|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: ATMOS comes home...
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-16-2014 05:53 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have seen 4K and to me it is pretty damn impressive, its a game changer to me.
What was the source of the 4k you saw that makes it a "game changer?" In reality, you need to have a very close viewing distance to even be able to physically see the difference in resolution.
More likely, what you perceive as 4k being a game changer is just watching something with a much lower compression ratio. A 1080p Blu-ray looks obviously better than the exact same movie delivered via cable or satellite on HBO or another movie channel.
What would be a "game changer" would be content providers and cable/satellite services broadcasting in 1080p and at lower compression ratios.
The problem is that they just want to advertise how many "HD Channels" they have. 4k will look better because (you would assume) that it will be delivered at a higher bit rate. However, if you quadrupled the bit rate of a 1080i channel today, it would look just as good (if not better) except at very close viewing distances.
As far as Atmos at home, it will be a flop as far as people paying more for the capability. Sure, if it is just included in receivers, people will buy those models but they won't pay extra for the same thing with Atmos (except for the home theatre nuts). It is so poorly marketed theatrically that most people don't know it exists or what it is supposed to do.
The only way that might change is for a lot more movies to take advantage of Atmos' capabilities in their mixes AND having a lot more equipped theatres for people to hear it in. Of course, there is a chicken or the egg phenomenon.
Why would a production spend a ton of money for a great Atmos mix that will only be heard by 1% of the audience? Which leads to the question of why an exhibitor will spend a ton of money on Atmos installations if the mixes don't take advantage of it and somebody can put it in their home for $2000?
I still say that due to the expense of the system, Dolby's best bet would be for a Real-D style plan. Dolby would finance the installation and then charge a premium per ticket for every Atmos movie. The auditoriums that are part of the plan would need to have a minimum average attendance to qualify but they could probably make it work for $1 per ticket if they secure financing over 5 years. Thereafter, the $1 will be profit to Dolby less maintenance expenses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 09-16-2014 10:02 AM
quote: Lyle Romer
What was the source of the 4k you saw that makes it a "game changer?" In reality, you need to have a very close viewing distance to even be able to physically see the difference in resolution.
The source was House of Cards on Netflix. The overall looks, especially the colors is different than 1080p. Its not about sitting close like 1080p vs 780p. Its more than just that.
quote: Lyle Romer
I still say that due to the expense of the system, Dolby's best bet would be for a Real-D style plan. Dolby would finance the installation and then charge a premium per ticket for every Atmos movie. The auditoriums that are part of the plan would need to have a minimum average attendance to qualify but they could probably make it work for $1 per ticket if they secure financing over 5 years. Thereafter, the $1 will be profit to Dolby less maintenance expenses
The problem with this is that the these (IMAX, RealD, D-BOX, VIP etc) surcharges are way over saturated. There really is way too many competing surcharges, if a theater were to add in three or four Atmos houses to the mix (no pun intended) then it just adds to more saturation. I would be willing to raise the ticket prices for all seats at the theater (and not add the surcharge) to finance the installation of Atmos.
Then there really is the question of, does the audience really care for Atmos? I have not seen much hype going for it like you do IMAX, sure there are the occasion Bobby Hendersons but by far most people I know don't care. Finally, add in really shitty poorly lit single projection to the presentation and I think people will just turn themselves off from it.
In Canada, the only way to see a movie in Atmos is by paying a surcharge, its simply rolled into the AVX surcharge.
quote: Lyle Romer
It is so poorly marketed theatrically that most people don't know it exists or what it is supposed to do.
Yes I agree, it marketed very poorly.
quote: Frank B. McLaughlin
Can any of you remember when the first video rental store moved into the neighborhood - now there is Redbox.
I do, renting was very limited at that time. I also remember VHS rental machines (like Redbox). Do you remember when streaming was not possible? The cost access to titles is far better than it was years ago, especially older titles that can be simply rented on iTunes.
Eventually 4K will catch on, however it will be streaming that pushes the adoption rather than physical media.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-16-2014 10:45 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Let's not forget that Dolby EX on laserdisc lasted just six titles and the EX rollout on DVD was a flop. I don't Atmos has much of a chance.
Terry, you have a very different memory of history. First of all, the Laserdisc format was already on its deathbed in 1999 when Dolby Digital Surround EX was first introduced in movie theaters.
I wouldn't exactly call Dolby•EX in movie theaters a success, but it wasn't an outright failure either. Dolby Surround EX and DTS-ES were both more successful on DVD. I have a bunch of old discs in my movie collection that have those tracks on them. So much for it being a flop.
Atmos is facing tougher odds, but I think it has more to do with physical media itself stupidly falling under attack and tiny/portable fad from the mobile space greatly diminishing the sales and popularity of home surround sound systems.
4K TV sets and 3D are facing the same dire futures in the consumer space. 4K could eventually catch on, but it isn't going to happen very soon at all, not while most of America is stuck as DSL-like Internet speeds or even slower. Very little is happening to change that since telcos are pouring billions into mobile phone networks and doing next to nothing to improve residential Internet.
If anything, home Internet could get worse. "Net neutrality" is obviously going to be a thing of the past. The way mobile phone users are getting price gouged for measly amounts of download bandwidth may wind up infecting home Internet connection pricing. The "suits" are bound and determined to kill that golden goose.
quote: Lyle Romer
I still say that due to the expense of the system, Dolby's best bet would be for a Real-D style plan. Dolby would finance the installation and then charge a premium per ticket for every Atmos movie.
As much as I hate surcharges, this approach is the only way installing Dolby Atmos would be do-able for a lot of movie theaters. The upshot is Dolby could install the sound system they want to install rather than allow a theater to cut corners (lower quality speakers, fewer amplifiers, no sub-bass surround cabinets, etc.).
Unfortunately, I believe customers are going through a bit of price fatigue. It should also be said most Dolby Atmos installations are in premium priced theaters already.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-17-2014 04:09 AM
The problem starts with the cost of the CP-850, which really isn't justified if you look at the hardware itself, which is just another glorified PC based on SuperMicro server hardware, just like their servers. They're obviously offsetting much of their research costs into the pricing of this device. It's normal business practice to have your early adopters pay for much of the initial costs, but with this early release of a similar format to home markets, they really should reconsider their current pricing strategy.
Furthermore, the Dolby Atmos system as it is being sold right now really is more of an end-to-end digital solution, at least it was conceived this way, it's not necessarily how it's being implemented. The CP-850 only provides 16 channels of analog output. If you want more channels (and most Atmos equipped auditoria do have more channels), you already need extra breakout devices. The whole idea really is that you connect your multichannel D/A convertor amp combos or maybe even active speakers directly via plain Ethernet to the CP-850, using "Atmos Connect".
So, what you want is "Atmos Connect" ready amplifiers or maybe even speakers*. But the problem here is that the market isn't working and it all starts with Dolby and the price of this CP-850 and associated integration costs. If they drop the price to something slightly above the CP-750, the market will follow, creating more affordable products like multichannel amps that hook up to Atmos Connect (like QSC's Q-Sys, but then affordable).
* The use of active speakers for cinema is a bit controversial.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-17-2014 10:47 AM
I don't know enough about QSC's Q-Sys system, other than it can handle Atmos, Auro and DTS MDA formats as well as keep the digital audio data maintained as a digital signal right until just before it gets sent to the speakers. From what I understand a Q-Sys "core" device is connecting to the CP-850 and Q-Sys power amplifiers via Gigabit Ethernet. There's no quality killing extra conversions of digital to analog and analog back to digital monkey business taking place. A lot of existing sound systems in d-cinema equipped theaters are fairly Frakensteined affairs. Sound is still regarded as an afterthought at many theaters. Just do it as cheap as possible.
Still, as far as I can tell, QSC isn't selling any Q-Sys series amplifiers or any of their other amplifiers in anything more than 4-channel configurations. With a more maximized Dolby Atmos installation that's still going to mean having a fleet of amplifiers either stacked in three or more refrigerator sized cabinets or having the power amplifiers scattered around other parts of the auditorium (tucked above the drop ceiling, hidden behind the stage speakers, etc.). One upshot to that: it's probably better for audio quality to have shorter speaker leads coming from an amplifier nearby than to have speaker leads running long distances from the booth or even longer distances from some centralized room holding every amp, cinema processor, server, etc. in the complex.
quote: Mike Blakesley
And then also maybe a "bolt-on" array of 12 to 16 speakers that would be pre-wired and ready to attach to a ceiling. Both of these ideas obviously need refinement but things like this could lower the cost dramatically.
It would be nice to have something like that, but every theater building is different and the booth hardware is different. So it would be difficult to have "pre-fab" ceiling surround arrays that are ready to go. However, more work could be done on standardizing the kinds of truss systems needed for those ceiling arrays and the speaker attachments for them.
I don't think those truss systems are used by all Atmos-equipped theaters. I think some merely mount the ceiling surrounds directly to the drop ceiling frame, which might make for some good tile rattling sound problems.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-17-2014 11:57 AM
QSC does make the CX-168 amplifier that is an 8-channel amp with about 90W/CH (into 8-Ohms). The next trick is can you live with just 90W? Remember, each surround could be asked to hit 105dB in the prime listening area. That is VERY loud. Even using the surround subwoofer, it is going to tax the front speakers in the surround array.
http://qsc.com/products/Power_Amplifiers/Cx_Series/CX168/
The next problem with all that power in a multichannel amp is that size the amp must be to handle all of that potential power. This is a case where QSCs new DPAs could be handy since they will essentially power share across the outputs so if one channel needs all of the juice, it gets it.
As for powered speakers or locating power near the speakers...like everything else, there are trade offs. As you have multiple power sources, you increase your risk of things like ground loops and you aren't, necessarily, saving on wire since you need to get the power there too. However, you can certainly daisy-chain power until your run out of current for the circuit. Then there is the service aspect of having the amplifiers located everywhere...when there is a problem...it could be a nightmare to get to it.
I suspect, if one were clever enough to make such a speaker, use some Ethernet based signal/monitoring system on each speaker and just have enough circuits to handle it, one could use self powered speakers. I wonder what the costs of each speaker would be and how that would affect the bottom line versus running another speaker cable to the speaker.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-17-2014 03:56 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't think those truss systems are used by all Atmos-equipped theaters. I think some merely mount the ceiling surrounds directly to the drop ceiling frame, which might make for some good tile rattling sound problems.
The local Atmos equiped house has their ceiling speakers mounted on trusses. The ceiling also forms something of a V-shape above them and they don't touch the ceiling tiles. This auditorium was designed with Atmos in mind though. No rattling tiles, or rattling anything.
quote: Steve Guttag
The next trick is can you live with just 90W? Remember, each surround could be asked to hit 105dB in the prime listening area. That is VERY loud. Even using the surround subwoofer, it is going to tax the front speakers in the surround array.
Probably not, but there's no reason why you couldn't also design a more powerful multichannel amp and still save a lot on otherwise duplicated components.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for powered speakers or locating power near the speakers...like everything else, there are trade offs. As you have multiple power sources, you increase your risk of things like ground loops and you aren't, necessarily, saving on wire since you need to get the power there too. However, you can certainly daisy-chain power until your run out of current for the circuit. Then there is the service aspect of having the amplifiers located everywhere...when there is a problem...it could be a nightmare to get to it.
I suspect, if one were clever enough to make such a speaker, use some Ethernet based signal/monitoring system on each speaker and just have enough circuits to handle it, one could use self powered speakers. I wonder what the costs of each speaker would be and how that would affect the bottom line versus running another speaker cable to the speaker.
The service aspect is the most obvious drawback. I wouldn't go for a solution where you put separate amplifiers around your auditorium, but I could think about a workable scenario where you use active speakers, at least for the surrounds.
Those speakers would have their own PSU and feed on plain 110/230V AC. It's up to you to divide them equally over your three phases. They will also have their own DA converter and amplifier. Ethernet can also function as a bus protocol (although only in half duplex mode), so you could "daisy chain" your speakers if you don't want to run a separate Ethernet cable to each of them or you could put a cluster of them on a switch and run a single uplink from this switch to a central switch in the booth... you could even make it redundant, using (R)STP and all kinds of fancy Ethernet fail-over protocols if you would really want to. (I would probably keep it simple, as those hyper-redundant thingies often cause more problems than they solve.)
Those speakers could be centrally monitored over Ethernet/IP (as far as it goes) and defective speakers could be temporarily disabled. Dolby Atmos could probably even account for this missing speaker and although it's a suboptimal situation, it's often better than running with a half functioning speaker.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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