|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby's new sound system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-19-2013 02:39 PM
quote: Aaron Garman
DTS-HD Master Audio is the de facto standard because their software suite is on both Macs and PCs, and far easier to use than Dolby's Mac only suite. I do feel that part of the excitement was the brand though: early Blu-ray adopters were mostly aficionados and all preferred DTS anyhow. I know I was one of those people.
I still think brand worship had some part in making DTS the most common audio format on Blu-ray.
Work flow definitely played a part too. The DTS Master Audio suite is available for Mac OSX and Windows. All of the enterprise level Blu-ray authoring systems, mainly Sonic Scenarist, Sony Blu-print & Sony Blu-code run only on Windows. AFAIK, there is no enterprise level Blu-ray authoring system available on the Mac platform. Adobe Encore CS6 can do Blu-ray authoring on a Mac or PC. It can even encode DTS, DTS-HD High Res and DTS-HD Master Audio. But it doesn't do all the hardcore BD-Java stuff that the mass production oriented applications can do. Anyway, with Dolby's TrueHD encoding application being Mac only and the professional BD disc authoring systems being PC-only it definitely created a work flow gap DTS was only too happy to fill.
quote: Manny Knowles
Yeah, I doubt if most Bluray consumers are technically-aware aficionados.
Many of the format's early adopters were at least aware of lossless and uncompressed surround sound formats, and even better than CD quality audio formats (like DVD-A and SACD). Perhaps in the last couple or so years Blu-ray has pulled in more mainstream consumers. But I still see a pretty big gap between quality conscious viewers and those who don't care about the differences.
The Blu-ray section of any video store still takes up a smaller space compared to the shelf space for DVDs. Blu-ray movies for sale still command around a $5 premium over the same movie on DVD. Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and other VOD services are options that make it easier to bypass the video store completely. Higher video quality is the biggest selling point for Blu-ray, but if someone has gone that far to understand the difference between Blu-ray and merely streaming a "HD" movie from Netflix the same customer is bound to at least noticed the audio formats Blu-ray has.
I've seen plenty of promo videos on Blu-ray discs, in store promotional displays and even stuff on the players themselves make some effort to promote the lossless audio aspect of Blu-ray.
By comparison, next to no effort has even been made to promote the same kind of high quality audio tracks that come standard with d-cinema. The audio track is the one aspect where d-cinema is clearly an improvement over film. It baffles me the movie theaters and movie studios haven't been selling the public on it. I guess they can just keep promoting the old Dolby Digital, SDDS and Datasat logos.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-20-2013 05:34 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the customers really didn't care the studios wouldn't be doing any of this. Further, if quality really wasn't an issue the HD-DVD format might have won that Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD battle several years ago.
The HD DVD/Blu-ray war was won with money changing hands in 11th hour back-room deals, not because one format was better quality than the other. Granted, Blu-ray had more potential because of the ability to do 50GB discs, but at the time, most Blu-rays were 25GB single-layer discs that were lackluster, so 30GB HD DVD's fared pretty well in comparison. Warner Bros. didn't do the hobby any favors with their support of Dolby Digital Plus instead of a lossless format, but the transfers were nothing to be ashamed of.
In retrospect, it's a good thing for the hobby that the higher capacity disc format won out, but its win had nothing to do with quality and everything to do with business deals to make it happen.
quote: Mike Blakesley
We put a Dolby Digital logo on the marquee occasionally, but not always, due to space. We have a page about our sound system on our website, and the Dolby Digital logo on the main page. I'd put it in the newspaper too but nobody reads the paper so it'd be a waste of money. The website page needs updating...I might work on that tonight, actually, now that I'm thinking about it.
We'll take that information, too! If you provide digital sound info when you submit your showtimes to CinemaSource/West World Media, we'll be able to display it on your showtimes.
quote: Manny Knowles
Most guys I've come across who spend a ton of money on home-theatre equipment (versus "home theatre in a box" solution) still don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Being ignorant can be a temporary situation, but two elements are required. 1) The correct information needs to be communicated effectively and 2) the person needs to be receptive to understanding it.
Every business in the exhibition chain is responsible for #1, but they can't do much about #2. Some seeds are going to fall on rocky soil, but that doesn't mean you stop planting.
Any theater is welcomed to link to the following articles on our site:
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-22-2013 07:15 PM
quote:
Dolby, to some extent, must do a better job with marketing Atmos to the general public. Unfortunately Dolby also needs the cooperation of movie studios and movie theater chains to get the name out there too.
None of the movie posters I saw mentioned anything about Dolby Atmos. The end credits of Man of Steel didn't say anything about Atmos either. On the other hand the end credits did list the three obsolescent 35mm film digital sound formats. To me, that's just plain stupid.
The Dolby Atmos trailer that played before the movie was pretty cool though. It did a better job of demonstrating the directional capabilities of the sound format than the mix of Man of Steel.
I think the marketing aspect has been a problem forever. While THX was heavily marketed in the west coast, the few THX New York City theatres never effectively marketed it - it was never in their ads.
In the days of 70mm, it was also sometimes difficult to find which theatres were playing in 70mm. I've been trying to research the 70mm presentation of "Woodstock", which I know I saw in 70mm 6-track at the Trans-Lux West theater, but when I've gone back and checked all the newspaper ads from that era, there's not even a mention of stereo.
The UA E-Walk theatre on 42nd street has a Dolby Atmos theatre, but they don't advertise that the movies are in Atmos. I went there to another screen, then realized that they were also playing in Atmos and went to the service desk to switch tickets. The manager there said, "I don't think we're advertising that in Atmos." But it was. (I forget what movie it was.)
I've seen that Dolby trailer several times, once at the Dolby screening room and several times in front of features. I agree that it does sound better than most of the mixes. Most mixers are still creating the 5.1 or 7.1 first, then sweetening with Atmos objects. According to Dolby, now that mixers are getting used to it, some supposedly say they will do the Atmos mix first, then mix down. Theoretically, that should create better mixes (if they would also stop trying to blast us out of the theatre.)
The other problem with Atmos is that Dolby has no minimum standard (other than the processor) for how many channels the theatre must have. So just as in the days when the b-chain sucked in many 70mm theatres, if they don't put in the extra channels or the height channels or the rear woofers, you can have a completely different experience from theatre to theatre. Also bad for marketing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-23-2013 08:53 AM
So theoretically, the system tries to replicate sound element placement in the SAME place no matter what the theatre size or how many speaker/channels are installed. If less speakers than are necessary to get exact localization to where the mixer wanted the sound to originate from, then it only gets as close as the installed system will allow, but not necessarily a cigar. Which is fine, and certainly better than speaker/channels dedicated to very limited and specific points with a sound needing (expected) to come out of THAT speaker at THAT location, which we have had so far up until Atmos. Thing is, this leaves an awful lot of leeway to the exhibitor...a pretty dangerous thing, IMHO. It lets them get away with putting in the LEAST amount of speakers with the assumption that Atmos will do the best to compute hot to place the sound where it is supposed to be, regardless of the actual limitations of the speakers vs the room size (and the exhibitor's "thriftiness"). Like a commercial exhibitor I know who used only two screen channels and relied on a phantom center for 4.1. There was even a configuration I saw in either a Smart or UltraStereo manual that described one "acceptable" setup as FRONT/REAR only. I am assuming some exihibitor somewhere was actually using that for 4.1.
The thing that still puzzles me is Atmos' lack of emphasis on FRONT channels. Seems like the whole system is all geared to deal with sounds off the screen, which for the most part happen intermittently throughout most movies and then primarily for effects, except perhaps the big action type films where they throw sounds around the room like bad 3D throws objects off the screen at the audience.
For the major part of most movies, the audience is focused on what is happening on-screen, not behind them; anything that happens in the audience area necessarily is happening off screen and off-camera, hence they originally called the off-screen channel, the "effects track." I know we are way past that, but still, this is a REALLY elaborate system designed for pulling attention away from the screen while not even spec-ing five channels behind the screen, which in an era where the big, "X" large screens are all the marketing rage, I would think emphasizing good sound localization across a 60 foot screen would be a main component of any premium system. All the overhead, behind you and under you speakers will not be able to play back a TODD-AO mixed title if there are only three speakers behind the screen. Atmos needs some absolute specs for behind the screen speakers so exhibitors won't be able to cheat; the idea that Atmos can "compute" and place a sound regardless of how many or how few speakers are installed seems like a loophole that allows the exhibitor to shrug and say, "Atmos will figure it out no matter what I install."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic