Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE
Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Worst 70mm Presentation EVER of IAMMMMMW (Page 7)

 
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Worst 70mm Presentation EVER of IAMMMMMW
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-02-2013 01:38 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That article talks about 24-bit 192kHz audio, not 24-bit 96kHz audio. Currently most D/A converters can have problems dealing with 192kHz sample rates. Those problems do not exist with 24-bit 96kHz audio.

In the context of Apple and iTunes delivering 24/192 audio the situation gets pretty damned funny. 24/96 and 24/192 audio is only worth doing if the audio is either uncompressed or lossless compressed. If the audio is crushed into a small .AAC iTunes file then the entire effort is a fucking waste of time. Apple has NEVER followed through on even offering audio that comes close to standard 16-bit 44.kHz uncompressed CD quality standards, much less anything that goes above the red book CD standard.

There is plenty of technical justification for audio to be recorded, mastered and distributed at 24-bit 96kHz quality. However, the audio must be treated properly to allow 24/96 to make a difference.

If someone is doing double blind testing using current popular recorded music and the atrocious compressing and clipping techniques that typically come with it most people taking part in double blind tests will have a hard time telling the difference between a LPCM music CD track and a lossy compressed 192 kilobit per second version of it. Nevermind throwing in a 24/96 variant.

 |  IP: Logged
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 03-02-2013 07:07 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby, just so I understand...

Are you saying that you would consistently be able to distinguish the 24/92kHz recording from its 24/48kHz counterpart in a blind test?

And are you saying that you can tell if a film was recorded at 48 or 92 just by listening to it?

 |  IP: Logged
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler

Posts: 268
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008

- posted 03-03-2013 07:21 AM      Profile for Antti Nayha   Email Antti Nayha   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby, if you read the whole article, you will notice that it’s not just about 24/192:
quote:
Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data
quote:
This means we can use low rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz audio with all the fidelity benefits of 192kHz or higher sampling (smooth frequency response, low aliasing) and none of the drawbacks (ultrasonics that cause intermodulation distortion, wasted space).
Most importantly, the double blind tests discussed in the ”Listening tests” chapter also included well mastered, dynamic 24/96 DVD-A audio. The result: 16/44.1 sounds just as good.

Regarding iTunes downloads… 128 kbps AAC has already been surprisingly hard to tell apart from uncompressed CD audio for some time, as proved in this test from 7 years ago. Nowadays, of course, iTunes is using 256 kbps AAC, which is only distinguishable on rare ”problem samples”. On iTunes and similar services, lossy compression is a complete non-issue compared to real problems such as the loudness war.

(No, that doesn’t mean I’m proposing that we go back to lossy compression for cinema audio presentation. But according to the evidence, 24/48 LPCM is perfectly good.)

 |  IP: Logged
Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

- posted 03-03-2013 07:42 AM      Profile for Rick Raskin   Email Rick Raskin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just to clarify, what is being discussed is the sampling rate and not the frequency response.

48 KHZ requires sampling every 20.833 microseconds. This in comparison to the standard telephony sampling rate of 8K or every 125 microseconds.

I assume we are still referring to providing audio within the range of human hearing.

 |  IP: Logged
Jarod Reddig
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 513
From: Hays, Ks
Registered: Jun 2011

- posted 03-03-2013 07:43 AM      Profile for Jarod Reddig   Email Jarod Reddig   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks a lot Bobby! I appreciate it very much.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-04-2013 10:59 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Manny Knowles
Are you saying that you would consistently be able to distinguish the 24/92kHz recording from its 24/48kHz counterpart in a blind test?
I think my hearing is good enough to do it. Provided if all the variables involved were properly handled. The audio material must be of high quality and be a native 24-bit 96kHz recording, not an artificial blow-up to 24/96 at any point in the editing/engineering process. The sound system playing the material would need to be high end.

quote: Manny Knowles
And are you saying that you can tell if a film was recorded at 48 or 92 just by listening to it?
No. I would need to know at least some of the variables involved before being able to say, "hey that's a 96kHz recording!" For one, I would already have to know the sound system is a friggin' great sound system. I certainly couldn't walk into an average or even really good movie theater or listen on some friend's pretty good stereo system and be able to tell the difference.

quote:
Regarding iTunes downloads… 128 kbps AAC has already been surprisingly hard to tell apart from uncompressed CD audio for some time, as proved in this test from 7 years ago. Nowadays, of course, iTunes is using 256 kbps AAC, which is only distinguishable on rare ”problem samples”.
I think those tests are either flawed or biased. Hell, I've heard people try to float the idea that 96kb/s audio was CD quality while trying to sell some form of satellite radio or "HD Digital" radio. I can hear clear differences between music in uncompressed LPCM versus versions saved down to 128kb/s AAC or MP3 format. The 128kb/s level is very severe. Differences are still easy to hear at 192kb/s. I've listened to music sold from Amazon and Apple at the 256kb/s level (Amazon's MP3 files are 256kb/s variable bit rate) and still hear noticeable differences with the uncompressed LPCM counterpart. If I make any MP3 conversions from the .WAV files I've ripped from my own music CDs I always encode at 320kb/s. That still isn't perfect.

quote: Rick Raskin
I assume we are still referring to providing audio within the range of human hearing.
Yes. Human hearing on average falls within a range of 20Hz and 20kHz. The 96kHz sample rate isn't recording a bunch of stuff above and below the range of human hearing. It is allowing double the amount of audio detail to be placed within that audible range.

 |  IP: Logged
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

- posted 03-05-2013 12:52 PM      Profile for Tony Bandiera Jr   Email Tony Bandiera Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think we have set a record for F-T thread drift with this epic. We've gone from:

  • A crappy 70mm presentation at a prestigous location to:
  • A bit of Union Bashing (rightfully so in this case) to:
  • What a JJ scratch is, to:
  • Whether or not 70mm prints are made anymore to:
  • Debate on which Tucson cinemas have 70mm capability to:
  • Detailed discussion of bitrates and compression.
Wonder which direction this will go to next? [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-05-2013 01:18 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The thread was kind of dead (or at least comatose) for awhile until I threw in my 2¢ on the Tuscon 70mm situation.

Debates on lossy data compression in audio and 24-bit 48kHz and 96kHz are getting a little far from the 70mm topic. Although with d-cinema using uncompressed 24-bit LPCM that should at least get the soundtracks on par to what 70mm Dolby SR mag could deliver. Or do we need to go to 24-bit 96kHz for that?
[Razz]

IIRC the talk of all this d-cinema audio stuff came from the "ads that confuse" (or just no ad info at all) situation that's actually quite a bit worse than it was back when 35mm Dolby optical and 70mm Dolby mag were the main movie formats being distributed/advertised.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 03-05-2013 03:36 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You've got some balls, Tony, for chiming back in at this point after you (and Will) arrogantly dismissed my research.

 |  IP: Logged
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 03-05-2013 07:28 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Next topic: Bobby's balls.

 |  IP: Logged
Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

- posted 03-05-2013 07:53 PM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At least now we are on to something funny, or so I'm told.

 |  IP: Logged
Jim Henk
Master Film Handler

Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted 03-05-2013 08:21 PM      Profile for Jim Henk   Email Jim Henk   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I seem to recall when I first joined the forum, agreeing to (among other things) never taking things personally. That's a policy I really like.

 |  IP: Logged
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

- posted 03-05-2013 09:03 PM      Profile for Tony Bandiera Jr   Email Tony Bandiera Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
You've got some balls, Tony, for chiming back in at this point after you (and Will) arrogantly dismissed my research.
Well now I am gonna call you out for being a douchebag. [Big Grin] Will lives in Tucson, I was stationed there and went to the theatres in question so I am gonna have a lot more faith in the person who actually lives there and my own personal observations than someone who obviously has an axe to grind. Your scan is suspiciously cut and pasted to align the 70 notations to suit your needs, and the "around the timeframe of the engagements being discussed" is vague and could be interpreted to be anytime within a year before or a year AFTER "TRON" played in Tucson. [Roll Eyes] So get your panties out of the knot they're in. [Razz] [Big Grin]

And Manny baby, we're on the topic of my balls now evidently. [Eek!]

Aww c'mon now Jim, let your hair down and join in on the lunacy. [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 03-05-2013 10:30 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
And Manny baby, we're on the topic of my balls now evidently
How the HECK did I miss THAT! [Eek!]

<-- Leans forward.

In all seriousness, regarding the "research" versus "I was there," I'm reminded of Gene Kranz's quote regarding Neil Armstrong's decision to override the Lunar Lander's autopilot: "Neil had the one thing we didn't have, and that was the view out the window."

 |  IP: Logged
Sean Weitzel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall)
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 03-06-2013 01:51 AM      Profile for Sean Weitzel   Email Sean Weitzel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Can I ask a question here? What would Mike gain by digitally manipulating a newspaper ad from 30+ years ago to post on an internet forum for a subject that a mere three people are arguing about? I just don't understand why this is such a big issue. While I don't want to take sides I will say that I like Bobby's perspective on it - While a newspaper ad for cinema showtimes in the late 70's early 80's denoting a 70mm presentation may not be 100% accurate, it's probably far more likely to be accurate than printed showtimes in the 90's for various digital sound presentations. Mike presented several newspaper ads that indicate some kind of 70mm presentation at the 6. If I was a historian, I would probably include that as admissible evidence. Let me close that by stating that(despite having met Tony in person a few weeks ago) this post was in no way influenced by Mike's, Manny's, Tony's, Will's, or anyone else's balls. The only balls I can comment upon would be my own pair and those are not up for discussion as there are no newspaper ads to prove anything about them. [Big Grin] [beer]

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.