Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 88)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 103 104 105

Author

Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2008 05:01 AM

Oops, looks like Sharp has a stand-alone Blu-ray recorder coming soon.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-23-2008 11:09 AM

Copperplate, the lower case is uppercase letters sligtly smaller than the uppercase! Does the term shouting come to mind for anyone else.

If you really want to screw with someone make the subtitles in Park Avenue!

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 04-23-2008 03:31 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
There is apparently some glitches in how the decoder is handling certain DTS-HD 7.1 channel mixes on certain New Line and Lionsgate discs. And when you look in the PS3 system credits, the DTS logo now shows up as "DTS-HD Master Audio/Limited." What's up with this "limited" crap? It's making me wonder if the internal PS3 decoding of this format is somehow watered down versus what you get in standalone Blu-ray players and A/V receivers.

It must be some sort of Sony-ism, because "DTS-HD Master Audio/Limited" isn't a term associated with anything that I could find associated with DTS.

My guess is that it's how the PS3 is interpreting the 7.1 Speaker Layout on the DTS-HD MA track. There are 8 layouts:

7.1 Speaker Layout: Traditional
7.1 Speaker Layout: Full Rear Surround
7.1 Speaker Layout: Side High
7.1 Speaker Layout: Front Wide
7.1 Speaker Layout: Front High
7.1 Speaker Layout: Center Over-Head
7.1 Speaker Layout: Center High
6.1 Speaker Layout: Center Surround

http://www.dts.com/dts-hd/dtshd-speaker-remapping.php
That same issue of Widescreen Review that I referred to earlier also had an interview with the sound guys at Mi Casa, who do a lot of the sound work for New Line Cinema's home video releases.

It's a good read, as they talk about the differences between home theater mixes and theatrical mixes, and how some things in the mix are more noticeable in the home theater mix (someone bumping into a mic stand in the studio that the theatrical mix guys didn't catch).

The last part of the article talks about the issue of 7.1 mixes on Blu-ray and the various speaker layouts listed above. I don't claim to have my arms around it yet, but it sounds like a good idea in concept, but it also sounds like yet another thing the Blu-ray software and hardware people aren't on the same page about.

I guess the best-case scenario is that Sony's "DTS-HD Master Audio/Limited" is equivalent to "7.1 Speaker Layout: Traditional" in the list above. That's actually the layout I'm using, so I'm glad to know that I match up with how those guys are doing their mixes.

I have my room wired to support "Center Over-Head" which I'd be very curious to try out should it ever be supported (which is doubtful).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2008 05:33 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Copperplate, the lower case is uppercase letters sligtly smaller than the uppercase! Does the term shouting come to mind for anyone else.

He was kidding. [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-23-2008 05:46 PM

I don't understand the need for all these different speaker layouts. It seems pretty unnecessary and impractical for home theater.

I've never seen any Blu-ray disc with discrete 6.1 or 7.1 make any mention of differing speaker arrangements on the product packaging. End users aren't really going to know how to have speakers arranged to play back the audio properly.

Even if some notation is there, who is going to go through the trouble of relocating a couple of surround speakers to different points in the room, or on the ceiling or even under the TV as left extra and right extra channels?

I thought the 7.1 audio concept for home theater was merely an extension of the 6.1 surround concept with left, center and right surrounds. With 7.1, it makes sense to have two side wall surround channels and two back wall surround channels. Many audio video receivers already had exactly that arrangement by summing the center surround channel across two speakers for the back wall. That configuration should be the default for 7.1 home theater. Exceptions should be allowed only in special cases, and where the packaging is very clearly labeled.

Even with the different speaker arrangements, it still doesn't make any sense at all for certain New Line and Lionsgate BDs with 7.1 DTS-HD audio to have two of the four surround channels playing silent or have the 7.1 track dumped to 5.1. Somebody is goofing around with the bit stream and needs to stop it.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-23-2008 07:51 PM

Mike, I know but I was letting people know why it was a joke if you are not familiar with the type face you wouldn't have a clue. Oh I do love Park Avenue though and that would certainly play heck with anyone trying to read it!

Well maybe they should just make a 10 sound system and you can have left, extra left, center extra right, right left surround, rear surround, left surround, over head, and sub and be done with it.

| IP: Logged

Tom Mundell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-23-2008 08:54 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I thought the 7.1 audio concept for home theater was merely an extension of the 6.1 surround concept with left, center and right surrounds.

That's what I've always understood it to be; I consider the whole "7.1" an advertising gimick really to differentiate from some early EX receivers that only had a single speaker possible for the back surround which was disabled for non-EX mixes. I've never heard of anything actually utilizing 4 surround channels, just the usual 2 or EX style 3. Prior to blu-ray, was it even (theoretically) possible to utilize all 7.1 channels?

I don't think advertising these different speaker layouts is a great move, people are often confused enough as is; it probably would be better to just explain what the typical configuration is and why it's used.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-23-2008 10:04 PM

quote: Tom Mundell
Prior to blu-ray, was it even (theoretically) possible to utilize all 7.1 channels?

Well, previously receivers had to fake it when doing "7.1" with audio tracks on DVD. Discrete 7.1 channel audio tracks were previously not possible in home theater. DTS-ES had the room to add an eighth channel, but that was never utilized for DVD. It took Blu-ray, new versions of HDMI and next generation audio formats like Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD to make true 7.1 channel audio possible in the home.

IMHO, 7.1 surround can be a good thing. That four channel surround array would be even better if it was used in commercial movie theaters! They need it more than home theaters do. Honestly, stereo surround in most movie theaters just produces an even bigger sense of stereo instead of surround. Unless you're in the theater's "sweet spot," you're just hearing a big left-right effect when those surrounds kick in, and I think that sucks.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-23-2008 10:06 PM

Realistically you should have two speakers for the back surround even in a 6.1 setup (mono EX channel). One speaker behind the back of your head won't be very impressive and probably won't even be very noticeable. Separate the channel by using two speakers which are spread out and it sounds great. 7.1, of course, makes the back surround stereo. And no, that could not be done on regular DVD.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-23-2008 10:21 PM

However, if we have 10 channel sound we can have speakers on each side of the TV below it and above it on the left wall the right wall the rear wall and the ceiling and maybe under each chair. We can crack the sheet rock of our homes and drive our neighbors to distraction or to shooting us!

10 channels of sound are better must have more speakers!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-23-2008 10:35 PM

Is that a statement to suggest 5.1 or even fewer channels is good enough?

Also, how does having more discrete audio channels equate to the audio being louder? The loudest sound systems I encounter are typically those cheesy, customized car stereos in an equally cheesed out Japanese economy car. That audio is often some horribly compressed 2 channel music tune streaming out of the driver's iPod.

I speak about four channel surround arrays as a means of solving a clearly identified problem -one that is an especially bad one in commercial movie theaters. I will even go so far as to say a four channel surround array is more badly needed than five channels of audio behind the screen.

THX creator Tomlinson Holman is a proponent of 10.2 surround and has held demonstrations of it. That format would combine the "five up front" classic Todd-AO 70mm audio scheme with the four channel surround array, add a ceiling channel as well as stereo sub-bass.

Unless you have a huge projection screen in a home theater five screen channels is overkill. Even as big as my new TV is, I'd practically have speakers stacked against each other to fit five channels worth under the monitor. For the vast majority of viewers, three screen channels is enough. OTOH, most home theater setups can be improved with a 7.1 layout featuring four surround channels.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-23-2008 10:53 PM

Actually Bobby it was just a joke nothing in it at all. I think 5 channel sound is adequate for most home systems. Volume has nothing to with the number of speakers nor does quality.

I agree with you the most annoying ones are where they cram all that compressed audio though two channels and a bad sub-wolfer that is not set up right at all. Thump, thump thump the car is bouncing from the sub! And yet the people that those systems think they have great sound and they to prove it you can't get the theater sound loud enough for them. Then again maybe they just can't hear!

I would love to have 10.2 in a theater not sure it would do much to my current home set up.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 04-24-2008 03:49 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
stereo sub-bass.

What's the point in that? Sub-bass in non directional.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-24-2008 05:32 PM

bass does have some directionality

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-25-2008 08:42 PM

Yeah. I can just about guarantee that if I moved the subwoofers to the back of the auditorium, it would be easy to tell they were back there.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 103 104 105

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.