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 3)

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 01-06-2012 05:19 PM

Let us not forget the shitty repair support that SDDS also had. The tech guys were ok but factory service sucked beyond belief.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-06-2012 08:49 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
why did 8-SDDS up and die anyway?

Numerous reasons.

• The arrival of the Dolby CP500.
• Not enough 7.1 sound mixes.
• The Dolby brand name.
• The DTS fan base.
• SDDS track wear on 35mm prints.
• SDDS gear cost more than DTS or SR•D.
• Sony didn't do a great job supporting SDDS gear.
• Quite a few movies from Fox & Paramount lacked SDDS tracks.
• Dolby Digital was on the most film prints by far.
• DTS was #2 in movie releases.
• SDDS had no home theater counterpart like DD & DTS.

There might be additional reasons too.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
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).

Actually, I think the movie industry doesn't really give much of a damn about sound anymore. The movie studios don't seem to care all that much about keeping movie theaters on a higher standards level above how movies can be viewed in the home.

For close to a decade the technology has been there to deliver 10.2 channel surround in commercial movie theaters. The only thing that needed to take place was a few phone calls between movie studio heads, theater chain executives and a few key movie productions. That never happened. 5.1 was good enough despite what the latest, greatest hardware can do.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
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.

In recent years more has happened with audio in home theater than movie theaters. Dolby and DTS still have brand relavance with audio on DVD and Blu-ray. More DVDs were released with Dolby Surround EX 5.1 and DTS-ES 6.1 tracks than movies released in theaters with EX/ES mixes. The same thing is true with 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray. Not all that many movies have been released on Blu-ray in 7.1, but most of those movies were only 5.1 in theatrical release.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
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.

It's still inaccurate advertising regardless of any higher purpose Dolby might be doing to promote 7.1 channel audio production in general.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2012 09:26 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
For close to a decade the technology has been there to deliver 10.2 channel surround in commercial movie theaters. The only thing that needed to take place was a few phone calls between movie studio heads, theater chain executives and a few key movie productions. That never happened. 5.1 was good enough despite what the latest, greatest hardware can do.

You're forgetting one big elephant in the room: Money. People already bitch (incorrectly) that movies are too expensive. How do you expect exhibition to double the number of sound channels and not raise prices higher than they are?

I'd bet if you polled 1000 moviegoers and asked them, "Do you think movie sound needs improving, and if so would you be willing to pay around $3 or $4 more per ticket for such improvement?" you'd find that the vast majority would think it was just fine as is, providing they are in a theatre that has decent 5.1 sound and not some worn-out, mis-adjusted crap system.

Remember, most of the audience is NOT audio professionals.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2012 09:32 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
audience are NOT audio professionals.

...and actually, some patrons would be satisfied with MONO sound.

Funny how technology loves to push itself on the public when the public doesn't really need it..

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 01-06-2012 10:20 PM

The vast majority of the movie going public should be WOWED when they go to the movies.They should be shown the magic with the latest and greatest from the filmmaker and theater.

If those theaters and filmmakers did this they would have happy return business.When they enjoy the experience,it don't matter if they understand the technical reasons.The technical job is up to us.If it's bland they may not articulate why but they know they were not WOWED or taken care of so they go less and less.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-07-2012 12:48 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
You're forgetting one big elephant in the room: Money. People already bitch (incorrectly) that movies are too expensive. How do you expect exhibition to double the number of sound channels and not raise prices higher than they are?

Did I say every movie theater had to install 10.2 surround? A 10.2 surround equipped house doesn't have to be any different than how 70mm was treated back in the 1980s. Although it didn't really cost anything extra to see a movie in 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo versus seeing the same show in a theater a few blocks away in 35mm.

The wannabe Lie-MAX screens promoted by various theater chains are already charging a hefty premium for a product that really isn't any different from what can be seen or heard in a standard auditorium. They're just advertising that they're delivering image projection and surround sound that actually works. Whether they're actually delivering on that is another question. Overall that just makes the rest of the theater complex come off as a dump, even if it isn't. If a given multiplex was equipped properly and maintained its equipment properly its movies should look and sound as good as anything shown in those wannabe Lie-MAX houses. I see the price premium being charged for entry into those houses as a rip-off. I think IMAX Digital is a rip-off too. The only benefit it provides is brighter 3D versus that of Real-D, Dolby3D and others.

If a theater is wanting extra money from me for their "good" screen that "good" screen needs to deliver something better than average. 2K digital projection and 5.1 surround sound is now average. It is no longer a premium thing.

With a little software development (if it's not already available) movie productions could mix for something like 10.2 surround just as easily as doing a 5.1 mix. Honestly, it would probably be considerably easier and not nearly as costly for a Hollywood production to do 10.2 surround versus 5.1 surround than bump its 2K post production to 4K.

Regarding cost, going to the movies is expensive. I can't afford to go all that often and over the past few months that cost has been compounded with the addition of a girlfriend. A married couple and their kids are really going to rack up a serious bill.

Going to the movies might not be as expensive as seeing a Broadway play, big name act rock concert or a NFL football game. I don't know many people who can afford to attend such events on any sort of regular basis. You gotta be rich to afford going to lots of concerts and plays or have season tickets for a professional sport.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 01-07-2012 01:33 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Regarding cost, going to the movies is expensive.

There you go. You want all the bells'n'whistles in the "good auditorium" (which is probably where the movie you want to see is going to be showing), but you already think it's too expensive. You're not willing to pay the price that something costs.

This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.

The studios have not helped in this; they have de-valued their own product by making it available to the pop-machine crowd too cheaply.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-07-2012 02:44 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.

This is totally untrue and incorrect. People WILL pay for an upgraded experience if the product is right and the venue gives them value. Hate to say it, but the IMAX Experience either in Digital or 15/70 adds value to movie going experience. The numbers don't lie.

How important has IMAX been to the film's success? Well, let's break this down domestically. IMAX ticket sales of $33.1 million account for a little more than 23% of the $141.2 million that the Tom Cruise movie has scored in domestic ticket sales. To put this into its proper perspective, just 300 of the 3,455 screens in this country screening the movie are IMAX. In other words, IMAX may account for just 9% of the film's screens -- but it has raised 23% of the revenue.

IMAX on cruise control

This is not to say that all upgraded/premium surcharge theaters add value. Ultra AVX is ok at best, ETX is not bad.....The 4K J. Edgar experience has nothing on the MI4 Digital IMAX Experience.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 01-07-2012 04:19 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
...and actually, some patrons would be satisfied with MONO sound.

Funny how technology loves to push itself on the public when the public doesn't really need it..

wow, if the public doesn't care about sound AND the exhibitors/theater owners have a laissez-Faire attitude, then ... well... I give up... maybe theaters should just throw in the towel and we all just download all our movies via Netflix through our bluray players and handheld devices. The cynicism and resistance is really eye-opening and depressing.

| IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-07-2012 07:27 PM

Why would you want to bring back SDDS. It uses a lossy compression system. Sony's compression system is terrible. It removes the harmonics, which are what give instruments their individual "sound". The homogenized audio it puts out sounds booring and lifeless. The theater digital systems use uncompressed audio.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 01-07-2012 07:31 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
The cynicism and resistance is really eye-opening and depressing

Actually, the studios began this.

When magnetic stereo soundtrack for 35mm (and later with 70mm) came into being, there were actual "Decca Trees" - three mic assembly on location to record live in stereo.

"The Robe" was one of those films actually recorded in three track magnetic stereo.

Back then when stereophonic sound was the "in" thing, the voice track actually followed the character - voice track "panned" across the screen to follow the character(s)

Now, what do we have: all dialog recorded MONO and placed in the center channel with no panning to follow the character(s) and all of the explosions, music and such recorded stereophonically for Left/Right playback .. and the Surround channel was just an extension of the L/R channels...in basic form.

Granted, now surrounds recorded on separate channels, but were then matrixed for the inital Dolby EX and the DTS-ES systems to have a center rear channel-kinda of a backwards approach with this why these two processes faded away quickly.

Some folks just want to go to a theatre just to watch a movie-they don't care what and how sound comes out as long as they can hear(and understand) the sound playback, while there are others who wants an experience in watching a movie-why all of the gazillion channels.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-07-2012 07:52 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
There you go. You want all the bells'n'whistles in the "good auditorium" (which is probably where the movie you want to see is going to be showing), but you already think it's too expensive. You're not willing to pay the price that something costs.

Back in the 1990s theaters were doing more in the way of providing good sound quality than they are today. THX certification was much more common and it mattered more back then. It also did not involve an extra premium charge on top of the regular ticket price.

Today, very few theaters are THX certified. The theater chains chose to save money instead on auditorium design, air conditioning systems, sound equipment choices and that annual certificaiton fee.

Standard ticket prices are 50% higher than they were 10 years ago. That's without adding on the extra fee for stuff like 3D, fake IMAX or an auditorium just selling a big screen and sound that works. Today I can spend over $20 by myself for a movie ticket, a soft drink and a regular bag of popcorn. That's for a standard 2D show. I can buy a steak dinner at a restaurant or buy the Blu-ray of the movie I'm watching for that money. If I take my girlfriend to the movie I can easily spend over $50. Concession stand prices have risen quite a bit at all the big chain theaters. I hear a lot of anger from my friends over that.

quote: Mike Blakesley
This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.

Most movie theaters aren't delivering a "premium experience." They're delivering a fast food experience at prices well above the fast food bracket. Here's one thing the people who run the theater chains don't seem to realize: doing a job correctly, being competent, is not the same as delivering something of luxury worthy of being branded "premium." Doing the job right should be standard. Going above and beyond doing the job right is being premium.

There is no shortage of theater chain auditoriums where the sound system has the EQ character of a high school gym and the dynamics of a living room TV set. Digital 3D has been pushed hard, but it's far from being any perfect system. Complaints are widespread about dim images. Many theaters have 3D done wrong. Single projector 3D is being applied to screens way too big to handle it. Some systems are setup badly and have convergence issues. Or they're using a flawed setup (like Sony's Real-D branded thing). The "suits" don't care if the projected image looks like shit. They just want to put asses in the seats and still charge the premium price for it even if it looks bad. They want to charge a premium experience price without doing the damned job correctly.

Then there's the issue of crowd control. This is an even bigger problem than the widespread issues with sound and projection quality. If I'm going to pay a price premium above the standard $9.50 or so ticket price I sure don't want to see mobile phone displays lighting up the auditorium or have other kinds of disruptions screwing up the show.

Let's not forget about the quality of the movies themselves. Every year it seems like there's even more sequels and remakes than there was in the previous year. Why bother even going? That's my dilemma. Our Carmike theater here is run pretty well. But if the movies the theater is showing are crap that's still going to keep me away from the theater regardless.

It's not the audiences' fault if the cost structure for producing and showing movies has risen. It not their fault either for things like Red Box ruining much of the home video industry. The executives at movie studios and movie theater chains made those decisions themselves. If anything, audiences have given the movie industry way too much slack over doing a generally bad job.

The general public isn't made up 100% of Red Box customers and Internet torrent download free-loaders either. The broad economy in the United States is still pretty bad, even if it is in some sort of recovery mode. Living costs have gone way the hell up and wages have not kept pace with that inflation. Lots of people have been forced to make cut backs. That has included cutting entertainment costs, like going to the theater less often and renting videos instead. Even the cable industry is dealing with a lot of "churn" and people "cutting the cord" entirely.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 01-07-2012 08:09 PM

Course, all of this glitz and glamour, explosions and dramatic music/sounds, is sorta telling the movie goer that there is no story and no plot to the movie they're watching - massive sound/effects and eye candy is filling in that section of the movie.

Don't think that any cinema can help this issue out no matter what they do to attract the patron.

Sadly, it's not their fault that "Hollyrock" can't get a good movie out on the screen anymore...

"Citizen Kane" (for example) was a heck of a movie .. didn't need all of that extra stuff - it told the story and plot right there in straight (excuse the pun) "Black and White".

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 01-07-2012 08:26 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
This is totally untrue and incorrect. People WILL pay for an upgraded experience if the product is right and the venue gives them value. Hate to say it, but the IMAX Experience either in Digital or 15/70 adds value to movie going experience. The numbers don't lie.

Tom, quit smoking so much dope and try to keep up. I wasn't talking about premium-type venues like Imax and 3-D and etc. I was talking about your standard everyday-type movie theatre. Of course I know that people will pay for the premium experience...even if it isn't really all that premium, such as the "Liemax" thing. But what people are upset about, apparently, is the prices at garden-variety cinemas. (My feeling is that ticket prices are still not all that high, although concessions passed the ridiculous point long ago.)

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 01-07-2012 08:34 PM

quote: Bruce Hansen
Why would you want to bring back SDDS. It uses a lossy compression system. Sony's compression system is terrible. It removes the harmonics, which are what give instruments their individual "sound". The homogenized audio it puts out sounds booring and lifeless. The theater digital systems use uncompressed audio.

You seemed to have missed it that they were asking about using digital for a system with the 5 screen channels rather than literally bring back SDDS.

| 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.