|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 6 Track Magnetic vs 6 Track Digital
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-04-2011 03:49 PM
Wow, a lot of posts were made in this thread over the past day.
Regarding DTS on Laserdisc and Tom's assertion doing DTS was terribly expensive a number of different companies had outboard decoders or "surround controllers" that didn't cost all that much money. I remember Technics selling a DD/DTS decoder that cost only a couple hundred bucks. Couple that to a "Dolby Digital ready" receiver with 5.1 channel inputs and you were all set for 5.1 in DD and DTS at an affordable price.
I could have sworn Audio Design Associates sold an outboard DTS-only decoder as well as DD-only decoders. But a lot of ADA's stuff wasn't exacly cheap. But like I said earlier, LD collectors weren't cheapskates either.
***
Onto center channel dialog:
quote: Manny Knowles
At least the center speaker isn't (usually) above or below by more than a few inches, whereas left/right speakers are often displaced by more than a few feet to either side of the screen edges.
My L and R channel front tower speakers are positioned around 12" to 15" from the left and right edges of my TV set. They were very near the left and right edges when I had my larger 52" TV set. That might not be just like everyone else's setup, but it's not rare either.
The point remains that it is possible to pan dialog in the three front stage channels both in home theater and commercial theaters. Dialog doesn't have to stay permanently locked in the center channel. I don't think anyone is suggesting dialog come from a hard left or hard right channel position either. If the moment in the movie is right to position dialog somewhere besides hard, front center then the director and sound designer should have the latitude to be creative. A purist philosophy of "dialog must always be in the center channel" can easily be taken farther and father until you're Woody Allen funneling 100% of the audio out of the center channel.
***
Going to Dolby Digital:
quote:
To do this, Dolby used a reel of THE FUGITIVE (1993 - Harrison Ford) in SR-D. They played the second reel (I think) -- the one with that massive train crash. I am sure that was meant to impress everyone, but what an embarrassment -- it was WAY too loud. The sound of the screeching metal against metal was excruciating. I mean people were holding their ears it was so painful.
The specs on Dolby Digital boasted 144db of dynamic range. But when the bit rate of that 5.1 track was crushed down to 320kb/s I imagine it had to contribute some to the harshness of the experience. Digital cinema and Blu-ray are doing much to get rid of lossy compressed sound. Now if only things could get better in the way most movie theater sound systems are managed. Then the improvement might be really worthwhile instead of hardly making a difference.
***
Now, onto DTS and Star Wars: SE.
quote: Steve Guttag
Lets see if there is the "Lucas Bump" in here. Looking at the 95-96 years. DTS increased 37% (1217 installations)...so, if anything the Lucas "bump" was actually a pot hole for DTS...they did better without the Special Editions the previous year. Note, Dolby was on the rise that year too since they saw a 136% increase in sales or 979 units.
A great deal of that credit goes to the introduction of the Dolby CP500 cinema processor in 1996. That, in conjunction with the then on-going stadium seated theater building boom, helped Dolby Digital overtake DTS on installation count by the end of the 1990s.
When DTS built up its installation base it was typically doing so only a screen or two at a time at lots of theater sites, often in existing theater sites. The stadium seated theater building boom was giving Dolby Digital a 12, 16, 20 or 24 screen pop at many new movie theater sites. The stadium seated theater building binge eventually plunged several major chains into bankruptcy. But Dolby Digital benefitted big time. It was more simple and straight forward to select a CP500 for every house in the new "megaplex" rather than mix and match various digital sound formats with various cinema processor models.
I remember some circuits like Century Theaters installing all three digital sound formats on every screen and doing THX certification. But quad format prints, corporate buyouts, etc. brought a lot of that nonsense to an end!
***
Then 70mm, which is getting closer to the original topic:
quote: Steve Guttag
The argument about 70mm never reaching as many people is a non-starter. It was NEVER designed to reach everyone...it was always supposed to be special...most folks had to come to it.
More than just a few people were willing to do that. When I lived in New York City, I preferred commuting into Manhattan to see movies in 70mm rather than see them in 35mm at some multiplex much closer to home on Staten Island. Big fans of 70mm often wind up traveling significant distances to see the show. I've driven 200 miles each way to see 70mm movies in Dallas. Some people will fly across the country for the pleasure.
Not every venue is worthy of a 70mm print. If one goes out of his way to see a movie in 70mm the customer kind of expects to see the movie on a pretty big screen and encounter a better than usual movie-going environment.
quote: Robert Throop
In your list you have "Dances with Wolves" as a 70mm SR release. Where did this play in 70mm?
I seem to remember hearing about a 70mm SR print being shown at a few places in Europe. I certainly do not remember any 70mm SR engagements here in the US during that movie's original run. I watched Dances With Wolves in Manhattan (at Loews Paramount Plaza); it was a Dolby SR optical show. NYC didn't have any 70mm prints, much to my disappointment.
There's others on that list that are bigger head-scratchers. I know Robocop was one of the first 35mm Dolby SR optical releases. But I don't remember it ever having 70mm prints. I certainly never saw any NY or LA movie stack ads suggesting it. IMDB says Robocop had 70mm Dolby mag prints. If it did, maybe those 70mm played in Europe or somewhere else. I know there were no 70mm prints of Robocop in New York during its original run.
The asterisk in all of this may be a difference in archived print masters versus release print orders. There may be more than a few movies from the 1980's and early 1990's that have 6-track Dolby A or SR 35mm full coat print masters yet no 70mm blow up prints.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-05-2011 08:22 AM
Perhaps...however...the quantity of Dolby Digital capable processors out in the world, combined with Dolby digital capable readers out there would tend to give it longevity for a VERY long time...unless EVERY DA20, CP500 and CP650 made it into the landfill. Certainly many, if not most will end up there...but there should be ample supply to keep a legacy room going for the foreseeable future.
Whereas the patents have probably already have expired and it is quite possible that such a decoding can or will be able to be done in software, it would almost be strictly a capture issue...which is relatively stale technology (video).
DTS technology would actually be the easiest to keep in the future as it is the simplest to keep on the film and also "read" off of the film. At that point playing back the discrete version of the sound becomes little to no issue for even a "basic" computer of today. So I guess, DTS has a future in film cinema after all. It will likely be the only 70mm player too. DTS can also play any track configuration that may have existed and resides in a vault somewhere.
One thing is for sure...SDDS will not be the legacy format...it is the most difficult to lay down and pick up. It also has the smallest of the installed base and has already seen many units go to the landfill. Support of it (both electrical and mechanical) has been minimal and will likely cease all together pretty soon. After all, what does it have to offer to the film house of the future that Dolby or DTS does not provide better?
As for Dolby "winning" due to compression...that is wrong. Dolby "won" for many reasons...not the least of which was full studio backing as well as trading on Dolby brand name...which had built up a deserved reputation. Also, do not miss on what Sam had posted earlier...the CP500 was very instrumental in this. Look at the sales pre and post CP500. With the CP500 you got a more modern processor that handled analog and digital and cost LESS than buying them separately. Add in that you could buy most ANY brand projector with the Dolby Digital reader built in for less than a Penthouse (particularly the pricey Cat 699 that the system debut with)...it pretty much made it VERY easy for Dolby to capture new-builds...you order the Dolby processor and have your projector equipped with Dolby digital from the factory...there was no extra effort for an exhibitor to put in Dolby digital. The other two brands had to play catch-up on having their own "single-box" solution. DTS' 6AD probably cost them more sales than it got...aside from audio quality issues, it has severe reliability issues...all it could really offer was "low-cost." SDDS, with the DFP-R3000 did offer a credible processor that was decent on the sound...except for NR2 (SR) but kept SDDS as the most costly system to install. The R3000 reader, when it first came out had tracking issues and like the 2000 reader has wear problems with its sprocket. At least with the R2000 reader, one could use a Hardcoat sprocket...the R3000 decided to use magnets to "stabilize" the film instead of somethine easy...like a flywheel...thus their sprocket has stress all over it. It doesn't take long for it to start to "sing" from being undercut.
There...except for this sentence, I don't think I mentioned 6-track magnetic or even 6-track digital, specifically!
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-05-2011 12:59 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
As for Dolby "winning" due to compression..
Acutally compression gave the Dolby a big advatange. Prints came with the soundtrack (no need to change disks, move disks, make disks or ship disks), DTS laserdisc took up both digital tracks so DTS discs were useless to those who wanted digital sound on laserdisc unless they had DTS (add in a commentary to the disc and DTS laserdsics have a very limited range for consumers), DVD with DTS had to compromise of some space to include the DTS tracks, Dolby Digital 5.1 could be made by the consumer on a home computer (not sure if DTS could do this
Does anyone remember the DTS dvds that had 3hr plus movies placed on two discs. Dolby 5.1 movies usually were on the one disc
Dolby was all over the place in autombiles for sound, home computers, satelite HD tv, video game etc. Dolby even had headphones with the Dolby 5.1 on it.
This happened because it was easier to implement.
DTS on the other hand has now become more maintstream but early on, Dolby was everywhere.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-05-2011 01:58 PM
quote: Ben Wales
Long term, I wonder what the future holds for any venue that will be able to screen any 35mm & 70mm Legacey Prints, I suspect we will be only looking at handfull places in most countries, once the switch to Digital is completed.
I wonder about this as well, especially with 2K digital being blown up on giant sized screens. The highest end theaters seem to be installing digital projection capability alongside the legacy film projection gear. The run of the mill multiplex sites are replacing their film projection gear with digital. Small, independent theater operations are trying to get on board with digital out of fear 35mm film print availability will vanish. At some point soon, movie distributors will just start sending only digital virtual print hard discs (or beaming the movie via satellite) rather than shipping a print.
A lot of of "catalog" movie titles are being scanned and mastered for Blu-ray release. But those video masters can be dubbed off as DCI compliant virtual prints for digital projection equipped theaters. Someone wanting to show The Bridge on the River Kwai as a revival screening may soon only be able to rent a 4K digital virtual print rather than a 35mm print.
quote: Tom Petrov
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Dolby won the digital war for theaters, lds, DVD and home satelite. Folks at home can make there own Dolby Digital tracks on a PC (not sure if you can do this at home with DTS).
Again, "winning" would imply putting the competition out of business and taking over as the sole standard. Coca-Cola is the world's most popular soft drink, but there are many other choices in the market. Windows is the world's dominant computer operating sytsem. The MacOS is a popular alternative with an extremely loyal fan following.
DTS remains as a viable alternative in movie theaters and in home theater. Yes, it is possible to create DTS or even DTS-HD Master Audio surround tracks on a Mac or PC.
For a long time Minnetonka Audio Software has sold software encoders for Dolby Digital and DTS under the SurCode brand name. Neyrinck sells a variety of encoders including a SoundCode DTS encoder. DTS has its own DTS-HD Master Audio suite that works with a number a Blu-ray authoring systems (like Sony Blu-print). The SurCode DTS-HD plug-in works in Apple's Final Cut Studio. The DTS-HD software suites and plug-ins aren't cheap, but they're meant for professional use. DTS does sell a DTS Surround encoding application that does all the old lossy compressed formats for DVD and music CD for $249.
A lot of different video editing packages include Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding, but that encoding capability is typically very basic in nature. People who need better quality results will usually buy better quality third party solutions.
quote: Tom Petrov
DTS on the other hand did very well at the theatres, failed on LD, flopped on DVD and has only recently made a comeback with blu-ray as it compatible with older DTS units whereas TrueHD is not.
It would be very easy to say the entire Laserdisc format was a failure. LD is certainly dead now, but it was an excellent alternative to VHS until DVD came along. I think it's silly to characterize DTS as a "failure" on LD, given the niche status of LD itself. Dozens of LDs were released with DTS audio. In the early days of DVD plenty of LD fans extolled the virtues of their DTS LDs over some of the new DVDs with DTS. That opened the controversy about different audio masters being used.
DTS is still used frequently on DVD, particularly on titles with a lot of music content. Far more DVDs have had 5.1 tracks encoded in Dolby Digital than DTS. Yet Dolby Digital gained an image of being a generic, default audio format. Many DVDs have been released with the main audio track described in audio menus and disc packaging as "English 5.1" and leaving out the Dolby brand name. I've seen plenty of movie DVDs where "English 5.1" was the default track and DTS 5.1 English was an alternative. DTS has always been seen as a higher quality alternative to Dolby Digital. It was that way in movie theaters, on Laserdisc and on DVD. The situation even carried over to Blu-ray.
The funny thing is DTS-HD versus Dolby TrueHD doesn't appear to make as much of a difference on Blu-ray. Both are lossless audio codecs. For whatever reason DTS-HD Master Audio has grown into what now seems to be the dominant audio format on Blu-ray. One puzzling thing is the variable audio bit rates on various 24-bit 48kHz tracks encoded in DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD. Why does the bit rate vary from one movie to the next? To illustrate this, here's some titles with listed audio bit rates from the DVD Beaver web site:
The Social Network DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 2923kbps, 1509kbps core
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1-ES, 24-bit 48kHz, 3917kbps, 1509kbps core
Iron Man 2 DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 3897kbps, 1509kbps core
Inception DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 3678kbps, 1509kbps core
Sin City DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 4281kbps, 1509kbps core
Toy Story 3 DTS-HD Master Audio
English 7.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 5506kbps, 1509kbps core
A Bug's Life DTS-HD Master Audio
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 4617kbps, 1509kbps core
Seven DTS-HD Master Audio
English 7.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 5447kbps, 1509kbps core
Monsters vs Aliens Dolby TrueHD
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 3379kbps & DD 640kbps
Star Trek Dolby TrueHD
English 5.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 3603kbps & DD 640kbps
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Dolby TrueHD
English 7.1, 24-bit 48kHz, 4509kbps & DD-EX 640kbps
Pretty weird isn't it?
It makes me wonder if these bit rates are perhaps averages of some sort. Even though Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD are essentially lossless, my understanding is the compression techniques in both have variable bit rates that adjust according to the content. A 24-bit 48kHz 6-channel audio track with flat 2:1 compression would have a 3456kbps bit rate. All those bit rates above are different.
quote: Tom Petrov
Dolby was all over the place in autombiles for sound, home computers, satelite HD tv, video game etc. Dolby even had headphones with the Dolby 5.1 on it.
Dolby Digital has really never been a music only format. Dozens of music CDs were released with DTS 5.1 audio. Certain pieces of car stereo equipment incorporated DTS decoding capability for DTS music CDs. And plenty of in car DVD systems could play discs with DTS tracks.
The first surround sound setups for computers were Dolby Digital only. But it didn't take long for manufacturers of sound cards, speaker systems and software DVD players to incorporate DTS capability. Some games for PC, PS2, PS3 and XBox360 have featured in game DTS audio.
The one area where Dolby has clearly won is in TV broadcasting over the air, cable and satellite due to DD 5.1 being the mandated broadcast audio standard.
quote: Tom Petrov
The Criterion DVD was from the same source as the Laserdisc transfer. The aspect ratio should be 1.66.1 it came from the 35mm interpostive. The sound was sourced from the two track Dolby Surround stereo magnetic master. This is why there is no 6 track Dolby Digtial track.
In the late 1990s lots of DVD used non-anamorphic video masters previously used for Laserdisc, yet many of those DVDs had Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. If a 6-track master was made, either for 70mm or for 35mm digital the DVD usually (but not always) got something better than mere 2.0. The first Bladerunner DVD was one of the notable exeptions.
The Criterion folks were more picky than most video outfits on how they produced their titles. They made an effort to use the best elements available. Their LDs and DVDs typically cost quite a bit more as well. Given the price premium I strongly doubt the company merely rubber stamped a DVD only from Laserdisc elements. They wouldn't do that unless they had no other choice.
If Robocop had a 6-track Dolby SR print master and/or multichannel stems archived I'm pretty sure that audio would have been used to make a Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Instead, the DVD merely received a 2.0 Dolby Surround track. The subsequent DVD and Blu-ray releases had 5.1 audio, but audio that was unremarkable in terms of dynamics and channel separation as compared to movies specifically mixed for 70mm or 35mm digital presentation. The dynamics are constrained as if the movie was only recorded and mixed for 2 channel optical stereo.
quote: Thomas Hauerslev
I saw "Dances with Wolves" in Kinepolis in Bruxelles in 70mm.
I believe you, Thomas. I just wish American theaters had 70mm prints of the movie during its original release. My DTS DVD of Dances With Wolves had pretty impressive 5.1 audio. It sounded like the movie was recorded and mixed specifically for SR mag. Robocop doesn't sound nearly as dynamic.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic