SCREEN-L Archives

September 2001, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:49:09 +0100
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
Mike Frank writes:

>Also, if the discussion was about the Criterion Hitchcock films then the
>soundtrack was not rerecorded:  These have the original soundtrack which
>has been digitally restored/remastered.  An example of partial soundtrack
>re-recording would be the restoration (or maybe "restoration") of
>"Vertigo" which had newly recorded sound effects.

This is an issue of confusion over terminology, methinks.  The verb
'remaster' refers to a technical impossibility.  There is only one
'master', which is the disc, film stock or magnetic tape which receives the
original recording from a microphone.  The issue is made more complex when
because all of these 'masters' have to be 're-recorded' onto subsequent
carriers during the editing process, that will result in a 'final mix'
which is the copy from which cinema release prints are derived.

In the days of analogue sound recording the issue of re-recording was an
important one because of a phenomenon known as 'generational [or
replicative] fading'.  Simply put, this means that you cannot copy an
analogue waveform (be that sound or picture) with 100% accuracy and so any
such copy will be slightly degraded from the element it derives from.  With
digital that doesn't have to apply.  It is possible to copy a digital
recording number for number and make a 100% accurate copy without any
fading.  The equipment advertisers will tell you that this always
guaranteed to happen - in practice, a lot of cheap domestic equipment can
sometimes fail to read all the data accurately and thus will introduce
errors into the copies they make.  Anyone who has copied audio CDs using
their home PC will know from experience that every now and again, one comes
out with an unplayable track or two.  So even using digital technology, the
idea of a 'remaster' is not safe.  That is why professional technicians use
the term 're-record' and leave 'remaster' to the PR agencies who design the
covers for the video of 'Apocalypse Now - the second assistant foley
artist's continuity adviser's cut.'

while i agree with the ethical/aesthetic point
leo makes it's simply not true that good modern
amps produce hiss when they can't find a signal
 . . .  rather the hiss is almost certainy there in
the original recording but was inaudible to
listeners because neither the amps nor the
speakers of the time were capable of reproducing
it . . .

OK that was a simplification - it will 'produce' hiss by reading the latent
coercivity of the magnetic oxide, shellac pressing or variable area/density
waveform/opacity of processed filmstock in the unrecorded frequency bands
and then processing that as if it were a signal.  It's not just that older
playback equipment was unable to reproduce it: broadly speaking, older
recording equipment was unable to pick it up (although there are one or two
exceptions to this, e.g. the 42mm Tri-Ergon format, which reputedly had a
response curve of around 2-14,000KhZ).

L
------------------------------------
Dr. Leo Enticknap
Director, Northern Region Film and Television Archive
School of Law, Arts and Humanities
Room M616, Middlesbrough Tower
University of Teesside
Middlesbrough  TS1 3BA
United Kingdom
Tel. 01642 384022
Brainfryer: 07710 417383

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2