|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sound Sample Rates
|
F. Hudson Miller
Film Handler
Posts: 48
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-19-2013 07:04 PM
The room is pinked because the client is paying $1000 plus an hour just for the room. If it is always being checked there is never a question about having to give back any of that lovely cash. Also, we are usually slammed on time and just don't have time for any system failures.
The near field mix is in the delivery requirements of almost every film. It is part of the produce's contract with the studio. I am on a weekly guarentee (usually from the studio) so if we finish on Monday, Tuesday, or Friday it makes no difference to my pay. It just reduces the amount of time I have to clean out my office and find another job. By the time the near field comes along I have seen the movie hundreds and hundreds of times; I usually could not escape soon enough!
Oh and by the way if we just re-labeled a clone of the print master it would be bounced out of home video so fast you would see stars. They maybe annoying but they are not dumb. When it was played back in the mastering suite there would be hell to pay. The home video release is huge money. The studios take it very seriously.
For example a film that I worked on "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" had a worldwide box office of $748,806,957 and DOMESTIC video sales of $387,966,324. These guys are not the least bit casual about the near-field I can assure you; this is BIG BUSINESS.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 03-19-2013 10:24 PM
Very interesting reading! I'm part of the SMPTE Cinema Sound Systems committee. We are revisiting such things as B-chain calibration, use of the SMPTE 202 X-Curve, etc. This is all quite controversial!
Several people in the group are arguing that X-curve and the far measurements are useless. Instead, the thinking is that the sound should be flat leaving the screen (taking into account speaker frequency response and screen frequency response). As you get farther from the screen, there is high frequency loss due to air attenuation and additional sound due to reflections. But, the thought is that your ear and brain use the sound of first arrival (largely ignoring reflections) to determine tonal balance.
Since dubbing stages are relatively small, with the listener not getting a lot of reflections or air attenuation, it is argued that the frequency response of the dubbing stage should be flat instead of X-curve (or even the less drastic X-curve for a 30 seat auditorium).
So, F., do you know how the dubbing stages are equalized? Are they using the 30 seat X-curve? Something else?
What are the group's thoughts on the validity of X-curve and distant measurements using 1/3 octave RTA and 1/3 octave EQ?
Thanks!
Harold
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-19-2013 11:11 PM
F,
You are really starting to dig yourself into a hole here because your reasons are just wrong. As others have pointed out, if you just admit you're doing it for the money because that is part of your job, then we get it. However to sit there and back the concept that a home video mix is necessary or appropriate???
quote: F. Hudson Miller
I also know that you guys don't have a lot of control, but the room should always be at SPL 85. It is the equivlent of having the wrong FL on the screen and results in the same mis-calibrations.
Joe said HE was restricted to his 16 band equalizer, but that doesn't mean all of us are. I'm running BASIS systems from a CP650 through QSC SC-444 speakers, SB15121 subs, etc. You might want to check it out
here. In no way am I restricted and there are others that have every bit as much control as most theaters, so let's not start assuming. Assuming is what brought on the whole stupid notion of remixing for the home anyway. If anyone cares enough, they will build their home system to cinema standards. If they don't care enough...then they don't care enough. That's the point you are clearly missing, because regardless, remixing is not needed nor wanted by the public and you guys are wasting your time and the studio's money.
(And by the way, I'll bet you that Joe's 2/3 octave EQ system sounds better than most home setups, as he does have a good set of ears on him.)
quote: F. Hudson Miller
The home video release is huge money. The studios take it very seriously.
For example a film that I worked on "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" had a worldwide box office of $748,806,957 and DOMESTIC video sales of $387,966,324.
I feel your pain having to sit through that movie over and over and over. How it ever made so much money is beyond me. Still let me ask you...
#1 How many people do you feel bought that DVD or bluray because there was a near-field mix on the disc?
#2 How many of those people do you think bought the movie because for some weird reason they actually liked or wanted to sit through that movie?
#3 How many disc sales do you think would have been lost had the fine print on the box said "the original unaltered theatrical sound mix has been preserved here in DTS-MA"?
I can't make text appear upside down on here, but I'll give you the answers if you click this spoiler link:
#1 - None. Absolutely none.
#2 - 100%. Every single one of them.
#3 - None. All the studio did was waste their money on a near-field mix because it wouldn't have lost them one penny had they used the original theatrical mix.
quote: F. Hudson Miller
I am sure it drives you guys crazy when we arrive for a preview and rip your rooms all apart, but the cool part of that is it should be perfect when we leave (we hope).
That has never, never, NEVER happened to me. There have however been a couple of times the studio tech came in to tune a room of mine, did so, and then it was deemed my settings were superior for the room and we ran the show with my settings. Usually I'll insist they listen to a reel of the movie before deciding to re-calibrate. They never complain after they listen though. Again, you are making assumptions.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-20-2013 01:33 AM
Speaking of "big business", I decided to peruse www.bluray.com and found a few interesting things.
This movie was released on bluray Oct 25, 2011.
Now take a look at this bluray which is releasing March 26, 2013.
Seriously???
But an even bigger question, is the release next week nothing more than the same transfer and fucked up sound mix from the release a year and a half ago...or did they actually go in and FIX that awful sound mix? (It is obvious by the 7.1 it isn't the original theatrical sound mix, but at any point did someone with decent hearing sit down and say "damn guys, the new near field mix is really awful!") I'm going to bet they just re-packaged the same movie, with the same insulting sound mix, and yes we are talking about none other than Jurassic Park!
And F, before you go talking about how wonderful the remix was on Jurassic Park, I can ASSURE you it sucked. I was in the unique position of doing side by side comparisons against an original 35mm print playing in dts of this movie not long ago and WOW did they ever fuck up the bluray audio mix!!! It sounded like ass. There is simply no excuse for this.
But wait, there's more. Take a look at this cinematic classic. (And no I'm not being sarcastic there, this really is a fun movie.) But wait, what have we here? Yup, 2 years later almost to the day, another release for no damn good reason.
Jump back to 1983 in the days of mono and we have National Lampoon's Vacation. They went to great pains to preserve that original mono mix here in DTS-HD no less...but wait...wait...what's this? Yes indeedy this May they are re-releasing this same blu-ray, also in DTS-MA mono sound. (I'm not knocking the concept of releasing the movie in mono, I'm knocking the Lucas'itis that is going on where the studios keep releasing the same movies over and over and over.) In this release, the only thing they did to make things even more awesome was lock it to region A. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
BTW is it really necessary to have NINE bluray releases of Top Gun?
I do have a very serious question for you, F. Why are Universal bluray releases just downright godawful with their remixing? I don't see such destruction happening to studios like Fox (well, except for Rocky Horror). Universal doesn't just change things ever so slightly, they royally fuck it up. At least that's the pattern I've seen.
When I think of Universal, I am reminded of this excellence in audio mastering.
| IP: Logged
|
|
F. Hudson Miller
Film Handler
Posts: 48
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-20-2013 12:36 PM
1) The engineering dept sets up the room. The details are beyond the my pay grade. I do know that when I do my thing the dub theaters sound great.
2) Dub stages come in all sizes. Which ones are chosen is a complex metric of talent, availability, price, producer preference, type of film, and philosophy of mixing among others. Here are five examples of how different they are:
http://www.sonypicturespost.com/soundservices/motionpicture/motionpicture.html
3) There is not an absolute answer to the home theater mix issue. I am sure some theatrical mixes would sound fine in a near field situation. I can tell you from personal experience that A/B switching from theater drivers to near field monitoring sounds shockingly different. All kinds of detail (good & bad) shows up in the near field that you never hear through diffuse theater drivers. We then fine tune the near field to match the theatrical. If it were my movie you can bet I would want it to have a separate print-master for the home theater.
4) Each studio operates its home theater division in its own way. Some care deeply about the films, some treat them as cash cows. As long as commercial filmmaking is a corporate enterprise with such huge amounts of money at stake there are going to people who are more or less responcible about their treatment of the golden goose.
5) I guess the only thing that I am offended at is the assumption that filmmakers are doing it for the money and are going after every red cent. I have met very few film workers in my 25 years of doing this who don't care deeply about the films we are making. This is a shitty business if you just want to make money. Almost every film worker was a big enough fan that they wanted to spend their life making movies.
6) We work within the parameters of big business where art and money have to co-exist. The studio has business requirements, we have creative license, but we arrange to meet in the middle to make it work for both sides. The studios want a home theater mix and we want the film to sound consistent with the directors theatrical vision. I would say that as a whole we are pretty happy with the result.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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