|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby Cinema
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-09-2014 12:56 AM
quote: Buck Wilson
you don't care about the downgrade from 15/70 to 2k? You prefer an aged Imax "5.1" system to a fresh Atmos install?
Buck, where did I say that I prefer and IMAX 5.1 system over a fresh Atmos install? I prefer 5.1 (IMAX or not) over Amtos period. I also could care less about 7.1. Atmos to me means nothing, its 64 channel system is beyond ridiculous as IMO it is just not needed. There is a reason why some of the great directors such as Kubrick, Allen and some others make their films in mono etc. A few screen channels and 60 or so surround/overhead channels just simply gives the filmmaker the opportunity to go overboard and screw everything up, it becomes a giant distraction. Good sound and good sound mixing will sound good in all formats, and that is what I am most interested in. I actually like standard 35mm Dolby Stereo to Dolby Digital/DTS/SDDS as often times digital sound is played back way to loud. Also, nothing beats a good old fashioned THX auditorium, but they are harder to find these days.
quote: Buck Wilson
You are literally the only person I know of that doesn't like Atmos.
And I have never heard anyone complain either, but it must be said that nobody I have ever me knows what the Atmos is anyway.
quote: Buck Wilson
you don't care about the downgrade from 15/70 to 2k?
I don't compare 15/70 to digital IMAX, nothing comes close to 15/70. I compare IMAX digital to the standard theater down the hall, to me 22 ft lambert's on screen, dual projection, some image manipulation and quality control basics far outweigh some of the dimly lit single projection set ups. And IMAX digital left eye/right eye 3D is usually superior than the single projection 3D set ups from RealD. Sure, it is possible to exceed IMAX digital with digital but I have yet to see it in my area.
quote: Antonio Casado
Here in Spain the majority of the screens aren´t masked...In fact I remember to see one or two masked screens in my whole life here (42 years...)
It really is unfortunate that you have only seen two properly masked screens in 42 years. Masking is the way to go, 35mm without masking has gotta really look bad. And the digital masking on an open flat screen does not look good at all. I can put up with no masking all like on a PLF screen but not on an open flat screen.
quote: Antonio Casado
The "blacks" of ANY cinema screen makes me laugh. Including this Dolby Vision or future Laser Projection, of course.
Black from 35mm or 70mm will look better than digital blacks, I believe blacks from laser projection will look better than you might think. Do you have access to Interstellar in 15/70? Because if you do, you will see black from film and you might see the difference versus digital.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I do agree they need to get the word out to the masses, but how to do it?
If Dolby could get some sort of exclusive on a series of big films or a director who could champion it (like Christopher Nolan with IMAX) then I could see Dolby Atmos succeeding to the masses. What they are doing right now is obviously not working.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-09-2014 04:21 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
"Surround sound" was easy -- the sound is surrounding me, got it. The Atmos/Auro concept....not so easy to describe in a sound bite. "Really accurate surround sound" still doesn't give the consumer an idea of what they're getting for their extra $.
The transition from analog sound formats to SRD, DTS and SDDS did have a larger, more noticeable impact for most people. The difference in clarity and dynamic range was, in many cases, rather obvious.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with a decently implemented 5.1 or 7.1 system and the step up from there to Dolby Atmos is more subtle than the change from analog to digital. Many people won’t instantly notice the difference, especially if you do not tell them.
Then again, the best marketing for the system are those trailers and the movies with GOOD Atmos mixes themselves.
quote: Terry Monohan
The Dolby® guys must have spent the $$$ fixing It up as It needed a complete re do.
Those kind of corporations often sink millions into a single stand on some trade show, which only lasts a few days. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Perhaps you might able to confirm something with regards to Barco, is the Voice of God a single channel from the roof or four individual channels?
In the Auro 11.1 layout, the “Voice of God” channel is a single channel. It has been discussed here before, but it would make sense for IMAX to choose a speaker layout that closely matches a pre-existing layout, like the Auro 3D layout. Sound mixers and studios obviously aren’t keen on adding yet another custom mix. Since IMAX and Dolby aren’t the most obvious partners and they’re already working with Barco on their laser system, partnering with Barco for their next generation sound system would make a lot of sense.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
That might be the case. Is the JT Eindhoven yet to open? Or are they open already and just adding Dolby Cinema?
This is a new multiplex. Two Dolby Cinema upgrades of existing rooms in other complexes are planned for 2015. Compared to the U.S., the Netherlands is just a tiny market, but their approach seems to work. The Netherlands is also one of the few markets in Europe where Digital IMAX has some stronghold.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby is not necessarily doing anything wrong in its marketing of Dolby Atmos. And IMAX isn't necessarily doing anything right either.
The biggest problem I do have with their strategy is how they’re blatantly using the exhibition industry to promote their consumer brands. The exhibitor pays boatloads of money to get into stuff like Dolby Atmos and the upcoming Dolby Vision, but the same brand will eventually not be much more than just another sticker on the next receiver or TV you buy, a few short years down the road. It’s rather hard to convince the public, the Dolby Atmos in your room is quite a bit different than this $100 surround set. (Which isn’t there yet, but I’m quite certain will be there in a couple of years.)
For the exhibitor, this creates a risk. Do you want to put all this money into a system with just limited marketing value for YOUR product, even if it’s the greatest system on earth?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Those logos were often window dressing to make a movie's poster, trailers or DVD box art seem more legit.
Those logos have been on movie posters and many trailers for ages. Technicolor, Cinemascope, Dolby SR, you name it. It’s not only to make them look more legit, but also to advertise their technical progress.
I guess both IMAX and RealD are paying for their promotion on posters and trailers, although I’ve not yet seen this confirmed.
quote: Buck Wilson
You are literally the only person I know of that doesn't like Atmos.
People I speak about it are either excited or just don’t noticed anything different. But most people are actually quite excited. Not everyone is totally convinced it justifies the inflated ticket prices that come with it though.
So in general, people are much more positive than negative.
Up until now, there was just one Atmos mix I really didn’t like, it was the Guardians of the Galaxy mix. The rest of the mixes were either an improvement compared to 5.1 or 7.1 or at least on the same level.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Atmos to me means nothing, its 64 channel system is beyond ridiculous as IMO it is just not needed.
It’s not a channel based system at all, that’s the whole point. I hope in the future, we will have just ONE mix, in an open, object based audio format. Your sound system will do the appropriate mapping to your speaker layout. The sound mixer can focus on just one mix and make this mix great.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I actually like standard 35mm Dolby Stereo to Dolby Digital/DTS/SDDS as often times digital sound is played back way to loud.
The volume level is the biggest complain I hear from Digital IMAX patrons and not so much about Atmos. Maybe exhibitors think that “PLF” is equal to pumping up the volume to ear shattering levels. They clearly haven’t seen the light yet.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There is a reason why some of the great directors such as Kubrick, Allen and some others make their films in mono etc.
Kubrick never formally discussed his films, but it’s a fact he filmed all of his movies, besides 2001, in mono, because he wanted to give everybody the best possible performance achievable. He apparently checked more than 300 cinemas himself prior to the release of Full Metal Jacket, only to conclude the stereo systems at most of those theaters sucked. Even in 2001, he wasn’t convinced the multiplexes of the time could deliver sufficient presentation quality in anything other than mono.
He did 2001 in 6-track stereo, because the 70mm release allowed him to do it right. I’m quite certain, if he would be alive today, he would embrace digital surround systems.
Woody Allan has never used anything else than mono, as far as I can recall. I'm not a great fan of his mixes. Then again, practically all of his movies are based on dialog and would only ever so slightly benefit from a multi-channel mix.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If Dolby could get some sort of exclusive on a series of big films or a director who could champion it (like Christopher Nolan with IMAX) then I could see Dolby Atmos succeeding to the masses. What they are doing right now is obviously not working.
Why does it have to be exclusives? Why would we even want to embrace anything that can only proliferate itself via forced monopolies? Right now, Dolby Atmos isn’t failing. I’m not sure what kind of numbers Dolby expected and if they’re way off schedule, but I’m not seeing Dolby declaring bankruptcy just yet. It seems their business is still doing quite well, in a competitive field.
Personally, I’m not even advocating Dolby Atmos as the ultimate thing. I'm repeating myself, but I really do mean it: I hope something more standard emerges from all of this. The same goes for Dolby Vision actually. The good thing of open standards is that it usually also gets the costs down, as there is no single vendor dictating the price. But like with many developments which made it to something of an open standard, it usually goes through a few iterations of proprietary formats, before a such a standard emerges.
I do see the opportunities for a single inventory object based sound format, as do I see the opportunity for an open, wider color gamut encoding standard.
The availability of those formats also doesn't imply every movie maker needs to adopt those standards.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-09-2014 10:48 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I guess both IMAX and RealD are paying for their promotion on posters and trailers, although I’ve not yet seen this confirmed.
It has been confirmed before, there is no payment from IMAX to the studios for the advertisement, this has been disclosed in their filed legal financial statements including their white papers. IMAX takes 12.5% from the ticket price at the box office (slightly less in Asian markets). This is the same fee for every movie they release.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Those logos have been on movie posters and many trailers for ages. Technicolor, Cinemascope, Dolby SR, you name it. It’s not only to make them look more legit, but also to advertise their technical progress.
DTS, Dolby, and SDDS all charge a licensing fee for the use of their products, this fee is needed to produce a soundtrack for these formats when you do a release. A studio cannot just release a DTS release without paying the fee.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Why does it have to be exclusives? Why would we even want to embrace anything that can only proliferate itself via forced monopolies? Right now, Dolby Atmos isn’t failing. I’m not sure what kind of numbers Dolby expected and if they’re way off schedule, but I’m not seeing Dolby declaring bankruptcy just yet. It seems their business is still doing quite well, in a competitive field.
Personally, I’m not even advocating Dolby Atmos as the ultimate thing. I'm repeating myself, but I really do mean it: I hope something more standard emerges from all of this. The same goes for Dolby Vision actually. The good thing of open standards is that it usually also gets the costs down, as there is no single vendor dictating the price. But like with many developments which made it to something of an open standard, it usually goes through a few iterations of proprietary formats, before a such a standard emerges.
In the case of Dolby Atmos, an exclusive release in Dolby Atmos for a big budget movie would be in the best interest of Dolby and its Atmos brand name. Just think about the exposure Dolby would get if the upcoming Star Wars was released in Atmos and Dolby Vision with no IMAX, or Auro formats. Those who have Atmos would benefit the most. Those who installed Dolby Vision would also benefit the most.
Right now there really is way too many formats or options that provide the so called "immersive" experience. Dolby Cinema is about 6-8 years late to the market, in the North American market there is very little room for more formats, and the Dolby Cinema concept is just another PLF format with the Dolby name attached to it. The biggest problem with Dolby Cinema/Atmos succeeding is the over saturation of other product.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It’s not a channel based system at all, that’s the whole point. I hope in the future, we will have just ONE mix, in an open, object based audio format. Your sound system will do the appropriate mapping to your speaker layout. The sound mixer can focus on just one mix and make this mix great
And the average moviegoer understanding what an object based system is will never happen. The Transformers Age of Extinction release uses the words "multidimensional" a lot in their menus...I can't wait till people get their hands on Dolby Atmos headphones.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antonio Casado
Film Handler
Posts: 36
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Apr 2013
|
posted 12-09-2014 10:59 AM
quote:
quote: Antonio Casado
Here in Spain the majority of the screens aren´t masked...In fact I remember to see one or two masked screens in my whole life here (42 years...)
It really is unfortunate that you have only seen two properly masked screens in 42 years. Masking is the way to go, 35mm without masking has gotta really look bad. And the digital masking on an open flat screen does not look good at all. I can put up with no masking all like on a PLF screen but not on an open flat screen.
Well, here in Spain the majority of the screens are in Scope Format so no masking is needed when projecting in Scope. When project in Flat, there isn´t any digital mask or anything. Simply the Flat project in the center of the Scope Screen.
quote:
quote: Antonio Casado
The "blacks" of ANY cinema screen makes me laugh. Including this Dolby Vision or future Laser Projection, of course.
Black from 35mm or 70mm will look better than digital blacks, I believe blacks from laser projection will look better than you might think. Do you have access to Interstellar in 15/70? Because if you do, you will see black from film and you might see the difference versus digital.
Here in Spain there isn´t any IMAX 15/70 :-(
In other hand, I hate 35mm prints, as here in Spain is very bad copies, so I prefer the digital ones.
Compare any Oled screen with any other technology and amaze yourself :-). Even the Dolby people are thrilling about it. In fact, some Directors that see his movie in a OLED Screen, later when he see in Cinema or anything say that nothing compare with OLED Screens. It´s a fact.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-09-2014 02:23 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Right now there really is way too many formats or options that provide the so called "immersive" experience. Dolby Cinema is about 6-8 years late to the market, in the North American market there is very little room for more formats, and the Dolby Cinema concept is just another PLF format with the Dolby name attached to it. The biggest problem with Dolby Cinema/Atmos succeeding is the over saturation of other product.
We'll wait and see. If it proves to be better and more consistent than all the other non-standardized and often unsophisticated "PLF" screens around, consumers might just start to embrace it.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
In the case of Dolby Atmos, an exclusive release in Dolby Atmos for a big budget movie would be in the best interest of Dolby and its Atmos brand name. Just think about the exposure Dolby would get if the upcoming Star Wars was released in Atmos and Dolby Vision with no IMAX, or Auro formats. Those who have Atmos would benefit the most. Those who installed Dolby Vision would also benefit the most.
Maybe it will be great for Dolby or great for those theaters invested into Atmos, but it would suck for everybody else. So, I don't see any added benefit for the industry or the consumer as a whole. We really shouldn't embrace stuff that's forced down our throats. Dolby Atmos also doesn't need this, the format will eventually prove itself in the market, if it hasn't already done so. Please remember: Up until now it's considered a *premium* format, it isn't supposed to replace the Big Mac. It's the Big Kahuna layered with aged cheese and truffles, you're not supposed to have it every day of the week.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And the average moviegoer understanding what an object based system is will never happen. The Transformers Age of Extinction release uses the words "multidimensional" a lot in their menus...I can't wait till people get their hands on Dolby Atmos headphones.
The average consumer doesn't know anything about how his electronic gadgets work, so what's the point? Dolby Atmos is just another format, just like Dolby Digital AC3. And yes, there's no reason why your cellphone wouldn't be able to play it via your headphone... just like my cell phone can already play and downconvert Dolby TrueHD using something like VLC, for whatever that's worth. What matters is how it's being reproduced. I don't need to tell you there's a ginormous difference between cellphones and a properly equipped cinema.
quote: Antonio Casado
Compare any Oled screen with any other technology and amaze yourself :-). Even the Dolby people are thrilling about it. In fact, some Directors that see his movie in a OLED Screen, later when he see in Cinema or anything say that nothing compare with OLED Screens. It´s a fact.
So, let's close all cinemas and let's go see it in OLED at home then? Because the rest is... well, obsolete? Or should we just put an OLED screen in front of every cinema? Instead of 3D glasses we'll just hand out a bunch of binoculars? Or what are you proposing? Maybe Spain suffers from SCS... Shitty Cinema Syndrome. There are cures for that though.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
So what is on the left and right of the flat image, white screen?
No, no, no... Unicorns and rainbows of course.
quote: Mike Blakesley
We don't have moving masking here so we've always had a "pillarboxed" flat image. I don't know if it's me being used to it or because the sides are less in the field of vision, but the white on the sides never bugged me.
It has been the subject here before, more than once . Some might see it as some kind of religious thing, but it isn't. No, it's not like night and day, but the merits have been proven.
If your customers will really mind is obviously another thing, but like many quality aspects it's often a subconscious thing for many. A properly masked screen will give you better perceived contrast. The extra darkness around the edges of the screen will make the picture itself look brighter. Less exposed screen with no image will also keep unwanted reflections to a minimum. Also, in my personal opinion, a masked screen will make your screen look more like a window and not just a big white "cloth" in front of the room.
I do think it's a rather worthy upgrade, even if many people don't really see the additional benefit of it.
If every movie would be in the same aspect ratio, it wouldn't matter much. A movie projected on a floating screen with the same aspect ratio usually doesn't look worse than a movie on a masked screen, as long as the regions around the screen are dark.
quote: Dave Macaulay
And maybe inform you that any such masking-free perversion is a violation of the DCI standards - as if anyone is enforcing any of their non-security standards.
I wasn't aware movable masking is mandatory according to the DCI specs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-17-2014 06:50 AM
I believe the "floating screen" concept has been around since the 30s, but my first ever encounter with one was in the very popular Walter Reade's Baronet Theatre on 3rd Ave in NYC. Don't flame me if it was in the sister Coronet Theatre...they were like frick and frak & my memory is skipping a few synapses on that. Anyway, the screen did exactly what the name implies -- it was just a white rectangle that floated out in front of the wall behind it. The screen was a scope screen and the film I was going to see was flat. Thing is, there was no masking on this floating white rectangle. First thing I though as I sat there before the show taking in this new configuration of a screen without masking or curtain was, "OK, so what are they going to do when they project a flat image on this scope screen....there's NO MAKSING! I was baffled. Back then I had never seen a theatre where there wasn't a curtain much less masking, so this was a puzzlment.
So the movie is about to start, house lights dim and there at the top of the ceiling I notice something moving out of two slots that I hadn't noticed before. It's two felt bands not more than 6 inches in width decenting from the two small openings in the ceiling. These bands of velour are spaced so that they fall exactly at the edges of the 1.85 image, forming sort of a mask, albeit a very small one, just wide enough to cover the film's soft gate edge. The bands get to the bottom of the screen and the show starts. Thing is, as they started to decend, at first I had no idea what was going on. When they got about a 3rd of the way down it dawned on me -- THIS is the masking, and I swear, I involuntarily laughed out loud. At the end the movie, these two strips of velour rolled back up into their little hutches above the screen.
This was my first encounter with a floating screen and it seemed quite comical. As far as I can recall, EVERYTHING in this room was WHITE. Seemed like a good example to put in a theater design book in the chapter, Bad Cinema Designs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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