Actually, from what he says in the 3rd paragraph, one could infer that the mag mixes were in fact probably different from the optical mix. Talking about Jurassic Park, he says they worked their magic for the 5.1 digital format first, then took that and ran it through the magic box to create an optical mix.

 |  IP: Logged

>Wasn't the Six tracks on a 70MM print derived as
>L,LE,C,RE,R,SUR....with the LE,RE serving as both
>a sub info and an extra left and right for behind the screens.

Well...not for behind the screen. If you're talking about a split surround print (Format 43) the mid's and high's on LE and RE are for the surrounds, to be combined with low end picked off track 6, which is the full range, mono surround while the low end on both those tracks is the sub info you refer to. The surrounds are stereo in terms of mid and high only with the low end being the same on both channels. On the more common "Baby Boom" (Format 42) print, LE and RE are low end only.

A theatre not equipped for split surrounds getting a Format 43 print just plays the boom part of LE and RE and the mono surround track.

>Basically you had 5 sets of speakers behind the screen for
>L,LE,C,RE,R and you had mono surrounds and Sub bass also
>carried on LE, RE

Right but the screen speakers for LE and RE would be LF cabinets only UNLESS the theatre was also supporting traditional Todd-AO style soundtracks (5 screen channels, 1 surround) or the Dolby version of it (same thing but with noise reduction, Format 41).

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Attendance : UGC Cinemas Sheffield Screen 2 SR*D

quote:

---

Huh? How many "5.1" 70mm mag releases were there besides the 2001 print 5 or 6 years ago?

---

Was this 5.1 70mm print format given a special Dolby Format number? I think I read somewhere that this was the only 5.1 70mm format print(s?) ever run for a title. It may have been from an article or post you wrote at another site. Was there a reason for the odd format (as opposed to the 70mm SS format?)

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged