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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » DTS:X for Cinemas (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: DTS:X for Cinemas Mike Renlund Film Handler Posts: 71 From: San Francisco Registered: Feb 2008 posted 12-06-2015 01:09 PM                     You can watch several videos on the design aspects that go into a Dolby Atmos theater here: https://vimeopro.com/dolbycinemasupport/dolbyatmos Mike Renlund Dolby Laboratories  |  IP: Logged Peter Castle Expert Film Handler Posts: 220 From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia Registered: Oct 2003 posted 12-06-2015 11:03 PM                     I'm not interested in Atmos. I'm talking about utilising the fact we are a GDC house with an AP20. This set of posts is about DTS:X. I've seen nothing online regarding setup or installation for DTS:X. So what's going on? Who is providing the design service? I want to see if we can do it "on the cheap"!  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-07-2015 04:36 PM                     I guess you should ask GDC about it. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-07-2015 04:56 PM                     quote: I want to see if we can do it "on the cheap"! If DTS:X is going to be done correctly there is no way to do it on the cheap. For any next-gen "immersive" sound system to work well it will have to feature all of the things Dolby recommends (but does not require) in an Atmos setup. That means more powerful & higher quality surround speakers and individually amplifying as many of those speakers as possible. Adding sub-bass enclosures to the surrounds would be good for timbre-matching between the stage and surrounds. Left Extra and Right Extra stage speakers would be good for really large screens. This doesn't get into the choice of cinema processor and other new things like Ethernet connections for amps & audio (like QSC Q-Sys). Unfortunately the marketing coming from DTS on this new "X" format seems to imply any speaker layout will work even if certain zones are lacking, such as no ceiling surrounds! If I see a theater advertising DTS:X I'm automatically going to be suspicious about it. I've been to a couple Atmos-equipped theaters whose sound systems weren't as well configured as I hoped they would be, and that's coming from a sound format that at least has a specific speaker layout. DTS:X doesn't even appear to have that. None of the marketing material I've seen about DTS:X mentions any speaker configurations. I don't like Auro 11.1, but at least it has a specific speaker layout. The danger I see for customers paying extra for a DTS:X show is they may walk into a room whose sound system is really no different than 5.1, it just has a new label on it.  |  IP: Logged Aran Clifford Film Handler Posts: 3 From: LONDON, ENGLAND, UK Registered: Mar 2016 posted 03-20-2016 12:58 PM                       Hi all, Its been really interesting looking at all your posts about immersive formats. Im currently undertaking a dissertation in surround sound formats and what the future could be for these. I've put together a quick survey (about 7 or 8 questions) to see about peoples feelings with these formats. It would be great if you could help and spare a couple of minutes to fill out this survey. It would help me greatly and it might just be interesting for all of you too! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GZMtUEr4tqlEEnOPYCrNFRgZEhgh-ZES-mCKHJD9K6I/viewform Thanks! AC  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-20-2016 06:25 PM                     Is this the first time you're on a discussion forum? If so, you might want to read up on the rules and general "netiquette". Posting the same questions in multiple topics, while trying to get people to do you a favor while giving nothing obvious in return is not going to give you many credits.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 04-23-2016 04:18 PM                     so other than DTS-X on bluray - what's happening to the release and installation of the sound system for cinema application ... [crickets chirping] ... the silence speaks volumes.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-23-2016 04:56 PM                        GDC and USL both do DTS-X rendering in the media block. QSC does external rendering of DTS-X. However, I think the future is internal rendering. Only one security block is required with internal, while two are required with external. Internal also removes the complexities of sync, content transfer, KDM transfer, SMS to OMB communications (of which there is no standard), etc. Harold  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-23-2016 09:10 PM                     That may be. Then again, I see a bit of the 16-channel version of DTS-X being pushed on the server-rendered versions. The problem is, from what I've personally heard, why bother? Not only do I find very small to no difference in perceivable improvement between 7.1 and a 16-channel immersive, DTS-X seems to emphasize the height channels (including behind screen), which I find worthless (same goes for the height surrounds). Getting 5-across then Left/Right Wide bring the most to the table and then being able to localize the objects in the surround array...all of which 16-channels is really incapable of accomplishing effectively. So do people start adopting a poor-man's immersive? Does a 16 channel DTS-X cheapen the brand such that if one were to do something in the 30+ channels in DTS-X that people would have no reason to know the difference and essentially not reward the person that invests in a proper immersive system? And if we are just talking about 16-channels, then aside from the ADA wrongly being on a prime full-bandwidth channel, we should have been able to handle 16-channels of discrete audio with the 16 channels of PCM...why bother with a proprietary sound format?  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-24-2016 12:41 AM                        16 channels is a first step. I'm sure the next version of systems will output more channels. Harold  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2016 09:08 AM                     In my opinion, it is a non-worthy first step. It pre-cheapens the format in a manner of no going back. You'd have to change the name of the 30+ channel version to get distance from the silly 16 channel version. One thing I'll give GDC credit for is to have 16-channels of movie audio PLUS the ADA channels. In my opinion, using the existing 16 PCM channels, we can get get 5-across, L/R wide (I have always called the idea Left-Outside, Right-Outside), 4-surround channels and subwoofer...without any extra rendering and I can guarantee you that better than 95% of the people will find that sound system to be preferable to any of the 16 channel DTS systems I've heard and not have to have one extra bit of processing.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-24-2016 12:19 PM                        Could be. We'll see how the market goes. I've heard that a good sized chain chose Auro over Atmos because they could not hear the difference. That was Auro 11.1. The problem with moving forward with channel-based systems (increasing the number of channels) is a lack of agreement on where the channels should be. Object-based gives flexibility since panning instructions are sent to the auditorium for panning amongst the speakers in THAT auditorium. Another interesting approach is Ambisonics. I'm not super familiar with it, but it seems to be an expansion of M-S encoding which can be decoded to any speaker arrangement with fairly simple techniques. Harold  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-24-2016 12:43 PM                     Where is a list of DTS:X theatrical releases? At DTS' own web site there is still only a basic overview of the sound format. There is no list of previous theatrical releases or upcoming releases. There is no list of Blu-ray discs featuring DTS:X. From what I've been able to find, it looks like there is hardly any movie release activity at all for DTS:X in movie theaters. It's almost all in home theater. And title support there is very sketchy. A basic pre-rendered 16 channel version of DTS:X does seem like a waste of time. The height channels and ceiling surround design remind me of the Auro speaker layout. Perhaps DTS:X is meant to replace Auro at some point. With title support being so dismal and this 16-channel thing being perhaps the most common implementation of DTS:X it would just make more sense to use a straight 16-channel LPCM setup. Even 11.1 LPCM would probably be just fine. By the way, I think ceiling surrounds can be very effective, but it depends heavily on two things. The sound mix has to place objects there effectively and the sound system has to be powerful enough to play the material properly. The Jungle Book had a very good Atmos mix featuring some effective ceiling surround use. The voice of the big snake, Kaa, panned all over the room and over the ceiling. It was very well done. But I can imagine the effect falling flat in a theater that cheaped out on speakers and amps. quote: Harold Hallikainen I've heard that a good sized chain chose Auro over Atmos because they could not hear the difference. That was Auro 11.1. Cinemark chose Auro because it was cheaper. The Auro cinema processor itself is pretty expensive. But the huge cost savings come in by not having to buy nearly as many power amplifiers, like what is required in a properly configured Atmos system. I think Auro 11.1 sucks. The big failure with it to me is no discrete back wall surround channels. You have a bit-reduced 5.1 LPCM 16-bit base layer and then some lossless compressed height channels added to it. Regular 7.1 LPCM has better surround coverage. Transient fly by surround effects work better in 7.1 LPCM than they do in Auro. The other thing that sucks about Auro is very poor title support. Hardly any theatrical releases are using it. Kung Fu Panda 3 was the last US release in Auro (it also used Atmos). How to Train Your Dragon 3 is the next release. So when you visit a Cinemark theater and pay extra for that XD screen most of the time you're just going to hear ordinary 5.1. But I guess a lot of people don't mind that given the vast majority of IMAX branded screens have conventional 5.1 audio.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 04-24-2016 12:58 PM                     here's the list in forum form from bluray.com regarding blurays with DTS-X sound http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742 Fox is releasing the upcoming 4K UHD of 'Independence Day' in DTS-X as well. Auro has never impressed me - the one theatrical DTS-X presentation I heard ('The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2') was stunning - but with so few releases, I don't see how they are treading water.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2016 06:19 PM                     quote: Harold Hallikainen The problem with moving forward with channel-based systems (increasing the number of channels) is a lack of agreement on where the channels should be. I don't really agree there either. LC/RC are already designated 9/10, 11/12 are BLs/BRs, If dbox continues to steal an AUDIO channel we do run out before we hit Lo/Ro because ADA is taking up both 7/8 and 15/16...it should take up NEITHER and have been a dedicated set of aux tracks not needing full-range. Heck, I would have required that they be outputted analog straight from the server. it is absurd that they are taking up full-range audio for what they do. The problem with having a low-end immersive audio that is object based is that it becomes proprietary and we get back to the EXACT problem that DCI wanted to prevent, (DTS, Dolby, SDDS)...hence PCM was the idea and 16 channels to allow for expansion. If you want to put in a PREMIUM sound system like Atmos...fine but for the remaining 95% of the theatres, they shouldn't to choose amongst non-compatible competing brands...like DTS, Dolby and Barco (so we traded Barco for Sony...and we are right back to where we didn't want to be). And, in the case of 16-channel DTS...for something that can be accomplished by 16-channel PCM. I'm not trying to discourage going beyond or object based audio BUT...do what Dolby is doing and bring something that can't be achieved with basic PCM channels. DTS can do it so skip the 16-channel version which will only serve to cheapen the brand. That said, like with 3D, only but a few movies are going to really benefit from the full immersive audio experience before it gets gimmicky. Cost wise, we are still only talking about a very small sliver of the market. I get the idea of trying to pawn off the 16-channel thing as a way of "immersive for the masses" but it really isn't immersive and audibly barely distinguishable from normal 7.1 (heck, full blown Atmos is barely distinguishable from 7.1 on MOST mixes I've heard and I've had hand picked test clips to show off the system). Ceiling speakers are always going to be a crapshoot for audio. Our ears aren't on top of our heads so to get the benefit you almost depend on a defect in posture or the room acoustics to get the effect and even then there are variables as to the speaker, pattern, location above, how many speakers there are to convey the effect (resolution, if you will). Side-to-side, those effects are always easy to translate, our ears help with that but up/down, we aren't built that way...even fore/aft can have mixed results but much more easily perceived because any head rotation will assist in the perception. Up/Down just isn't the easy directions to convey.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.