or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Right Stuff - 30th Anniversary Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Right Stuff - 30th Anniversary Edition - Page 2

post #31 of 112
The Digital Bits gave the video and audio an A. Only negative was the extras, which are mostly recycled from the last dvd.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/right-stuff-the-30th-ae-bd
post #32 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by batutta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

the DVDbeaver review isn't ecstatic about the AV quality of this release.

They made the point it probably looks as good as the original material would allow, compared to a modern film. From what I can tell of the screen caps, it has a softness that was inherent to the photography. I'm happy they didn't try and sharpen it or do any other digital tomfoolery to 'improve' the image.
Ditto.

larry
post #33 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Hmmm.... why not just take the original analog masters and re-master the dang thing in 24 bit/96 kHz PCM and then encode it on the disc as either 24/96 Dolby TrueHD or 24/96 DTS Master Audio? It's in the Blu-ray specs at up to 8 channels and up to 6 in 24/192. The 96 kHz upsampling from 48 kHz really isn't going to do a blessed thing and even if it did help a little bit you need a new processor that handles TrueHD upsampling.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there may have been a better way to handle it, but you stated that you assumed the TrueHD track was an old master dusted off the shelf because studios rarely use TrueHD anymore. It has to be a new master, because the Dolby 96k upsampling didn't exist before last year. Of course, it's possible that Warner just upsampled an old studio PCM master, but the reason the TrueHD codec was selected over DTS in this case was specifically due to the upsampling (which DTS doesn't offer). Had they not bothered with the upsampling, the disc probably would have been authored with DTS.

I demoed the 96k upsampling at Dolby headquarters last year. While some of the self-professed audiophiles in the audience were ecstatic about it, I'll be honest that I couldn't hear a damn bit of difference in most of the before-and-after examples, and I suspect most of the others probably couldn't either if challenged to a proper blind comparison. So, yeah, I share your skepticism on that regard.

However, that said, you don't need a new processor. The point of this upsampling is that it's done on the studio end before authoring, and will play back on your equipment like any other 96 kHz audio track (which most processors and A/V receivers should be able to handle without issue). Your processor doesn't do any upsampling itself. It can't tell the difference between this and a real 96 kHz track.
Edited by Josh Z - 10/30/13 at 10:20am
post #34 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I'm not disagreeing with you that there may have been a better way to handle it, but you stated that you assumed the TrueHD track was an old master dusted off the shelf because studios rarely use TrueHD anymore. It has to be a new master, because the Dolby 96k upsampling didn't exist before last year. Of course, it's possible that Warner just upsampled an old studio PCM master, but the reason the TrueHD codec was selected over DTS in this case was specifically due to the upsampling (which DTS doesn't offer). Had they not bothered with the upsampling, the disc probably would have been authored with DTS.

I demoed the 96k upsampling at Dolby headquarters last year. While some of the self-professed audiophiles in the audience were ecstatic about it, I'll be honest that I couldn't hear a damn bit of difference in most of the before-and-after examples, and I suspect most of the others probably couldn't either if challenged to a proper blind comparison. So, yeah, I share your skepticism on that regard.

However, that said, you don't need a new processor. The point of this upsampling is that it's done on the studio end before authoring, and will play back on your equipment like any other 96 kHz audio track (which most processors and A/V receiver should be able to handle without issue). Your processor doesn't do any upsampling itself. It can't tell the difference between this and a real 96 kHz track.

Ah, gotcha! I had assumed it worked like HDCD encoding on the decoder side to bring back the original data and not done in-studio with upsampling software creating a 24/96 track. Again, if the analog master tapes were still in the archives, they really should have used those and re-mastered at true 24/96. With care and the right A/D converters that definitely can help. It's like restoring the original camera negatives rather than doing any video transferring and manipulation off a dupe.

This is what happened with the Baraka and Chronos Blu-ray soundtracks (using the vault masters to make a new 24/96 PCM mix then encoding a 24/96 DTS Master Audio track)... and the sound was really, really good.
post #35 of 112
Hey guys, seems like I've written about the influence of this movie on the USAF fighter community (of which I was a part as a young buck captain at the time) when it released. I don't see it here. Must have posted somewhere else. Oh well.....

I read a modern review yesterday by a fellow that did not see the movie in theaters and really didn't connect, therefore had rather surprising criticism of the length and pace...and even Caleb Deschanel's incredibly beautiful cinematography! He actually criticized creative decisions like playing characters in sillouette. Go figure. It was a time when cinematographers also freely used tools to influence the mood an image rendered. For the reason, filtration was used in the parts of the strory that reach the farthest back to soften the images. But it's bloody gorgeous work! This was the same era in which Caleb used many of the same techniques in The Natural.

Granted, it is clearly not made to be a blockbuster. It is a rather personal statement film, and the writer of the review below totally gets it.

For those who want to remember and those who were a bit young at the time, here is an excellent reveiw; maybe the best I've seen of it. Enjoy.

http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2011/03/climbing-high-into-sun.html
Edited by Cam Man - 11/5/13 at 7:30pm
post #36 of 112
I love this movie like a fat kid loves chocolate cake. I got the blu-ray version and on the initial menu, I thought the music on the menu didn't sound sharp. I thought it was just the menu until I started the movie. The background music on the entire movie didn't sound very good. There are a few good sound wipes when the jets fly over, but very little LFE. The picture on the blu ray looked great for a 30 year old movie. I was surprised how many stars were in this movie.
post #37 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojodave View Post

I love this movie like a fat kid loves chocolate cake. I got the blu-ray version and on the initial menu, I thought the music on the menu didn't sound sharp. I thought it was just the menu until I started the movie. The background music on the entire movie didn't sound very good. There are a few good sound wipes when the jets fly over, but very little LFE. The picture on the blu ray looked great for a 30 year old movie. I was surprised how many stars were in this movie.
May be your AVR is having an issue with the 96k Upsampling audio???
Are you running PCM or bitstream?

I guess we'll have to see what others observe.
post #38 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Hmmm.... why not just take the original analog masters and re-master the dang thing in 24 bit/96 kHz PCM and then encode it on the disc as either 24/96 Dolby TrueHD or 24/96 DTS Master Audio? It's in the Blu-ray specs at up to 8 channels and up to 6 in 24/192. The 96 kHz upsampling from 48 kHz really isn't going to do a blessed thing and even if it did help a little bit you need a new processor that handles TrueHD upsampling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Pasmaman 
May be your AVR is having an issue with the 96k Upsampling audio???

Why? The upsampling only changes the encoding part, not the decoding part. At home it just looks like regular old lossless TrueHD at 96/24 to the AVR, which every TrueHD decoder should be able to handle.

As to how this improves the audio quality as opposed to resampling the original analog stems is beyond me. I guess it was cheap, it probably took less than 2 hours to do and they didn't have to clean-up the original analog audio again. It makes much more sense when the original stems are digitally recorded 48/24 - although I still can't imagine much, if any, improvement.

http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=674604
post #39 of 112
I'm not really a fan of upsampling the source since so many receivers and processors today perform their own upsampling, which basically means we could be getting an upsample of an upsample :P

I'm still using a Pioneer SC-27, and it upsamples everything to 192kHz internally.
post #40 of 112
Quote:
May be your AVR is having an issue with the 96k Upsampling audio???
Are you running PCM or bitstream?

I guess we'll have to see what others observe.

I played the disc in both my PS3 and my Samsung Blu-ray player and heard the sound problem. The problem is noticeable when there is horns on the soundtrack. It doesn't make the movie unwatchable, it just doesn't sound as good as crisp as other discs.
post #41 of 112
The disc that made it to market lacks 96khz audio.
The disc only has a 16 bit Dolby TrueHD 5.1 track at 48khz.
post #42 of 112
Here's a post from the other "The Right Stuff" thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Potts View Post

Greetings,

I received this announcement yesterday regarding The Right Stuff 30th anniversary edition on Blu-ray:

Warner Bros. Home Entertainment has become aware of and confirmed that The Right Stuff 30th Anniversary Blu-ray Book released on Nov. 5, 2013 went to market without the 96K upsampling feature enabled. Steps are being taken to resolve the issue at the current time.


I will update this thread with any new information going forward.


Regards,
post #43 of 112
So, it'll end up being a 16 bit/48 kHz resampled track rather than the original analog stems remixed into true 24/96?? Yeah, even better. rolleyes.gif

WB has an extremely lazy home video department. Sometimes it's almost as bad as Universal.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 11/11/13 at 6:57am
post #44 of 112
No, not nearly.
post #45 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, it'll end up being a 16 bit/48 kHz resampled track instead rather than the original analog stems remixed into true 24/96?? Yeah, even better. rolleyes.gif

WB has an extremely lazy home video department. Sometimes it's almost as bad as Universal.
I'm not sure if they are as bad, but they do come close.rolleyes.gifmad.gif
post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I'm not sure if they are as bad, but they do come close.rolleyes.gifmad.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

WB has an extremely lazy home video department. Sometimes it's almost as bad as Universal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, it'll end up being a 16 bit/48 kHz resampled track instead rather than the original analog stems remixed into true 24/96?? Yeah, even better. rolleyes.gif

Many times WB will have an opportunity to re-compress a good master for another edition instead of a rehash of an older, optimized for HD-DVD encode, but they just repackage the same old stuff again.

The Fugitive's anniversary edition, despite being a popular, modern classic thriller, did not get a new 4k transfer from the OCN's and restoration, as one current example shows. It still looks pretty grungy and with gate weave, though without the interlaced artifacts of their previous crappy Blu-ray.
post #47 of 112
Yeah. WB is pretty lazy with how they handle their home video most of the time.

Universal is so much worse as they actively destroy their catalog with proactive use of EE/DNR and other digital "enhancements". I don't remember WB being as bad. Just lazy.
post #48 of 112
My disc had a sticker that said 96/24 Audio.
post #49 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojodave View Post

My disc had a sticker that said 96/24 Audio.

Where was the sticker? (On the outside removable plastic?)

And do you have a player that gives you the sound details? My Sony player says my sound is: Track 1: English Dolby TrueHD 5.1 48khz when the main feature is playing.
post #50 of 112
The sticker was an orange round sticker on the outside plastic. My receiver says 96khz
post #51 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojodave View Post

The sticker was an orange round sticker on the outside plastic. My receiver says 96khz

Yeow! I need to return mine.
post #52 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojodave View Post

The sticker was an orange round sticker on the outside plastic. My receiver says 96khz
Where did you buy your copy?
post #53 of 112
Maybe WB pulled the plug on this until the 96K upsampling is fixed. That would explain why no stores near me have it in stock.
post #54 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post

Maybe WB pulled the plug on this until the 96K upsampling is fixed. That would explain why no stores near me have it in stock.
So, who would like to buy a very rare 48k copy of this great film?

Anyone?


Anyone?


Bueller?
post #55 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojodave View Post

The sticker was an orange round sticker on the outside plastic. My receiver says 96khz
Mine had this sticker too. It's still 48kHz/16-bit on the disc.

Not that it bothers me much ... until proven otherwise, I think this "advanced upsampling" is mostly marketing. But I guess we now have an opportunity to compare ourselves if they really issue a replacement disc. tongue.gif

Also, I had forgotten what a great movie this is. smile.gif
post #56 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post


Also, I had forgotten what a great movie this is. smile.gif
Yes! It is one of those real cinematic experiences. So many great moments. Really captures the greatness of those men who had courage, and made possible our space program.
And that stirring soundtrack so well matches and describes what we are seeing on the screen. A landmark film.
post #57 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post

Maybe WB pulled the plug on this until the 96K upsampling is fixed. That would explain why no stores near me have it in stock.
Amazon is still selling it so there doesn't appear to be any major recall... yet.
post #58 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

Amazon is still selling it so there doesn't appear to be any major recall... yet.
As usual, I picked up my copy from Amazon.

Has any review site mentioned a 24 bit track?
The ones I visit are saying 16 bit.

Is it possible some copies are sending false flags to processors about the identity of the track?
Are we sure the TrueHD is really 16 bit?
We have seen things like this in the past.

I use the Analog Outs on my Oppo SE and I need to check this out on my system....
post #59 of 112
I checked the TrueHD track in my HT and my processor says it is receiving 48hz via HDMI.
I can't find a way for my Oppo to tell me the hz or bit rate of the audio of what is actually on the disk....sorry about that.

I would say, after listening to the TrueHD track for the entire movie thru my Analog Outs (and if it is truly 16 bit), it's pretty damn good.wink.gif
post #60 of 112
Noticed this on another forum...


moovtune, on 09 Nov 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:
FYI:

Warner Bros. Home Entertainment has become aware of and confirmed that The Right Stuff 30th Anniversary Blu-ray Book released on Nov. 5, 2013 went to market without the 96K upsampling feature enabled. Steps are being taken to resolve the issue at the current time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Right Stuff - 30th Anniversary Edition