B5 Special Effects Remake (attempt)

Well i could understand that to a certain degree if it would be something official but come you cant be serious that you wouldnt want to see the omega i just posted in a remake.
If i would use the old Omega made by Matt Tarling it would defeat the purpose of a remake "attempt" because its low poly and not up to HD resolutions.

[TheTechMaster]

We don't need to use the one made by Matt Tarling, but we need it to MATCH the dimensions of Matt Tarling's model because IT was built directly based on the ORIGINAL one used in the series.

If the dimensions don't match Matt Tarling's, it should NOT be used.

And the thing is, there ARE super high-detail models which DO match the dimensions of Matt Tarling's model.

We simply need to use it.

The one i am using now is the best available Lightwave version of an Omega there is.
One has to be a little flexible in order for this to work. And i simply dont see the problem with its dimensions. I would understand it if it would look VERY different but it doesnt. Maybe you can explain this issue because i dont really understand it. Nothing can be 100% perfect.

[TheTechMaster]

I know for a fact that there is a better one out there, for lightwave, that is more accurate.

I'm just stuck at work at the website is blocked for me to look at it.

But it IS out there.

Are you sure that its a Lightwave mesh? Who made it?

[TheTechMaster]

Are you sure that its a Lightwave mesh? Who made it?

I told you, I'm at work and I cannot look it up.

Let me do that tonight after I get off work.

That sounds very nice Cant wait to hear some samples.

P.S. Back to rendering some close ups of the omega for TM

I have been a bit distracted with some other computer issues (my network here at PR Audio) and, then, by beginning to learn to use Audacity. But... OK! I am at least to the point with Audacity of being able to do simple recordings, frequency (spectrum) analysis of the material recorded, etc. So, I recorded part of that "Besieged" segment of "Severed Dreams", and also the cannon fire segment from Telarc's 1812 Overture. I was going to try to post a few of the spectrum analysis images, but for some reason I can't upload images to my website right now. (This happens not infrequently - I'll try again this evening.)

Basically, however, this (Audacity) is going to be a lot better way for me to post info. on "what's in the audio" and SHOULD provide me a convenient way to record and post before and after audio clips. I am not so sure about running things through the computer as any kind of final copy, though, as Audacity seems to be telling me there is significant very low frequency noise present in my computer's audio circuitry itself. It's not enough to hurt anything for general "messing around", but it looks like way too much for "audiophile quality" recordings. Ultimately that's not a problem - I'd most likely go from my best standalone CD player to the processing equip. (as described previously), and then into my standalone CD recorder. I'll probably build new subwoofers to assist in monitoring, and... I think what I really need to do is get the "high end" audio system I used to have at my other location put back together in my isolated (basement) lab that I have been building at my KY location. (That's "isolated" as in audio isolation / insulation, not as in a hermit living up in the hills!!! It [the lab] IS a good place to retreat to, though, when I need to really concentrate on something. )

That sounds very nice Cant wait to hear some samples.

P.S. Back to rendering some close ups of the omega for TM

I have been a bit distracted with some other computer issues (my network here at PR Audio) and, then, by beginning to learn to use Audacity. But... OK! I am at least to the point with Audacity of being able to do simple recordings, frequency (spectrum) analysis of the material recorded, etc. So, I recorded part of that "Besieged" segment of "Severed Dreams", and also the cannon fire segment from Telarc's 1812 Overture. I was going to try to post a few of the spectrum analysis images, but for some reason I can't upload images to my website right now. (This happens not infrequently - I'll try again this evening.)

Basically, however, this (Audacity) is going to be a lot better way for me to post info. on "what's in the audio" and SHOULD provide me a convenient way to record and post before and after audio clips. I am not so sure about running things through the computer as any kind of final copy, though, as Audacity seems to be telling me there is significant very low frequency noise present in my computer's audio circuitry itself. It's not enough to hurt anything for general "messing around", but it looks like way too much for "audiophile quality" recordings. Ultimately that's not a problem - I'd most likely go from my best standalone CD player to the processing equip. (as described previously), and then into my standalone CD recorder. I'll probably build new subwoofers to assist in monitoring, and... I think what I really need to do is get the "high end" audio system I used to have at my other location put back together in my isolated (basement) lab that I have been building at my KY location. (That's "isolated" as in audio isolation / insulation, not as in a hermit living up in the hills!!! It IS a good place to retreat to, though, when I need to really concentrate on something. )

To all,

BTW, I'll show some ignorance here*: When I play the 3rd Season B5 DVD on my computer, the video is a lot more, uh, "grainy" when in full screen mode, than it is when I am playing it on our 27" JVC TV (crt). The input to the TV is the usual composite video, coming off our Samsung DVD player / recorder (usually - sometimes we use a cheapo Norcent DVD player for playback only situations.) The computer monitor is an "ok" Acer X221W (21" wide screen). The "player" is the "HP DVD Player". I also tried the VLC player (less grain, but many more horizontal line artifacts in areas of motion.) I also tried Windows Media Player & Real Player - I think they it might be best -- less grain than the HP Player, and not so many artifacts as VLC. BUT they don't go truly full screen, so the smaller image might be why they look better.

That does not explain why the much larger TV screen looks so much better for it's size (less grainy, and, I'll have to look more closely, but I think those artifacts are also less.)

Note that this is on std. video (people, faces, etc.), not the CGI in particular.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the TV has video filtering (comb filters?) or video noise reduction that cleans up the images. But if anyone has more correct information, or could explain further, or offer suggestions, I'd like to learn.

*As I've said, I'm an audio guy, not so much a video guy (obviously). But, I can appreciate good video quality, just as I believe most people can appreciate good audio quality, if it is demonstrated to them.

Awwww... NUTS!

I still can't get images or media to upload to my website. We've never had an extended problem with this before - I'm not sure what's wrong. Will try again this weekend, maybe earlier if I get a chance.

Hmmm... I had to use a different computer to post the following images on my website, but, it did work...


Here's what the "Frequency Analysis" looks like on Audacity, when the Alexander (incorrectly shown as the Churchill?*) takes a hit:



This result varies somewhat with the exact time window chosen to be analyzed (some better, some worse), but, generally, it's pretty clear that the low end is rolled off. Just for clarity I drew in an arow at 87 Hz on the frequency grid. This might be best for a dinky computer speaker, but it will never do, to impress anyone or even be halfway realistic.


Now take a look at an analysis of a cannon shot from the Telarc CD of the 1812 Overture:



Note that I extended the low frequency scale to 5 Hz - woohoo! Again, I would point out that not even I am going to build a subwoofer that goes down to 5 Hz. BUT, 30 Hz is most certainly atttainable by a good subwoofer in a home system. 20 Hz is attainable by a good sub in a car system, or by a VERY good sub in a home system, or, by a good "shaker". (A very good shaker should be able to go to 5 Hz, though I don't know if any affordable ones actually do.)


Also interesting is a display of sound level vs. time. Here is what a full 18 seconds of part of the "Besieged" segment looks like:




And for comparison, the cannon from the 1812 Overture:



It's not too hard to tell where the "special audio effects" are in the latter!

Now the next question is if there is "enough" low freq.material in the B5 soundtrack to work with (enhance / synthesize based off what's there.) Getting a strong response to 30 Hz or below is the "target". That should be interesting...

*P.S. This is immediately before the dialog "Direct hits to decks 14 and 15" and the people on the Alexander are bounced around a bit: I suppose this "impact" could supposedly be due to some sort of (magnetic?) shock wave from a hit to the Churchill, and "decks 14 and 15" could refer to the Churchill, but the impression I get watching is certainly that the Alexander is the ship hit, and the B5 CGI people got mixed up on the ships names when showing the "hit" externally. They did the same sort of name swap / confusion with the attacking Earthforce vessels, later, of course.

Someone may argue, there could be two separate hits, one on each ship, I suppose. But, no matter - If the crew of the Alexander is being "shaken up" (vibrated) for whatever reason, and the audio is supposed to make the viewer sense that, then that audio really needs some work.[/img]

BTW, the above images are a little more easily viewed, but at lower quality, @ http://praudio.com/site/b5-3rd-season-a ... alysis-p1/
(Scroll down.)

That sounds very nice Cant wait to hear some samples.

P.S. Back to rendering some close ups of the omega for TM

Hi, LW,

I thought I'd posted this question, but, possibly I messed up.

The question is, what do you have for stereo gear? Or do you have a friend with a good clean system and subs capable of fairly high output down to 30 Hz or so?
Anybody?

Also, to all: I am looking at the possiblity of generating some low frequency information as a new "track" that could be added to what's already there. However, I don't know about the legality of that, should it be made "public". Does anyone here know? I have a friend (musician / producer) whom I can try to ask, also... I'm thinking there may be a distinction between audio "processed" and audio to which new (creative?) material has been added, but, then again, maybe not. (No, I am not looking to get paid for "creative content" -- the opposite -- I don't want to run afoul of some licensing organization if this is really sucessful!)

Here's an interesting article on music performance rights licensing agencies & legalities:

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essay ... itics.html

Possibly this project might fall under one of the exemptions (until a DVD makes it's way to CES, perhaps?)

Anyway, I'll try to find some time to start trying to play around with it (adding a low frequency track). I'm expecting to have to experiment with it a fair amount, to get a good result, and I don't really know, without trying, if that (adding a new track) really will work best.

Would this adjustment to my soundcard have the same effect?


Concerning for worries about the legal stuff, i am not sure but i dont think that releasing it to a wide public ould be legal. I might be wrong tho.
@TM was that you posting on the F3D Forums?

Hi, LW,

It's a little hard to say, since I'm not sure at what frequency / frequencies the boost is occurring at. My guess is that the "large" speakers bass boost might be fairly low. (Is there maybe even a further selection, such as "subwoofer" or something like that?) And a further question is how selective the boost is: If there is nearly as much boost at 100 Hz as, say, 40 Hz, you'll get more "whomp", but it'll be hard to make the stuff under, say, 50 Hz or so stand out. That is because the upper bass may still be stronger than the low bass, AND, the ear hears upper bass more easily than low bass. Even if both are present, the upper bass seems stronger / the lower bass weaker. Further yet, higher bass frequencies tend to mask lower bass frequencies.

Then the other question is whether your speakers can "take it" and whether they have a fairly flat response that goes low. If they can't, the boost may not help much or may even do more harm than good.

Yet another factor is amplifier power: In a home system with big efficient speakers that also can go pretty low, 100-200 watts continuous rms / side would start getting you there.

Still, I'd say carefully give it a try. My best guess is that you can get SOME improvement, if you have good speakers and a good amp. For initial purposes, I'd say putting the "cutoff" at 30 Hz is likely ok. If the speakers seem to get into trouble, try a little higher. If not, try maybe 25 Hz.

I am a little unsure about posting something like a clip from the 1812 Overture here*, but, what I can try to do is generate and record some sort of low frequency "burst", sort of what I might try to start with as a track to add to something like a B5 battle sequence.

*It (the 1812) would be a stunning comparison on speakers that can handle it... TM, what do you think (about posting a few seconds of the 1812)? (I myself do not have an ASCAP / BMI license.) There is a ton of music / audio on youtube - much of it poor quality I would add. But I assume youtube pays ASCAP / BMI license fees.(?)