|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DTS announces DTS:X Object-Based Codec
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-03-2015 06:41 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Obviously the thing that needs to happen is the makers of Pro Tools and other professional level audio editing applications need to build the 3D sound layout features into the core parts of their applications. The capability shouldn't be confined to a collection of 3rd party plug-ins. It should be an another sound layout option in addition to the standard mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1. Exporting to Atmos, DTS MDA, Auro and IMAX should amount to nothing more than a few button clicks.
I think Avid and Steinberg will be missing the boat eventually if they're not already working on this right now. It's obvious that nobody is waiting to do one mix in 3 or even 4 different formats. A company called Fairlight is already offering similar products, both standalone and as plugin for both Pro Tools and Nuendo, although I have never seen those in action.
A different "Multidimensional format" should eventually be just another checkbox in the workflow.
quote: Bobby Henderson
When it comes to 3D audio a greater number of individually amplified speakers will yield a more precise 3D audio image. It's not any different in principal to more pixels yielding a more detailed visual image.
It's essentially like playing a graphically intensive computer game on a PC. The maximum quality I can get out of it is highly dependent on how much money I spent on stuff like processors and graphic cards. Interestingly enough, computer games have done this live audio-panning and rendering across multiple channels for years already. Many computer games produce better surround sound effects than many movies actually...
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm skeptical home theater equipment manufacturers will build the features needed into their receivers for end users to input what amounts to a 3D image of their home theater room and register the correct geometry of where each speaker is placed. Even if those features were built into the receiver I'm not all that convinced many end users would use those features. Even professional installers would very likely skip those parts just to save time (from the point of view the customer won't know the difference).
Isn't where the beef is for companies like Audissey and Dirac? Many AVR and professional decoder manufacturers already use their "room correction" software and put it in their products. Just a select few equipment manufacturers actually produce their own software for those kind of things.
This "room correction" can actually do a pretty decent job with a simple calibration microphone (standard equipment on most mid- and high-end AVRs). I'm sure this software can be expanded to include MDA formats.
This auto-calibration surely won't beat any professional installer service, but why wouldn’t they too embrace those new formats? Isn't this an opportunity for them to sell more of their services?
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Dolby True HD track will contain the foundation 7.1 track and embedded Atmos metadata defines the objects to play either in the base level 7.1 speakers and/or the additional 2 or 4 speakers installed overhead.
Unfortunately, the format is not open yet, but from what I've heard, the objects in the consumer version of Atmos do actually contain full 3D coordinates and can also be panned in the 3D space. So it's not just a speaker assignment thing. There seem to be stricter limitations on the number of concurrent objects though.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Atmos is gonna run in cinema, home receiver, tablet (headphones), computer, streaming and not yet announced in-vehicle there is gonna a be a number of different versions compared to the cinema.
Yeah, just like it happened with e.g. stereo? And why will it need different version for home cinema, tablet, computers and vehicles? Is there a reason why you keep mocking Dolby Atmos? Because I miss the big difference between Atmos and DTS:X and why the one can be ridiculed and the other seems to be fine...
quote: Daniel Schulz
There isn't, up to the 24.1.10 maximum. Much as the theatrical version tops out at 64 independent speaker feeds.
I don't think those limits are in the actual formats themselves, that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe they are some reasonable limits in the specifications for manufacturers. The maximum of 64 output channels for the theatrical version Dolby Atmos is solely based on the maximum of the CP 850, which is probably due to a combination of DSP limitations and plain processing power. Future decoders may very well support a whole bunch more channels, especially once we'll see Wave Field Synthesis make its way in... (Barco recently bought a company, IOSONO, who builds working WFS cinema products.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-03-2015 08:29 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think Avid and Steinberg will be missing the boat eventually if they're not already working on this right now. It's obvious that nobody is waiting to do one mix in 3 or even 4 different formats. A company called Fairlight is already offering similar products, both standalone and as plugin for both Pro Tools and Nuendo, although I have never seen those in action.
A different "Multidimensional format" should eventually be just another checkbox in the workflow.
The only "downside" from the point of view of those creating the sound layouts is they'll probably have to pay at least some kind of fee for the encoding/output function for each of those formats -just like what one has to do with Atmos, Auro, etc. currently. You don't get those features bundled in with Pro Tools. OTOH, the cost of those encoding functions would be relatively cheap compared to the overall cost of the production budget.
The situation reminds me a little about what's gone on with Adobe Audition in previous versions. In the past you had to pay $99 for a third party plug-in if you wanted to encode a 5.1 layout into Dolby Digital format. That's different now; Audition has built-in encoding capability for Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus. But you still have to spend a good bit more if you want to encode anything in DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby True HD.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It's essentially like playing a graphically intensive computer game on a PC. The maximum quality I can get out of it is highly dependent on how much money I spent on stuff like processors and graphic cards. Interestingly enough, computer games have done this live audio-panning and rendering across multiple channels for years already. Many computer games produce better surround sound effects than many movies actually...
That's a point worth debate on a number of fronts.
Yes, video game systems can render dozens upon dozens of separate sounds. But they're rendering them only to a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel layout, not something as complex as a cinema sound system with up to 64 speaker outputs. And the sounds being rendered are merely a limited number of "canned" sound elements. Then there's all the subjective differences. Everything in a movie sound mix is deliberately built either by hand or through scripting, and there's often many separate sound objects present in the music and sound effects stems. The sound events in a video game are largely incidental, unless there is some story beat in the game that has the audio locked to specific sound channels.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
This "room correction" can actually do a pretty decent job with a simple calibration microphone (standard equipment on most mid- and high-end AVRs). I'm sure this software can be expanded to include MDA formats.
I'm thinking there is a lot of variables where errors can be made by installers or end users when setting up their next-generation home theater sound systems. If some kind of special microphone and software can correctly identify room geometry and speaker position with minimal input from end users that would be pretty cool. But I'm skeptical that sort of thing can be done easily. Maybe the speakers and receiver need some lasers to align them.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think those limits are in the actual formats themselves, that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe they are some reasonable limits in the specifications for manufacturers. The maximum of 64 output channels for the theatrical version Dolby Atmos is solely based on the maximum of the CP 850, which is probably due to a combination of DSP limitations and plain processing power.
You gotta factor in data bandwidth limits on all parts of the playback chain as well as disc capacity. A hard disc based DCP has lots of space, although that gets cramped if the movie distributor puts 47 different versions of the movie on the same hard disc. Blu-ray disc capacity can be quite a bit more cramped. Developers are working on the next generation of Blu-ray to support 4K resolution movies and HEVC encoded video. There should be more breathing room for Atmos and DTS:X on that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-06-2015 03:38 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only "downside" from the point of view of those creating the sound layouts is they'll probably have to pay at least some kind of fee for the encoding/output function for each of those formats -just like what one has to do with Atmos, Auro, etc. currently. You don't get those features bundled in with Pro Tools. OTOH, the cost of those encoding functions would be relatively cheap compared to the overall cost of the production budget.
Getting the features into Pro Tools is probably the cheaper side of the deal, proper licensing for mass distribution is another thing. Yet, I guess for any MAJOR release, it's still just peanuts compared to the big picture. Obviously, it's different for your average, independent production, but I sure hope some open, free-to-use standard will weight in here.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's different now; Audition has built-in encoding capability for Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus. But you still have to spend a good bit more if you want to encode anything in DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby True HD.
Both Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus also don't require any licensing fee for content distribution in those formats. You will need to pay them if you want to put the Dolby logo on your advertising and products though.
The stupid part about both DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby True HD is that those formats essentially add nothing that cannot be done with multichannel PCM... Most delivery formats, including Blu-Ray support those vanilla PCM streams and practically all recent players and decoders do so too. And for backward compatibility you could still add a Dolby AC3 5.1 track, which is supported by practically all digital surround systems out there, even the very first generations.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Yes, video game systems can render dozens upon dozens of separate sounds. But they're rendering them only to a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel layout, not something as complex as a cinema sound system with up to 64 speaker outputs. And the sounds being rendered are merely a limited number of "canned" sound elements. Then there's all the subjective differences. Everything in a movie sound mix is deliberately built either by hand or through scripting, and there's often many separate sound objects present in the music and sound effects stems. The sound events in a video game are largely incidental, unless there is some story beat in the game that has the audio locked to specific sound channels.
The newer generation of games are actually doing quite an impressive job here. The amount of samples or "canned sounds" has increased considerably, so usually you're not constantly hearing the same loop over and over again. Also, the complexity in processing doesn't really differ between "canned sounds" and "a new sample every time", it has primarily something to do with limits in both production (how many samples are you going to produce for e.g. the same characters?) and traditionally also stuff like storage considerations. In-game music now seems to be threated no less to that of fully blown movie soundtracks for those big budget game productions. Last time I hooked up the PS3 to the surround system I was actually quite blown away about the “immersiveness” (THAT word again) of the sound of many of those games.
I guess movies have traditionally been mixed a bit on the conservative side. In most mixes, it's still primarily the three stage channels. Music comes out left and right and dialog is primarily focused on the center speaker. Surround speakers are mostly only used for added effect. For example, even if somebody is speaking while standing "behind the audience", the dialog most of the time, comes out the front speakers and not from the appropriate surrounds. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing and it wouldn't fit all movies equally well to drastically change it, but mixes that really stand out, like the mix of Gravity, tend to part away from this fixed notion of "channel mapping". They don't threat the surround speakers as some kind of third rate accessories but as an important part of the mix as a whole.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm thinking there is a lot of variables where errors can be made by installers or end users when setting up their next-generation home theater sound systems. If some kind of special microphone and software can correctly identify room geometry and speaker position with minimal input from end users that would be pretty cool. But I'm skeptical that sort of thing can be done easily. Maybe the speakers and receiver need some lasers to align them.
For the Atmos reference setup at home, which is based on a traditional 7.1 setup with 4 ceiling speakers, Onkyo and Denon are already using the standard Audissey auto-calibration using their standard calibration microphone. So as long as you remain within a certain window with your speaker placements, you don't really need to do that much tweaking. A fully custom setup will probably need a lot more tweaking to get it sound right, but we're in the early stages here. The first generation 5.1 systems didn't have anything like the options available today for example.
And yeah, going the "laser aligned" route, a professional installer could probably make a LIDAR scan of the room, reduce this to some basic geometric forms and feed this to some "next gen room correction" software. Maybe you could license them to play your own "frickin' laser alligned sound system" trailer. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm not sure if this nit picking on the last inch really adds some noticeable quality to your setup though. I doubt anybody, including me would notice if I would e.g. calibrate my basic 5.1 system to "absolute perfection" and somebody else comes in and would start moving the speakers a few inches around. Moving your head around a few inches would probably make a greater impact... Then again, there are audiophiles that pay thousands of dollars for some feel-good snake-oil copper wire.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You gotta factor in data bandwidth limits on all parts of the playback chain as well as disc capacity. A hard disc based DCP has lots of space, although that gets cramped if the movie distributor puts 47 different versions of the movie on the same hard disc. Blu-ray disc capacity can be quite a bit more cramped. Developers are working on the next generation of Blu-ray to support 4K resolution movies and HEVC encoded video. There should be more breathing room for Atmos and DTS:X on that.
The amount of concurrent objects or parallel audio streams are important factors on the distribution side of the content. So, if you limit e.g. the maximum number of concurrent objects, channel beds and count in their maximum bitrate, you know exactly what your maximum bitrate will be. On the playback side, the only thing that should matter regarding the amount of speakers you put in, is the amount of processing power you need to generate all those separate audio streams for all those discrete output channels. So, a limit of e.g. 32 concurrent objects should be of no importance to the amount of speakers/channels you can put in at the playback side, as long as your hardware has sufficient processing power and output channels. If a manufacturer offers such a system, he should make sure he can handle the maximum number of objects, channel beds at the maximum bitrate using all channels to earn the seal of approval.
Another factor for artificial limits like those is licensing and protecting revenue. If you look at Dolby, the professional version of Dolby Atmos is a whole lot more expensive than the home version. You might want to avoid the home standard being used as a knock off replacement for your highly priced professional equipment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-06-2015 12:41 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Getting the features into Pro Tools is probably the cheaper side of the deal, proper licensing for mass distribution is another thing. Yet, I guess for any MAJOR release, it's still just peanuts compared to the big picture. Obviously, it's different for your average, independent production, but I sure hope some open, free-to-use standard will weight in here.
I don't. Not everything needs an open source solution.
Open source isn't an all good thing, particularly in software for creative fields. None of the open source alternatives for pixel-based image editing, vector image editing, sound editing, 3D modeling, etc. can compare favorably to their commercially sold, industry leading counterparts. The GIMP might be fine as a free program, but it sucks and is counterproductive compared to Photoshop. And then you have all those open source code modules getting incorporated here and there in either open or commercially sold software and possibly opening serious security holes.
In the niche of complex 3D surround audio the act of adding a free to use and modify standard will just result in more commercial "me too" products clouding the next gen sound situation even further and convincing theater operators to just stick with 5.1 or 7.1.
I'm hoping that between DTS and Barco (and Barco's acquisition of Iosono) that they'll be able to transition Auro-equipped theaters over to DTS MDA. Then we would just have two object based surround sound standards in theaters.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Both Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus also don't require any licensing fee for content distribution in those formats. You will need to pay them if you want to put the Dolby logo on your advertising and products though.
Dolby definitely does charge licensing fees to electronics manufacturers to put Dolby technologies in professional and consumer level hardware. Dolby does charge content producers either directly or indirectly for software using their encoding technologies, such as standalone Dolby TrueHD encoding software or the Atmos plug-in for ProTools. I'm sure Adobe paid Dolby some money to give Audition CC built-in DD & DD Plus encoding capability, and that's probably getting passed on to end users as part of that $50 per month Creative Cloud subscription fee.
However, Dolby doesn't necessarily charge content producers on the back end when they want to include a Dolby TrueHD track on a Blu-ray disc or an Atmos track on a cinema DCP. They do require content producers to sign an agreement with them, particularly if they want to use any Dolby branding.
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/cinema/motion-picture-service-agreement.html
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/licensing/logo-use-agreement.aspx
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The stupid part about both DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby True HD is that those formats essentially add nothing that cannot be done with multichannel PCM... Most delivery formats, including Blu-Ray support those vanilla PCM streams and practically all recent players and decoders do so too.
DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD offer a 50% reduction in sound file size, plus backward compatibility in either an embedded or hidden lossy DTS or DD track. You can't play LPCM 5.1/7.1 properly through a TV set's speakers or through a surround sound system not equipped with either HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs. This is why all those early Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1/7.1 also had to at least include separate DD or DTS tracks, eating up even more disc capacity.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not sure if this nit picking on the last inch really adds some noticeable quality to your setup though. I doubt anybody, including me would notice if I would e.g. calibrate my basic 5.1 system to "absolute perfection" and somebody else comes in and would start moving the speakers a few inches around.
Overall, I'm just skeptical about any automatic "smart" set up software for sound. Brad Miller could go into this much better than I. In the end you really have to intelligently use your own ears and hope they're "golden" enough to get a sound system properly tuned so it sounds fantastic. Letting a computer do it all by a given set of numbers won't accomplish that.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Another factor for artificial limits like those is licensing and protecting revenue. If you look at Dolby, the professional version of Dolby Atmos is a whole lot more expensive than the home version. You might want to avoid the home standard being used as a knock off replacement for your highly priced professional equipment.
Dolby had that factor handled way back when they developed the first consumer versions of Dolby Digital. The data from a 35mm SRD track couldn't play on a home DD system and vice versa. I don't think there's any way for a theater operator to maintain a Blu-ray disc's Dolby TrueHD track with embedded Atmos data into a commercial Atmos system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-06-2015 04:16 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't. Not everything needs an open source solution.
Open source isn't an all good thing, particularly in software for creative fields. None of the open source alternatives for pixel-based image editing, vector image editing, sound editing, 3D modeling, etc. can compare favorably to their commercially sold, industry leading counterparts. The GIMP might be fine as a free program, but it sucks and is counterproductive compared to Photoshop. And then you have all those open source code modules getting incorporated here and there in either open or commercially sold software and possibly opening serious security holes.
You're confusing open standards, which are in many ways, a good thing, with Open Source. They definitly aren't the same, not even close. I agree that many Open Source tools aren't capable of (entirely) replacing commercial tools and The Gimp v.s. Photoshop is a good example. There are plenty others, which are all out of scope of this argument. But, Photoshop for example, can handle many open and closed file formats. Formats like PNG are entirely open and this is a good thing. Without open standards, we wouldn't even have this discussion right here. I won't comment on if that's a good or a bad thing though .
quote: Bobby Henderson
DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD offer a 50% reduction in sound file size, plus backward compatibility in either an embedded or hidden lossy DTS or DD track. You can't play LPCM 5.1/7.1 properly through a TV set's speakers or through a surround sound system not equipped with either HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs. This is why all those early Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1/7.1 also had to at least include separate DD or DTS tracks, eating up even more disc capacity.
The DD or DTS track built in for backward compatibility will occupy roughly the same amount of space, whether it's incorporated as a distinctive audio track or as part of the TrueHD / Master Audio track. The space required by non-lossy LPCM tracks should not really be an issue on a conventional Blu-Ray release, especially because you could just skip both of the custom non-lossy sound formats. Some Blu-Rays are actually delivered this way, they feature Multi-PCM soundtracks as primary sound track and maybe Dolby Digital and/or DTS as fallback. Anything that does Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD will also support Multi-PCM, anything that doesn't can happily live off the AC3 soundtrack. The compression factor of the DTS and Dolby formats might only be interesting if you want to cram in multiple sound tracks in e.g. many different languages on a very long movie.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Overall, I'm just skeptical about any automatic "smart" set up software for sound. Brad Miller could go into this much better than I. In the end you really have to intelligently use your own ears and hope they're "golden" enough to get a sound system properly tuned so it sounds fantastic. Letting a computer do it all by a given set of numbers won't accomplish that.
We're talking about average home setups here, not cinemas or screening rooms. Most of those auto-calibration things will do a better job than Joe Average ever will. The audiophile or home theater enthusiast will probably throw in his own set of "theories" of what sounds best and how to calibrate their setup. Personally, I don't believe in "golden ears", I do believe in personal preferences though. But if you want your setup to be as neutral and "close to reference" as possible, you best believe your measuring equipment and not your ears.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby had that factor handled way back when they developed the first consumer versions of Dolby Digital. The data from a 35mm SRD track couldn't play on a home DD system and vice versa. I don't think there's any way for a theater operator to maintain a Blu-ray disc's Dolby TrueHD track with embedded Atmos data into a commercial Atmos system.
Depending on how creative I may get, I could do it for you now, using a standard issue AVR with Atmos support. Not that I would advocate such a setup, but it's not like it's impossible to do some kind of "knock off" Atmos that at least, would work with Blu-Ray releases. It will, in the current setup, never be able to outperform the "real" Atmos, because no AVR will currently support as many discrete channels. If I want the real deal, I will have to buy at least a proper CP-850.
Also, the DATASAT AP20 for example, already supports practically all consumer DTS formats out there. Maybe it will do DTS:X too in the near future and if the AP20 won't do it, I'm rather sure a successor model will do.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-07-2015 01:40 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You're confusing open standards, which are in many ways, a good thing, with Open Source. They definitly aren't the same, not even close.
In terms of technology and software the lines between "open source" and "open standards" definitely do blur a lot. For instance, Adobe has some technologies they had either released entirely or partially as an open standard. But in doing so they had to release a bunch of programming code as open source. Adobe couldn't just tell others, "hey here's the idea we have, but you guys need to go code it from scratch."
DTS is developing its Open MDA standard, but if the standard is truly "open" other companies looking to create cinema processors with object based surround capability might expect DTS to provide them with source code to build up that feature.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The DD or DTS track built in for backward compatibility will occupy roughly the same amount of space, whether it's incorporated as a distinctive audio track or as part of the TrueHD / Master Audio track. The space required by non-lossy LPCM tracks should not really be an issue on a conventional Blu-Ray release, especially because you could just skip both of the custom non-lossy sound formats.
There's plenty of advantages in using disc capacity in the most efficient way possible. You can fit two lossless compressed 5.1 tracks in the same space as one LPCM 5.1 track. The space savings provide more bandwidth for a wider, more variable video bit rate. The space savings can be used to fit in more alternative language tracks. And then there's the obvious benefit of having to encode only one primary language track rather than multiple tracks as well as the simplicity for end users over which tracks to select. Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1 tracks are usually authored to default to a lossy DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 track because of this. If the Blu-ray has a DTS-HD Master Audio track the end user doesn't have to fart around with audio choices before pressing "play."
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Depending on how creative I may get, I could do it for you now, using a standard issue AVR with Atmos support. Not that I would advocate such a setup, but it's not like it's impossible to do some kind of "knock off" Atmos that at least, would work with Blu-Ray releases.
One obvious thing: by the time a movie is released onto Blu-ray its theatrical release has been finished for 3 or more months. Movie theater cinema processors have very limited support for strictly home theater audio formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.
AFAIK there are no cinema processors that can decode both natively, much less maintain a top layer of object based sound metadata in the digital bit stream. Usually a movie theater has to feed analog audio outputs from a Blu-ray player featuring 5.1/7.1 analog outputs if they want to play a Blu-ray using a lossless audio format during playback.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, the DATASAT AP20 for example, already supports practically all consumer DTS formats out there. Maybe it will do DTS:X too in the near future and if the AP20 won't do it, I'm rather sure a successor model will do.
It supports all the current DTS audio formats, including DTS-HD Master Audio. But it only supports consumer Dolby Digital. It doesn't support Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), computer, streaming and not yet announced in-vehicle there is gonna a be a number of different versions compared to the cinema.
Printer-friendly view of this topic