Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DTS:X for Cinemas

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » DTS:X for Cinemas (Page 5)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: DTS:X for Cinemas

Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-24-2016 09:12 PM

Thanks for the comments, Steve! Doing DTS-X with 16 channels allowed products to get to market quickly (firmware update on existing hardware). It is VERY EXPENSIVE to get equipment through FIPS security and DCI compliance testing. As such, companies want to spread out the release of new hardware. I expect future media blocks will support more than 16 channels out.

It's much easier to get a license to implement DTS-X than it is to get one for Atmos. I believe DTS will move to the SMPTE bit stream when it's adopted (I'm hoping for the end of this year). Dolby might or might not adopt the bitstream. The differences in systems will then be in the renderer instead of in the bitstream. Theaters can choose among rendering systems based on cost and performance. Meanwhile, we have at least two object based bitstreams being used. Ideally this will settle down to one.

It is my personal opinion that it makes the most sense to do rendering in the image media block. This avoids needing a second secure processing block, eliminates the need to transfer content and synchronization (for which there is now a SMPTE standard), and the need to have the SMS communicate with the outboard media block (for which no standard exists) for KDM transfer, security messages, etc. The cost of additional audio outputs should not be significant compared to the rest of the system.

We'll see what happens in the coming years.

Thanks for the comments!

Harold

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 04-25-2016 01:15 AM

Harold,

I'm not arguing the merits of how Dolby or anyone else is doing the object based audio (beyond that Dolby isn't pawing off some 1/2 sized cut down version that is indistinguishable from ordinary 7.1 to 95% of the people.

The problem you have when you rush out this 16-channel version is you have already set the bar low for the format. So DTS-X is just a 16-channel format. So what if it can have a bazilion channels to render its objects like Dolby, why should anyone ever get the 30-60 channel version of the format when the Cheap-O theatre can advertise the SAME DTS-X on their marquee as the one that cost the exhibitor many, many times as much and actually does a worthy job? As I said, you then have to start coming up with cutesie names like DTS-ULTRA-X or some such nonsense. 16-channel DTS-X is really just DTS-X "lite." Companies are doing it because they can, not because they should. There are several 16-channel processors out there...why because 16-channel PCM was always in the DCI spec...thus it is easy...but I come back to...no need for a proprietary system for it. That solves your mediablock/FIPS problem too and it reduces the cost to EVERYONE.

I wonder how 16-channel or 16-track would play on a marquee as compared to DTS-X (or Atmos) which both are already polluted by a consumer element (how are they supposed to know that the theatre version is any different...and in the case of DTS-X-Lite, may not be)?

Lets meet again here next year and see how this actually plays out.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-25-2016 08:47 AM

You guys can babble all you want about this. I have yet to even hear an Atmos mix that is even half as impressive as 70mm six track mag audio was. Honestly, all the Atmos stuff out there has been very lame.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-25-2016 09:01 AM

Media block manufacturers could implement separate outputs for aux Tracks like dbox, Atmos TC and SMPTE TC, freeing more native AES channels for audio.

You could actually leave options for channels count enhancements to the manufacturer. E.g. Auro already uses it's proprietary bit-shuffling to hide more channels in standard 5.1/7.1 tracks. They could easily enhance this to more of the available AES channels.

Other manufacturers could offer ethernet based channel extensions similar to Dolby boxes.

Depending on the system, you would need external SPBs or enhanced water marking. But I don't think that is a real problem. Most recent media blocks come with more than 2 Ethernet interfaces already.

Then I don't care wether the audio is rendered offline or realtime.

There absolutely NEEDs to be a way to do immersive audio 'on the cheap'. Otherwise ATMOS will remain the only offer on the market. No competition, no price drop. No price drop, no competition.

After all, 6.1 and 7.1 all have been only 'cheap' enhancements of 5.1. Actually, most technical developments in the cinema industry had to be 'cheap enhancements' to gain traction in order to allow for single inventory or backwards compatibility.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-25-2016 07:52 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You guys can babble all you want about this. I have yet to even hear an Atmos mix that is even half as impressive as 70mm six track mag audio was. Honestly, all the Atmos stuff out there has been very lame.

That makes me suspicious of how the sound systems were configured in the Atmos-equipped theaters you visited. Movies such as Gravity, Edge of Tomorrow and more recently The Jungle Book boasted surround panning and location detail in the mix that's completely impossible to achieve with conventional 4.2 or 5.1 channel 70mm mag audio, much less conventional 5.1 and 7.1 digital audio.

With that being said, I have been let down plenty of times by other movies claiming to be mixed in Atmos but sounding hardly different than conventional 7.1 or even 5.1. Far too many movie productions treat the sound mix as an after thought. It's something only to be done at the very last minute with crazy bad deadlines.

quote: Carsten Kurz
There absolutely NEEDs to be a way to do immersive audio 'on the cheap'. Otherwise ATMOS will remain the only offer on the market. No competition, no price drop. No price drop, no competition.

As a movie theater ticket buyer I absolutely disagree with this.

Immersive audio done on the cheap is basically bullshit, fake immersive audio. There literally is no way currently to put together a properly functional immersive sound system without spending a shit-ton of money on speakers and amplifiers. The processor, such as a pricey Dolby CP-850, is only one part of a pretty costly situation.

There is no way for a customer such as myself to find out just what the hell is installed in the booth. So I can't tell if a theater that just installed DTS:X actually installed it right or did it on the cheap. In the end it just makes me want to avoid that theater completely. If I have no other good choice where to see the movie then it's just as easy to wait for it on Blu-ray, Netflix or HBO.

The movie theater tacks some goofy acronym onto the auditorium entrance and wants a $3 surcharge on the ticket. They may or may not even say if the movie is playing in a certain sound format, such as Atmos, Auro or DTS:X. They try to imply it's their proprietary, custom bullshit theater acronym that's creating the audio-visual environment. This is basically another widespread problem I'd like to see disappear. I couldn't care less if a movie is in RPX, XD, GTX, ETX, etc. THX was the only one of those style acronyms that used to mean something.

Theaters doing immersive sound on the cheap, like some of the approaches DTS:X suggests, only makes a greater case for customers to seek out the really high end, closed approaches such as Dolby Cinema and IMAX with Laser. Both of those concepts cost a fortune to install. But they give the customer the impression such rooms are worth the price premium while other movie theaters are possibly or even likely lying to customers about what they have installed. The sad thing is such a development could harm movie theaters that have done a decent or even great job installing Dolby Atmos independently.

Meanwhile more activity is going on in the home theater space. If a commercial theater does a bullshit job on its immersive system the cost cutting could backfire. Home theater fans can take notice and install something in the living room yielding better results. This is reminescent of the DD-EX and DTS-ES thing; it ended up being a bigger thing on home theater and paved the way for Blu-ray to support 7.1 audio.

Whether DTS:X is done right in theaters or not is mostly a theoretical conversion at this point. DTS:X actually has next to nothing in terms of theatrical releases for movie theaters. I have no idea if any theaters in my region are equipped with it. The DTS:X presence currently is almost entirely confined to the home theater market.

| 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

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.