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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » when customers compare home with cinema (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: when customers compare home with cinema Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-29-2003 06:55 PM                     quote: "it doesn't matter." This was actually the response I got (twice) when I complained to the usher at the rear of the auditorium that the picture was off frame and out of focus!  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-29-2003 07:05 PM                        quote: I have a question. What are the real differences between DTS,SDDS and Dolby Digital?? The real differences between the formats are that they use different coding techniques to reduce the amount of data required to store the sound information. Dolby`s is the most compressed but that does not necessarily mean it is the worst-sounding. Most people can`t tell the difference between the 3 formats and you would have to listen to the same material on the same sound system in the same room to compare them. dts uses a coding technique which codes the differences between samples. It only stores 5 channels and puts the subwoofer information in the surround channels. It is directed to the subwoofer via a crossover. SDDS encodes all 8 channels seperately with a lossy compression technique called ATRAC which is the professional version of the same codec used in MiniDisc. In my humble view, the audio quality is best with SDDS due to the quality of the processor hardware. But the difference to dts is only marginal. The main advantage of SDDS would be the 5 screen channels if they were used more regularly by the industry. Oddly, a lot of people complain about the demise of 70mm but not about the loss of the 5 screen channel configuration even though it is MUCH better. Dolby is a very effective and practical technology but there are two drawbacks: Dolby uses Parametric Bit Allocation which means the bit pool is shared by the channels. Whichever channels need more bits get them. In those rare situations where there is full action on all the channels, there aren`t enough bits for all of them and you can hear that very clearly because the surround channels are less present than on dts and SDDS. The other drawback in my opinion is that the audio hardware is often less good than desireable for a professional application.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-29-2003 07:16 PM                        quote: Oddly, a lot of people complain about the demise of 70mm but not about the loss of the 5 screen channel configuration even though it is MUCH better. I'd complain about the loss of 3 screen channels first! Big screens and hard center dialouge sucks! I know the problem is 'jumping dialouge' but it'd be nice if the extra money was spent to mix the digital track with directional dialouge. Yeah, I know, fat chance.  |  IP: Logged Karen Hultgren Master Film Handler Posts: 492 From: Agoura Hills, CA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-29-2003 07:23 PM                        There are two main differences between DTS and the other two formats: (1) DTS sound is on CD-ROM discs instead of on the film and (2) DTS has the lowest compression rate of all three. Demetris - thanks! You're *the* man! ;-) Karen at DTS khultgren@dtsonline.com  |  IP: Logged William Leland III Master Film Handler Posts: 336 From: Charleston, SC, Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-29-2003 08:14 PM                        Thanks for the quick answers.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-29-2003 11:18 PM                        quote: DTS has the lowest compression rate of all three. Can dts for DVD also encode just two channels like Dolby?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-30-2003 03:29 AM                       quote: 'surrounds not working.' This harkens back to something I noticed a long time ago, when Dolby Stereo started to gain popularity. The primary reason that people assume surround speakers should be heard 100% of the time is because they can SEE them. They see those speakers up there and conclude that they are just an extention of the main screen speaker, to "get the sound to them" better or whatever. Theatres with recessed and/or camoflaged surrounds, like some of the earlier General Cinemas and Redstone used to have, don't get these complaints nearly as much.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-30-2003 07:30 AM                        Playing one of the digital sound snipes before the feature also demonstrates that the surrounds are working, so people in the audience won't feel the theatre's sound system is "defective" when the feature mix doesn't emphasize the surrounds.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-30-2003 05:46 PM                     quote: dts uses a coding technique which codes the differences between samples. Actually, that is the description of Delta Modulation coding, which was used in the Cinema Digital Sound process. Linear PCM data requires 16 bits per sample (or more depending recording/encoding process). Each sample is referenced against a zero db level. Delta Modulation can be reduced to 1-bit per sample (but require more samples). Each sample is referenced to the intensity of the previous sample. Theatrical DTS uses a simple waveform codec, whose basis still lies in compressing/decompressing Linear PCM. DTS theatrical's APT-X100 algoritm has a 4:1 compression ratio and the highest data level per channel of all the three digital formats. SDDS has approximately a 5:1 compression ratio. The Professional ATRAC coder is an "adaptive transform" coder. I suppose that is different from Dolby Digital's "cosine transform" process. Both can take audio samples, rotate them 90 degrees out of phase and make a higher level of audio compression possible. But that can also result in artifacts that have to be psychoacoustically masked. I don't know about DTS Theatrical being able to do 2 channel only stuff --perhaps other than a sound mixer only using the L and R stage channels. We've seen Woody Allen use all three digital formats and only code into the C channel. The DTS Coherent Acoustics home theater codec can encode two channel material at either 377kb/s or 508kb/s. The rack mount encoder DTS sells can encode material in that 2.0/2.1 mode. It also does 5.0/5.1 at 754kb/s and 1509kb/s for DVD and 1234kb/s 44.1kHz for music CD. Does anyone know if any third party sound products, such as plug-ins for Pro Tools, can do DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete encoding? I'm under the impression any such work must be handled directly by DTS. While I'm on the subject of DTS --I can't believe it has already been 10 years since the format debuted!  |  IP: Logged Karen Hultgren Master Film Handler Posts: 492 From: Agoura Hills, CA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-30-2003 07:19 PM                        Yes, Bobby, we are celebrating our 10-year anniversary this year! It will be 10 years for me at DTS this April. How time flies! Karen at DTS khultgren@dtsonline.com  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-30-2003 07:56 PM                     Karen, Congradulations! Shouldn't that have been How Time Code Flys?????? Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-30-2003 09:27 PM                        quote: Actually, that is the description of Delta Modulation coding, which was used in the Cinema Digital Sound process. I think you are right, I must have confused that.  |  IP: Logged Duncan Smith Film Handler Posts: 50 From: England Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-31-2003 01:21 PM                     Some very interesting posts, getting back to the "surround issue", I believe that a well known manufacturer of cinema audio equipment here in the UK supplied a monitor panel for the projection box with a "surround trim" fader on it so that the projectionist could boost or attenuate the surround channel by a few dB. I not only found this quite appalling but every cinema I visited that had this fader, had them all turned up to the max! In my earlier projection career I began in a multplex where I initiated a simple but effective training program for the FoH staff so that they could answer the punters basic questions and also help me out too. I was single manning an 8 screener and it made a huge difference to have staff recognise basic technical issues and describe them for me instead of the obligatery "the picture's gone funny in #4" remark on the radio. Beleive it or not, most of the staff really enjoyed the training and some wanted to persue a projection career afterwards. It certainly cut down on the amount of customer meetings I had which can't be bad!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-31-2003 06:11 PM                     Having surround channels jacked way up is just silly. The optimal thing is BALANCE. In theaters where the surrounds are carefully set in balance with the stage channels (and that being roughly 3db lower than the stage channels), the sound will usually be very good --assuming of course EQ was properly set from the start. Most folks I know with 5.1 home theater systems have not bothered to tinker with their receiver's pink noise meter and adjust surrounds properly. Since the listening spaces of most home theaters are pretty irregular, the factory default settings rarely ever do. Sometimes surrounds have to be attenuated up and on occasion they must be lowered.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 02-01-2003 02:54 AM                        A lot of people also have the surround speakers just behind their sofas so they act almost like headphones.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.