Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: EX. Does It Really Worth It

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » EX. Does It Really Worth It (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: EX. Does It Really Worth It

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-25-2001 04:08 AM

I agree Joe, that is a bad word to use. When I first read it I was like what are they saying.

One note from previous post when I said I have wires running off of the main unit for two speakers on the side to run mono surround. I did not mean running them at the same time as the split stereo rear channel sound. For one thing u can't do it when playing main unit in 5.1 sound.

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-25-2001 08:14 AM

Dolby EX...think,think,think,think

Ok if the sound mixers actually make use of it ie Toystory 2
but bad if its is wasted, Tailor of Panama, Chicken Run ect.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-25-2001 05:55 PM

So Mark claims that it can be impressive as all hell (this may not be a direct quote...so don't quote me)....

So there is one film in just over two years that has an impressive EX track? An animated one at that. I too would agree that Toy Story 2 and a very impressive track.

I would disagree that the SA-10 is impressive though.

And I stand by my statement that it is the worst bang for the buck (particularly for an upgrade...not so bad as a new installation when it is planned in).

For someone that is fussy about amplifier cost, I'm surprised that you would consider Surround-EX a wise purchase. It can be icing on the cake but it better had be pretty darn good cake first.

Steve

PS we too sell the EX thingy for under $2K....and have sold and installed quite a few; why, I still don't know.

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-25-2001 06:22 PM

I am for EX. I wouldn't say it is impressive as all hell, but it is definitely more impressive than 5 stage channels.

I have found that using an older Dolby processor with a cat150E or F card makes a better EX unit than the SA10. The CP200 (without Aux rack) is perhaps the easiest processor to modify for use as an EX processor. Just running the SRD tone loop or dts ES disc allows for levels to be tweeked from the regular processor's LS and RS outout on the meters in the CP200 processor, without having to mess with a multimeter (which isn't quite as accurate in my opinion). Two formats can be programmed in for standard bypass operation and for EX operation. Plus you get 1/3 octave EQing on all 3 surround channels!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-25-2001 07:05 PM

I HAVE to agree with Brad that EX is more impressive than 5 stage channels. I've never really noticed the SDDS "difference" on 8 channel mixes. It is subtle, even on large screens. I'm surprised Dolby didn't come up with a "box" that would take the left channel and the center channel, run them thru Pro-Logic to extract the LE channel and do the same for the RE channel.

Anyway, I'm sure that many will disagree with me on the 8 channel difference. For a new installation, though, why the hell not?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-25-2001 08:21 PM

Joe, I strongly agree with you earlier comment about how commercial theaters should have more advanced sound formats than what one has in a home system. I really wish the 10.2 Surround idea Tomlinson Holman was promoting some to back would take hold. Right now all the type seems to be behind DLP. And that is a pandora's box in and of itself. Any DLP Micromirror device Texas Instruments develops is going to quickly find its way into computer monitors, video projection systems for the home and not stay exclusive at all for movie theaters. Basically it will be easy for home theater to outdo digital cinema on both audio and video quality. The size of the screen (and ticket price at the box office) will be the only difference.

10.2 Surround is something that would work well for commerical theaters and would be designed specifically for commercial theaters. 5.1 channels or even 6.1 with a discrete back wall surround is more than enough for any home system. Commercial theaters have a much larger room with a lot more air to manipulate. More channels of sound are needed so more of the audience can hear the proper imaging of a film. With straight 5.1, you have to carefully choose your seat to get the right effect. 10.2 Surround will not make that seating choice quite so critical. Overall, the 10.2 thing will be an item theater operators can claim as an exclusive "only in theaters" kind of thing.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 06-25-2001 08:25 PM

A CP200 being used merely as an EX unit? That's.. that's... sacrilegious!

While I would never want to stop anyone from improving the sound in theaters, I sure wish people would start working on improvements with the picture.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-25-2001 11:25 PM

>>Wasn't EX part of the hype for the Star Wars Episode 1 release?
What will be the new "surprise inside" toy for Episode 2?<<

If ol' George has his way it will be a DLP-only release.

-AS

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-26-2001 12:19 AM

Well George has already stated that there will be release prints for episode II and III. He said you have to cover the market and that is not going to happen with digital projection at this time. These coments were reported on showbizdata's web site a couple of months ago.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-26-2001 04:02 PM

John,

Brad isn't saying to use a CP-200 for surround-EX...just that a CP-200 that has an AUX rack is an easy conversion...that is, within the Aux rack you can place an additional Cat. 150 and route the signals so that P and Q are the LS and RS channels..."S" becomes the EX channel so you can have Cat. 64s on all channels. He was stating how nice the CP-200 is and how flexible.

Now, for a homework assignment, figure out how to utilize the existing Cat. 150 within the Processing frame for the EX duties whilst playing digital...thereby saving on the cost of another Cat. 150.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-26-2001 06:09 PM

Actually Steve, what I was referring to above is using a CP200 without an Aux rack coupled with another processor (such as a CP65 or CP500) to achieve EX. However, your idea of using a CP200 with an Aux rack and placing the cat150 in the Aux rack (along with some other diode stuffing programming and wiring) is a fantastic idea as well. I think Dolby actually has a CP200 to EX conversion kit for this now.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-26-2001 10:09 PM

My God did I misread that one! I saw "Aux Rack" and jumped in since yes, Dolby does have an "EX" mod for those Aux Rack equipped. I couldn't imagine religating a CP-200 to EX duities..."...what a waste of machinery!" A CP-50 might be better suited if one were laying about.

Personally, I will go on record as saying 8-channel has MUCH more potential for a great mix than Surroud-EX...I'm not saying that they do great 8-channels but the potential certainly is there. One well panned dialogue film would imediately show a big difference between 5 and 3 screen channels....the same can not be said of Surround-EX where , at best, it is a gimmick. Had they gone for a 4 or 5 channel surround, then they could have pulled an effect down the theatre and out the back. I can't believe as many people on this forum think of EX so well....I guess different strokes for different folks <sigh>

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-26-2001 10:46 PM

What'chu'talkin'bout Steve?

The CP200 was laying around, had no Aux rack and no updated cards. I felt it senseless to pull a CP65 or CP500 to install an out of date CP200. Since the theater wanted EX and didn't want to let go of the CP200, I just used it to save them money. I would agree though that a CP50 would be a more financially smart way to obtain EX if something had to be purchased.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.