The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[Special Feature]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

So is this the one Cameron UHD I should buy if I only grab one?

The only other release was a non-anamorphic DVD from way back in 2001. For Cameron's other films there are various bluray options. I didn't buy any of the others but I went to the hassle of getting this one.

[Telemachus]

Originally Posted by Special Feature

The only other release was a non-anamorphic DVD from way back in 2001

I still have it

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

I still have it

I just sold my dvd for pennies just the other day :\ lenticular slip and everything

[dallywhitty]

Feed me beans.

[peppapigstan]

Originally Posted by Stop tealing lies

The laserdisc is better anyway

every piece of media should get tealified, best color ever

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Was it?

The 2.0 is a downmix of the 5.1, which is actually 4.1 because the surrounds are mono. But the 2.0 would still sound very close to the theatrical mix anyway, and it definitely isn't a downmix of the Atmos since the latter has errors not in the 5.1 or 2.0 tracks.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

The 2.0 is a downmix of the 5.1, which is actually 4.1 because the surrounds are mono. But the 2.0 would still sound very close to the theatrical mix anyway, and it definitely isn't a downmix of the Atmos since the latter has errors not in the 5.1 or 2.0 tracks.

Thanks for the confirm on the 2.0 track. Apologies if you've posted that already. My memory is like a sieve.

Right, so to be clear (because clearly I'm thick!) the 5.1 track is the 70mm mix.

But the 1992 Special Edition didn't have a 70mm release, so how does that work exactly?

Sorry to be a pain, but if I'm going to import the BD I need to be sure it's what I really want.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Thanks for the confirm on the 2.0 track. Apologies if you've posted that already. My memory is like a sieve.

Right, so to be clear (because clearly I'm thick!) the 5.1 track is the 70mm mix.

But the 1992 Special Edition didn't have a 70mm release, so how does that work exactly?

Sorry to be a pain, but if I'm going to import the BD I need to be sure it's what I really want.

Could be the 2.0 mix put in a 5.1 container

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Could be the 2.0 mix put in a 5.1 container

I thought it was 4.1 in 5.1?

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I thought it was 4.1 in 5.1?

My bad, I just woke up, yep the 4.1 is in a 5.1 container and idk what source was used for the special edition. I was thinking maybe specifically for the special edition bits, they put the 2.0 track in a 5.1 container and the theatrical scenes used the 70mm mix.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

My bad, I just woke up, yep the 4.1 is in a 5.1 container and idk what source was used for the special edition. I was thinking maybe specifically for the special edition bits, they put the 2.0 track in a 5.1 container and the theatrical scenes used the 70mm mix.

Would've been a lot simpler if they'd just used the OG stereo mix.

Oh, well.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

I think a lot of the head-scratching posts regarding original audio I've been reading on here recently is due to people focussing far too much on containers/configurations rather than the actual audio itself; basically putting the cart before the horse. It can't be stressed enough that even a 2.0 track itself is a container, and they're not mixing these tracks using two channels with the intent that it should be played back that way.

Anyway, I just compared the English tracks on the Blu-ray of The Abyss which I've never watched (only ever watched the UHD since getting the release). Keep in mind that I'm listening by ear and I'm only skimming through the film and comparing select parts. I can't state what the source was or how it came to be that way which is what could be said for the vast majority of posters on here for the vast majority of home video releases. That's information that we're typically not going to be privy to and a lot of these "original audio" claims we see on here are just guesses based on how previous releases sounded and on spectogram findings. As BigBMaster said in another thread where 2.0 mixes were falsely being accused of being 5.1 downmixes; it takes a lot less effort to just listen to these things and often this will tell you more than spectograms ever could.

Based on what I listened to the 5.1 track does sound like a 4.1 with mono surrounds as SpacemanDoug has said. The 2.0 track sounds mighty similar although with more "oomph" from what I could tell; I do not believe this is a downmix of the 5.1 or that the 5.1 is an upmix of the 2.0. They sound like the same mix with different EQ. On systems using Dolby Pro Logic, the 2.0 shouldn't have any subwoofer activity like the 5.1 option does. On more modern sound systems where Dolby Pro Logic has been replaced with the newer Dolby Surround upmixer then LFE will be sent to the subwoofer in the unfolded 2.0 track too.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Would've been a lot simpler if they'd just used the OG stereo mix.

Oh, well.

But that's probably what they did anyway. If they were going to put a completely remixed 5.1 track on there then they wouldn't make it an LCRS track with LFE being sent to the subwoofer. The 2.0 appears to just be a beefier version of that. The "original audio" on home video will usually never be exactly what is heard in theaters so who is to say what is or isn't more original? It's more of a matter of personal taste at that point.

I think if you fixate on these frivolous matters too much then ultimately you're not going to get as much enjoyment out of watching films as you could be, and you'll just end up missing out on fantastic home video releases because they're not "original audio".

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it; it could be that the 2.0 is the original stereo and the 5.1 may have been sourced from the 70mm soundtrack and put in 4.1. I doubt anyone on here can say for sure.

[ghostof82]

Me, 1982: not even having a VHS recorder, watching films censored for television broadcast, often interrupted by commercials, on a 28" CRT 4.3 television in mono, looking at all you guys today complaining : "you guys are crazy! You don't know how good you got it!"

Just saying, all things are relative. My 4K of The Abyss is bloody brilliant compared to what I had in 1982.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ghostof82

Me, 1982: not even having a VHS recorder, watching films censored for television broadcast, often interrupted by commercials, on a 28" CRT 4.3 television in mono, looking at all you guys today complaining : "you guys are crazy! You don't know how good you got it!"

Just saying, all things are relative. My 4K of The Abyss is bloody brilliant compared to what I had in 1982.

Hell, the UHD is bloody brilliant when compared to the antiquated non-anamorphic DVD.

[suspiciouscoffee]

Originally Posted by ghostof82

Me, 1982: not even having a VHS recorder, watching films censored for television broadcast, often interrupted by commercials, on a 28" CRT 4.3 television in mono, looking at all you guys today complaining : "you guys are crazy! You don't know how good you got it!"

Just saying, all things are relative. My 4K of The Abyss is bloody brilliant compared to what I had in 1982.

If you already had The Abyss in 1982 I don’t think you had a lot to complain about.

[Reflection]

I don't know if this has been answered but... why is this movie so expensive, and why doesn't there seem to be a cheaper separate Blu Ray release for it? all of James Cameron's other movies have a separate Blu Ray releases except this one, why?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I don't know if this has been answered but... why is this movie so expensive, and why doesn't there seem to be a cheaper separate Blu Ray release for it? all of James Cameron's other movies have a separate Blu Ray releases except this one, why?

It was one of the last titles I bought on DMC and I am already missing their 60% sales they used to run.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Anyway, I just compared the English tracks on the Blu-ray of The Abyss which I've never watched (only ever watched the UHD since getting the release). Keep in mind that I'm listening by ear and I'm only skimming through the film and comparing select parts. I can't state what the source was or how it came to be that way which is what could be said for the vast majority of posters on here for the vast majority of home video releases. That's information that we're typically not going to be privy to and a lot of these "original audio" claims we see on here are just guesses based on how previous releases sounded and on spectogram findings. As BigBMaster said in another thread where 2.0 mixes were falsely being accused of being 5.1 downmixes; it takes a lot less effort to just listen to these things and often this will tell you more than spectograms ever could.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I think if you fixate on these frivolous matters too much then ultimately you're not going to get as much enjoyment out of watching films as you could be, and you'll just end up missing out on fantastic home video releases because they're not "original audio".

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it; it could be that the 2.0 is the original stereo and the 5.1 may have been sourced from the 70mm soundtrack and put in 4.1. I doubt anyone on here can say for sure.

Agreed on all of this, and I say that as someone who's been complaining about remixes and downmixes over in the Dark Crystal thread. But that's a case where there are some noticeable content differences between the mixes that just bug me (and I admit that's a very subjective thing).

Going along with what JCF is talking about, most movies are at least slightly tweaked or even remixed for their home video releases. However, there have been certain poorly-engineered or overly revisionist remixes to older films that have put us on our guard, so-to-speak (myself included).

But I've gotten to where I'm usually fine with a faithful remix that keeps the spirit of the original sound design intact (The Dark Crystal just happens to be a particularly head-scratching case where some strange things happened.)

And even when you have two different tracks that may have come from the same master, they may have been encoded differently, which may show apparent differences in the waveforms. So that's not always a foolproof way to judge anything, either.

At any rate, I guess I've tried to learn how to pick my battles.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I think a lot of the head-scratching posts regarding original audio I've been reading on here recently is due to people focussing far too much on containers/configurations rather than the actual audio itself; basically putting the cart before the horse. It can't be stressed enough that even a 2.0 track itself is a container, and they're not mixing these tracks using two channels with the intent that it should be played back that way.

Anyway, I just compared the English tracks on the Blu-ray of The Abyss which I've never watched (only ever watched the UHD since getting the release). Keep in mind that I'm listening by ear and I'm only skimming through the film and comparing select parts. I can't state what the source was or how it came to be that way which is what could be said for the vast majority of posters on here for the vast majority of home video releases. That's information that we're typically not going to be privy to and a lot of these "original audio" claims we see on here are just guesses based on how previous releases sounded and on spectogram findings. As BigBMaster said in another thread where 2.0 mixes were falsely being accused of being 5.1 downmixes; it takes a lot less effort to just listen to these things and often this will tell you more than spectograms ever could.

Based on what I listened to the 5.1 track does sound like a 4.1 with mono surrounds as SpacemanDoug has said. The 2.0 track sounds mighty similar although with more "oomph" from what I could tell; I do not believe this is a downmix of the 5.1 or that the 5.1 is an upmix of the 2.0. They sound like the same mix with different EQ. On systems using Dolby Pro Logic, the 2.0 shouldn't have any subwoofer activity like the 5.1 option does. On more modern sound systems where Dolby Pro Logic has been replaced with the newer Dolby Surround upmixer then LFE will be sent to the subwoofer in the unfolded 2.0 track too.

On that last point, every AVR I've ever owned had an option to route low frequencies below whatever crossover to the subwoofer, so even with ye old Dobly Pro Logic it'd still use the sub.