|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: An open letter to Tyler Perry
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-29-2012 12:41 PM
quote: Frank Angel
The fear that we voice today that perhaps turning it down for this or that reason might mean it would never get turned back up I think was probably much less a concern back then when you had pretty attentive and conscientious people in those positions; they actually took pride in what they did.
Another tremendous difference: 20 years ago and earlier the vast majority of theaters were playing an optical based mono or stereo soundtrack with limited dynamic range. Only so many theaters could play 70mm prints with magnetic audio tracks and many of the soundtracks on 70mm were designed within the limits of what optical could handle. Digital sound changed all of that. I don't think bad EQ was quite so noticeable in an analog-only house versus one equipped to play digital.
Digital sound is fantastic in a properly designed, equipped & maintained movie theater. It sounds great, has startling dynamics yet isn't painful or fatiguing to the listener. Digital sound isn't so good when the presentation is flawed for various reasons, including improper EQ.
Not only would my ears be hurting if the sound was played loud under that setting. Dogs in the next county might be howling in pain. The 3 highest frequency bands are cranked.
I have a hunch a lot of theaters are "tuned" by someone working on auto-pilot just wanting to get in and out of there as fast as possible in order to be at the hotel bar in time for happy hour. It's either that or the person has 358 theater locations he has to visit that week so the corporate office can save money on labor costs. I wouldn't be surprised if both guesses were true.
The bean counter executives in the home offices need to realize a lot of people, right or wrong, think their own home theater sound systems sound a lot better than what they hear in the theater. Sadly, I think a lot of customers are correct in that thinking in a lot of cases. Shitty theater sound is still shitty even if it is shitty on a large scale. My home system, while not all that super impressive, still sounds pretty damned good even though it is small and "near field."
IMHO, any commercial movie theater should have a sound system that just blows away what all but the richest person could do with a home theater system. That isn't happening right now and it's a marketing liability for commercial theaters and it is getting worse as ticket/concessions prices keep creeping higher and higher. I feel if I'm going to pay something like $20 to watch a movie just once in a commercial theater the sound quality (and everything else) had better be nothing less than outstanding.
It might take a combination of what Dolby Atmos does with auto-EQ and a system that can tell when a speaker is blown or has a faulty connection to get movie theater sound back on a positive track. The current system, largely based on corporate dictated deferred maintenance and maintenance done on the cheap, is NOT working.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-29-2012 12:50 PM
Unfortunately, as far as the "bean counters" are concerned, here is the logic behind putting designations like "THX," "Dolby" and "Digital" on the marquee:
People will believe it sounds good if you brand it, and simply tell them that it sounds good. Nobody ever really knew what these things were, but they bought into it anyway.
Overwhelm and dominate them with how loud and powerful the system is. Beat them into submission. (aka "Shock & Awe")
Theatres have taken this notion and are running with it. For example, "ETX" and even "IMAX."
Self-branding means that you have exclusive use of the name of your system, and (perhaps most important) you don't have to pay a license fee (or answer to anybody) in order to use/abuse it. It's yours and yours alone, to keep and to do with it whatever your little heart desires.
Trust me -- there WILL be bad Atmos implementations. The first ones will sound great because Dolby will be fawning over it like a newborn first-born but eventually it'll get away from them and rage out of control. It won't be Dolby's fault, but I predict it will happen. [Edit: it could possibly be their fault. See below.]
Remember how awesomely mind-blowing the CGI was in Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park when the technology was new and the stakeholders wanted to ensure it would "go over" well? And now look at CGI: Looking as tacky, cheap and obvious as a $20 crack-whore "doing the ho-stroll."
"Bitch better have my money!"
(There are never enough opportunities to quote Pimp of the Year from "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka.")
Speaking of...
Dolby Atmos in the home. << That's where the waters will become murky all over again. People in the home are bound to implement it incorrectly -- Dolby's own research on 5.1 home theatre supports this. What this leads to is a miscalibration of the audience and a lowering of expectations to the point where even a mediocre theatrical application seems "better" by comparison to the widespread bastardization of the technology. In that case, it would be Dolby's fault.
quote:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
from "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yeats.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-29-2012 03:08 PM
I have always thought theater chain efforts of self-branding to copy THX, IMAX, etc. came off as very pretentious to anyone with a clue to movie theater tech stuff and confusing to anyone who didn't know the tech stuff. I think the only reason why average customers are willing at all to pay for it is the very simple thought: "our show is in the big auditorium." Whoopie freaking doo!
Sometimes the self-branding attempts are unintentionally funny. I mean, who didn't make jokes about AMC's "HITS" screens? The very first time I saw a blurb about HITS it was a knee-jerk reaction to re-think it as "SHITS."
I also see these counterfeit efforts as failures on the part of THX and IMAX to properly educate the public about their product when their products still meant something.
Too often THX was wrongly thought of as a sound format rather than a rigid certification standard saying a theater auditorium had been designed to certain specifications, boasted certain pieces of approved equipment and in operation met sound performance standards set by THX. I guess that was too complicated for the average member of the general public to understand. The "see it in THX" marketing stuff, IMHO, confused things further. Obviously when THX got into certifying VHS tapes and computer speakers the brand suffered. What else were they going to certify? How about THX certified tampons to improve the sound of queefs?
IMAX' own problems were self-created. They're killing off the 15-perf 70mm film format and replacing it with a far lower resolution "digital" alternative. Dual HDTV resolution projectors? Whoopie.
Movie theater chains don't need IMAX in order to build a big auditorium featuring a large wall to wall screen, big sound system and digital projection. There's hardly anything special about that (especially when it's not even done right). I think IMAX is lucky theater chains are going along with it right now. But just like what happened with THX in the late 1990s, I can see a lot of exhibitors jumping the Digital IMAX ship.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc D Fishman
Film Handler
Posts: 26
From: Burbank CA. USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 06-30-2012 11:14 AM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Marc, NO ONE here has said that the issue is people "create noise in a room", but you sir are dead wrong in your opinion that people don't absorb sound to a meaningful degree.
Tony.. I stand by my statement..
Bodies in a room will not absorb direct sound to a meaningful degree... the only measurement I've ever seen was around 5% from 2kHz up..
I never said, or implied, that bodies don't have an impact on the sound of a room..
Of course they change the reverberant characteristics of a room... and of course all the degree of the change from empty to full is varied based on so many factors (seat construction, rake of the room, etc...)
My experience has been that the raised noise floor of a full auditorium has a much more detrimental effect on the perceived SPL level than the other changes we are talking about.. and it's also, in my experience, is promotional to the overall loudness of a given track.
I've had the experience of mixing a film in an "empty" room and then hearing it in a variety of venues and hearing it both during the run through and then with a packed house..
I'm very aware of how rooms change from empty to full..
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
And if you can't hear those differences then perhaps it's time for an ear exam or to hang up your hat and go fishing.
I have my hearing checked regularly, thank you very much...
quote: Brad Miller
Get used to it Marc. There are idiots out there in charge of tuning MOST sound systems and there isn't much of anything that can be done. The days of "sound techs" are gone. The big companies are hiring anyone off the street or the Best Buy "Geek Squad" to install the digital systems...and then these same guys are destroying the sound presentation you guys labor over so hard to create.
I might indeed have to "get used to it.."
Doesn't mean I have to lay down and continue to watch it happen.
I had a great meeting at Dolby this week to discuss the Atmos system, work flow, etc..
As has been pointed out by Manny, it's not going to fix all of our problems, and there will inevitably be some less than ideal installs...
However, Dolby is committed to being rigorously involved in the next 18 months of installations, and really maintaining a standard.. this isn't going to simply be an off the shelf install..
In addition, with the new Lake based processors and EQ, it's not going to be a easy as someone coming in messing with the parametric like it exists today..
quote: Bobby Henderson
I have a hunch a lot of theaters are "tuned" by someone working on auto-pilot just wanting to get in and out of there as fast as possible in order to be at the hotel bar in time for happy hour. It's either that or the person has 358 theater locations he has to visit that week so the corporate office can save money on labor costs. I wouldn't be surprised if both guesses were true.
The bean counter executives in the home offices need to realize a lot of people, right or wrong, think their own home theater sound systems sound a lot better than what they hear in the theater. Sadly, I think a lot of customers are correct in that thinking in a lot of cases. Shitty theater sound is still shitty even if it is shitty on a large scale. My home system, while not all that super impressive, still sounds pretty damned good even though it is small and "near field."
IMHO, any commercial movie theater should have a sound system that just blows away what all but the richest person could do with a home theater system. That isn't happening right now and it's a marketing liability for commercial theaters and it is getting worse as ticket/concessions prices keep creeping higher and higher. I feel if I'm going to pay something like $20 to watch a movie just once in a commercial theater the sound quality (and everything else) had better be nothing less than outstanding.
It might take a combination of what Dolby Atmos does with auto-EQ and a system that can tell when a speaker is blown or has a faulty connection to get movie theater sound back on a positive track. The current system, largely based on corporate dictated deferred maintenance and maintenance done on the cheap, is NOT working.
Bobby... you've summed up my feelings exactly.
Right after I made my first post here, I also fired off an email to some of my colleagues (some Academy members, other mixers, engineers, etc...)
I've gotten a great deal of response and some great ideas..
As a group, I think we've been a little hand in the sand for ignoring the issue and just accepting it... we're a little spoiled because not only do we get to listen to the tracks on our stages all day, but it's rare we go to a screening that isn't private, or invitation only, at a premiere venue, or at least one tuned the day of the event...
Hopefully over the next year we will able to do something a little more pro active about it...
I, for one, am completely committed to it.
I'd appreciate any and all feedback.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-30-2012 12:15 PM
I haven't seen or carried out any formal testing, but suffice it to say that "something changes" when the audience shows up.
Even if a "full house" is only absorbing (or perhaps masking) from 2kHz on up, that's still going to have an effect on speech intelligibility (consonants) and also the music may sound a little dull.
Of course the phenomenon may reside in the realm of psychoacoustics. For example, things seem louder in a darkened room, versus with the lights on. And I've personally faked a doppler shift by suddenly changing the volume of an effect. Maybe, in a full room, things sound a little subdued.
I may not know the cause, but I know what my ears are telling me. Something happens.
Remember -- instruments alone can't be trusted -- it's totally possible to tune a busted speaker to the X-Curve -- I know, because I've done it -- and just look at Brad's EQ examples (on the previous page). Those folks probably just tuned to the curve and left. At some point you have to give yourself some credit and go take a listen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc D Fishman
Film Handler
Posts: 26
From: Burbank CA. USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 06-30-2012 04:31 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Marc, it's absolutely true. Just because you've seen certain measurements doesn't mean that there isn't a noticeable difference between in perceived volume between an empty house and a full house. A movie with a full house must be turned up to be played back as comfortably from what it would be with a small audience in the same auditorium. Remember, we actually work in theaters and have seen this stuff happen. We're not just making this up. Stand by your statement all you want but honestly you're just not qualified to make this call. We do have the credentials and experience to make this ascertainment, however. Try mixing parts of a movie with a 500 people in your room and other parts of the movie in an empty room. I think as you watched the movie back in one sitting, you'd notice the difference.
Joe..
I never said bodies in an auditorium don't have an impact, great or small, on the sound of the room.
What I said is that human bodies do not absorb sound to a great degree.
In other words, the differences in sound between and empty room and a full house aren't due to the loss of direct sound coming out of the speakers being absorbed by a human bodies mass.
I've never been any find any research that suggests otherwise.
That in no way negates all of the other things those bodies do to the room (i.e. changes to the reverberant field, high end roll off, etc....)
Since the sound of any given room is determined by both the direct sound and reverberation of the room, of course the effects of having all of those people will vary wildly from venue to venue.
I'm not sure how I can make this comment any clearer...
As I related in my experience, I've found the raised noise floor a a large crowd to have a much greater impact on the sound than the other differences I've encountered... purely a subjective commentary on my part, but I based it on knowing exactly how the track was supposed to sound vs. how it sounded in an empty room vs. how it sounded in a full room.
In mixing films, we have to be keenly aware, and able to adapt, to differences in how rooms sound..
Our two premier west side mixing rooms are identical in construction, furnishings and equipment... they only vary as being reverse mirror images of each other.
And they sound different. So we have to adjust, or know not to adjust, for some of those differences...
I'm not sure much clearer I can state my point, which is contrary to none of the various posts that have responded to it.
BTW... as a side note, my only experience in running a booth came from two summers working at the Continental back when it was a single screen.. at the time I was extremely lucky to get some training from Richard Bateman. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-30-2012 04:40 PM
quote: Marc D Fishman
I never said bodies in an auditorium don't have an impact, great or small, on the sound of the room.
What I said is that human bodies do not absorb sound to a great degree.
In other words, the differences in sound between and empty room and a full house aren't due to the loss of direct sound coming out of the speakers being absorbed by a human bodies mass.
I've never been any find any research that suggests otherwise.
And what I said was (paraphrasing)...
The fact is that something happens when the audience shows up and the movie sounds different -- appreciably different -- to the point where adjusting the master fader is a good call.
In short, bodies do seem to affect sound to a great degree -- to a great enough degree that it matters to those of us "in the field" and we are compelled to do something about it.
Note that we aren't raising the volume arbitrarily, either -- we've heard the movie in an empty room, same as you -- and we get to hear it with a crowd, too -- we are doing our best to offset and restore the experience (SPL-wise).
Most important, we get to hear it "in the field" in our own theatres -- and you really don't.
Don't pretend to know everything.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-30-2012 04:50 PM
Regarding the "why movies are played below reference level," here is one of my examples. This was about a year ago for a preview screening of the Disney film "African Cats" (a documentary about lions). The screening was at an art museum which occasionally hosts "playdate" events for kids. Some of these (including this one) include movie screenings. The audience was primarily made up of kids (under age ten or so, I would guess).
This venue was recently built, and has top-quality equipment that was installed by the best-qualified technician I have met. The print was brand-new and the SRD track read perfectly with an error count of 0s and 1s. The print arrived in locked cans, and we were not given the lock combination until the morning of the screening, which made it impossible to watch a reel or two ahead of time.
Throughout the screening, the house manager kept telling me to turn down the sound because she was getting complaints. Apparently, the roar of the lions in the film was sufficiently loud to scare the kids in the audience. By the end, I think that I ended up with the fader at or slightly below 5.0.
Would it have been better to play the film at 7.0 and scare away the entire audience? Honestly, I didn't think that the mix was too loud, but how could I argue with screaming, crying kids?
Was it dumb on the part of the venue to invite young children to a movie that would scare them? Yes. But, given the situation, did I really have any choice but to play the film below reference level?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
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