't have any CG that I know of as it's all model work and practical effects. Batman Returns had CGI for the Batmobile shields, the remote control Batarang and the flying bats sequences. It was still relatively early on for CG in a major feature and if scrutinized those shots look pretty ropey on disc but far better in the release prints which are properly timed dark. (Both Burton films are far too light on all home releases and have always been so. I really hope 4K is on the way for Bats too so that a proper looking version of 89, Returns and Forever would be possible.)
Yes, I would love to see Batman 89 for its 30th ann next year! I just watched the BD recently and it's most certainly showing its age in some respects (although not terrible for an old transfer).
However much CG appeared in "Batman" or its sequels, the contention that every superhero movie since "Superman IV" is solely about CG effects is bizarre and tremendously dismissive...
OK, so I finally had the time to look and compare the the 4K UHD disc with the included Blu-ray last night. I was running them in parallel via two Panasonic UB820 players, as I was saying in the post quoted above. Here are my impressions:
1. The 4K UHD clearly has more visible resolution and is a cleaner transfer. A lot more than the screenshots at caps-a-holic or other sites show. And this is on a 65" OLED. It's quite visible and looks very nice. On a larger screen it should be a major difference.
2. The HDR, I didn't care for. But this is important, because it depends on the display technology used. As I said before, on an LED LCD or OLED, the HDR will stand out a lot more than on a projector due to their max peak brightness levels being so much higher. So it really depends not only on taste, but on the display technology used. And it depends on each film. Here, I found it too jarring here for example. Too distracting, and it just wasn't blending in with the visuals for a 1978 film shot in the way it was.
3. With regards to colors and black levels, I found the Dolby Vision and HDR10 (I looked at both by enabling and disabling Dolby Vision in the Panasonic player), I prefer the Blu-ray. On my display, the blacks are too elevated and colors too desaturated and subdued on the 4K UHD. And there's nothing I can do to change that. Also it has a cooler look, even though I did a proper grayscale calibration for HDR/DV. The Blu-ray has more pleasing colors, and I know they are at least correct. Same with black levels. That being said, the Blu-ray is not a great transfer. I too wonder how a new Blu-ray would have looked.
Agree that calibration for HDR is very scattershot at the moment, a real wild west as opposed to SDR because of differences in tone mapping/display, display limitations in relation to color, etc. Regarding CMS calibration in HDR, in my experience, the issue you mention is exclusive to LG OLEDs. For some damn reason tweaking the CMS makes everything worse. This goes for SDR, too. However, with other HDR displays (Sony, Samsung, TCL, Vizio, etc.) one can tweak CMS in HDR and not have everything go to hell. At least that's been my experience. When I do calibrations for HDR it's very basic: don't touch brightness, contrast, etc. because those pre-set values are mathematically tied to the display's particular tone mapping; do a 2-pt. greyscale (not 10 or 20), do CMS in displays other than LG. And that's it.
"SPY WHO LOVED ME" was the first stereo Bond.
From in70mm.com (emphasis mine):
Now they're loaded with errors (and I'm not sure if that claim that the film played in 70mm in Spain is legit) but the idea that the film was only issued in London with a stereo mix is credible when you consider the Dolby Surround track on the old blue spine dvd only uses the front three channels. And of those channels left and right are confined to music only. All sound effects and dialogue are locked in the center.
I don't know the fine details, but I do know the original configuration, as mixed by Gordon K. McCallum at Pinewood Studios in Theater 2, was 4-track stereo. Details of the mix, only John Hayward survives from the crew and he is now retired.
"MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN" was a mono film.
It is not uncommon to have 70mm striped prints but with mono audio. "ANDROMEDA STRAIN" was one.
The Spy who loved me screened at the Odeon L Sq in London in
35mm four track mag , also before the feature a 70mm trailer
Of Close Encounters was shown as they had 3 projectors
It was no problem.
Also as Stephen points out some 70mm prints had mono tracks
I have read there was a 70mm print in Japan of You Only Live Twice
But that could have been mono.
Definitely mono, as I previously mentioned, "SPY" was the first.