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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Will DTS XD10 end SDDS? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Will DTS XD10 end SDDS? Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-21-2004 10:08 AM                     Mark, If you did an in-depth study...you'd find that there are more 8-channel theatres out theatre than you'd imagine. There are many out here for sure...mostly AMC in the SDDS-8 front. Steve  |  IP: Logged Alan Haigh Film Handler Posts: 45 From: Watford, UK Registered: Jul 2003 posted 05-21-2004 11:11 AM                    Steve point is true in the UK too. There aren't that many SDDS screens, but of what there are, about a quarter are 8 channel. I think it wouldn't have been any more expensive to do a 3 to 5 upmix, but surely this would just make the image narrower. Anyway there have been some very recent 8 channel films (well, last year, but still well after the mythical SDDS death knell). Namely MIB2, Charlies Angels 2 and T3 - enough of football results.  |  IP: Logged Dean Kollet Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 591 From: Florida State University Registered: Jul 2003 posted 05-21-2004 04:24 PM                     quote: Michael Schaffer if the SDDS system had had steering capabilities to "upmix" 3 to 5 channels I was playing around on the SDDS config. program on my laptop and there is an option to Matrix the 2 extra channels...is that for testing only or...?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-21-2004 06:42 PM                     Steve, I agree, there are alot of 5 screen channel systems in some areas but there are also none in some areas. We happen to have quite a few out here, around 15 or so, only because we have installed them. Had we not persued selling those systems they would not exist either. The other problem is with those sites actually getting the 8 channel prints! That bombs out many times too, they don't seem to strike enough of them to go around. Mark  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-21-2004 07:09 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen The other problem is with those sites actually getting the 8 channel prints! That bombs out many times too, they don't seem to strike enough of them to go around. Mark, ALL prints are the same. If the movie was mixed in 8 channel SDDS, then every print will carry that information. That is the whole purpose of providing the "fold down" in the SDDS setup software, so that non-8 channel auditoriums can simply fold down those extra two screen channels into the three. This is also why sound mixers do not want their 8 channel movies played in SDDS in 6 channel auditoriums. The fold down does more damage to their mix than playing the film in SRD or DTS.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-21-2004 07:23 PM                        Dean, check Brad's response right above mine. That should answer your question. Also, how does "folding down" the extra channels damage the mix so much? Granted it won't be as good as having 5 real speakers behind the screen, but doesn't the fold down simply play the Left Extra channel at 50% in the Left and 50% in the Center? Kind of like how a "mono" sound in a stereo system is represented at equal volumes in both speakers? I can see how it would be bad news if the speakers were wired out of phase by some moron.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-21-2004 07:41 PM                  >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-22-2004 01:05 AM                        quote: Dean Kollet I was playing around on the SDDS config. program on my laptop and there is an option to Matrix the 2 extra channels...is that for testing only or...? What you saw was probably the "analog stereo narrow" option which uses the LE and RE channels as L and R for optical. A situation where this might be used would be on a very large screen when you play in 1:85 and feel the L and R are too far out to give you a good constant coverage. Or when you play external video sources with a matrixed soundtrack.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-22-2004 07:13 AM                     Joe, It is not that fold-down "damages the mix." It is that fold-down is static -- the same amount of LC and RC are folded into L,C,R at all times. But when the sound mixer mixes for 5-channel, they can vary the amount as appropriate for the scene, so sometimes LC might go all the way into L, or might be 30%/70% L/C or 50%/50%, etc. So the 5-channel mix will be better sounding than the 8-channel mix folded down. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Robbie Hidalgo Film Handler Posts: 47 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: Dec 2003 posted 05-22-2004 12:32 PM                     Hmmm...interesting conclusion, but not exactly accurate. The fold-down matrix simply distributes content previously allocated to LC/RC between the L/R and C channels. However, if a mixer pans information from the extras to L or C or R in some degree, the content's motion is still reflected in the fold down and would be reproduced accordingly. In this regard, fold-down remains completely dynamic. If I pan a sound previously 100% allocated to LC, and move it, say, 70% to L, the matrix will correspondingly represent the content's movement exactly as it is recorded. It does not "take over" control of the mixers movement or placement within the sound field. It's really just emulating the existance of the extras, not creating it. One conceptual benefit of this method is the ability to produce a phantom LC and RC image for an 8 channel print in a 5.1 house. So it is possible that the contrary could be argued, that an 8 channel mix can potentially make a 5.1 house sound better than a 5.1 mix can by providing LC/RC imaging that would otherwise not be there. Then again, it is absolutely true that an 8 channel mix, monitored in 8 channels on the stage, will have slightly more accurate LC/RC imaging than the same mix folded down in a 5.1 environment. Nevertheless, considering that 4:2:4 matrix encoding/decoding has been accepted as a theatrical audio reproduction norm for decades, the 8 to 5.1 fold-down is actually a fairly innocuous function, comparitively speaking. Alot of subjectivity involved in such a debate of course (he said as he ducked his head...)  |  IP: Logged Alan Haigh Film Handler Posts: 45 From: Watford, UK Registered: Jul 2003 posted 05-24-2004 03:30 PM                    The fold down in SDDS is obviously a fixed ratio, but it's one which was decided on by listening and comparing. I think it's something like LC goes -6dB to L and -12dB to centre, but I'm not certain. Anyway the idea is to create 2 "phantom" speakers, which sound the same (if you're sitting in the middle, of course!). I can't think of a reason why a mixer would want to do anything else than this in his/her mix. There is no analogue-style matrixing going on, so you won't have extraneous signals etc. Most mixers I've worked with ask me what the SDDS box does and then emulate that when they fold it down for the other formats.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-24-2004 05:37 PM                     "I can't think of a reason why a mixer would want to do anything else than this in his/her mix." Suppose you have an effect which you want to come from (somewhat) left of center, but you want to make sure that no component of that sound actually comes from center. In SDDS-8 mix you can mix that sound into LC, and in a 5.1 mix you can put it all in L (with less gain, perhaps, than you might put into LC). But when SDDS-8 is folded down to SDDS-5.1, some of your effect will go into the center channel, and depending on where people are sitting and phasing effects in the theatre, etc., etc., some people may hear the sound coming from the center. I don't mean to say I think this is a huge deal or a terribly large effect, and I don't think that Larry Blake is losing sleep over his 8-channel mixes being folded down. Nonetheless, if he has the flexibility to direct the fold-down nonstatically in ways that make sense for him, then, all other factors being equal (which they usually are, or better-than-equal, when we compare SRD and SDDS...), why not go with his chosen mix? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-24-2004 11:36 PM                     In about half of the 8 channel releases I've seen there is a note from the sound mixers saying "if you have an 8 channel SDDS auditorium please play it in this format - if you do not have 8 channel capability, please choose SRD or DTS for your playback format if you are so equipped".  |  IP: Logged Mike Perju Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Nov 2002 posted 05-25-2004 08:52 PM                     AMC in Toronto has been replacing their DFP-3000s with CP-650s in the last couple of months.  |  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.