DCP-o-matic

I guess it's not easy to develop the proper strategy. You could just as well wait and recreate as issues come in.

- Carsten

e.g.

https://buy.auro-3d.com

https://schoeps.de/produkte/zubehoer/pl ... lugin.html

I see. That loudnorm filter does not just apply plain linear/peak normalisation, but also allows to apply dynamic compression. That explains why dynamic range also has been altered. From my judging of the curves, I would assume that the original/source version is better, the normalised version may e...

Which tool did you use for normalising? At -19 to -20 LUFS, both versions should be fine as far as complaint-level go. Wether a version with reduced dynamic range is better or not, I can not judge without listening to it. The normalised version has a higher overall RMS, around -20dB over the first t...

Hi Ioannis,


I sent you a link to two official 2:1 framing guides per forum personal message.

A mono source is very little to work on for an upmixer. DCP-o-matic can not do it. There are some commercial upmixers that are able to do some spectral and phase separations. They may make the track sound a bit more 'interesting', but usually don't make 'sense', as an L/C/R upmixer based on a stereo...

Again, this just an educated guess based on these graphs - the source version with everything hovering around -20dB RMS would probably be perceived as too loud. The normalised version looks better with average RMS between -30 and -20dB - however, I still don't understand how you achieved that. I hop...

Around -20 LUFS looks okay to me. When festivals mention reference levels, they typically only repeat what is common in cinema mastering. It is not their specific festival parameters. Just as festivals can not control creative aspects of the imagery of submissions, they are not to control the loudne...

That looks like a dual mono track. Two channels, but with more or less the same signal on both channels. Is this intended? What type of audio is it?