|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Object Based Sound Systems (Dolby Atmos, DTS-X...and the rest)
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-24-2019 03:53 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
There are many examples of sound events that can be justifiably placed in specific locations of the surround field or panned through various locations in the surround field. A properly configured Atmos system can render such effects in a more convincing manner than conventional mono, split or quad surround. Better yet, if the audio editing folks put the work into it, they can layer lots of objects into the surround field with varying levels of diffuse or point specific character to create detailed soundscapes that totally blow away the perceived ambiance of a 5.1 or 7.1 mix.
We've been mixing stuff in Atmos for about a year and a half now. But to be honest, I'm somewhat disappointed with the limits of the system.
For example, it's currently simply not really possible to create "sound fields" or "sound surfaces", there are only two tools you can use: beds; which map to the classical channel based layout and point objects, which represent a point source.
This somewhat sucks for all kind of ambient sounds you want to put in, which often end up in one or more channel beds instead.
An alternative is to introduce many point sources on a virtual surface, but then you actually risk to get to your maximum number of objects pretty soon and it becomes much harder to manage your mix. You're also wasting bandwidth and processing resources.
quote: Bobby Henderson
One example is the Regal Broken Arrow Warren location, the only one out of the previous Warren chain to have any Atmos-equipped auditoriums. Their two Grand Infinity houses have Atmos. I was surprised at the low number of ceiling surround speakers used. Given the sheer height of the ceilings (these are auditoriums with premium priced balconies) the speakers used weren't nearly powerful enough to be heard adequately from the floor level seats. The Dolby Atmos "Unfold" trailer just didn't sound right.
Auditoriums like the Grand Infinity houses are almost impossible to get right, in regards to the ceiling speakers. You risk to over-expose the balcony, while underexposing the seats on the ground floor. Maybe a case for line arrays. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
The "Amaze" trailer is okay. It does a decent job of calling attention (slightly) to the technical side of Atmos. I've only seen it played at Harkins locations, and even they've gone back to using the "Unfold" trailer since it has a more "in your face" bombastic nature like a classic THX snipe. I've rarely seen any AMC/Dolby Cinema screens play Atmos-specific trailers. The Chapel Hills Mall theater in Colorado Springs played the "Unfold" trailer (along with AMC's home-brewed Dolby Cinema trailer). But then again, theaters in that town were pretty good about playing sound format trailers even when they were showing film.
The "Unfold" trailer rocks the auditorium with the extreme bass punches at the end of the trailer, but I think that it misses some of the more subtle notes to showcase the system.
It's obviously a pretty personal thing, but I currently like the "Nature's Fury" trailer the most. It not only showcases the system, it also explains it a bit to the audience. It's essentially the current Dolby Cinema trailer, without the Dolby Vision part. It also combines some more subtle elements with a lot of bombastic / "in your face" elements.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-24-2019 07:28 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It's obviously a pretty personal thing, but I currently like the "Nature's Fury" trailer the most. It not only showcases the system, it also explains it a bit to the audience. It's essentially the current Dolby Cinema trailer, without the Dolby Vision part. It also combines some more subtle elements with a lot of bombastic / "in your face" elements.
I have not seen that one played in an Atmos-equipped house yet for myself. There is a copy of the trailer on YouTube and I can imagine it would give a pretty good demonstration of the surround panning and location capabilities of Atmos. The trailer also has the current, vertically oriented, Dolby Atmos logo in Gustan type.
Still, I'm used to sound format trailers not containing any dialog at all, just music and sound effects. When dialog is introduced the sound format snipe is just turned into a literal commercial ad rather than something to just get the blood pumping right before the start of the show.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for power of the speakers...I don't know how they could get it wrong given that Dolby puts absurd demands on the sizing of speakers and amps (crazy headroom requirements...and I mean not really based on good math sorts of things...impossible worst case scenarios).
There's obviously quite a bit of a budgetary lee-way zone in which theater operators can fudge an Atmos system to be cheaper, less effective yet still get the word "Atmos" into the theater web site or on the marquee. If Dolby is mandating certain speaker models be used in the auditorium shouldn't they also mandate certain kinds of amplifiers and a minimal number of channels worth of amplification? I get the feeling the amp channel count is a big category for cost cutting when configuring an Atmos house.
I was surprised at the low number of ceiling surrounds in the Warren location compared to the Harkins' Cine Capri featuring two rows of speakers along that ceiling, 10 speakers in each row. That Cine Capri house is fairly square in shape. I think the big common height screen lends to that room shape.
If I had a hand in designing the rooms of a new movie theater I would ditch the steep, standard stadium seated model for something a little closer to the old modest slope auditorium of old. I would make the seating angle only steep enough to get viewers' eye lines above the heads of people in the forward rows. No higher than that. The idea is lowering the ceiling. Can't we have a happy medium between stadium seating and an old fashioned modest slope auditorium? Such a thing might be more wheel chair access friendly.
I think Dolby Atmos would have been freaking fantastic in a theater like the GCC Northpark #1 if that theater still existed. Atmos would have been perfect for that room.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-25-2019 03:26 AM
Dolby doesn't mandate a speaker or amplifier, per say. What they control is the coverage and level.
While they have a growing list of known speakers and amplifiers that can be dropped into their spreadsheet called DARDT (Dolby Audio Room Design Tool). One can use speakers not on the list by putting in the proper parameters (dispersion angles, power handling, sensitivity). It will then calculate the numbers of speakers needed to cover the room. With higher ceilings, you can picture where each speaker will "see" more seaking areas and you can imagine the ability to discern which speaker is playing (or where an object is located) decreases with speaker distance to listener.
You are correct in that there are economizing methods to the Atmos system. One may "pair" surround channels on the walls (except the zone nearest the screen...the "wide-surrounds"). This has the effect of lowering the resolution as what one sees as two speakers on the side wall, in a zone is really just one channel where they have aimed them to cover different parts of the room. It does cut the amplifier channel count in half. The other economizing can be done on the ceiling with "culling" such that what would have been two speakers within a zone becomes one (per side).
I agree that these sort of economizing techniques, while helping to sell the licenses and make profits, hurts the format's ability to distinguish itself as a superior system. It muddies up the brand and confuses the patron into appreciating that Dolby ATMOS is the superior format when the quality can differ from site to site or room to room.
I'm sure it is hard for a public company to turn down money and enforce standards but for Atmos, I think they should have done it to enrich its brand/format to distinguish itself from the rest. However, once you go down the econo path, you allow it to succumb to the least common denominator.
This is similar to how I've downplayed DTS-X...one can put in a DTS-X that has no more channels than a conventional 16-channel AES system without any DTS-X at all. Do you really think such a low-rent version of DTS-X will sound significantly different than a 7.1 mix? If not, why bother at all. Furthermore, you fellow exhibitor that puts in the low-channel count version essentially undercuts your effort because the patron has no way of knowing that there is a difference between the 16-channel and the 50-channel version (how could they?).
Dolby has the same problem. It would help, in my opinion, to have an Atmos-Premium or like name that does not allow any of the economizing and has a bit more enforcement of adhering to the design standards. It would set apart those cinemas that have the better system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-25-2019 04:17 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Still, I'm used to sound format trailers not containing any dialog at all, just music and sound effects. When dialog is introduced the sound format snipe is just turned into a literal commercial ad rather than something to just get the blood pumping right before the start of the show.
Dolby has released quite a few trailers/snipes over the last year with some dialogue in it. At first I wasn't really pleased with it either, as in general for cinema the golden rule is: show, don't tell.
But I think it's also important to highlight the specialty of the format, compared to the surround we're all gotten used to over the years. Maybe a few lines of spoken text can do that more efficiently than a bunch of animations.
The old Dolby City SRD trailer (the helicopter flying through the rendered city) did a good job at pointing out the distinctive left and right surrounds in a time where few people even did have surround sound at home. But I think you really need to grab the attention of the people about what's different between Atmos and the 5.1 or 7.1 surround they're familiar with.
The "Nature's Fury" trailer has some of the best spatial audio-panning samples of all the Atmos trailers and also gives your bass a good workout. Even the expensive and mostly unused overhead speakers are used for a great deal and in the right way (thunder comes from above, but the rain hits "all around you"). If you play it at reference, you pretty much shake the auditorium with the bombastic ending, which features some scenic shots and some clips from their Atmos/Vision "Escape" promo (the rendered girl with the tuning fork in her hand as a kind of weapon).
quote: Steve Guttag
Dolby has the same problem. It would help, in my opinion, to have an Atmos-Premium or like name that does not allow any of the economizing and has a bit more enforcement of adhering to the design standards. It would set apart those cinemas that have the better system.
I've been advocating a new quality label for years. It doesn't even have to be "brand specific". The problem I have is that all those companies involved with cinematic experiences, Dolby, DTS, THX... they all have diluted their brands. Why would I, as a cinema owner, want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a brand, if the consumer gets the perception he/she can have "the same thing" for a few bucks at home? It greatly diminishes the "marquee value". I can have "Atmos" on my phone, but I'm waiting to buy a new one, until I can have IMAX on it too...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-25-2019 11:43 AM
Dolby, DTS, THX, etc have all diluted their brands for the sake of selling product in various consumer electronics categories. It's all to make money and please share holders. But, yes, that comes at a penalty of lowering the quality bar of the movie going experience down to much lower levels.
I miss the late 1980's and early 1990's when visiting a THX-certified theater actually meant something. We have nothing like that today. The movie theater chains are only going to do what they deem good enough. All of the technology, equipment and know-how already exists to allow commercial theaters to be built that would rise to new levels of presentation quality. No one wants to spend the money to do it. I still think steep stadium seated rooms with very high ceilings are a problem. Unfortunately customers like the high seating and have little to no problem with a hollow sounding room prone to echo issues.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The old Dolby City SRD trailer (the helicopter flying through the rendered city) did a good job at pointing out the distinctive left and right surrounds in a time where few people even did have surround sound at home. But I think you really need to grab the attention of the people about what's different between Atmos and the 5.1 or 7.1 surround they're familiar with.
The original Dolby Stereo Digital "Train" trailer began with these metallic pings that called attention to the corners of the room. The original trailer had very demanding dynamics that could really punish sub-par sound systems. Two subsequent versions of the "Train" trailer were released with somewhat toned down mixes. There was a longer "Train" trailer which added some musical pan flute stuff and other elements. In 1995 another version was released more like the original trailer to update the brand to "Dolby Digital." Still the mix was toned down.
The Dolby Digtial "City" trailer was fairly decent. That came out around the time Batman Forever was released. The "Egypt," "Canyon," "Aurora" and "Rain" trailers came later.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-26-2019 10:00 AM
The "Dolby Stereo Digital" Train trailer has always been my favorite SRD trailer, but I think that the Stereo part of the branding was pretty confusing and therefore it was dropped somewhere in 1994.
Unfortunately, the trailer was pretty hard to get in Europe, even the updated versions featuring the Dolby Digital brand.
The trailer still leaves quite an impact today, unfortunately, the picture quality of most bootlegged transfers out there is pretty bad. I guess some of those come from Laser Discs as I cannot remember a DVD featuring the trailer.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I miss the late 1980's and early 1990's when visiting a THX-certified theater actually meant something. We have nothing like that today. The movie theater chains are only going to do what they deem good enough.
I was quite impressed with the ORIGINAL rollout of the Dolby Cinema concept, only to see it getting butchered in the mass-rollout. It was supposed to be the no-compromise cinema going experience. Yes, I did have my gripes with the unmasked screen, but the rest of it was pretty much spot-on. But now, it's like seeing In-n-Out go McDonald's.
Maybe someone should volunteer an auditorium list, with the technical specifications of that auditorium. A list that can be peer-reviewed. The crowd-sourced version of THX. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-29-2019 08:38 PM
quote: Harold Hallikainen
Is that certification body now known as Yelp?
Yelp itself is a commercial business and they pulled quite some shady tactics. Despite all kinds of other abuses on it, it's not really a good example of a crowd-sourced platform.
Wikipedia is a better one. Most articles on there are of decent quality. They actually have a core team that monitors articles for quality and abuse. It's not perfect, but Wikipedia is a very useful source of information.
The motivations for an independent certification entity, something like the new THX are apparently pretty low and it's clear that you really can't trust on the likes of Dolby to come up with something similar. THX had the major marketing force of Lucasfilm and Star Wars behind it, without it, it would probably not have seen the success it had in its heydays.
That's where my (admittedly haphazard) idea of a "crowd-sourced" alternative came from. The "light" version, so to speak, could simply be an index that lists the technical features of an auditorium. From there, maybe it can grow into something more. Maybe the theater owner could get a "verified" status if he/she proves that the theater is indeed equipped with certain features, etc.
It's just an idea, shooting on it or maybe even coming up with (better) ideas, is pretty welcome, that's what discussions are for.
Please notice: Crowd-sourced doesn't mean free-for-all. You can still moderate stuff. This forum is also an example of "crowd sourced" information and a lot of the information on here is of pretty high quality, especially if I didn't write it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
An audio engineer, theater technician, etc has training, acquired expertise and equipment to accurately measure what is happening in an existing movie theater or make decisions on how a new theater should be built if for some reason a theater chain is even interested in doing that.
Just an idea: A theater could commission a trained engineer/technician to draw up a report. They can send this report to "the list" and get a "verified" status that way.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-03-2019 01:41 PM
quote:
Theatres are a business. As such, they are going to evaluate expenditures versus their perceived return on investment. This is true whether it is recliner chairs or THX approved/certified sound systems. If the exhibitor doesn't believe paying for the THX certification will increase their ticket sales (and consequently, their concession sales) to offset the added expense, they aren't going to spend it.
:
I think the industry would be well served to have an independent certification agency and rating agency that would classify theatres so consumers (patrons) would know the quality level to be expected at particular theatres. Then the patron could reasonably evaluate the quality level versus the price and decide what is good-enough for them.
It gets back to the challenge you lead off with. Theaters are not willing to pay for something if they don't see a concrete return on investment. If they aren't willing to pay to "do the right thing" and build an auditorium to achieve high performance, they're not going to pay someone to certify that their auditoriums meet some prescribed level of performance (esp. that they don't have control over).
THX was that program, and it has essentially withered away. Even when it was in its heyday, very few theaters advertised it. We worked to get theaters to provide us with info about which shows were in THX, but were met with apathy. Theaters wouldn't advertise which shows were in their THX houses because they wanted the freedom to move shows around if they needed/wanted to. They also told me that if they advertised their auditoriums with THX, they were concerned that people would wonder what was substandard about the other ones. If I wanted to see a movie in a THX house, I would rely on THX's own listing and/or call theaters individually to find out the details. My travails with this issue are probably documented on this site...
Even with the marketing clout of LucasFilm, theaters resisted publicizing the customer benefit of THX. I highly doubt that they're going to embrace a less high profile certification agency.
So that leaves customer comment sites like the aforementioned Yelp, as well as efforts like the Theater Comments on The BigScreen Cinema Guide (my site). I can't speak for Yelp, as I don't use the site very often, and I don't believe I've ever left a review there.
However, I do use our Reader Comments section to leave comments about theaters and showings that I attend. Other people do as well. Every comment left there is moderated before it is posted, so the cranks don't get through. Sure, there are people complaining about the price of concessions or the fact that there was a crying baby in Frozen II, but there are also good comments about the quality of the shows that people pay to see, both positive and negative.
It all boils down to garbage-in, garbage-out. If you want a resource to be valuable, you have to be part of adding value. In this age of Facebook sucking up all the oxygen in the room, that can be difficult, but the resource is there if you want to use it.
Take a look at some of my comments as examples:
Emagine Geneva Lakes - Lake Geneva, WI
Marcus Ridge - New Berlin, WI
I encourage everyone here to use that resource if you wish. I would love to see it populated with comments by people who know what they're talking about and add valuable info for others to read.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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