Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound in Tears of the Sun

This is topic Sound in Tears of the Sun 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=004641

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 03-07-2003, 08:48 AM:

Has anyone besides me noticed the sound mix in Tears of the Sun is really obnoxious?? I ran it this early am for "quality control" purposes in our SDDS house where it will begin its life, and I had to back the fader WAY down, and then trim some gain off the surrounds yet besides. Some of that war stuff was ripping my head off to the point of me having an earache at our "normal" (already reduced) level. Is it just this way on SDDS, or is DTS or SR that way too?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-07-2003, 09:35 AM:

I liked the sound in our DTS. Why alter what the film makers intended. Turning down the faders is one thing but why turn down the surrounds. I do know the digital tracks are running hot because I had a reel give me some problems last night and there was a drastic change in volume levels. I need to check that today to I may need to replace one of the reels.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 03-07-2003, 09:56 AM:

Maybe we had the same dramatic sound increase, because I had a very comfortable but loud volume setting going, and then from maybe reel 5 on when all the shooting started going big time the sound coming from the surrounds was right up there at the threshold of pain. I went up to the booth and backed the fader off some more, but then I couldn't hear the dialog. I backed the surrounds down so I could maintain a fader level that allowed the music and dialog to be at a "good but still loud" level while all the shooting isn't making everyone's ears bleed. I like my movies set considerably louder than I play them for the customers, and this was way over my tolerance level with my "normal" fader setting for the audience. I don't have to actually work a shift until Sunday night, and I assure you that had I left this as it was I would come in and find the other projectionists running this movie at a setting roughly equivalent to "4" because of customer complaints of noise, and then they will walk out the door complaining because they couldn't hear what was going on....

Anyway, that's the best logic I could provide [Smile]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-07-2003, 11:03 AM:

Don,

Sorry you are having problems with the soundtrack of "TEARS OF THE SUN". What is the sound format in SDDS? Is it the standard SDDS or SDDS-8?

-Claude

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-07-2003, 11:57 AM:

Pictures like "Tears of the Sun" are the reason that I have a Symetrix unit on the main channel in my sound rack.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 03-07-2003, 12:53 PM:

I'm pretty sure that it's just standard SDDS - I don't recall the scoreboard listing it otherwise. I was quite excited to see the Matrix Reloaded was coming out in SDDS-8 and then I asked one of the guys who used to work in my place about the configuration of the system and he told me it was only setup for 6 of the 8 channels... bummer [Frown]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-07-2003, 05:02 PM:

That's what volume controls are for! [beer]

Ditto Daryl's comments about the DTS mix. We're running it here & it's outstanding.

Our process is pretty simple. I sit in the auditorium during our screenings & set the level for comfortable dialogue. Everything else seems to follow nicely.

It's when I go to a theatre & the dialogue is blasting that I know I'll wish I'd brought earplugs!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-07-2003, 08:06 PM:

After reading this thread, I decided to nip over and take a listen. Playback is Dolby SR analog at that location and the track sounded fine to me. Granted, I missed the first 2-1/2 reels.

That sound system was tuned in February for the release of "Chicago." For that movie, as well as this one, the fader was right where I left it at the "7" mark.

Perhaps tomorrow I will go up to the other location here and listen to it in Dolby SR-D.

If I have a complaint about this movie it is that the cinematography is a little too shadowy.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-08-2003, 02:21 PM:

quote:
from Manny...
If I have a complaint about this movie it is that the cinematography is a little too shadowy.

Yah... it is pretty dark. Not aiming this at anyone, but if a theatre's got proper lighting, it shouldn't be a problem.

Our lamp can pretty much punch holes in our screen, so the only thing I really noticed about the show was that it'll be a big problem for some drive-ins this Spring.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-11-2003, 11:51 AM:

Let There Be Light!:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring98.shtml

Standard SMPTE 196M allows a range of 12 to 22 footlamberts for indoor theatres. Anything less than 12 footlamberts is "Film Done Wrong", and will give dull-looking images. [Frown]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-11-2003, 12:02 PM:

Thanks, John.

But it is unclear from reading your post as to whether you have actually seen "Tears of the Sun" and, if so, are you suggesting that you didn't find the images to be a little on the dim side?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-11-2003, 12:14 PM:

The screen where I saw "Tears of the Sun" was VERY bright. Yet some of those darkly-shot scenes were very very dark.

Speaking of "very bright", one thing I noticed during the movie was a pronounced "flicker" in bright areas of the image. Very distracting. This was like shutter flicker, not wavy xenon or something, and only noticeable in bright areas of scenes. In fact, in certain scenes with both dark and very bright areas, the bright areas seemed to be almost "jumping off the screen" from the pronounced flicker. This was the first show of the day, and it did seem like the flickering diminished some after a half hour or so into the film. There were no other anomalies with the image quality such as travel ghosting or anything like that. Projector is a late-model Christie, Christie lamphouse.

Reading through other threads about shutter flicker, it seems the most likely causes of this are too much light, or possibly a hole burned in a shutter blade. ?? If there were a hole in a shutter blade, wouldn't there be other visible problems?

Enquiring minds want to know. [Big Grin]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-11-2003, 12:22 PM:

Why couldn't it just be a mis-timed shutter?

If any movie would reveal even a slight timing problem, it would be this movie. Lots of chiaroscuro in these scenes. Too much, if you ask me.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-11-2003, 12:36 PM:

If a shutter blade has a hole in it you'll usually see severe ghosting that streaks through the image as an arc corresponding to the hole, or if the hole is large enough, one messed up picture (ie. really bad ghosting).

I haven't seen this film yet, but if it has scenes that are so bright that the film is pretty much clear, some people will see a 2-blade shutter strobe, some people won't. That's where 3-blade shutters come in. [Smile]

edit: Basically this is the same as some people seeing flicker from 50Hz light bulbs, except at 48Hz -- even slower. Three blade shutters, which effectively run at 72Hz, aren't prone to this.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-11-2003, 02:26 PM:

With a two-blade shutter at 24fps, most people start to notice the flicker in the highlights as the screen luminance approaches 25 footlamberts --- that's why SMPTE 196M specifies 22 footlamberts as an upper limit. At higher frame rates or with a three-blade shutter, higher luminance can be used without bothersome flicker.

Incorrect shutter timing, or an inadequate shutter that does not completely block the light during the pulldown cycle will cause travel ghost (streaking of light areas in the image). Shutter timing does NOT affect flicker perception.

I have projected prints from well-exposed negatives at 60 footlamberts using a three-blade shutter, and the images are amazingly good, with vivid highlights, excellent shadow detail and bright colors. But for normal prints, the added shadow detail may show things in the shadows that the cinematographer and director did not want the audience to see! So theatres should follow the SMPTE 196M specification of 12 to 22 footlamberts.

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 03-12-2003, 01:14 AM:

Some of those seen are supposed to be dark. The movie was beautifull and if you have a bad shutter or dim screen shame on you. It is to give you an idea how dark the jungle is(no streetlamps). [Smile]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-12-2003, 10:46 AM:

quote:
Some of those seen are supposed to be dark...

Well, I guess we're going to find out how good our systems are! Our booker told us we'll be opening one of our outdoor screens with it on the 21st.

Guess I'd better get a bigger generator & vitamins for the squirrels!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-12-2003, 07:28 PM:

I saw a behind-the-scenes program on Starz! earlier today and the footage looked better than what I remember seeing in the theatre.

It doesn't sound as if too many of you out there are getting a sparkling, dazzling image on-screen, so I'm not about to go cranking up the Xenon lamp.

Besides, I know from experience that brightness, contrast and saturation values are sometimes manipulated for TV.

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 03-13-2003, 04:21 AM:

What would you CRANK up, you should not have to change anything. If your bulb is focused, shutter timed, lights at show level and you measure about 16-17 or more in footlamberts across the screen all should be well. You don't go cranking because you think its dim in some spots, take in the whole show and see what the differences are like. The end of the movie can be very bright, especially in comparison to those early jungle seens. Yes it dazzled on my screen, thought it was beautifull.

Comparing the brightness of a picture tube and a properly run Film show are nowhere near each other. The director has no final say on how thier film looks in the tv promos, they do have a say in that film sitting over on the platter. I'm sure you know all this, just felt like rambling.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-13-2003, 07:16 AM:

In almost all cases, release prints are approved in lab screening rooms set up per standard SMPTE 196M, with an aim screen luminance of 16 footlamberts. If you maintain 16 footlamberts on your screen, you are getting the results the cinematographer and director intended. The standard does allow a range of 12 to 22 footlamberts for theatres, but 16 footlamberts is the aim:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring98.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/oct2001.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march2000.shtml

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 03-13-2003, 09:02 AM:

Since we completely changed the direction of this topic, I suppose I should add in my 2 cents on the new direction. Being a photographer I know how hard it is to work with dark subjects, and they did an excellent job of it. I also know that the jungle is not a bright and happy place, and is generally dark and murky due to the canopy overhead - so that would contribute to reduced light levels as well. I thought it looked good on the screen we have it on, and I don't think that is the brightest screen we have in the place. A good level of indication of how things are going if you have people in dark scenes is to look at teeth if someone smiles...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-13-2003, 03:53 PM:

...Too bad this wasn't a more cheerful movie or they could've worked in a few more smiles for us...

[Wink]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 07-15-2005, 11:03 AM:

It has been 854 days since the last post.