First Blood / Rambo: First Blood Part II / Rambo III 4K UHDs (1982-1988)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wow. I’ve heard some shit in my time but “the vast majority of remixes don’t add any effects and if you hear ‘new’ effects they were there all along but lossy wasn’t good enough to reproduce them” is one of the biggest dung-heaps I’ve yet come across. And aren’t you the one who keeps telling us that 640 kb/s Dolby Digital is transparent to the source, only now it’s not?

What are you blathering about here?

If a sound isn't heard it isn't "there" as far as perceptual coding goes - and it goes for DTS, Dolby Digital, AAC, MP3, MP4, etc. etc. etc. Transparency is just that.

And it's also TRUE that separating sounds (you know, the objects in Atmos) makes them more audible, especially if they've been moved to another channel. When they do stereo or 5.0 mixes of music do they "add" instruments? No, but there's sure as hell stuff you haven't noticed before. I used to listen to PCM LD tracks with studio headphones (my trusty Sony MDR V6) and hear all sorts of stuff buried in mixes that weren't really audible much until they remixed into 5.1 or Atmos. Just as you often can't SEE details until it's HD or 4K you often don't HEAR them until remastered/remixed as well.

Yes, SOME remixes have added sounds, but not all and certainly not the majority. What's so dung heap about that?

[Geoff D]

Added clarity is one thing, but even when I had earballs that worked properly I never heard things just appear out of nowhere on a lossless soundtrack, or indeed a multichannel rendering of one. And remixes don’t just add sounds though, do they? They can and often do omit things or make outright mistakes in the mixing, as well as upsetting the balance between DM&E, they should just leave them the **** alone. Or do whatever revisionist shit they have to do it to appease the speaker fillers, just provide an OG mix as well (for which 2.0 will do just fine on a regulation Dolby Stereo show, I’ve never seen someone who cares so little for OG audio when presented with a spangly Atmos alternative remain so persnickety about the OG configuration).

[Scott in UK]

To add a thought to this conversation.

It's made me think that there is definitely something in it or to be said about sounds that wernt there before being suddenly able to come through for whatever reason. Although in my case it's not to do with movie audio, but music mixes that I record. (im a hobbyist DJ for years)

I dunno what the answer or what's happening in regards to lossy or lossless is, but certainly in my example/story regarding new sounds appearing, from the fact both my before and after are still lossy, that might be telling in itself that maybe it isn't totally to do with wether it's lossless or not.

And that it's likely it's some digital conversion that makes it occur. Because in my case, when i record and convert vinyl into digital, that the digital recording on some of my records has then added sounds that I wasn't hearing when listening just as analogue or the original vinyl.

Kind of threw me when I first ever experienced it and heard it, because my first thought was, has this taken it upon itself to add sounds to the song that don't exist? But then thought well that can't be the case, because it would be weird or surely not even possible to add sounds that arnt actually there in the original song. So it must be that it's actually just making the sounds come through clearer.

But then the latter kind of in a way doesn't make sence either, because im using Sony MDR-7506 Professional Studio Monitors, (which by the way are the best headphone purchase iv ever made, and their accuracy & precision for mixing is great) but because they are so accurate then surely they would be picking up the sounds already even before conversion.

So yeah, the new/added sounds or instruments coming through is certainly a thing! But as iv already said, in my case it's not a lossy or lossless scenario, it's my analogue to digital recording interface that is adding these sounds. So it must be a digital thing!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Or do whatever revisionist shit they have to do it to appease the speaker fillers

A lot of the time the "speaker fillers" are the filmmakers themselves. Burton, Spielberg, and now Wright seem pretty excited about Atmos for example. When films were restored and re-released in the '90s the filmmakers of those were excited about the 5.1

[Markgway]

Some people just like a shiny new toy to play with.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scott in UK

To add a thought to this conversation.

It's made me think that there is definitely something in it or to be said about sounds that wernt there before being suddenly able to come through for whatever reason. Although in my case it's not to do with movie audio, but music mixes that I record. (im a hobbyist DJ for years)

I dunno what the answer or what's happening in regards to lossy or lossless is, but certainly in my example/story regarding new sounds appearing, from the fact both my before and after are still lossy, that might be telling in itself that maybe it isn't totally to do with wether it's lossless or not.

And that it's likely it's some digital conversion that makes it occur. Because in my case, when i record and convert vinyl into digital, that the digital recording on some of my records has then added sounds that I wasn't hearing when listening just as analogue or the original vinyl.

Kind of threw me when I first ever experienced it and heard it, because my first thought was, has this taken it upon itself to add sounds to the song that don't exist? But then thought well that can't be the case, because it would be weird or surely not even possible to add sounds that arnt actually there in the original song. So it must be that it's actually just making the sounds come through clearer.

But then the latter kind of in a way doesn't make sence either, because im using Sony MDR-7506 Professional Studio Monitors, (which by the way are the best headphone purchase iv ever made, and their accuracy & precision for mixing is great) but because they are so accurate then surely they would be picking up the sounds already even before conversion.

So yeah, the new/added sounds or instruments coming through is certainly a thing! But as iv already said, in my case it's not a lossy or lossless scenario, it's my analogue to digital recording interface that is adding these sounds. So it must be a digital thing!

Okay, fine. But I cannot and will not dismiss the practice of adding ACTUAL new effects to a mix - most often quite incongruous new effects - as if it were equal to the qualitative phenom of "I heard shit I never heard before!". It is not.

[Scott in UK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Okay, fine. But I cannot and will not dismiss the practice of adding ACTUAL new effects to a mix - most often quite incongruous new effects - as if it were equal to the qualitative phenom of "I heard shit I never heard before!". It is not.

Well yeah both of those things exist.

1. Hearing sounds you maybe couldn't hear before because of now clearer increased quality (or in my example some kind of digital conversion, which is adding or opening up concealed frequencies.)

2. Or actual revisions/changes to a films audio. Which of course we all know is a given that that happens. Sometimes subtlety, like atmospherics, (birds chirping, wind etc) Or complete screw ups where almost the whole track has been altered or a change in almost every scene, (song changes, dialogue etc.)

And when it comes to knowing which is which, obviously the more somebody is familiar with a film, the more likely it is that a person will know if its a human revision.

And it's also gonna depend on what sound it is and how that sound comes through . With spoken word for example, any change there is likely to be human fiddling, whereas hearing different sounds or nuances in a piece of music may actually not be to do with any human interference.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scott in UK

Well yeah both of those things exist.

1. Hearing sounds you maybe couldn't hear before because of now clearer increased quality (or in my example some kind of digital conversion, which is adding or opening up concealed frequencies.)

2. Or actual revisions/changes to a films audio. Which of course we all know is a given that that happens. Sometimes subtlety, like atmospherics, (birds chirping, wind etc) Or complete screw ups where almost the whole track has been altered or a change in almost every scene, (song changes, dialogue etc.)

And when it comes to knowing which is which, obviously the more somebody is familiar with a film, the more likely it is that a person will know if its a human revision.

And it's also gonna depend on what sound it is and how that sound comes through . With spoken word for example, any change there is likely to be human fiddling, whereas hearing different sounds or nuances in a piece of music may actually not be to do with any human interference.

Odd thing is, most cries of revisionism that accompany a movie's remix are because of newly added/removed/rebalanced sounds, not that they're hearing things they never heard before.

[Markgway]

Doing subtitles on HK movies, one thing I've noticed is that sometimes dialogue buried in the original mono mix can be heard much more clearly on the 5.1 remixes. It was always there, but hard to make out. That's one reason why subtitles sometimes appear for dialogue that's barely audible.

[Geoff D]

For a completely new re-recording of those stems using modern equipment then yeah, fine, I can see why things would come through more clearly. I belatedly realise the logic there. But taking the same exact mix and comparing lossy to lossless I’ve never heard such an improvement. Besides which, those 5.1/7.1 remixes from the likes of Fortune Star are the poster children for added revisionist shite; you might well be able to hear the dialogue betterer but by god you’re gonna get a load of rubbish NEW sound effects into the bargain.

[DMRI2006]

Thing that's most irritating about these old 5.1 RAMBO mixes isn't that they're revisionist and have anything added. It's what's taken away. The entire sound stage is reduced to single-channel mono in certain places. Not entirely, but much of the discrete, original multi-channel sound is gone. FIRST BLOOD and RAMBO II are missing all kinds of directional left/right activity and the 5.1 jettisons so much of that, directing what should be stereophonic pans into the center channel instead.

I still wonder why this happened so often back in the DVD/early Blu era. Is there some single audio facility or engineer responsible for all these borked 5.1 tracks (like here, or all the Morgan Creek crap 5.1 tracks that were on multiple Warner releases like EXORCIST III, etc.).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Thing that's most irritating about these old 5.1 RAMBO mixes isn't that they're revisionist and have anything added. It's what's taken away. The entire sound stage is reduced to single-channel mono in certain places. Not entirely, but much of the discrete, original multi-channel sound is gone. FIRST BLOOD and RAMBO II are missing all kinds of directional left/right activity and the 5.1 jettisons so much of that, directing what should be stereophonic pans into the center channel instead.

I still wonder why this happened so often back in the DVD/early Blu era. Is there some single audio facility or engineer responsible for all these borked 5.1 tracks (like here, or all the Morgan Creek crap 5.1 tracks that were on multiple Warner releases like EXORCIST III, etc.).

The Trouble with Rambo is that the rights to the movies have bounced around over the years, this doesn't mean that the physical film elements do the same thing every time (often staying in situ at one facility, as long as it remains in business anyway!) but stuff can and does get pulled to be sent to make a new transfer and all it takes is for some cans to get mislabelled or mislaid, or for the paperwork itself to go missing, and boom, they're gone.

That said, labels have been turning to archival sources like LaserDisc to rescue the best possible versions of tracks that have since become lost or damaged at the archival level, so it's a pity that no-one at StudioCanal thought to apply this to the Rambos.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

it's a pity that no-one at StudioCanal thought

Yep.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Trouble with Rambo is that the rights to the movies have bounced around over the years, this doesn't mean that the physical film elements do the same thing every time (often staying in situ at one facility, as long as it remains in business anyway!) but stuff can and does get pulled to be sent to make a new transfer and all it takes is for some cans to get mislabelled or mislaid, or for the paperwork itself to go missing, and boom, they're gone.

That said, labels have been turning to archival sources like LaserDisc to rescue the best possible versions of tracks that have since become lost or damaged at the archival level, so it's a pity that no-one at StudioCanal thought to apply this to the Rambos.

In certain cases it’s just better to watch the laserdisc. Rambo I-III is a good example of this.

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

In certain cases it’s just better to watch the laserdisc.

Or mux, and make the best of both worlds yourself.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by SpazeBlue

Or mux, and make the best of both worlds yourself.

Not in this case. I’m not going to watch the Rambo movies with the absurd fake looking revisioned colours. Remux the sound. Recolor time. Basically do the work that people who were paid to do it didn’t do. I’ll just watch the laserdisc. There are many great UHD’s, but with certain movies, laserdiscs are still the best we have.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Not in this case. I’m not going to watch the Rambo movies with the absurd fake looking revisioned colours. Remux the sound. Recolor time. Basically do the work that people who were paid to do it didn’t do. I’ll just watch the laserdisc. There are many great UHD’s, but with certain movies, laserdiscs are still the best we have.

You lose the that feeling of immersion that you get in the cinema completely with LD. There is no theater that has such a soft and undefined video look. That is a pretty big minus.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

You lose the that feeling of immersion that you get in the cinema completely with LD. There is no theater that has such a soft and undefined video look. That is a pretty big minus.

It’s a minus that I can still tolerate. Someone else might be able to tolerate revisioned colours or altered sound better and that’s fine. Hopefully these movies can get corrected and re-released on UHD in the future and then none of this will matter much.

And something to think about: Even the best state of the art 35mm theatrical presentation is roughly 0.6K in resolution due to projector jitter, etc. 4K from OCN is not how any of these movies were ever meant to be seen. And this kind of resolution is not always or even majority of the time a benefit. LD is actually closer to intent, too bad it’s on the less and not slightly more resolution side.

Give me a faithful (video and audio) 1K from IP pure analog transfer of any of these film based movies (where I can’t visually easily distinguish it from projected 35mm film) and I will never ask for more.

[PeterTHX]

640x425i or whatever it is looks pretty blurry and terrible at 65".

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Thing that's most irritating about these old 5.1 RAMBO mixes isn't that they're revisionist and have anything added. It's what's taken away. The entire sound stage is reduced to single-channel mono in certain places. Not entirely, but much of the discrete, original multi-channel sound is gone. FIRST BLOOD and RAMBO II are missing all kinds of directional left/right activity and the 5.1 jettisons so much of that, directing what should be stereophonic pans into the center channel instead.

As I mentioned earlier, the 70MM & 35MM stereo tracks for Rambo II are missing. I imagine it's the same for First Blood.

[Brian81]

I can't agree with that as the typical 35mm presentation I have seen has the detail of a good BD. Typical, not state of the art. Certainly more detail than 0.6K. You can read letters on packaging and signs that are not legible on a DVD.