|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby's new sound system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Derrick
Master Film Handler
Posts: 310
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 05-10-2012 10:41 PM
Hi all, I have been absent from participating in these forums for a rather long time, mainly due to heavy work commitments, but I still read them whenever I can. But I just couldn't help making a comment on this topic ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As as a person who spent the first half of his career as a television/studio sound mixing engineer, I love the idea of being able to position sounds in a sound field with a whole lot more precision. Having a single bank of surround speakers on each side wall of a cinema was always a limitation that deserved inprovement.
However....
One of the major considerations in the creation of the DCI Specification was getting rid forever of proprietary exhibition technologies. The idea was that exhibitors should be able to choose projection/sound equipment from a variety of competing manufacturers and not be bound to just one or two companies that are trying to monopolise certain aspects of movie production. Yet here we have Dolby (and Barco) trying desperately bring back the bad old days of monopolisation.
The big question is are the big six movie production companies that created the DCI Spec really going to let this happen?
In the real world, the need for such a high degree of sound location in a movie theatre is highly doubtful. In my experience the vast majority of cinema goers don't even understand (or care) what surround sound is. As long as the sound is of good quality is all that seems to matter to most people. Just consider how many times have you walked into someone's home and noticed their nice new 5.1 sound system speakers are all in completely the wrong places? They have bought the system simply because their neighbours all have 5.1 and besides, it sounds bigger and better than their TV speakers. I truly feel most people are far more impressed by the sub-bass than they are with surround effects.
There is also the issue (and in my opinion the futility) of trying to create a vertical sound field when (as Steve Guttag has rightly pointed out) human hearing is rather poor at localising sound in the vertical axis. If we had an ear on the top of our head and another under our chin, things would be very different. Ceiling speakers were a part of Dolby's original Suround-EX scheme but the idea was never promoted because it was an ineffective and difficult to implement addition. To most people in the audience, the sound would seem to come from the middle of the room, not from above. It would be barely distinguishable from sounds panned equally between the left and right surrounds.
Yet here we are with not one, but multiple "channels" of ceiling speakers?
It would seem far more sensible to make full use of the current 16 x DCI audio channels, by splitting up the exisiting four possible surround channels into a greater number channels, say eight or twelve. The difference between being able to localise a sound to single surround speaker as opposed to a group of surround speakers, will be barely distinguishable to the audience in typical cinema auditorium.
None the less, I have to congratulate Dolby on coming up with a way to re-invent themselves at time when they had been well and truly shown the door.
As an aside, no doubt Dolby Atmos will also see the re-introduction of the "Dolby Consultant", often an expensive stooge (with usually far less knowledge and experience than the sound engineer he is supposedly overseeing).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-10-2012 11:13 PM
I can't fault Dolby for promoting Atmos even with it being a closed, proprietary, exclusive technology.
Regular D-cinema isn't really doing Dolby any favors in terms of marketing. I can't recall ever seeing a movie poster that touted Dolby Digital Cinema or even Dolby 3D for that matter. Real-D and IMAX 3D get ink on movie posters. The only thing I see Dolby-related on movie posters and movie end credits is the old, data lossy, 35mm film-based Dolby Digital audio format. It won't be long before we see the logos for 35mm film sound formats (Dolby Digital, Datasat/DTS and SDDS) get eliminated from movie posters, trailers, TV commercials and end credit runs.
If Dolby did nothing the company would see its name disappear from the cinema side of movie marketing. To consumers the company would only be visible on home video and there only in increasingly limited form with DTS dominating the Blu-ray market.
First and foremost Dolby Atmos is an opportunity to revolutionize cinema sound. And it will do it if commercial theaters are willing to adopt the format as well correctly install and maintain it. Atmos gives Dolby an opportunity to get the company name prominently displayed in movie marketing without a 35mm process being involved.
quote: Ray Derrick
One of the major considerations in the creation of the DCI Specification was getting rid forever of proprietary exhibition technologies.
This is one reason why I was wondering if the Dolby Atmos version of a movie soundtrack would be delivered on a separate hard disc or downloaded separately. A lossless compressed Dolby Atmos movie audio track will likely take up quite a lot more hard disc space than standard 5.1 and 7.1 LPCM tracks. Most D-cinema theaters will have no use for the Atmos track. Throw in the other things that are consuming more hard disc space, like 3D and perhaps the onset of 48fps D-cinema files. I guess as long as portable hard discs keep getting bigger and bigger it probably won't be a problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-11-2012 06:43 AM
The way Dolby Atmos was presented to me was that unlike other formats, it resides within the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix. As such, a movie with Dolby Atmos can be issued single-inventory to ALL theatres and 5.1 theatres can play it just fine. Those with the proprietary equipment can get (and brag) about the superiority of the format.
As such, it is in harmony with the DCI intent...it does not penalize anyone for not having the new format and it does not add to the burden of the distribution model.
What Surround 7.1 has shown is that merely adding channels, as Ray has suggested, is a largish burden, at this time. It requires that version files be created for the 7.1 version and that specific versions have to find their way into specific theatres for the sound to be correct. That is, if you play a 7.1 version in a 5.1 theatre, one is missing part of the audio.
While I support the possibility of increased audio channels, like 7.1 (or my personal favorite, Todd-Ao's 5-across)...I think DCI should have required the mediablock to be able to "mix-down" to 5.1 any new format (the new format should have metadata to tell the mediablock how to do this. Again, this would have allowed single inventory and the exhibitor could choose which auditoriums they should spend the extra money on the fancy format. Lets face it, the "move-over" auditorium in a googleplex that caters to the bargain hunter patron is not the place to spend wads of extra money...but the big auditorium where patrons seeking to be the first to see a movie is (or is at least a better candidate). I know that one of the keys to a theatre like the Uptown in Washington DC was the perception that it was, technically, superior to other theatres. It wasn't JUST the big screen (but that definitely added into it).
PS...it is nice to see you back, at some level, on these forums Ray...you HAVE been missed (by me, at least).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 05-11-2012 08:39 AM
quote:
It would seem far more sensible to make full use of the current 16 x DCI audio channels, by splitting up the exisiting four possible surround channels into a greater number channels, say eight or twelve.
None the less, I have to congratulate Dolby on coming up with a way to re-invent themselves at time when they had been well and truly shown the door.
Copy that.
The issue with Atmos is not only that a specific speaker layout and Atmos processor (and Atmos capable server) is needed - the specific routing metadata which allows panning and mixing in the auditorium will be part of the soundtrack transfer and is patented Dolby technology. Want to localize an Atmos mix for other languages? You need Dolby Atmos licensed technology. This is not just a cinema problem. They are getting rid of channel based mix transfers for the whole cinema sound industry. They want to rule the world of movie soundmixing.
This is like a Dolby-proprietary version of HTML for movie soundtracks. Barcos AURO System is a bit easier there because the idea is to mix the additional height channels into the existing 5.1 mix so that they can be played in ordinary theatres without the need for a special processor, and without losing these additonal tracks completely. So, single inventory and 5.1/7.1 compatible. Only dedicated Auro processors/codecs can extract the additional height channels separately and play them through height speakers.
Doremi has implemented this codec already in their IMB, so any 16ch enabled cinema processor can deal with them based on common practice with 8ch AES pairs.
This is still proprietary, but a concept that is more open and still allows for compatibility with DCI audio channel specs.
Dolby Atmos always needs a separate, dedicated 5.1/7.1 mix for non-Atmos equipped theatres. It can be single inventory as such as the additional Atmos information on the DCP drive will simply be ignored by non-Atmos compatible DCI servers.
- Carsten
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic