Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing (Page 8)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Author

Topic: Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-15-2014 09:19 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I personally don't think a nicer sound system by itself should be a reason for higher prices. If a cinema was already charging more for their "best" auditorium, I would be against raising the price EVEN MORE if a premium sound system was installed later.

With the ridiculous prices I'm seeing charged to enter IMAX-branded rooms or rooms labeled with some kind of acronym they ought to be offering a hell of a lot more than HDTV resolution imagery and plain 5.1 audio. Viewers can get that in any d-cinema theater. If they need the screen to fill up more of their view they just need to move a few rows closer.
[Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-15-2014 11:13 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Jonathan, do you know for sure you saw the movie in that theater's Auro-equipped auditorium?

I haven't visited an Auro-equipped theater (yet), but the images and illustrations I've seen of Auro 11.1 sound systems show two levels of speakers on the side & back walls. One layer of speakers is in the normal position while another "height" layer runs parallel to those speakers, but much closer to the ceiling. And then the sound system is supposed to have some speakers in the ceiling. I don't know if theater operators can play around with the speaker layout in an Auro 11.1 setup, such as cutting corners on how many extra speakers (if any) are installed.

It should be obvious to anyone if a theater's sound system has been wired for Auro or Atmos based on the number of surround speakers and where they are positioned. That is as long as the theaters are installing these sound systems as Auro and Dolby intended. In the case of Atmos, Dolby may still be doing all the installations.

Of course, it's only one thing to have the hardware installed either for Auro 11.1 or Dolby Atmos. Those sound systems cannot show off their full potential without a movie mix that actually takes advantage of those specific formats.

I thought Thor: The Dark World was mostly a Dolby Atmos mix in name only, while Gravity used Dolby Atmos much more to its full potential.

Perhaps Mr. Peabody & Sherman didn't do very much at all with the Dolby Atmos and Auro 11.1 formats. If that's the case it would be kind of surprising since animated movies arguably have to do more work with sound since many of the sound effects have to be created from scratch and/or manipulated to varying degrees to fit the scene. Animated movies have to start the sound design process much earlier in a production than live action movies. The dialog gets recorded before the characters are animated. That would seem to give an animated movie production more time to experiment with surround effects.

Either way, the Auro 11.1 format is in pretty deep trouble as far as I can tell. So far this year only two movies have been released with Auro 11.1 tracks: I: Frankenstein and Mr. Peabody & Sherman. Very few theaters have played those two movies in the Auro 11.1 sound format. Of the few Auro 11.1 theaters that could have played those two movies in Auro 11.1, most of them booted those two movies into non-premium houses in order to play Ride Along and 300: Rise of an Empire instead.

I don't know how often Auro updates its Auro 11.1 theater installations map. I haven't seen any changes to it over the last couple or so months. I don't see more Auro 11.1 installations popping up at Cinemark sites. I don't see any of the 20 installations Regal intended to deploy.

Dolby is making more progress with Atmos. Installations are slow but steady. Atmos certainly has far more in the way of movie titles than Auro. Only 3 movies with Atmos mixes have been released in North American theaters so far this year, but more movies than that have been released internationally. Noah and Captain America: The Winter Soldier will both be released soon. The Amazing Spiderman 2 will be the next release to support Auro, but that isn't until May.

With the way things are going for Auro, particularly with the lack of Auro 11.1 movies, I'm wondering if Regal and Cinemark are re-thinking their intentions with Auro. Carmike seemed to be leaning toward supporting Auro, but I don't think they've done anything with Auro or Atmos after putting 1 of each system in 2 of their BigD houses.

yes it was - auditorium 11. There was even the Auro intro before the movie - which when compared to Dolby's Atmos rain forest intro was severely lackluster. I even had issue on how this film was positioned on the screen; for a 1.85 AR film there was black borders completely surrounding the image - it was as if they hadn't pulled the projector back far enough to fill out the entire screen - it was rather baffling. I also don't understand how the Auro setup negates the use of rear center sound - I saw '300 - Rise of an Empire' in Atmos the next day and holy crap - that mix used the stereorized rear channel to extraordinary stunning effect.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-16-2014 01:19 AM

I didn't mean to doubt you, Jonathan. Just being thorough. With modern multiplex theaters new movies often play on 2 or more screens in the first week.

I'm hoping The Amazing Spiderman 2 has a particularly aggressive surround mix. It would be interesting to hear at least some kind of comparison, as inaccurate as it might be, between Dolby Atmos and Auro 11.1. I don't think there's any practical way a single auditorium could support both of those sound formats since the speaker layouts are so different. Any comparison would have to take place between two different auditoriums.

I'd like to do that kind of comparison. Such a thing might be able to take place in the Dallas-Fort Worth area since that market has a respectable number of Atmos-equipped auditoriums and, with 5 Cinemark locations, seems to be a decent place within North American to hear Auro 11.1 (if Cinemark will allow an Auro 11.1 feature to play in one of their supposed Auro 11.1 equipped houses). Clue to the executives at Cinemark: if you guys really want to back Auro 11.1 and intend to stick it in every "XD" house you had better start actually promoting that format instead of hiding it under that "XD" bullshit. That investment in Auro is going to be a complete waste of money unless Hollywood studios see enough theaters using it. If Cinemark wants to keep promoting XD only without crediting formats like Auro or Atmos the Auro thing is just going to die. Those XD houses are Auro's only shot at life.

I wonder just what sort of speaker layout DTS MDA intends to use. Is it going to be friendly to Auro 11.1 and its 2 layer stage and surround speaker layout? Or will it be closer to Dolby Atmos' layout featuring a more conventional speaker layout augmented with two rows of ceiling surround arrays?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 03-16-2014 01:53 AM

I'm sure surprised that another "sound format war" is starting. You'd think some of the powers that be would remember the DTS/SDDS/SR-D fiasco.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 03-16-2014 12:08 PM

Mike, what makes you think there is going to be some new sound format war?

The 90s digital sound war only happened because Universal and SONY (at first) had their own proprietary sound formats for their movies while Dolby Digital was more open to anyone, the times have changed and it is not like that anymore.

Dolby Atmos has Auro as their only real competitor and Auro is just not going anywhere. Dolby would win over Auro any day of the week as the name is more trusted and the product is better. But it is damn expensive.

Dolby has two hurdles in my opinion to overcome, Dolby's main issue is that they are trying to sell object based sound when digital cinema 5.1/7.1 is good enough for most folks. The second issue I see, is if Dolby can get their movies that are mixed in Atmos to become more synonymous with big "event" movies then it will take off. Dolby 6-track in 70MM was always a special "event" for those who went to see it, Dolby 6-track 70MM commanded a premium in certain markets and Atmos has to become more like that. Also, Atmos does face more competition that previous Dolby sound formats ever did.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-16-2014 12:09 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm sure surprised that another "sound format war" is starting. You'd think some of the powers that be would remember the DTS/SDDS/SR-D fiasco.

In the 1990s digital sound in theaters was a brand new thing. The various formats had their advantages, disadvantages, selling points, etc. DTS in particular exploited a big opening in the market, one Dolby clearly didn't anticipate.

This new generation of cinema sound is different. Dolby pretty much has this contest wrapped up. Things look bleak for Auro 11.1. I'm very skeptical DTS will get anywhere with its MDA format. If it's supposed to be similar to Atmos in terms of object based capability it's not going to be cheap at all to install. I kind of wonder how they're going to deliver such a system without violating any of Dolby's patents.

The price of an Atmos cinema processor or MDA capable cinema processor is just one thing. The theater also has to install a lot more speakers and a hell of a lot of amplifiers. DTS has competed well against Dolby in the past in terms of price. I don't think they're going to have much of a price advantage this time around. Even if DTS or other manufacturers can deliver MDA capable cinema processors at a significantly lower cost than the Dolby CP850 they're already two years behind and counting. Dolby could very well have the "CP950" in final stages of development.

I think there could have been a sound format war of sorts in terms of object based sound if ImmSound and Iosono were able to get Hollywood studios on board years ago.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 03-16-2014 12:39 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, what makes you think there is going to be some new sound format war?

It's the same thing, just on a smaller scale. If Dolby and Barco had worked together they could have come up with one system that could be sold for less money. Instead they each dumped millions of dollars into their own respective systems which are not compatible with each other. Those costs have to be recouped. Then you have certain players who are "in bed" with Barco and would buy their system even though it's the inferior one. If it wasn't for that, Dolby's system would be in even more theaters than it is.

They should learn from the example of the music CD. When that was invented, multiple companies pooled their ideas and talents and came up with ONE standard, which was embraced worldwide, and a whole lotta people got rich. Of course that probably all happened before most of the decision makers of today were born.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 03-16-2014 01:52 PM

I see what you are saying Mike, but I don't think object based audio is going to be that successful long term. It is a good idea but so was Dolby Digital EX, SDDS 8-channel, and SR. Those all did OK but were quickly forgotten by consumers.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-16-2014 03:34 PM

Object based audio, like that of Dolby Atmos, is a breakthrough leap in surround sound. It's revolutionary. It offers huge advantages over conventional 5.1/7.1 audio. The surround field is turned into a three dimensional hemisphere that can mimic life like audio far better than any 2D, flat conventional surround array. Sub-bass surround cabinets improve timbre matching with the stage. Large screens can have 5 stage channels instead of only three -a limitation of all other d-cinema sound formats, including Auro 11.1. Object based audio greatly expands the "sweet spot" in the room, allowing far more viewers to accurately hear various surround panning and point location effects. Conventional 5.1 surround arrays too often exhibit a big left-right stereo effect. 7.1 surround expands the sweet spot, but has limitations with panning effects. I heard a lot of things in the mix for Gravity that are simply impossible to do in a conventional 7.1 surround theater.

The channel based Auro 11.1 format is more evolutionary. It also has drawbacks in that the extra channels encoded in Auro's format (above the base 5.1 LPCM audio) are bit reduced. All of the audio beds and objects in Dolby Atmos are lossless compressed.

Dolby•EX and DTS-ES were evolutionary formats never fully understood by consumers. They became irrelevant as the exhibition industry converted to digital cinema and quad-surround 7.1 became commonplace (even though IMAX can't do 7.1).

SDDS-8 was rarely ever properly utilized by movie studios and not many theaters that installed SDDS wired in the 5 stage channel verison of it. Sony ended support of SDDS a decade ago. The funny thing is plenty of new movie releases on 35mm film are still including SDDS audio tracks (along with DD, DTS and Dolby SR).

Dolby SR is the best noise reduction process for analog recording, but it wasn't a consumer format (some tape decks did feature Dolby S, but not many pre-recorded music cassettes featured Dolby S).

quote: Mike Blakesley
If Dolby and Barco had worked together they could have come up with one system that could be sold for less money. Instead they each dumped millions of dollars into their own respective systems which are not compatible with each other.

That might have something to do with the high cost of a Dolby CP850. Even if Barco and Dolby had worked together, the cost of installing an object based sound system with current speaker and amplifier technology would still be very high. The only way to lower the cost is by watering down the audio format itself. But then making serious design compromises would probably make the entire effort pointless.

I'd love to see Dolby Atmos in thousands upon thousands of movie theaters, but some fundamental design changes have to be made in speaker and amplifier technology to make Atmos practical for more than just premium priced theater screens. That's really the biggest challenge for Atmos.

Another challenge is getting Hollywood studios to think a little differently in terms of the post production work flow. Movie sound designs are all already object-based. But expanding that 2D surround mix into a layered 3D surround mix requires more time and effort. Right now the sound mix is one of the very last things that gets done in a movie production and the sound recorders and mixers typically have very little time to do their work.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-16-2014 09:29 PM

speaking of the marketing: Barco denotes Cinemark Egyptian as an Auro location (the 'map' though is so off base and puts the theater in Baltimore proper when in fact it's south of the city, and BWI airport for that matter). But for Cinemark to not even advertise the XD screen (#12) 'can' playback an Auro feature is equally bewildering.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-22-2014 12:08 PM

so WHY (and what) is the reasoning why Auro doesn't include the 7.1 back left/ right sound elements, and just has the side surrounds? that in my mind seems like a step backwards - it's interesting that for the home version that DTS does factor in 7.1 soundmixing and distributes the sound appropriately.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-22-2014 02:04 PM

Plain vanilla LPCM audio doesn't have any special "fold down" capabilities in itself. There is no lossy/lossless compressed format to decode in LPCM like there is with Dolby & DTS' name brand formats. Or any extra features like DTS' lossy "core" data for backward compatibility within DTS HD Master Audio tracks. This is a big reason why a lot of DCPs have separate 5.1 and 7.1 audio tracks.

I don't know why the Auro folks chose not to support 7.1 as a base and build Auro's height layers on top of it other than a 13.1 format might have been more difficult to fit than 11.1.

Still, I would consider clearly defining the back wall and dividing the surround field into four quadrants a much greater priority than adding a height layer if one was presented with an either-or choice. 5.1 surround in movie theaters far too often exhibits a big left-right stereo effect and is pretty limited with imaging proper surround fly by panning effects. A plane flyover in 7.1 surround yields far more satisfying result than 5.1 because the sound can be panned all the way to the back wall and out of the side surround channels.

Dolby Atmos in a minimal configuration at least supports 7.1 surround and adds two surround channels to the ceiling. Theaters add more amplifiers to allow more of the surround speakers to be controlled individually from each other. And that can make for panning & point source imaging effects that simply blow away what 7.1 surround can do.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-12-2014 10:53 PM

It looks like Auro's biggest customer, Cinemark, is once again not really doing Auro any favors. The sequel to How To Train Your Dragon is opening this evening and all day Friday. Even though Cinemark has by far the most Auro 11.1 equipped theaters (in those premium priced "XD" houses) few if any of those screens are going to be playing How To Train Your Dragon 2. Another sequel, 22 Jump Street has just about all those XD screens booked.

This is just like what happened with Peabody & Mr. Sherman back in March. The movie had an Auro 11.1 mix, but couldn't get on any of those XD screens since the 300 sequel had them occupied.

Like Peabody & Mr. Sherman, anyone wanting to see How To Train Your Dragon 2 with a next-gen sound presentation will have better odds seeking out a Dolby Atmos equipped theater. There are at least some Atmos-equipped theaters playing How To Train Your Dragon 2 in Dolby Atmos.

Maybe Auro will have better luck when the next Transformers and Expendables sequels are released. Still, Cinemark probably isn't going to bother mentioning Auro in their directory ads. The company actually does list Dolby Atmos shows in the 3 theaters it has equipped with Dolby Atmos. Meanwhile other theater chains are getting better about listing Dolby Atmos in their showtime listings.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-21-2014 11:40 AM

I was just poking around on Barco's Auro site. I wanted to confirm what I think I see there. Did they really get rid of the rear surround channels and go back to just left and right surround and add the height to that?

If so, that seems to be a HUGE step backwards. Why would they deem it more important to have a 2 level side surround field vs having a rear surround field? For the 2nd level of height you could phantom that with the standard side surround and the ceiling channels. Trying to do phantom rear goes back to the same issue that Surround EX tried to address a long time ago.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 07-21-2014 12:02 PM

"Dragon II" is the only Auro release that I've seen on the HD content labels.

With tonnage of ATMOS systems being installed, I suspect that Auro will give in, fade away, and join the growing list of obscure A/V formats.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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.