Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The dreaded 'Near Field Mix'
#1
Many of you guys and gals have probably seen this already on your travels but I thought I'd share this entertaining thread from Film-Tech:

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t001428.html

A guy mentions his work on Home Theater Mixes and gets roasted for it   Big Grin

At the end of it all, no one is any the wiser about anything.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
Wow. He really got a roasting!
I found what he said pretty spot on thou, as adjusting for environment is indeed much needed in many cases.
Perhaps information embedded in the audio stream would be more the way to go (like DRC flags in DD)?
From the Cinema DTS mixes ive heard, comparing it to the DTS mixes contained on a Home Video releases have held very little difference. And certainly matchable through adjusting variables on my AV receiver.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
This is why I tend not to like audiophile/videophile forums. They're full of obnoxious lunatics.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
Well they had a good point that sometimes they are required to run a BD through dcp-o-matic and show it in a cinema, so it would be helpful to have the cinema mix on there as the second audio track.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
I think he got his fair share of roasting. His main argument was:
-'The suits' order a near field mix
-You can't tell the difference from near/far field mixes
-You can't get away with just delivering a far field mix because 'the suits' would notice(?)
It's worth noting that the near field is a 1 metre listening distance.
The Criterion Collection Blu Ray release of 'The Game' featured the original theatrical mix alongside a near-field mix that was supervised by Ren Klyce. This is a fairly rare instance when it should be the standard, it's hardly a space problem with BD50s. Unfortunately dumbing down of audio has been the norm since DVDs took off. Long live laserdisc!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
Best arguement i had was over at blu-ray.com. Everyone arguing over the exact theatrical experience. new films and old films included. Had to be pixel perfect, original audio, The blue bucket had to be included in the background of Phantasm otherwise it would ruin thier childhood memories (even though no one actually knew about the bucket until Don mentioned it)

mention 3D though and you get "3D SUUUUCCCKKSSSS!!!", "DIE 3D DIE!!", "I HATE GLASSES!!!"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
Dare I ask about the blue bucket?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
(2017-06-08, 06:42 PM)zoidberg Wrote: Dare I ask about the blue bucket?

A fix was done to Phantasm during the remastering process where a blue bucket was digitally erased from the background of one shot.

Some people are protesting this change because it detracts from it's original cinema version. I have yet to see this blue bucket myself. The only other shot that was done was a really crappy SFX shot with the ball flying was replaced with CGI.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(2017-06-08, 11:41 AM)IcePrick Wrote: This is why I tend not to like audiophile/videophile forums. They're full of obnoxious lunatics.

This isn't a fair assessment of such forums. There are some really great people that are only interested in the best possible source quality because it does matter to some. Passionate is a better word than lunatic in my opinion.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
You have to find a balance. Here I can be honest and question things. On shtv or BD.com I have to temper everything I post because 99% of folks either aren't going to get it or claim I'm wrong for some reason. But there is information buried on forums like nuggets of gold to search for.
Damn Fool Idealistic Crusader
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)