|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-29-2014 04:08 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I would much rather watch a D-IMAX film for the audio alone over a standard cinema or even Atmos.
You must not have many good theater audio systems in your neck of the woods.
Having heard a movie (Gravity) in D-Imax and then later on our own system, I thought it sounded just as good, or possibly slightly better, on our standard 5.1 system. (We have QSC 3-way stage speakers, two QSC dual-driver subs and 12 QSC surrounds, and all QSC amps, for anyone who wonders.) The Imax sounded good, but it didn't blow me away like I expected it to do.
Meanwhile, I think it's fairly cool that I don't need to bother coming up with a cool sound system name because our theater's name already has an X in it, so we're good to go. We've been ahead of our time since 1930 and didn't even know it. I just need to design a logo where the X is huge and red.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-29-2014 04:32 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
A 2K presentation with a proper anamorphic lense which utilizes the full efficiency of the lamp and sensor can potentially look better than a 4K presentation using a single lense setup. Pick your screen size common width or height does not matter in this comparison.
I'm not talking about common width or common height screens. I'm talking about how much an image with a fixed pixel count is getting magnified. The projector's imaging chips have a fixed pixel grid. As the screen gets bigger that pixel grid gets bigger, more coarse and more noticeable.
If a digital projection setup has all the right ingredients (great light engine, great quality lens, proper screen alignement, etc.) it's going to show off a 2K pixel grid plain as day if that image is magnified on a big enough screen. Then the theater has to deliberately de-focus the image to hide that grid. The end result is big yet kind of blurry digital projection.
4K has four times the pixel count as 2K. On the same size screen 4K has four times the pixels per inch resolution. The pixel grid is going to be less visible.
This stuff actually matters to people. Look at Apple making money off Retina Displays in its iPad and MacBook Pro products. Google one-upped the iPad with a higher resolution display in its Nexus 10 tablet. Dell recently released a 4K resolution XPS 15 inch notebook. These guys have software companies like Adobe jumping through hoops re-doing the user interfaces in their applications so the menus aren't microscopic on those screens. DPI ratings are marketing material in smart phone displays. This is a reality with digital technology. Movie theater operators are fooling themselves if they think it doesn't matter with their digital technology.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You have to stop comparing film vs digital set ups, they are not the same. The larger film gauge always wins with film.
It's not really an apples to oranges comparison. With film, getting the projected image sharp as possible was a primary goal. Get close enough to the screen and you would see the film's natural grain structure swimming around on the screen. It looked natural. A visible pixel grid doesn't look good.
But, yes, you are right that a larger film gauge like 70mm does beat a smaller film gauge like 35mm. The grain structure in 5/70mm is 250% more fine than that of 4/35mm. Plus the bigger film gauge runs in a more steady manner than 35mm. It can be blown up on larger screens and look brighter and more rock solid than 4/35mm.
There are similarities in that between 2K and 4K resolution. A 4K image can be blown up larger without making its pixel grid noticeable. Light output is another matter. 5/70 put a lot more light onto the screen than 4/35. The same isn't true with some 4K projector models.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler
Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-30-2014 11:04 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
More and more, I like the object-oriented approach of Atmos and the rumored DTS (ahem, Datasat) MDA approach.
Actually, MDA has nothing to do with Datasat (other than we are of course an interested party inasmuch as we manufacture cinema processors). MDA was originally developed by SRS labs, and was inherited by DTS when they bought SRS (in 2012, or 4 years after they sold their cinema business to Datasat). DTS is pitching MDA as a format for creating object-based mixes, and would then license the software to do the rendering to any interested hardware manufacturers (Datasat, QSC, UltraStereo, etc.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-30-2014 02:10 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I guess I care more about these fundamentals:
1. The native resolution of the movie, typically 2K or 4K.
2. The make of projector(s) and native resolution, 2K or 4K.
3. The sound format (5.1, 7.1, Auro 11.1, Atmos).
Those are the things I want to see in theater show time directories, if they bother listing any technical information about the movie at all.
1. Are there any reliable sources for this? The IMDb is spotty and can't be considered definitive.
2. Sometimes, this can be determined by scouring press releases or other promotional material, but unless the theater does something location-wide or the chain does something circuit-wide, there's no way to know aside from personal observation what equipment is being used. Marcus Theatres is usually pretty good about marking their auditoriums with "4K" signs, but that info is usually not included in their showtimes (it was at one time).
3. As long as the theater provides the info, we show it. Getting them to provide that info? For whatever reason, harder than you would think!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-30-2014 03:02 PM
quote: Daniel Schulz
DTS is pitching MDA as a format for creating object-based mixes, and would then license the software to do the rendering to any interested hardware manufacturers (Datasat, QSC, UltraStereo, etc.)
License the MDA software? I thought DTS' MDA format was supposed to be open source/royalty free.
SMPTE wants an object-based capable sound editing front end for movie post production that generates results that are compatible to some extent with Atmos and Auro. The term "harmonize" between the two formats has used, but it sounds to me a little like lowest common denominator. Atmos and Auro are very different sound formats with little common ground other than some measure of backward compatibility to allow the same DCP to work on a LPCM 5.1/7.1 sound system.
SMPTE and NATO want a single delivery sound format on a DCP. Having multiple projection formats for 2D and 3D didn't seem to be much of a problem for them, nor was it a problem to have separate 5.1 and 7.1 tracks on a DCP.
Dolby has an almost 2 year lead on its rivals. I just can't help wondering if this sudden call for "open standards" is really a way of preventing Dolby from capturing the immersive cinema sound market. Dolby's lead with Atmos would probably be much larger if it weren't for the expense and complexity that goes into an Atmos install.
quote:
As long as the theater provides the info, we show it. Getting them to provide that info? For whatever reason, harder than you would think!
The theater operators know the native resolution of the movies they are ingesting into their servers. The DCP spells out those details very clearly. I wish a lot more DCP info was shared here at Film-Tech in the forum made just for that purpose. The theater operators know the make and model of their projectors, not to mention their resolution. It's actually not very complicated information. Same goes for the sound format.
Movie studios and theater chains don't provide any of that info unless they are forced in some manner to do so. Instead, they'll voluntarily plop "QRX" or whatever on an exterior wall of the building and expect the paying customer to be impressed with that. The letter they use make me think they were playing Scrabble and used their last three remaining letters for the big screen label. JZX ought to be a winner.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11
|
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