Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[moviebuff75]

Buying the new Blu-ray.

[notops]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ummmm, any reviewer worth his salt will only review a stereo track on 2 speakers. "upmixing" won't give you an accurate reading of the original source material as it's now been cut apart and remixed artificially.

ummmm

You may want to give this a close read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Stereo

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by notops

ummmm

You may want to give this a close read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Stereo

*chuckle, you may want to send that to the reviewing community. as most of them (and I mean 99%) are firmly in the camp of "There's direct mode on your receiver, and there's wrong mode"

[notops]

Originally Posted by wormraper

*chuckle, you may want to send that to the reviewing community. as most of them (and I mean 99%) are firmly in the camp of "There's direct mode on your receiver, and there's wrong mode"

They're clueless. For God's sake, were you even alive in the VHS era? What do you think Dolby Surround meant?

[Geoff D]

Most of them would be wrong then. There's a surprise. But we're not talking about applying some random upmixing algorithm to some random piece of content, we're talking about unfolding the LCRS layout as originally encoded into these 2.0 mixes. For all the smarts that some people profess to have when it comes to things like this, they seem to treat LCRS 2.0 mixes as some kind of sorcery.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Most of them would be wrong then. There's a surprise. But we're not talking about applying some random upmixing algorithm to some random piece of content, we're talking about unfolding the LCRS layout as originally encoded into these 2.0 mixes. For all the smarts that some people profess to have when it comes to things like this, they seem to treat LCRS 2.0 mixes as some kind of sorcery.

you're probably right, as when I went through film school Dolby Matrix on receivers was JUUUUUUUUUUUST being introduced. Back then I remember my professor at the Chicago FI making a big deal of putting a huge piece of blue painter's tape over the Dolby Matrix button and saying on the first week of audio mixing "this is what you use when you hate an artist" and then would tape it off so we'd never touch it.

but looking back I could probably detect his bias since he was a MASSSSSSIVE Hi-fi stereo fanatic as well (the professor who had nearly 80,000 bucks in amps and dual hi-fi speakers). That was 92 or 93 If I remember correctly

[Geoff D]

That's too funny

[notops]

Originally Posted by wormraper

you're probably right, as when I went through film school Dolby Matrix on receivers was JUUUUUUUUUUUST being introduced. Back then I remember my professor at the Chicago FI making a big deal of putting a huge piece of blue painter's tape over the Dolby Matrix button and saying on the first week of audio mixing "this is what you use when you hate an artist" and then would tape it off so we'd never touch it.

but looking back I could probably detect his bias since he was a MASSSSSSIVE Hi-fi stereo fanatic as well (the professor who had nearly 80,000 bucks in amps and dual hi-fi speakers). That was 92 or 93 If I remember correctly

He was probably referring to Dolby Noise Reduction. Not Dolby Stereo. Two entirely different things. Not to be a dick, but you really should read the link I provided earlier.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's too funny

oh he was a piece of work. Probably one of the most passionate professors I had, but also the most likely to be on cocaine (or he at least acted it). guy would talk a mile a minute and use his right hand like it was a poker, constantly stabbing at the air and the students. He'd let the top ranking students visit his home and his hi-fi stereo lair, and let me tell you this, for an early 90s setup it was INSANE. Macintosh amps, pre-amps you name it. A set of speakers that were about 7 feet tall and a single chain in the middle of the room as the listening spot.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by notops

He was probably referring to Dolby Noise Reduction. Not Dolby Stereo. Two entirely different things. Not to be a dick, but you really should read the link I provided earlier.

no, he was talking about Dolby Pro-Logic. (not matrix as I mistakenly wrote above). he would go on for hours about the "purity of the mix"

and yes, I did read your link. been reading it over the last 30 min

[notops]

Originally Posted by wormraper

no, he was talking about Dolby Pro-Logic. (not matrix as I mistakenly wrote above). he would go on for hours about the "purity of the mix"

Then he was wrong. Not all teachers know what they're talking about. Dolby Stereo tracks had info for the Left, Center, Right and Surround channels decoded into the two optical audio tracks on the film print. The Dolby processor hooked up to the projector would decode the info and spread it out to the appropriate speakers in the theater, playing the track exactly as it was mixed. Never in the history of Dolby Stereo was the sound played back on just a left and right speaker. Ever.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by notops

Then he was wrong. Not all teachers know what they're talking about. Dolby Stereo tracks had info for the Left, Center, Right and Surround channels decoded into the two optical audio tracks on the film print. The Dolby processor hooked up to the projector would decode the info and spread it out to the appropriate speakers in the theater, playing the track exactly as it was mixed. Never in the history of Dolby Stereo was the sound played back on just a left and right speaker. Ever.

again, not saying you're wrong. I was stating that's how many of us were taught back in the very early 90s, so it explains why a lot of the reviewers (who are in their late 40s to 50s) think the way they do

(I can confirm that I'm not the only one who was taught this method for stereo tracks, as I talk with a lot of online reviewers behind the scenes)

I'm never against learning something I was taught wrong back in my youth, am happy to correct wrong opinions if I can

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ummmm, any reviewer worth his salt will only review a stereo track on 2 speakers. "upmixing" won't give you an accurate reading of the original source material as it's now been cut apart and remixed artificially.

False. Most stereo tracks are encoded for and intended to be played back in matrix multichannel surround.

You cant properly evaluate the effectiveness of the matrix surround field without listening to it decoded.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by wormraper

no, he was talking about Dolby Pro-Logic. (not matrix as I mistakenly wrote above). he would go on for hours about the "purity of the mix"

and yes, I did read your link. been reading it over the last 30 min

If I'm not mistaken the first "home" version, Dolby Pro Logic (1987) was not that good. Dolby Pro Logic II in 2000 greatly improved on it and basically it is still used today. At least I do

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

If I'm not mistaken the first "home" version, Dolby Pro Logic (1987) was not that good. Dolby Pro Logic II in 2000 greatly improved on it and basically it is still used today. At least I do

For the main channels they've operated fairly similarly along the way with some tweaks and extra channels added.

But has generally been:
Center: in phase (mono)
Surround: out of phase (exact opposite of mono)
Mains: not in phase or out of phase

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

If I'm not mistaken the first "home" version, Dolby Pro Logic (1987) was not that good. Dolby Pro Logic II in 2000 greatly improved on it and basically it is still used today. At least I do

'Dolby Surround' was the first consumer version, when that gear first came into the home it didn't have a centre channel, which itself may have been the cause of some of this resistance towards DPL et al in the first place (though that's giving all these people the credit that they actually understand what Lt/Rt is in the first place, and I ain't so sure about that).

I remember going to a buddy's house, must've been a good 25 years ago, and he had such a 'Dolby Surround' setup with no centre speaker. Pro Logic came along in 1987 to provide that centre speaker, but as I'm talking about 1994 here then Pro Logic still hadn't filtered down to all levels of home surround equipment, such was the state of it at the time.

[wormraper]

back on track slightly. Am I the only one shocked at how badly Paramount has butchered the 4K release of "Forrest Gump"? Usually Paramount is FANTASTIC with their 4K titles, but they botched this one INCREDIBLY with this new master

when I saw the "remastered" Blu-ray 25th edition I was hoping they remastered the abysmal 4K release as well, but it looks like the new "remaster" is the master used for the crummy 4K release recycled

[Geoff D]

I quite like the 4K.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by wormraper

back on track slightly. Am I the only one shocked at how badly Paramount has butchered the 4K release of "Forrest Gump"? Usually Paramount is FANTASTIC with their 4K titles, but they botched this one INCREDIBLY with this new master

when I saw the "remastered" Blu-ray 25th edition I was hoping they remastered the abysmal 4K release as well, but it looks like the new "remaster" is the master used for the crummy 4K release recycled

Definitely not alone. A few pages back I posted how disappointed I am with it. Can't get my money back either which stings even more. Thank God for the sapphire series release!

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I quite like the 4K.

Oh, come on, Geoff. Just remember DNRed Vietnam day sequences, crushed blacks. I’m not saying it’s the worst, but not far from it.