Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New THX Trailer

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » New THX Trailer - Eclipse (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: New THX Trailer - Eclipse

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-13-2015 08:33 AM

No...skip the ceiling speakers altogether. And nobody will notice the difference. This is a very old and tired subject. The ability to get significant information and directional cues from overhead is a VERY VERY difficult thing and it has been tried just about since the advent of surrounds.

With ears on either side of one's head, the impression of audio height is tough. Furthermore, one is often very restricted in the amount of height they have to create this illusion. This makes for directional challenges but also coverage issues.

The time/value of creating an effective ceiling sound system will necessarily be difficult and expensive. Putting in a half-assed ceiling system is a waste of time and money...always has been.

Not surprisingly, I've yet to hear a notably improved Auro sound track. Adding height to a 5.1 or even a 7.1 mix isn't going to get you much and if you have to exaggerate the mix to get the height channels to be "heard" then you are likely going to get into the gimmicky category.

As it is...putting sound in the theatre where there is no picture to back up the audio cues borders on silliness.

For instance, it is good surround practice to have an airplane take off on screen and fly over the audience by turning all of the surrounds one to carry the audio of the plane over the audience (and one could claim that an object based surround system like Atmos would do this well).

However it is a VERY bad practice to have an airplane LAND by flying over people's heads and appear on the screen. When you place an audio cue not backed up by a visual, people will tend to "look" for what they hear and there isn't anything there but speakers...the suspension of disbelief if gone and you are back in a theatre. Some used to call it the "Exit Sign syndrome". You put a noise in the surrounds...when people turn to see what it is...what they see is the Exit sign in the theatre in the back corner.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-13-2015 05:07 PM

I agree that those height channels are of limited use. But I wouldn't call them entirely useless. Like I already mentioned in the DTS:X topic, we often tilt our heads around and then we're better able to detect those height cues. And yes, it's better to skip those than to do an half-assed attempt.

The biggest annoyance for me though, is the misuse of height channels. The best known example is rain, which, unless you're under a roof, you hear falling around you and not above you.

The "Exit Sign Syndrome" is certainly of importance, but don't you think we're largely over it by now? People also don't run screaming out of a theater if they see a train coming at them anymore. [Razz]

Most people must have become used to surround sound by now. If they hear the plane arriving from the back of the theater and see a landing strip in front of them, they surely know there's going to be a plane. I guess it will be more confusing to not show any plane landing at all. [Wink]

Another important factor is that too much realism might actually cause distraction. For example, simulate a noisy crowd and people might even think it originated in the very room they're sitting in.

| IP: Logged

Dave Young
Film Handler

Posts: 19
From: New Bedford, ma
Registered: Jul 2014

posted 04-13-2015 07:54 PM

The plane analogy is an interesting one. I was driving with my top down today behind the airport and a Cessna came in behind and to my right for a landing. I was going around a bend and there were some ornery trucks in the oncoming lane so I didn't crane my head. I did distinctly notice that I had the very rare sensory experience of hearing that plane above me and wondered how high it was.

I imagine that height sound is such a small eventual percentage that zeroing it in with the overheads is not entirely worth it. Unless, of course, it was for a particular feature that had an extraordinary number of height effects needed.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-13-2015 09:14 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't fault the companies for trying to get an edge. But it doesn't really serve the exhibitors very well, at this point. What they don't need is another expensive thing to set themselves apart (except maybe in the very biggest markets).

When the exhibitors are selling "large format" (or rather digital yet fake large format) to the public at a significantly higher ticket price they probably ought to provide something more than just single projector video and ordinary surround sound. There's lots of standard priced theaters that do 4K and 7.1. Presenting something not noticeably different from what a standard priced auditorium delivers and just putting it on a bigger screen and making the sound a bit louder isn't worth a $3 to $6 premium above what's already kind of an expensive ticket.

quote: Steve Guttag
With ears on either side of one's head, the impression of audio height is tough. Furthermore, one is often very restricted in the amount of height they have to create this illusion. This makes for directional challenges but also coverage issues.

How is this different from real life sounds? I have no problem hearing other sounds above me, such as the noisy HVAC system in a bad quality movie theater. I don't need ears on top of my head to hear birds, planes or other noises that occur naturally above my listening position. I don't need an ear between my nose and mouth to locate sounds in front of me either.

What is it about speakers in the ceiling that makes it impossible for them to work versus anything else making noise from above? I have to say I've been in a few oddly designed AMC theaters in the past where the surround array was stuffed up in the ceiling rather than down on the side and back walls where it should be. I had no problem whatsoever hearing those speakers above me. It was very distracting since there was no sound field to the sides. Just big sound in front and on top.

One area where I do believe ceiling surrounds have coverage problems is in stadium seated theaters with the unequal distance from floor to ceiling going from the back row to the front row. People farther up and back will hear the ceiling surround speakers far better than people closer to the stage. This is yet another reason why stadium seated rooms are inferior to traditional sloped rooms for optimal surround sound. Back wall surround imaging really isn't very good in stadium seated rooms regardless if they're wired only for 5.1 or wired for Atmos or Auro.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The biggest annoyance for me though, is the misuse of height channels. The best known example is rain, which, unless you're under a roof, you hear falling around you and not above you.

Rainfall coming out of only the top channel speakers would be annoying. However, I have not heard any movie mixes in Atmos do that. Noah had a lot of torrential rain noise, but none of it was confined to only the ceiling surrounds.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-14-2015 04:20 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
How is this different from real life sounds? I have no problem hearing other sounds above me, such as the noisy HVAC system in a bad quality movie theater. I don't need ears on top of my head to hear birds, planes or other noises that occur naturally above my listening position. I don't need an ear between my nose and mouth to locate sounds in front of me either.

Sure you'll be able to hear those noises, but your mind also often plays tricks on you while giving the sound a location. It's reasonable to question whether or not those ceiling speakers really matter very much in giving you those location cues.

As a matter of fact, they do, but just not as much as you'd probably think they do. That's why in my opinion, placing sounds on the correct height doesn't need as much resolution as placing it in the planar field around you.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Rainfall coming out of only the top channel speakers would be annoying. However, I have not heard any movie mixes in Atmos do that. Noah had a lot of torrential rain noise, but none of it was confined to only the ceiling surrounds.

Guardians of the Galaxy does this. I was watching this with my brother in Atmos. He also immediately noticed it and later told me it sounded weird and fake. And if I remember correctly, even the Atmos Amaze trailer does this to some extend.

quote: Bobby Henderson
One area where I do believe ceiling surrounds have coverage problems is in stadium seated theaters with the unequal distance from floor to ceiling going from the back row to the front row. People farther up and back will hear the ceiling surround speakers far better than people closer to the stage. This is yet another reason why stadium seated rooms are inferior to traditional sloped rooms for optimal surround sound.

The Atmos room equalization process accounts for the fact that front rows are located further away from the top speakers than the people sitting in the back to some extend, so this isn't really a big issue. The other argument you bring forward certainly is an issue for both highly sloped stadium seated auditoriums, but also for very deep rooms. It's not only an issue for Atmos, but also or decent 6.1 or 7.1 representation. Also, sitting close to the back wall in such an auditorium while watching a movie with a 7.1 mix can sound highly unnatural.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-14-2015 06:46 AM

Problems with ceiling speakers are multi-fold. It depends a lot on one not sitting straight to get any feel for the localization and it will vary based on how far your head is shifted.

You also have a coverage issue. You don't want to cause a false localization due to beaming (one speaker is so close to your listening position that you really just have that one playing at you for all effects, it will sound like what it is). In a high-ceiling auditorium, the problem is greatly reduced.

The perceived benefit versus cost versus effect has NEVER and I mean NEVER panned out in the upwards of 60-years it has been tried. What we have now with Atmos over previous attempts is the ability to localize sounds. Of the half-dozen Atmos performances I've heard...some did better than others but I haven't really had a mix yet that had me coming away thinking...this is how sound should be done. Mind you...VERY few mixes have done that for me. Sound of Music comes to mind...and incredible 6-track mix. I'm not sold that an immersive sound mix will improve that.

I do fear that immersive audio will drain financial resources like Surround-EX and HFR have done before it and cause the industry to dump money into only be abandoned shortly thereafter (or effectively abandoned). I'm VERY pleased to see that Surround 7.1 has quite a few mixes...despite no real marketing behind it. Not because I've put many in but that it costs the industry effectively zero and you can mix in it or not. I do see 3D continuing to decline as well (and hoping it does but that is a personal thing).

If people want to improve the sound...the 5-across was the right direction and Atmos has that...and then move the dialog with the actors...that is the kind of "immersion" I like as it sells the illusion better and continues the suspension of disbelief. Fancy gimmicky surrounds do the opposite, often.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-14-2015 12:38 PM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sure you'll be able to hear those noises, but your mind also often plays tricks on you while giving the sound a location. It's reasonable to question whether or not those ceiling speakers really matter very much in giving you those location cues.

I have no problem correctly hearing the position of a particular sound, whether it is coming out of a speaker or if it is a naturally occurring sound. One thing is certain: side surround speakers are never going to trick my mind into thinking the sound is occurring any point above me.

There are lots of complaints about gimmicky surround sound, ping-pong effects and what not. The truth is a distracting ping-pong effect can happen just as easily with 5.1 surround and even plain 2 channel stereo. A ping-pong problem isn't really the fault of a sound format, it's mostly the fault of the person who created the audio track. It's up to the sound designer to use the creative capabilities of any given sound format in a tasteful way.

Dolby Atmos can, when used properly, create a more natural sounding surround field than what a conventional surround array can deliver. Conventional surround is locked into a horizontal plane. We don't hear real world audio like that, despite only having 2 ears on the left and right sides of our heads. Confining an object oriented surround format only to side and back wall speakers could actually create something even more distracting. Audio objects are more likely to sound like point source effects coming from a specific side or back wall speaker. The ceiling surrounds can help create phantom imaging to spread out the sound into a fuller, more diffuse space.

5.1 surround is very deficient in being able to portray fly-by & fly-aruond effects in commercial auditoriums. You have to be sitting in exactly the right place for those effects to be convincing at all. Otherwise you'll just hear a big left wall & right wall stereo effect. Some stadium seated theaters, even ones wired for 7.1, can't deliver much of a back wall surround image because the surround speakers are stuffed up into a narrow area between the ceiling and highest back row of seats. You'll hear it only if you're sitting close enough to the rear channel speakers. Once again, fly-by & fly-aruond effects aren't going to work very well for a lot of people in the room, particularly if it is a large room and the surround speakers are the of the typically tiny, under-powered variety in most theaters. Object oriented sound formats like Atmos and DTS:X can render far more convincing surround effects when those effects are needed. The Atmos mix of Gravity had FAR better surround panning effects than I ever heard with any 70mm mix or 5.1/7.1 mix. The difference isn't even close.

quote: Steve Guttag
The perceived benefit versus cost versus effect has NEVER and I mean NEVER panned out in the upwards of 60-years it has been tried. What we have now with Atmos over previous attempts is the ability to localize sounds. Of the half-dozen Atmos performances I've heard...some did better than others but I haven't really had a mix yet that had me coming away thinking...this is how sound should be done. Mind you...VERY few mixes have done that for me. Sound of Music comes to mind...and incredible 6-track mix. I'm not sold that an immersive sound mix will improve that.

Regarding cost: we have a different movie-going environment now where customers are expected to pay an extra $3, $6 or more just because of a fancy acronym logo on the side of a building. That auditorium needs to deliver more than just plain 2K and 5.1 on a bigger screen and louder surround system to justify charging that high premium.

I've been impressed with some Atmos movie mixes, like Gravity and Edge of Tomorrow and then not so impressed with other mixes, like Thor: The Dark World or Man of Steel. That's not the fault of Atmos. It's the fault of the people not using the creative tools in an effective manner. And then there is the additional variable of whether a particular theater's Dolby Atmos installation is a good one. A theater operator can go anywhere from a minimal 9.1 configuration to having all 64 output channels utilized or any point in between. Unfortunately that means a given movie could sound crazy awesome on one Atmos system and sound hardly any different than conventional 7.1 on another system. DTS:X is going to have a much greater problem in this area with little if any standardization on equipment or speaker configurations. The DTS:X label could end up being totally meaningless if surround sound fans have no idea what to expect with it.

quote: Steve Guttag
I do fear that immersive audio will drain financial resources like Surround-EX and HFR have done before it and cause the industry to dump money into only be abandoned shortly thereafter (or effectively abandoned). I'm VERY pleased to see that Surround 7.1 has quite a few mixes...despite no real marketing behind it. Not because I've put many in but that it costs the industry effectively zero and you can mix in it or not. I do see 3D continuing to decline as well (and hoping it does but that is a personal thing).

In the case of Surround-EX, that was always going to be an interim audio format. 7.1 with quad surrounds effectively replaced it in both commercial movie theaters and in home theater. LPCM 7.1 has more mixes now because it is supported in home theater via LPCM, Dolby True-HD, Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD sound formats. On the high end movies mixed for Dolby Atmos will usually have a 7.1 track.

HFR has only been a really controversial thing. It's never going to catch on as long as movies still have to look like they were shot on film.

I think 3D is declining due a few reasons. The novelty of 3D has worn off for a lot of people. Movie tech heads like me have been put off by all the 2D-3D conversions. Customers are getting price fatigue and feel it's better to save a few bucks watching the movie in 2D. Prices for 3D movies on Blu-ray are fucking ridiculous and they stay sky high long after the regular 2D version to dropped to bargain bin pricing. Hardly any video stores offer Blu-ray 3D movies to rent. Netflix has a few 3D movies to watch, but you need a fantastic Internet connection for the 3D to work. 3D TV sets have various hassles; for instance, I don't like how the shutter glasses on my TV drink those little round batteries so fast. Overall 3D has been poorly managed and big blaring ads of "experience it IMAX 3D and Real D" aren't going to make a damned bit of difference.

What's going to be interesting in the long term is if all these fake large format theaters and other high priced screening concepts can survive. I already have a pretty nasty attitude toward those types of theaters. If sound formats like Atmos die off and the 3D trend also dies there will be very little justification for keeping those big screen theaters around, at least at their premium price points. Big screen and louder audio but still in conventional sound/projection formats isn't worth the premium price hike.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-14-2015 02:01 PM

Bobby,

With respect to EX...it survived until the end of mainstream film mixes and was to continue into DCinema...hence the 6.1 format exists...every Dolby server has shipped with a test DCP for it and big gun TMS systems like Cinedigm had a special audio cue for it.

It wasn't until the first 7.1 mix came out that the notion of EX in digital dropped like a lead ballon. The only thing that EX had going for it in the DCinema world was universal compatibility. The same DCP would play fine in all cinemas, EX or 5.1 I don't know of any DCPs that had an EX mix though.

That said, people did invest in EX decoders only to find their content choices to be more than limited.

With respect to HFR and 3D...since it came as the thick of the DCinema conversion was going on...there was a rather massive push/consideration for it. People had to, like 3D before it (remember, series 1 machines didn't have the bandwidth to handle triple flash until the VERY last generation), back pedal their products and figure a way to deal with it before the first Hobbit came out. The net result for all of that effort has been one trilogy with luke-warm reception and the promise of one more feature by a 3D fanatic. Yet we now have standards in place for it, TMS systems have cues for it, IMB companies have features (most are licensed) for it. Thus far, it has been a dud that people have had to spend money one. As an installer, we felt obligated to recommend IMBs for 3D at that time since if HFR had been a hit, it would have been a zero cost upgrade though I still prefer conventional mediablocks with SDI connectivity.

All of this stuff has cost money to exhibitors and manufacturers alike. Most of it doesn't pay off but you never want to be left out of the next "hit." If you were an early 3D adopter...you made out...once it became mainstream...the bang for the buck died too.

I agree that PLF theatres should have a better-than-typical sound system to as well as picture and I think Dolby's idea on their system is just that. I still haven't heard the worthwhile overhead effects though.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-14-2015 06:03 PM

One really annoying thing about Surround EX for theater operators: it was supported a lot better on DVD than it was in movie theaters where it was more badly needed. Some movies would have their theatrical release in conventional 5.1 and then appear on DVD with Dolby Surround EX 5.1 or DTS-ES 6.1 discrete audio tracks. That nonsense took value away from the DD-EX and DTS-ES processors various theaters installed.

7.1 LPCM was an improvement over lossy compressed DD-EX and DTS-ES formats. Unfortunately no one figured out how to make LPCM 7.1 fold down to 5.1 properly so a DCP could have a single, universally compatible LPCM track.

quote: Steve Guttag
I agree that PLF theatres should have a better-than-typical sound system to as well as picture and I think Dolby's idea on their system is just that. I still haven't heard the worthwhile overhead effects though.

It could very well be Atmos equipped theaters near you are not well configured. For Atmos to sound great numerous variables have to be in place. Fundamentally the movie mix has to take advantage of Atmos' capability otherwise it's not going to sound noticeably different from a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix. The theater's Atmos system needs a sufficient number of separately amplified and more powerful than usual surround speakers otherwise an aggressive Atmos mix will still sound like conventional surround sound.

Dolby Cinema has some promise; however, I think Dolby will have to make some tweaks to the design. Images I've seen of one of the first Dolby Cinema installations show what seems to be a pretty small screen and the screen is common width at that. That's not going to go over well with customers, especially if they have to pay a pretty high surcharge to enter. Dolby Vision enhanced imagery could be controversial unless it preserves a film-like image.

IMAX has to get its new dual 4K laser projection system and 12 channel sound system deployed ASAP. So far one theater in Toronto and the TCL Chinese Theater in LA have been upgraded. Supposedly more than 70 of these new systems have been ordered. But it's a mystery where they're all going to be installed. From my own selfish perspective I don't know if Carmike will install one of these new 4K systems in the IMAX branded theater they're building here in Lawton. However, I would not be surprised at all if the new theater was equipped with older 2K equipment, even hand-me-down equipment from another IMAX branded theater in a larger city. Judging from the building's construction the IMAX house is going to be pretty big. Its roof looks at least 20 feet higher than the rest of the building, which looks about 30'-35' tall.

Laser-based projection could turn into an important thing that ends up being a requirement for premium big screen theaters, especially if Dolby Cinema and IMAX openly tout it with their name branded theaters.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-15-2015 04:47 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I have no problem correctly hearing the position of a particular sound, whether it is coming out of a speaker or if it is a naturally occurring sound. One thing is certain: side surround speakers are never going to trick my mind into thinking the sound is occurring any point above me.

I guess the only way to be sure is doing an ABX test, preferably with your head mounted. [Wink]

Then again, like I put it before, people, not just you and me, are certainly capable of perceiving height in sound. Even if it's aided by tilting your head, which we naturally do.
The question remains though, in how often this really is useful. The height and location information in general becomes less relevant once an object is located further away from the listener or if it's going below a certain frequency level.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Object oriented sound formats like Atmos and DTS:X can render far more convincing surround effects when those effects are needed. The Atmos mix of Gravity had FAR better surround panning effects than I ever heard with any 70mm mix or 5.1/7.1 mix. The difference isn't even close.

I've seen Gravity in both Atmos and 7.1 sound. The Atmos version was in a very large auditorium. The 7.1 version was in a much smaller auditorium and while the Atmos version sounded better, the 7.1 version wasn't really that much worse.

In smaller theaters, where all speaker arrays can easily reach you at roughly the same SPL, a traditional 7.1 setup isn't really so much worse than Atmos. One thing Atmos can do in big rooms if done right, is increase the sweet spot.

Gravity excelled in how it approached sound mixing. The same can be told about Birdman, which even doesn't have an Atmos track, then again makes excellent use of the 7.1 channel layout.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It could very well be Atmos equipped theaters near you are not well configured. For Atmos to sound great numerous variables have to be in place. Fundamentally the movie mix has to take advantage of Atmos' capability otherwise it's not going to sound noticeably different from a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix. The theater's Atmos system needs a sufficient number of separately amplified and more powerful than usual surround speakers otherwise an aggressive Atmos mix will still sound like conventional surround sound.

I've experienced Atmos in quite a few theaters right now. At least three of them have been designed in close cooperation with Dolby, one of them even calls itself Dolby Cinema and was, as such designed conforming Dolby's most intricate specifications.

While Dolby Atmos sounds great in big rooms, the step up from a smaller sized rooms built conforming to THX specs is just minimal in my opinion. I see great potential in MDA formats as a uniform method of delivery, but it's clear to me that a smaller room doesn't need a gazillion of audio channels to have great sounding surround. The biggest benefit of autonomous speaker channels in big auditoriums is probably that all speakers can now also be individually tuned, to better match the conditions inside the room.

The added value for those overhead speakers can still be debated. I've indicated that before, but in my opinion, we should invest in more speakers behind the screen first, especially in large venues, before adding speakers to the ceiling.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-15-2015 06:49 AM

Bobby, I've heard Atoms numerous times in genuine Dolby set up/equipped theatres where they were demoing how great the format was...still...the overhead part was less than satisfying.

Remember too, in stadium seating theatres...your height to speaker gets progressively less as you head to the rear of the auditorium. In theory, the density of speakers should be increasing as the height diminishes...but that would be yet more money thrown at the problem. A problem that just hasn't proven itself to be a problem.

Also as to the other over-head attempts of yesteryear and the need to justify higher ticket prices...remember back then we had hard-tickets on roadshows that did command a premium price. For that, they typically got things like 70mm...which was a night/day improvement over the 35mm optical mono in both picture and sound.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 04-15-2015 10:46 AM

My projection booth has a window that opens to the outside. When I was running film it was fun to poke my head out the window and yell at friends going by. They would NEVER think to look up above them, they'd always think the sound is coming from street level. So I can see the point about overhead speakers being not good for much except "voice of God" type things.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.