Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema?

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-05-2012 12:48 PM

Actually most technicians I know wish Sony would just dry up and disappear. SDDS sounded good when it worked but like everyting else Sony you have to go to Sony to get either repair parts or to get the boards fixed. And the latter was very touch and go... you literally didn't know if the repaired board was going to work right or not until you plugged it back in.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 01-05-2012 01:00 PM

@ Mark: but the negativity towards Sony was their processors/sound decoding - right? If DCI has the specs and ability to encode/decode five front speaker sound, wouldn't it be less buggy since the sound is no longer physically on the film print.

quote: John Thomas
Houses that were originally fit for 8-channel SDDS are now Dolby 5.1.

so they've taken out the two additional speakers? so even if a studio were to mass release a 9.1 film everyone who wanted to take advantage and feature the film as such would have to rebuy/reinstall those speakers.

secondly from a preservation stand point wouldn't it make sense the five front channel mixes not only from 8-channel SDDS films but Todd-AO (and other 70mm films for that matter) to be digitally encoded and archived as such. With the demise of 35mm and 70mm, these mixes might never be heard ever again as they were in their theatrical runs.

| IP: Logged

John Thomas
Film Handler

Posts: 75
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 01-05-2012 01:23 PM

Not even removed; the speakers are still up there. The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 01-05-2012 01:44 PM

quote: John Thomas
Not even removed; the speakers are still up there. The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.

that's sad.

maybe I'm just more sensitive to sound, but five front channel sound just sounds so much fuller and dramatic. The classical music score (in 8-SDDS) for 'Immortal Beloved' was just beautiful. Even the Todd-AO 6-track sound stems are wonderfully mixed on the 'Sound of Music' bluray 5.1 disc with some excellent phantom imaging between the left-center/right center speakers.

On a somewhat related note, there are some current 5.1 mixes that are just plain sloppy or inconsistent. This is very evident in the mix done for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' - in one scene there is a character on the far left of the screen speaking and his voice is emitting from the direct center [eeesh] however in the same movie the surround sound is creatively mixed and ads some surprises [i.e, the bird in the classroom scene].

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-05-2012 03:39 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
so if a movie WERE to be released with the left/center and right/center channels of sound - how many theaters are set up that way - do the prior auditoriums that featured 8-channel SDDS still set up that way?

Some older theaters equipped for 70mm projection can handle the "five up front" channel arrangement. Certain houses equipped (or previously equipped) with SDDS may still be wired to handle 5 stage channels of audio. However, most theaters that installed SDDS only wired the sound system for 5.1. Heck, SDDS could even be installed into a stereo/4.0 layout.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Don't the specialized ultra screens (ETX, XD, RPX etc.,) already have five front speaker set-ups in place?

I strongly doubt it. If any of those newfangled premium priced theaters have 7.1 it is likely in the newer 3 stage channels/4 surround channels layout, similar to what is used on Blu-ray in home theater. Dolby is trying to brand the format "Dolby Surround 7.1" regardless of the fact no Dolby encoding/compression scheme is being applied to the audio; it's straight linear PCM.

quote: John Thomas
The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.

You can hear the difference under the right circumstances. The viewer either must be in a theater with a really big screen or he must be sitting close enough to the screen where the speaker source differences will be more noticeable. Obviously the movie mix itself must have audio elements panning across those five stage channels or placed in positions on the screen where the left extra and right extra channels would become noticeable.

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 01-05-2012 04:03 PM

With the recent push for 48 and 60 fps, it's doubtful whether the extra channels backstage will make as marketable an impact as the visuals would.

Screen size is also a determining factor on whether 5 backstage full-range channels are required.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 01-05-2012 04:49 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some older theaters equipped for 70mm projection can handle the "five up front" channel arrangement. Certain houses equipped (or previously equipped) with SDDS may still be wired to handle 5 stage channels of audio. However, most theaters that installed SDDS only wired the sound system for 5.1. Heck, SDDS could even be installed into a stereo/4.0 layout.

I strongly doubt it. If any of those newfangled premium priced theaters have 7.1 it is likely in the newer 3 stage channels/4 surround channels layout, similar to what is used on Blu-ray in home theater. Dolby is trying to brand the format "Dolby Surround 7.1" regardless of the fact no Dolby encoding/compression scheme is being applied to the audio; it's straight linear PCM.

You can hear the difference under the right circumstances. The viewer either must be in a theater with a really big screen or he must be sitting close enough to the screen where the speaker source differences will be more noticeable. Obviously the movie mix itself must have audio elements panning across those five stage channels or placed in positions on the screen where the left extra and right extra channels would become noticeable.

even though the sound source is the 5.1 (eventual bluray) mix I'd think those 'newfangled premium priced theaters' would really might benefit from five front sound - something that isn't replicable in the home theater setup. Dolby might be trying to take the credit of 7.1 but I really don't see DataSat (DTS) or SDDS trying to market it. The fact that The New York Times denoted 'The Muppets' being released in 7.1 is a definite step in the right direction.

Even though there are many examples of excellent sound mixing in the theater and on bluray, Pixar films really make fantastic use of directional dialogue - 'Toy Story 2' adds so much information from and in between the frontal sound stage, two extra channels might even seem redundant.

quote: Ian Parfrey
With the recent push for 48 and 60 fps, it's doubtful whether the extra channels backstage will make as marketable an impact as the visuals would.

Screen size is also a determining factor on whether 5 backstage full-range channels are required

Yes ‘film’ is a visual medium, but the merging of sound and it’s effectiveness seems to have gotten lost in the fray, as I see it sound has become second fiddle to 3D and digital photography – which is unfortunate.

The trend to make screens larger and more immersive absolutely needs the best that film sound can deliver. Cinemascope got the American public out of in front of their tv sets in the 1950's, the current ‘new’ ultra-large screens and the integration of 9.1 sound could also easily entice more folks.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 01-05-2012 06:59 PM

Because of the finances involved with D-Cin, NO ONE is interested in audio beyond the 5.1 mandated for vpf.

This will have to wait for "after the shake out." Louis

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-06-2012 09:05 AM

Louis... BY the time the shake out is done we will be hanging 40 foot wide very thin OLED screens and there won't be any projector. Speakers may have to go above the screen as in AMC.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 01-06-2012 10:05 AM

Interesting topic! I'm part of the design team for the USL JSD-100 and also on several SMPTE standards committees, study groups, etc., and participate in the ISDCF plug fests. So, I'm very interested in what this group has to say!

On Lc/Rc, it is true that section 3.3.3 table 5 of http://www.dcimovies.com/DCIDigitalCinemaSystemSpecv1_2.pdf puts Lc/Rc on channels 7/8 for an 8 channel mix. Table 6 shows these channels unassigned in a six channel system (5.1). However, http://www.dcimovies.com/errata/v1_2/DCI-Errata_16-20_2008-1120.html removes these tables and makes reference to SMPTE 428-3-2006. This standard is currently being revised.

As I understand what is proposed for SMPTE 428-3, there are defined "sound field groups" that correspond to sound formats such as 5.1, 7.1SDDS, 7.1DS, etc. These sound field groups then consist of several audio channels in the DCP. The DCS will route the particular audio channel (destined for a particular speaker or speaker group) out a particular AES channel to the cinema processor. This routing can vary based on the sound field group specified for the particular DCP. Again, this is my understanding of what's proposed. The SMPTE site is down right now, so I can't get to the draft documents.

It appears the vast majority of auditoriums and the vast majority of content is 5.1. There is a little bit of 7.1DS content being distributed. While the DCP supports 16 discrete channels of PCM audio, two are generally allocated to HI/VI-N audio, and often another two are allocated to seat shakers. So that leaves you with 12 channels for the auditorium. I'm aware of a couple systems (Iosono and Auro-3D) that encode multiple channels into the DCP file and AES stream. In some cases, a single DCP can contain both 5.1 and larger mixes allowing for a "single inventory" for distribution.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, ISDCF has suggested putting HI/VI-N on AES channels 7 and 8. This is where 5.1 Interop DCPs put HI/VI-N, and Interop does not support channel routing. So, it appears most auditoriums are wired this way. It does cause interesting problems when people have the processor set for 7.1 and expect to get Lrs/Rrs on 7/8 but, instead, get HI/VI-N.

I suspect that as we migrate from Interop to SMPTE, the servers will be set to route audio as the auditorium is currently wired (which, in most cases, would put HI/VI-N on AES7/8). Once there is channel routing, there does not need to be a one to one relationship between position in the audio file and the AES output.

Other questions that come up are:

1. If you have an auditorium that has Lc/Rc and Lrs/Rrs speakers, what do you do when you play 5.1 content? Do you leave those speaker mute? Should you synthesize something? The JSD-100 allows Lc/Rc to be generated from L, C, and R. Lrs/Rrs can be driven by Ls/Rs (creating an L shaped surround), or a sum of Ls/Rs (creating a rear "center" surround).

2. Is the L shaped surround (where Ls includes the side and a portion of the rear wall) "acoustically correct?" It appears this is a common speaker installation, but at least one member of the SMPTE audio channel labeling group says it's acoustically incorrect.

3. Should a processor (or anything else) "downmix" higher channel count audio to a lower channel count? Currently, I don't think so. The movie producer wants a certain sound, and we should not change it. So, movies are currently distributed with different mixes (I've mostly just seen 5.1 and 7.1DS). But, clearly, drive-ins need to down to either mono or stereo.

So... interesting topic! I look forward to more comments.

Harold

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2012 11:25 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
BY the time the shake out is done we will be hanging 40 foot wide very thin OLED screens and there won't be any projector.

I hope that doesn't happen. If the screen creates the light, rather than reflects it, that'll ruin the way movies look way more than the loss of film did. At that point it really will just be a big TV.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 01-06-2012 02:39 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
At that point it really will just be a big TV.

Dunno about that .. for the simple fact of: no moving parts, lenses, no complex light engines, no bulbs to deal with...and price efficency with possible lower pricing due to simplified manufacturing techiniques that are presently in operation-just more on a grand scale...

And the OLED panels could be made modular (only disadvantage would be getting the field of light across the entire panel arrangement uniform where it would look like a one panel) where they are assembled to join one another to make any size of screen needed.

...and getting away with a very sharp image results with either sitting in the very front row or sitting clear in the back - no fuss with 2, 4+K resolution stuff needed by the imager chipsets.

Interesting concept for sure ... -Monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-06-2012 03:13 PM

LED-based movie theater screens won't be happening for quite a long time. It just isn't practical or cost effective.

Regarding OLED, the technology is still very costly. It's mostly used in cellular phone displays. LG is showing off a new 55 inch OLED-based HDTV set. It weighs only 7.5 kilograms. But it will cost over $8000.

Traditional LEDs used in electronic variable message centers can have pixel pitch sizes reduced tight enough to squeeze 2K resolution into a movie theater sized screen. However the cost would be pretty outrageous. We're talking several hundred thousand dollars even with the price drops that have occurred in recent years. These kinds of displays need a lot of continuous maintenance. Driver boards (the LED tiles) go bad and have to be replaced. Other things happen inside of the unit, like problems with the controller. Then there's the issue of keeping colors consistent as driver board tiles are changed.

One upside, a LED-based movie screen wouldn't have to be solid. The LED driver board panels could be designed "porous" enough to allow speakers to be installed behind the thing.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
even though the sound source is the 5.1 (eventual bluray) mix I'd think those 'newfangled premium priced theaters' would really might benefit from five front sound - something that isn't replicable in the home theater setup.

The movie must have its sound mix created in the 7.1 format for the premium priced theater to make any use of it. No one is making movie mixes in the 5 up front stage layout anymore. Hardly anyone is bothering with the four channel surround layout even though it has an established path to home theater (which would make the extra effort and cost of doing a 7.1 mix more worth it).

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Dolby might be trying to take the credit of 7.1 but I really don't see DataSat (DTS) or SDDS trying to market it. The fact that The New York Times denoted 'The Muppets' being released in 7.1 is a definite step in the right direction.

Dolby, DataSat (DTS) and SDDS (R.I.P.) can't really claim ownership of the 7.1 channel linear PCM process. Basically it's just "7.1 Surround." Or "7.1 LCPM Surround." Linear PCM unfortunately has the image of being a generic audio format even though it is superior in quality to those data lossy compression formats used on 35mm film.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 01-06-2012 04:03 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The movie must have its sound mix created in the 7.1 format for the premium priced theater to make any use of it. No one is making movie mixes in the 5 up front stage layout anymore. Hardly anyone is bothering with the four channel surround layout even though it has an established path to home theater (which would make the extra effort and cost of doing a 7.1 mix more worth it).

Dolby, DataSat (DTS) and SDDS (R.I.P.) can't really claim ownership of the 7.1 channel linear PCM process. Basically it's just "7.1 Surround." Or "7.1 LCPM Surround." Linear PCM unfortunately has the image of being a generic audio format even though it is superior in quality to those data lossy compression formats used on 35mm film.

why did 8-SDDS up and die anyway? Sony might have been aiming high in bringing back the five front layout but at least it got me to seek out those films that were mixed as such. The fact that DCI audio specs didn't ignore the LC and RC speaker layout (and are there) is a positive in my book. If they are there, why not use them?

The negativity towards anything other than standard 5.1 is pretty amazing (and hard headed) for an industry that is trying to keep its patrons coming back to watch films in the cinplex and not at home (or on their phones). 3D maybe more accessible to the masses, but sound has always been the one aspect where the theaters can excell and make completely unreplicable in home theater application. Fox tinkered with 7.1 with two titles, but then in turn didn't even encode the blurays as such. Universal has released a few blurays in 7.1, but nothing theatrical. Warners has yet to release any film in 7.1, theatrically or on bluray. I'm aware that no one can lay claim, or trademark 7.1, but Dolby has to be given some credit in their attempts in promoting it.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 01-06-2012 04:38 PM

The simple thing that made SDDS die was the placement of the tracks on the film - on the edges where the wear factor is the worst. You were good for almost two weeks of SDDS playback before major dropouts happened.

Plus, where the SDDS processor couldn't be daisy chained in with the other processors in case if the SDDS track failed was the other big issue.

Outside of these above factors, SDDS actually was one pretty good system and had the expandability to go along with it. But the "supply and demand" syndrome pushed it out the door.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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.