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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » quick guide to 35mm optical (mono vs. Dolby stereo) & Dolby Analog NR formats by year (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: quick guide to 35mm optical (mono vs. Dolby stereo) & Dolby Analog NR formats by year Bernard Tonks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-21-2006 05:09 AM                     quote: Michael Schaffer "Redende Bilder" (talking pictures) were first shown publically in Berlin on September 17, 1922 using a process called Triergon. The patent was then sold to the US where it became the basis for Fox Movietone. According to the BKSTS wall chart, the 1922 experimental sound-on-film Tri-Ergon system was on 42mm film with the soundtrack in the outside area of the perforations. I seem to remember Stephen Furley mentioning this in another thread. During the early 1960’s Elstree Studios and ABC Cinemas in the UK, experimented with a single track magnetic mono stripe completely covering over the optical track. This was short lived for first run halls. The idea was that the magnetic track could be washed off the prints for release in cinemas without magnetic sound.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-21-2006 06:44 AM                     While it does not amaze me, it does sadden me that someone creates a thread aptly named "Quick guide to 35mm optical/Dolby analog sound formats by year" and pretty much accomplishes that and then some people feel the need to not only drift off topic (common and sometimes benefitial, not really in this case) and spout out their knowledge base (or lack there of). Sorry to sound so pissy here but come on, where does Fantasound fit into the topic offered? It is an obsure format used on how many films? How is that a handy guide for anybody handling film? Fantasound has its place in movie history and is certainly worthy of discussion but not in this thread...it is a waste of space here and clouds the proper discussion. The same goes for Vitaphone. Certainly has its historical place, certainly worthy of discussion...certainly does not fall into a useful discussion for this thread. If one were to augment this thread, a more useful addition would have been Perspecta Sound since it is indeed 35mm optical and showed up on a great many non-magnetic films of its era...not just one film that happens to bear the same name...like Fantasound. I think what Brian started was good and useful and worthy of being expanded upon but most of what came after belongs in another thread or threads. I wish people would take a quick look at the topic before feeling the need to add some tidbit of info that really does not fit. This thread could be endless if all movie sound formats were given their full due...but it really wouldn't be a "Quick Guide" then, would it? Okay, I'm done venting...sorry to all the feelings I may have hurt. [ 09-21-2006, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-21-2006 08:12 AM                        quote: Michael Schaffer "Redende Bilder" (talking pictures) were first shown publically in Berlin on September 17, 1922 using a process called Triergon. The patent was then sold to the US where it became the basis for Fox Movietone. It's not quite as simple as that. Lee de Forest spent a year in Berlin (October 1921-September 1922) working on his own variable density system after having been approached by Vogt (one of the 'Tri Ergon') during the summer of 1921. The September '22 demonstration probably involved a hybrid of De Forest's sound camera, the Thallofide photocell and the Tri Ergon mechanism. The key Tri Ergon patent which was sub-licensed initially by De Forest and subsequently by Case and Fox was for the idling roller on the scanning drum in the projector, i.e. the mechanism for reducing wow and flutter caused by the action of converting intermittent film transport into continuous. To make matters even more complicated De Forest went into partnership with Theodore Case on his return to the US, and the system which De Forest Phonofilms, Inc. began to commercially exploit from April 1923 incorporated De Forest, Case and Tri-Ergon technology. De Forest and Case fell out with each other towards the end of 1925, at which point Case approached William Fox for R & D funding, to continue to develop optical sound himself. The end result was Fox Movietone. De Forest alleged that Case had taken some of his own patented technology with him: the resulting lawsuits dragged on well into the '30s, by which time it was all over bar the shouting. And Tri-Ergon were suing Fox for patent infringement all the while this was going on! Like so many pioneers whose work served mainly to pave the way for others, Lee de Forest was undercapitalised and just not that good a businessman.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 09-21-2006 12:03 PM                     quote: Leo Enticknap the system which De Forest Phonofilms, Inc. began to commercially exploit from April 1923 incorporated De Forest, Case and Tri-Ergon technology. Fairly typical of the way that things tend to happen; It's seldom possible to give a simple answer to a 'who invented something, and when' type of question. There are often several people working along similar lines, and elements of all their experimental systems get incorporated into what eventually becomes a commercial product. It's seldom possible to come up with a single name, date and place, and say that's when it happened. There really is no first sound film, or to put it another way, there are lots of different ones, depending on how you define the term. Do you include experimental or demonstration systems, and, if not, when do you consider that the technology has progressed beyond that stage?  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 09-21-2006 12:32 PM                     While Mr. DeForest did make some groundbreaking discoveries, he actually made a living patenting things that he did understand why they worked, and he had no idea of any practical implementation of his "invention". He would then sit back and wait for someone else to actually invent something that overlapped his patent, and then sue them for patent infringement in hopes of getting royalty payments. His buisness plan generally worked up until he went up against David Sarnoff's RCA, which fought him in court for years and eventually invalidated some of his key patents.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-21-2006 02:28 PM                        Various other naive inventors attempted to take on Sarnoff, too, and also ended up regretting it (Philo Farnsworth, for example)!  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 09-21-2006 03:39 PM                     Prior to DeForest / Case and the Europeans you had Eugene Lauste who had an optical variable area sound system on his experimental sound films. His problems where amplification, and a good sound pick up which came available in the early 1920's; just as the underfunded inventor's patents ran out. RCA, spawn from Edison's General Electric patent trust, used litigation on inventors, such as Howard Armstrong's of FM fame, so as not to disrupt their "market" investments....such as AM radio.  |  IP: Logged Charles Greenlee Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 801 From: Savannah, Ga, U.S. Registered: Jun 2006 posted 09-21-2006 09:03 PM                        I merely mentioned Fantasound and Vitascope as a corrction/addendum to the listed timeline. And since I was there, breifly explained why it was of note. Many spinoff technologies from Fantasound are still in use. Panpots and the Togad, which follow a direct line back to Fantasound are very much in use today, whether integrated and transparent to us, or ovbious. My intent, however, wasn't to cause a cascading deviation, and I'd hoped to maybe gotten a short comment back, and everything goes on. On topic now, looking at a modern mono print you have to be careful not to mistake it as a stereo print. We had a film come in when I was back at the Carmike 10, that was modern mono. It was unlabeled, and my manager told me it was stereo because it had the dual tracks. I spooled out several feet of film and showed him the difference. Eventually, the stereo tracks will be different, don't just check the first 5 frames in. Check it as you build it periodically. We played it during preview in both stereo, for a period, and mono(Gen) for a period and you can tell the difference.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-22-2006 07:32 AM                     Without dragging this too much further...you don't get it...Fantasound was neither an omission or a good correction...it simply had not place on the "quick guide"...the guide, as it was written was not a "history of film sound" but a handy guide for someone receiving a film. Listing an obscure though influential sound system does nothing for that but cloud the issue...heck a discussion on Fantasia and its many forms of soundtracks is discussion in its own right. As I said, Perspecta Sound would a better example of an omission...why? Because it showed up on many films and is quite possible that if one runs a reissue of a Perspecta Film that the control tones will still be on the optical soundtrack if they used the same master. These tones would trigger not only the subwoofer but also play havoc on an NR system if MONO was not selected. Furthermore, it is possible to use semi-modern equipment (any Dolby processor that used the Cat 150) to play these films in Perspecta (and I've done it multiple times) using 3rd Party Perspecta Decoders. But Fantasound? Historically significant, there has been a semi-recent playing of Fantasia in Fantasound (not using the original separate optical tracks) but it also has no place on a "quick guide" since it does not quickly guide anyone into a proper soundtrack playback.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-22-2006 11:27 AM                        If we're focusing on 'What does a projectionist need to know here and now?' issues, then I'd argue that the difference between variable area and variable density is definitely relevant, and recognising the different types of mono VA track (e.g. unilateral, bilaterial, dual bilateral, RCA duplex and shuttered NR) could be. As Charles points out, a dual bilateral mono track can look the same as SVA at first glance. Also, if a CP has the facility to play back format 02, then this can sometimes help thin VD tracks.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-22-2006 12:23 PM                     Leo...I'd abosolutely agree that the various types of optical tracks one may encounter is of concern and that VD and VA are important ones to cover. I'm surprised that you find that format 02 helps with VD tracks as I find them the quietest...the problem with them is that they have good exposure and they sound super clean or they are over/under exposed and sound distorted/muffled. Also VD tracks seem to be subject to "thumps" more than normal. Now I've found 02 to help with VA tracks that have been "previously enjoyed" or with sloppy application and other damage to the track...including red reader on conventional tracks...running with type-A NR on mono can take that edge off.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-22-2006 07:39 PM                     ...we could ALMOST throw "Sensurround" in the pot of boiling oil with Fantasound ... - a came and went format.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-22-2006 09:20 PM                     yet there were more sensouround titles than fanta sound  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-23-2006 02:14 AM                     Yea, Gord - they were pretty good titles from Universal..Earthquake, Midway, Rollercoaster..et.al. - in that auditorium shaking format ... (but, knowing of these very few releases by Universal is what made me choose the word ALMOST in my statement of Sensurround, for it did have an effect on the movie industry during the 70's, but not enough to carry it through for the duration..) thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Brian Dooda Film Handler Posts: 16 From: Brooklyn, New York / USA Registered: Aug 2006 posted 09-23-2006 11:34 AM                     Thanks for all the input. Yes, some of the conversation got a little off track but it all helped me edit and better define the objective of the guide. I would like to improve it but its difficult to consider any additions because it could quickly get bogged down in details and there are just so many exceptions. No matter how much information is in a format guide it can't tell you what type of sound track you're holding. It can help, but close physical inspection is the only way to do it and I don't want to go into how to do all that. I originally put the dates together because I was interested in how long it took for Dolby Stereo to catch on and then the same for Dolby SR and that's what the guide tells you. The different types of optical Mono are important and they can be learned about in the thread but I see them in this Mono vs. Stereo context of the guide as being lumped into the Mono side. They can all be considered 01 format and if we started subdividing the Mono's then we'd have to get into % of Mono films after 1974 that were 01-Academy Mono or 02-Dolby Mono. What I'm wondering about now is a footnote to the "1927-1975 - Mono" statement. Its accurate in that there were no Dolby Stereo releases in that era, but I would like to mention something about other stereo formats then. Maybe something like: *Although not Dolby Stereo, other "stereo" formats did exist on some major Hollywood films during these years, the most popular being Perspecta Sound (1954-1957) and Magnetic stereo (peaking between 1955-1965). I'd like to add that footnote (just to mention there was stereo before Dolby Stereo)but not go into what it means since it could mean a lot of things. I'm not sure if saying they could be used as a master for a later Dolby stereo print would be accurate. It sounds like a Perspecta Sound print would have to be remastered for it to work as Dolby stereo and some mag sound releases had a mono optical track which might be used in a optical rerelease. Last week I showed "Lust For Life". 1956 Kirk Douglas as Vincent Van Gogh. Originally a Perspecta Sound release, I found info from the negative on the leader dating the rerelease as 1990 and labelling the soundtrack as stereo so I showed it in dolby A stereo and it sounded fine so it must have been remastered right? Can someone tell me if 35mm magnetic stereo was ever used on flat releases, cause that could be helpful to know. Then one could say if you have a 35mm non-anamorphic film pre-1975, it would'nt have been stereo in any format except for Perspecta Sound (and aside from the handful of obscure film specific "carnival" stereo formats we're going to ignore), and Perspecta Sound is a kind of fake stereo anyway that would have to be remastered.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.