quote: Phil Hill

---

When Iwerks orginally dealt with them, we proposed that same 1570 system, but they were one of the most stupid, cheap-ass people I have ever seen. They would F*ck their own mother to try to gyp every contractor out of what ever they could.

---

Phil: What did you REALLY think of that customer?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-02-2004, 08:49 PM:
 
Gosh John, I thought I was pretty clear...

Some customers are good, savvy and in-tune and some are... well ya just gotta deal with them all... Been there, done that.

Don't know if the original "people" are still around there, but they sure were cheap-ass, uninformed jerks back then.

In the proposal/contract, they kept deleting and cutting-back projection systems, audio systems, etc... you know, the standard system "features" and then bitched when things were not included/installed cuz of their choices. It was a clear case of wanting something for nothing.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2004, 10:51 PM:
 
I've found this to be true of just about all Museum type situations in the past.... including the "Big Time" museums in Chicago. They do sometimes operate on Shoestring budgats, or strictly on grants or fixed endowments and that can make things difficult amd sometimes sticky for all involved.

So far my dealings with this particuluar museum has been on the up and up... which I admit is unusual for a museum. Sometimes they are slow at making decisions because of budget scheduling and other things but eventually they do get around to it. So far they have been pretty quality concious overall but they still have to do it within what is allowed by the almighty dollar.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-03-2004, 07:45 AM:
 
Are there any 15/70 prints with timecode on the film? Or will they be using a timecode generator driven by the projector?

How does this compare to the Imax system? Isn't the current Imax sound system lossless as well?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-03-2004, 08:02 AM:
 
Scott,
I am not aware of the exact specs but I'm sure that it compares favorably with DTAC. You would have to ask the folks at DTS that question for an absolute answer but I am pretty sure its only limited by the bit rate and depth, such as 96khz/24 bit, of what ever digital master is provided them to encode onto a disk. It does allow up to 10 channels though since its based on the XD-10 player. As for TC on the print, it would make alot of things easier for anyyone wanting to run previews but with the XD-10 its not really necessary as the new DTS E438 tach to TC generator is serial adressable and sound track serial numbers can be fed into it from the automation controller to sequence any string of audio files you'd want.

Mark

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 06-03-2004, 08:58 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Or will they be using a timecode generator driven by the projector?

---

Scott, I belive that the new IMAX MPX system will be using a TC generator driven by the projector. I will be sure about this in a couple of months, when my system is installed.(first one in the USA ) I do know that the sound system is only 5 channel.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-03-2004, 07:44 PM:
 
Tach generation is the standard in the large format industry for syncing sound.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the DTS Lossless system is also available for regular feature releases as well. The length of the file is only limited by the size of the hard drive(s) that are installed in the XD-10. This will also mean, in the very near future, that with any XD-10 now installed one can load the lossless playback software system into it and play back lossless encoded disks.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-04-2004, 10:41 PM:
 
Is the lossless system software just an updated "dts.exe" file, or is there more to it than that? I assume that the XD10 keeps the newest dts.exe file on the drive at all times, and only updates it when a new one comes along, so I'm wondering what will be involved in the software updating process.
 

---

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-05-2004, 06:10 AM:
 
After signing the disclosure statement about the new system I'm not sure what I can/cannot say about our system here at the Museum of Ancient Life except to say that I had very high expectations of this new system and it has far exceeded them! General operation (record/play the discs) is very easy and the sound that we are getting out of our new toy is incredible. And with a new software upgrade coming soon among other things... I hope it will get even better (if possible).
I didn't know we were the first, awsome !
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-05-2004, 06:19 AM:
 
Ummmm... why is there an NDA over a freakin' DTS system? Must be something wrong with it.[av=l]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2004, 08:06 AM:
 
Mark M.,
A software upgrade is done with a CD ROM since there is no TC on the Large Format film. The Lossless playback software can be put onto any XD-10 since all XD-10's have DAC's that can run up to 24/96, perhaps even 192 khz. Any upgrades would be done just like any other XD-10 software upgrade. The best part of this whole thing is that the Lossless feature is regular cinema compatable. And yes, it does delete files the same way the standard XD-10 does with regular APTX files. I believe it looks at age of the file and vs. how often it is played back.

Stew,

The Non-Disclosure thingy that you signed is that you agreed to not let someone like Joe into the unit to possibly have access to the Lossless DTS software. They said its ok to say that you have it there and such. I did not have to sign it cause I don't work there on a daily basis.

I have to admit that the Museum now has both 3D Picture and Sound that blows the local 3D Imax theatre to smithereens ! The Imax doesn't even come close.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 06-05-2004, 11:09 AM:
 
IMAX Film Format

quote:

---

The IMAX digital sound system was developed by Sonics Associates of Birmingham, Alabama. In 1988, Lynn McCroskey and Jim Cawhon developed a Digital Disc Playback system (DDP) that recorded 2 channels of uncompressed digital sound on an audio compact disc. This system with 3 discs and 6 channels began to replace the multitrack magnetic tape sound systems used in IMAX theaters since 1971. In 1993, Sonic introduced the IMAX 3D sound system with 10 channels for the Sony IMAX theater in New York. Theater speakers produce 8 channels from 4 CD disks synchronized with the15-perforation 70 mm filmstrip running through the projector horizontally past a 15,000-watt lamp at 48 frames per second. The 3D headset has 2 additional channels for the binaural Personal Sound Environment (PSE). "Binaural sound emanates from the headsets' two small speakers, just above and slightly in front of your ears; they cover all but the frequencies below 100 Hz. Low bass is handled by a pair of subwoofers behind the giant screen. Four full-range speakers, also behind the screen, keep sounds tied solidly to the
IMAX 3D headset from Sonics
film's images even if you turn your head; if you have trouble imaging binaurally (as some people do), these speakers will prevent front sounds from seeming to come from the sides or rear. Two more speakers, in the rear of the theater, carry only surround ambience; the headset's binaural speakers carry sounds that are supposed to originate behind you. Eight channels of an 18,000-watt, 10-channel amplification system feed the speakers; the other two channels feed the binaural signals to the headsets. These amps are fed from four audio CDs, computer-synchronized with one another and with the projectors. The headsets can receive four separate soundtracks, so a movie could be presented in different languages simultaneously if the theater provides enough channels." (quote from Ivan Berger)

Lynn McCroskey is President and CEO of Sonics Associates, a subsidiary of Toronto's IMAX Corporation. In an interview with Millimeter magazine, he explained the difference between the IMAX sound system and the surround systems in conventional theaters: "The typical IMAX screen is close to a conventional 4:3 aspect ratio, but much, much bigger. So you have a great deal of vertical, which gives you the opportunity to do a 'voice-of-God' loudspeaker." Another difference is the use of point-source surround, as opposed to the multiple small surround speakers used in conventional theaters. "Conventional rooms," McCroskey says, "come in so many different shapes that it is nearly impossible for them to make point-source surround work." Overall IMAX system power varies depending on the size of the room, but it is typically in the range of 12,500 watts. "The power is not there for the loudness," McCroskey says. "It's there for clarity and freedom from distortion." The enclosures are three-way systems using components custom-designed and manufactured to Sonics' specifications. Sonics combines four low-frequency loudspeakers in each cabinet with nested high- and mid-frequency horns. McCroskey points out the trapezoidal dispersion pattern (narrower at the top than the bottom), designed to match the distinctive shape of IMAX theaters. Using a sub-bass system for the deepest lows, McCroskey says, minimizes phase coherence problems. "In most installations, we use eight sub-bass loudspeakers, each in a 16-cubic-foot enclosure," he says. "The enclosures include a filtering labyrinth we designed that physically traps the higher-frequency components that can otherwise cause overtones and distortion."
Omniverum in Hague Netherlands

Another distinction between IMAX and other theater surround systems is that Sonics uses no digital audio data compression. Both the DDP and DTAC lines are full fidelity, "double-system" approaches, meaning that the sound is not recorded on the film itself. "DDP uses three CD-Audio discs with a patented sample-accurate playback synchronization system," McCroskey says. DTAC, the company's newest system, plays back audio files either from DVD-ROM or from a built-in hard disk. In some older IMAX theaters, the original 35mm six-track, full-coat mag-sound system used from 1971 through 1988 is still in place. "These days most soundtracks are produced in digital formats," McCroskey says. "They are usually sent in on TASCAM DA-88, and we transfer to whatever format is needed for the theaters where the film will play. On Everest, for instance, we created both DDP and DTAC discs." Everest was the first IMAX film where the final mix was done on location in an IMAX theater, the Irvine Spectrum. That meant the mixers did not have to make several rounds of notes while watching the film and then implement changes back at the EFX dub stage. But they did have to set up facilities in a working theater that was not available until 10 at night (after the day's last screening). They worked from a 24-track premix made at EFX with six tracks each for effects, backgrounds, and music; three for Foley; and one each for narration, voice-overs, and dialog. EFX made a discrete premix to 24 tracks: six each for effects, backgrounds, and music; three for Foley; and one each for narration, voice-overs, and dialog. (quote from Millimeter article by Philip De Lancie)

---

 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-05-2004, 03:20 PM:
 
Mark Marshall asks, "Is the lossless system software just an updated "dts.exe" file, or is there more to it than that?"

The new-generation DTS equipment (XD10 and CSS (captioning), etc.) don't run DOS anymore, they run Linux. Software for them is much more than simply a DTS.EXE file, it is really an entire operating system.

For the CSS unit, there's a small ~800k executable that handles the captioning work, and there's a mechanism to automatically copy new versions off of Mopix CDROMs. That executable communicates with a loadable kernel module that interfaces with the timecode board.

I imagine there is a similar architecture used in the XD10, but there's no reason it has to be restricted to a few files. For special applications, one could imagine all sorts of changes they might make in a special case.

It's easy for me to understand why there's an NDA, though. Because the operating system provides a much greater degree of access if a user plugs in a keyboard and monitor, it is much easier for someone to "get inside" and reverse engineer or examine trade secrets. From DTS's perspective, that has to be a serious downside to their open architecture.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-05-2004, 06:54 PM:
 
Another potential problem for DTS and "lossless encoded audio" is the very nature of uncompressed LPCM sound. There are competing lossless compression codecs, most of which operate at an approximate 2:1 ratio and any can be licensed for other potential systems in competition with DTS. DTS has their own lossless extension to the DTS CAC codec. But other formats like Meridian Lossless Packing are popular (and since Dolby is involved in distributing that one, I could see that in use on a next-generation Dolby Digital hard drive-based system).

Furthermore, ever increasing hard drive capacity and speed even calls into question the use of lossless compression on the audio. That could make it even easier for a competitor to join the fray.

In the past, lossy compression systems for audio have been necessary (and continue to be in various storage/playback formats). But with a hard disc based film audio player, there isn't really any need for a protected, patented compression system like Dolby AC-3, SDDS ATRAC or DTS' APT-X100 and CAC systems.

With uncompressed audio, the main differences to set apart a DTS XD-10 player or any competing unit will be in the measure of playback quality, dependability, cost --and finally, security of the audio itself. We may see a switch from audio companies developing compression systems to ones where copy protection and other security measures are central to the product.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2004, 07:50 PM:
 
I don't see this as just a Large Format playback system, I think that its use for that is really secondary. With the fairly large base of XD-10's already installed around the world it makes a big scale conversion to Lossless playback very possible in alot of theatres all at once. Any film can be encoded for playback in this sound format and the unit would also still play back standard APTX encoded cinema disks. I see all this as a huge advantage for DTS in the very near future and in the long run. Dolby would have to come out with a whole new processor in order to accomodate this sort of thing... that takes alot of time, and then even more time to get a sufficient number of new Dolby units into cinemas before any producer would ever consider encoding with it. DTS clearly has the advantage with this product this time around.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2004, 12:16 PM:
 
To simplify the point I was making, lossless compressed or uncompressed surround would be easier for a lot of different companies to deliver. There is a potential that film studios could send out an uncompressed LPCM audio track on discs that would be compatible with any number of systems.

DTS has the early lead by virtue of the XD-10 and its impressive capability. But Dolby, Sony or even other cinema products companies like Smart or Ultra Stereo could get into the act with competing products. It would be easy if they can all play the same format of uncompressed audio.

One thing is certain though, Dolby would have to go back to the drawing board completely on developing a next-generation system. They can't get get by with trying to extend the capability of the sound-on-film concept. They'll have to synchronize the playback of an uncompressed surround player to the synch data in the existing SR*D track, or come up with a time code to stick in the area between perfs on the other side of the 35mm print.

On the large format thing, can't some kind of steering committee or group agree to standardize a time code for 15/70 and 8/70 stuff? I wouldn't expect them to standardize DTS time code, but there are other things like SMPTE time code available.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2004, 04:35 PM:
 
Bobby,
For large format it is already somewhat standardized. A standard shaft encoder generates 240 pulses per frame and feeds a time code generator that puts out the correct time code for what ever playback system is being used. This is frame for frame acurate so the need for time code on the film is eliminated but still could be done if required for some reason. Both the DTS E175 and the E480 tc generator can output other standard SMPTE time code signals as well as DTS time code. The nice thing about the DTS E480 box is that it has the ability to learn the speed characteristics of the projector drive system in case of shaft encoder signal loss.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-06-2004, 06:29 PM:
 
So if I decided to cut out 3 or 4 frames here and there (just for sake of argument) would the shaft encoder know it? How does the shaft encoder know which frame it is "encoding"? Or do you just end up getting the shaft? [av=m]

I don't understand NDA's for such situations. If IMAX and DTS are so afraid of their stuff, why don't they just patent it? It's not like someone else can uses the same or similar method IMAX uses and not have anyone notice, and then get their asses sued off. IMAX is so afraid of anyone looking under the hood, and I kind of find that humorous. Does IMAX corporate make sure people are paranoid before they are hired there? Hell, they make their projectionists sign a LIFETIME NDA. Yeah. Otherwise they might go out of business or lose millions. Apple has a lossless compression method available to anyone who has Quicktime 6.5.1 or higher. What is DTS afraid of? If they plan on putting this in normal theaters, than GOOD LUCK! NDA or no NDA, the popcord kids will talk about it, let me steal the software (cuz y'know, that's what EVERYONE really wants to do, cuz somehow that would be some kind of advantage to me), and then DTS stock will obviously plumment, and then I will rule the world!!!!

I had to sign an NDA when Filmguard was still under development, but that's understandable.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-06-2004, 07:23 PM:
 
The customers end up getting the shaft when they see three or four frames of black slug go through the projector to keep the picture in sync with the sound.
 

---

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-07-2004, 03:54 AM:
 
Cool dts release on the XD10:
http://www.dtsonline.com/cinema/products.php?ID=1929230003
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2004, 05:33 PM:
 
Splicing black slug into a film is the fatal problem for off-film time code generators, hence my original question regarding a standardization of something like SMPTE time code for various 70mm special venue formats. I'm wondering how you even tell exactly how many frames of film you lost from some mishaps. Doing this kind of splicing thing in the standard 35mm theatrical market would be totally unworkable. Time code on the print is absolutely mandatory there.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2004, 06:26 PM:
 
Bobby,

Admittedly T.C. on L.F. film would be nice AND the equipment already exists NOW and is installed at CFI, however its not really necessary. Film breaks or pile ups are so rare with 15/70 that you rarely will run into a showing with black slugs. But at 360 fpm when they do happen the pile up is usually massive involving at least 50 to 100 feet, requiring replacement footage to be inserted. Black slugs are hardly a fatal thing... so don't blow the slug issue out of proportion for no reason. They are generally not keepers and are only left in for a few days, if the print can even be run with them, whilst replacement footage is printed or removed from another print and sent to that location to replace the damaged portion. At Lehi film pile- ups have not happened in a long-long time. What does occasionally happen to a new or careless operator is a tailout and that almost always breaks the reg pins off, or throws the cam unit out of time. Tailouts always happen on junk runout film anyway.

So whats the big deal with the industry standard of using tach to generate T.C for audio synchronization?

Mark @ CLACO

Mark
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-07-2004, 06:58 PM:
 
I agree, Mark.... No big deal with slugs OR the sync method used in 1570. While it's true that DTS code on film is a good move and a step in the right direction, there are 1000's of prints out there that have no TC on the print.

I have rarely seen any registration pins being broken off or knocked out of alignment from a crash at 24fps rate of 337.5 fpm, but I certainly have seen it at the 675 fpm rate for 48 fps! Ummmm....been there, done that... YIKES!

No matter what the case, I have always seen the cam timing shot...even when some careless operator lets a film tail out.

BAD BOY!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2004, 08:34 PM:
 
Before they had installed a complete UPS for the system they had just about every imaginable thing go wrong or break down. Since the UPS was installed they have not had any problems at all.
Bad Boy!..... For Sure!
Mark
 

---