Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What does Fox use to determine digital formats?

This is topic What does Fox use to determine digital formats? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002736

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-18-2001, 04:16 PM:

Fox is the one studio that can't seem to make up their mind if they are going to encode their prints with all digital formats, or whether they leave SDDS off. Does anyone know their specific reasoning and how they arrive at this decision?

(Paramount seems to only encode SDDS on their big "mega blockbuster" releases and leaves it off of the rest, but I'm not seeing this pattern with Fox.)

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-18-2001, 06:21 PM:

Fox reserves SDDS/DTS for big-budget movies (X-Men, Star Wars) and big-star titles (Cast Away, Moulin Rouge). Check the ads in any New York-area newspaper and you'll see this is generally true.

Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 10-18-2001, 10:31 PM:

Thank you both. So often when I go to a theatre, the night before I do a routine service there, I am dismayed to see so many digital playback units lying idle, because no one gave consideration as to what films were encoded with what type of digital track.

First thing I do the next morning, when I arrive to do service (alone, btw) is to play "chess" with the digial units in order to acheive maximum digital performnance.

As you can imagine, this takes some time, finding out which prints are in which digital format. Different features between the matinee' and night shows add to the fun.

These posts help me to speed up this process.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-18-2001, 11:16 PM:

According to Michael Goucher in the Feature Info forum, Fox's "From Hell" has an SDDS track on it. Sooooo that's supposed to be some big summer/holiday film???

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 10-19-2001, 02:33 AM:

The print of FROM HELL I biult up did not have an SDDS track.

I also dont see the patters Brad mentioned either, unless someone at FOX thought the kiddies would come running out for GLITTER.
Also, not all big summer releases had the SDDS track (DR. DOOLITTLE 2, BIG MOMMAS HOUSE). They may not have been expected to do HUGE business, but it would still make sense to use SDDS on those rather than GLITTER.

Also, if they picked SDDS based on how much money the film was supposed to make, then why not DONT SAY A WORD?

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-19-2001, 07:53 AM:

James R: Glitter was developed at Sony (which uses SDDS on everything it originates). Fox picked up that title for US/Canada.

Brad: I'm looking at today's Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger as I post this. None of the ads for the 3 Fox releases (From Hell, Joy Ride, Don't Say a Word) mention SDDS/DTS.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-19-2001, 10:01 AM:

I know for a fact that Joy Ride, Don't say a word and From hell use DTS timecode.

Posted by Karen Hultgren (Member # 395) on 10-19-2001, 12:38 PM:

Actually, with Fox, we have an agreement with them to do all their films. The only exception is "negative pick-up" - that refers to films already in production that they purchase. Getting DTS on those is dependant on how far along they are in post production.

Karen at DTS

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-19-2001, 04:24 PM:

I've always been curious why Paramount doesn't use SDDS on most of their films. Is it a political thing or something? They didn't seem to use DTS consistently at first either but have lately had it on everything.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2001, 04:31 PM:

I know the SRD track comes with standard Dolby analog mastering. How does dts and sdds compare cost-wise? Perhaps that is the issue.

Karen, what would the approximate cost be for a 6 reel film running 1 hour 45 minutes in dts? Is the cost more varied in respect to the quantity of prints, or is most of the cost in original mastering?

John Luttrelle or Al Barton, could you tell us approximately what it would cost for the same film to be encoded in sdds? Is the cost affected further with the need for special printers, or are most labs fully set up to run sdds on all printers anyway?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-19-2001, 05:02 PM:

Brad asked: "are most labs fully set up to run sdds on all printers anyway?"

AFAIK, all the large labs that do release prints are capable of printing "quad track" (analog, Dolby Digital, DTS time code and SDDS), on most of the printers they use for release printing. Of course, the sound negative needs to have all tracks recorded. Kodak developed a special "pan sensitive" sound recording film for this purpose, since different colors of light are used to expose each track:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2374.shtml

Any added lab cost is in assuring the quality of the tracks, as different equipment is used to check each type of track, and a defect in one of the tracks may mean redoing the reel.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Karen Hultgren (Member # 395) on 10-23-2001, 12:13 PM:

Brad,

The cost varies and is dependant on the agreement we reach with the studio. I cannot quote what we actually charge any particular studio. Sorry.

And, what is the deal with the monkey photo? I'm not nearly that hairy!

Karen

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 10-27-2001, 05:34 AM:

AFAIK, there is no additional mastering charge, if you're going to use SDDS 8 track, as they want to support 8 track as a major difference in cinema going experience. There is a charge on 5.1 track, but that is definitively not the reason. Making dts disks for foreign markets maybe another thing, AFAIK, distributors have to pay for the glass master, and with a small release this would add up a "substantial" ammunt to release budgets.
In recent year, at least in Europe SDDS has spent substantial investments on lab and recording site consultancy to ensure, that prints are delivered in runnable condition. As known, a single ACM (fallback to analoge) marks a print as non runnable, as do more than a few of those extremely ugly DCM's (digital fallback). In past the laboratory quality has been the major problem with SDDS prints. We now find those problems to occurr with SRD tracks, brand new prints to play 6-7-F on the initial screenings. Looking at the tracks with microsope, you can see the blurry exposure.
One reason to use a specific format on a major release, is reliability in premium theatres, as distributors want to have their film going with outstanding performance. So funny, not all all prints have dts.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 10-27-2001, 05:30 PM:

Hi Karen,

Looking at our pictures, we seam to have something in common. Would you like to go out? I will buy the bananas. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist).

I was surprised to find that "Bedazzled" only had dolby digital (and optical). No DTS, or SDDS.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 10-28-2001, 05:50 PM:

From the sound formats in the ads lately my best guess at how sound formats are decided is something along these lines:

Guy # 1: (to guy #2) Okay, I'm going to put this blindfold on you, spin you around three times, and then I want you to pick the sound formats for this movie.

The only company I can give a 100% answer on is Era 5000 Digital in Delaware (Dela-Where?) our next movie (and our first theatrical release) "Lose it All", slated for August 2002, will only have matrixed stereo optical w/SR "compatible" NR.

Our second theatrical release (scheduled for Late 2002/Early 2003) will have DTS, Ultra-Stereo Analog and SDDS 6 channel.

Posted by Karen Hultgren (Member # 395) on 10-29-2001, 12:50 PM:

ARGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! Someome swiped that yucky photo of me and put it on here........... I don't look that like that anymore. I'd rather have the monkey picture back.

Karen

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-29-2001, 01:25 PM:

Come on Karen, send us a more recent pic. Pleeeeeeeeeeease.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-29-2001, 06:58 PM:

I'm not totally positive about it, but with some past releases as an example I think Fox has more difficulty doing a quad format print run than just DTS-SR*D. Their first quad release (the first ever really) was "Die Hard With A Vengeance" but there were two print inventories, one with SR-SDDS and the other with SR-SR*D-DTS. "Strange Days" was one of their first real quad format print releases, but I have trims off that film where some of the reels lacked SDDS soundtracking. Strange indeed.

The omission of SDDS really doesn't seem to have much bearing in logic when it concerns importance of film titles. Fox has gone through lengthy periods releasing only DTS-SR*D prints (such as nearly all the second half of 1998), and has dropped SDDS off such notable films as "There's Something About Mary," "Courage Under Fire" and a good number of others. With DTS, it is usually on just about everything Fox releases, but some of their films do go out with only Dolby Digital. And then some, like "The Edge" a few years back, get prints with DTS time code and no discs.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-30-2001, 12:28 PM:

Behind Enemy Lines opens today. The ads in the Newark Star-Ledger and other New York-area newspapers indicate DTS/Dolby Digital.

Someone at Fox must have been lurking on Film-Tech!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-30-2001, 01:04 PM:

Charles Everett said: "Someone at Fox must have been lurking on Film-Tech!"

Michael Goucher is a regular participant on Film-Tech. He is chief projectionist for 20th Century Fox in NYC.