Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: will five front channel sound ever make a comeback?

This is topic will five front channel sound ever make a comeback? in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000719

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-25-2011, 11:23 PM:

Since it's pretty much well known that 8-channel SDDS is being phased out by Sony - why haven't they or other studios rethought and reintergrated 5-channel/speaker sound (70mm/SDDS-8) via lossless digital cinema applications? - if "Dolby" can unlock, utilize (and market) two additional channels of sound in the surrounds, I think it would be rather interesting how soundmixers will implement and use 9 channels of sound (plus subwoofer) for maximum effect.

With the trend to make screens larger and wider, do, or can, sound setups ETX, XD and RPX (and Ultrascreens) add speakers to create a fuller sound behind the screen? Would five front channel be beneficial? Even though 7.1 sound is becoming more common in home theatre systems, I'd think it'd be worthwhile if 9-channel sound would become a reality and make this theater experience unreplicable for the home video market.

thoughts?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-26-2011, 09:37 AM:

The channels are specified (7/8) but it is up to the people that make the movies to use them. Also, one has to have a scheme to deal with those theatres that do not have those channels (the majority).

As it is, Surround 7.1 creates a dual inventory situation (something this industry abhors). There is no telling if it will stick any more than EX has and it was 100% compatible with 5.1 systems.

SDDS-8 isn't being phased out by Sony so much as nobody is mixing in it. However, that was Sony's hook. If you buy into their system, you have an 8-channel possibility and they backed that up with Columbia Pictures, which they own, to guarantee 8-channel product. I believe, if you look at the total number of SDDS-8 versus Surround-EX, there are more 8-channel movies. Note too, Sony dealt with the 5.1 vs 8-channel thing too by having their processors (the only ones using 8-channel) do the mix down if you did not have all 5-screen channels.

Soooo, if an 8-channel format were to come out or even a 9.1...you now have a compatibility issue that would need to be addressed. For now, that means multiple inventory. Perhaps, the future of the IMB/servers will be able to do their own mix downs of such sound formats, but for now they can't/don't.

If 8-channel makes a come back (and I do hope it does), it will likely come from folks like Larry Blake who prefer the 5-screen channel system (look at the films he has mixed and you will see there are quite a few that feature the 8-channel mix).

-Steve

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2011, 10:11 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As it is, Surround 7.1 creates a dual inventory situation

You can't be serious. YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! The industry cannot be that incredibly stupid. There can't be a line of code in the program that determines of a theater has 7.1 (YES) and runs in 7.1 mode or (NO) and runs in 5.1 mode instead? There's no reason for dual inventory 7.1 Blu-Rays and people have a lot more varying sound setups at home than movie theaters tend to.

If what you say is true, the industry is doing digital wrong. Dumbasses.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-26-2011, 12:39 PM:

Did you expect it any other way?

And is there any reason that Dolby or any other company couldn't make a box that does the down-mixing? Something that would go between the server and processor and take 7.1 8.1 or whatever the mix what and down-mix it to whatever your current setup is, weather it be mono, stereo, 5.1, etc...

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-26-2011, 02:15 PM:

I'm with Joe: Blu-ray and the home market does a pretty good job with this sort of thing for 7.1 titles in 5.1. I only have 5.1, and never seem to run into trouble with the handful of 7.1 stuff I have: my processor takes care of all of that.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2011, 03:47 PM:

The companies that make cinema processors, crossovers, etc. need to step into the 21st century already. They're the biggest road block in allowing a greater number of audio channels into movie theaters.

Typical cinema processors are equipped to handle either stereo optical audio or 6-track audio in 5.1 configuration. Some can do 8-channel for compatibility with 5 stage channel configuration and/or split surround.

AFAIK there are no cinema processors on the market that can support 10 channel operation. That's what you would need in order to have the choice of 5 stage channels or 4 surround channels or even both features together. And then that's just leaving one channel left over for sub bass.

I think the current digital cinema standard supports something like 16 audio channel assignments or maybe even more than that. It is possible, at least on paper, for someone to make a movie with 5 stage channels, 4 surround channels, perhaps even multiple sub bass channels and still have other audio channels left over for functions like descriptive language tracks for the blind. All that capability on paper is like tits on a bull: useless. There's nothing in terms of A/B chain hardware that can take full advantage of the capability.

Meanwhile, some high end home theater components actually boast being able to send two different 5.1 audio signals to two different surround setups, all from the same single box. If a company like Yamaha can do that in one of their consumer devices I know good and well Dolby could pack 12 channel operation into a single cinema processor.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-26-2011, 04:27 PM:

So then why cant the server become the audio processor as well?

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-26-2011, 05:03 PM:

The Datasat AP20 supports 16 channels in and out.

That said, the frustration on this board is well-placed: the d-cinema standards do not provide for an elegant solution to format proliferation problem, and indeed as has been pointed out do not handle this as well as basic consumer-grade electronics.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 01-26-2011, 07:01 PM:

USL, Inc.'s JSD-100 and the JSD-80 can handle 5 stage channels. The JSD-100 will go up to 16 channels so there are options on the market.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2011, 10:18 PM:

I happily stand corrected. But it would be nice to have this news filter up through the chain at various movie studios to let the powers that be realize they can do a few things way beyond what home theater can reproduce -at least in terms of sound. The movie studios have to produce the "software" that can take advantage of the hardware.

Currently the situation is backwards and has been that way for a little over a decade. The lossy versions of Dolby Digital and DTS have been able to operate at higher bit rates on DVD than their theatrical counterparts on 35mm. On Blu-ray, DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD are generating more interest in movie audio than Linear PCM 5.1 is managing in digital cinema. I think "Dolby Surround 7.1" generated a wave of "so what" reaction in that Blu-ray has already been offering discrete 7.1 in Linear PCM, Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD even at high bandwidth rates like 24/96.

5 stage channels isn't practical for home theater. Good reason for big movie theaters to have it, especially those with giant sized screens. Add to that at least 4 surround channels and perhaps multiple sub bass channels. That sort of thing can be folded down into 7.1 or 5.1 on Blu-ray. If audiences are going to be increasingly exposed to these premium priced d-cinema giant screen theaters, either in Lie-MAX branding or something else, it would be nice to have something better than plain vanilla 5.1 audio or 7.1 that Blu-ray can still do.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-27-2011, 01:51 AM:

I believe the industry on the whole (producers and exhibitors) regards sound formats as potential marketing gimmicks, much like 3D.

If venues with <fill in the blank> earn money then the industry adopts it. If a format or process doesn't seem to have any appreciable marketing clout behind it (SDDS-8) -- or loses traction (70mm and THX) -- then it gets dropped.

Le/Re has come and gone. TWICE.

I'd be pleased, but very surprised, if it ever made a serious comeback and became commonplace.

Also, the prevailing attitude about sound -- on the production/post-production side of things -- is pretty discouraging. There's a lot of lip-service about how important sound is but, if you talk to sound peeps, you get a different story.

Tom Holman, in his 10.2 demo, talks about number of channels being asymptotic. Basically, there's a threshold where he feels we just won't notice the extra channels. He is in favor of more channels behind the screen (including elevated channels).

However, a friend of mine -- who mixed one of the few short subject films done in 10.2 -- complained of it taking too long to make decisions. Producers don't budget a lot of time or money for sound. Much more time, thought, money and care is invested in picture. This is a common complaint among sound people.

And so the need for (time) economy is how you end up with the standard 5.1 mix that we see today:

L/R = Music and Effects
Center = Dialogue
Sub = LF Effects
Ls/Rs = Ambiences and selected SFX

I recall reading in SDDS marketing (circa 2001) that Le/Re was imagined as a way to prevent Music and Effects from competing within the L/R channels. So they did not seem to anticipate dynamic panning across the screen. (Although it certainly would be possible.)

And then there's the public opinion. Based on what has proven to be popular -- there seems to be an appreciable difference between the 4.0 "Dolby Matrix" and 5.1 discrete, but not much difference between 5.1 and EX or SDDS-8. So, when it comes to the general public, it seems that 5.1 hits the sweet spot. Anything more seems to be lost on most people.

...and how is the new 7.1 format doing? Is it the new box office gold?

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 01-27-2011, 08:35 AM:

I always thought a big part of the problem was the horrible promotion of sound formats; even those like me who really like more than 5.1 can't always find showtimes that utilize them. I always liked seeking out SDDS-8 presentations, but this was often very difficult to do; this was pretty nearly never advertised anywhere (I know of) and even when questioning theater staff I couldn't always get clear answers on which auditoriums were even capable of the format. Probably didn't help that the very few times I saw the 8 channel logo in the paper the theater actually had the movie in several rooms, some 8 channel and some 6 channel. I think most people just never even heard of Le/Re due to never being mentioned anywhere so of course they didn't seek out the format. 7.1 has been poorly advertised as well it seems; figuring out which theaters have which showtimes in 7.1 has been sketchy at best. These new and old formats that have more than 5.1 channels might do better if the studios used them more and theaters advertised which showtimes feature them!

quote: Bobby Henderson
If audiences are going to be increasingly exposed to these premium priced d-cinema giant screen theaters, either in Lie-MAX branding or something else, it would be nice to have something better than plain vanilla 5.1 audio or 7.1 that Blu-ray can still do.

Exactly what I've been thinking; one of my complaints about Lie-MAX is that it's the exact same 5.1 sound I have at home for a very premium price; it's even the same two surround speaker setup just like I have, not very impressive! (I greatly prefer the array of surround speakers, sounds significantly better to me especially if you aren't sitting in the middle of the room)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2011, 09:19 AM:

Advertising is another issue why sound has been generating more interest in home theater than it does the commercial theater.

In home theater it's easy to find Dolby and DTS logos on various pieces of electronics hardware. Just about any DVD player will at least sport a Dolby Digital logo if not DTS as well. Blu-ray players often have Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD logos, although you can barely see the faint screening of the things on a new "slim" PS3. Dolby logos appear on HDTV monitors, DVRs, cable/satellite boxes, etc. I've even seen a few HDTV monitors sporting DTS logos as well (can't remember which ones specifically but I have seen them).

In home theater the various Dolby and DTS logos are all over the "software" as well. They're on DVD and Blu-ray packaging. Often they're on the actual discs. They're in the sound options menu. Quite a few DVDs have featured the limited number of DTS trailers. Some Blu-ray discs have a new DTS-HD trailer. When someone channel surfs to a premium channel waiting for a certain show to start they have to wait for the end credits of the previous movie to finish. Those various Dolby, DTS and SDDS logos scroll up the TV screen. Most viewers never watch the entire credit roll in the movie theater and only see the tail end of those credits on TV.

Sound formats are nowhere near as visible in movie theater advertising as they are in home theater. Most commercial theaters gave up on playing the various Dolby Digital and DTS snipes long ago. Sound format listings have been dropped from most movie theater directory ads and "stack" ads in newspapers. I haven't looked in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times in quite a while to see if the agencies are still bothering with sound format listings in those movie stack ads. A great deal of movie theater listings either in print or on the Internet have taken on a pretty generic tone. Unless the movie is playing in IMAX, Lie-MAX or digital 3D you may just get the movie title, MPAA rating and show times.

In that environment "Dolby Surround 7.1" arrived with next to nothing in terms of fanfare. The advertising situation today is very different from how it was back in the late 1980s when you could open a newspaper movie ad and see a big 70mm logo listed above a block of movie theater locations.

Unless this situation can be changed it would be tough promoting a movie sound presentation with 5 channels of audio behind the screen.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-28-2011, 09:18 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I recall reading in SDDS marketing (circa 2001) that Le/Re was imagined as a way to prevent Music and Effects from competing within the L/R channels. So they did not seem to anticipate dynamic panning across the screen. (Although it certainly would be possible.

yet even effective use of panned dialogue is very rare to inconsistent, I'd love to hear what Pixar's soundmixers would do with five front speakers of sound, even in 5.1 dialogue is effectively implemented in between the left-center/right center on 'Toy Story 2'. frankly I wasn't impressed with their foray into 7.1 with 'Toy Story 3' - 'Step Up 3D's was much more impressive in my opinion.

The marketing/advertising in the Washington Post for movies and specifically sound is no where as prevailent or detailed as it was in the past. I don't think that the majority of the filmgoing public is even aware of 7.1 sound, unless you actually see a film with Dolby's logo upfront. (I think, and know, its because all decoders/receivers can decode 7.1 and is technically not a 'Dolby exclusive') All in all I think 'sound' has received the short end of the stick in terms of marketing a film. Nowadays news prints only featuring artwork and not theater info anymore which I find very unfortunate.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-28-2011, 10:30 AM:

Another funny thing is the lossy data compressed digital sound formats still get billing on movie posters and end credits while the higher quality 24-bit 5.1 channel uncompressed Linear PCM track is never mentioned at all.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2011, 10:40 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
the lossy data compressed digital sound formats still get billing on movie posters and end credits while the higher quality 24-bit 5.1 channel uncompressed Linear PCM track is never mentioned at all.

Hell, they don't even put the movie's title on some posters anymore...why would they want to bother with a silly little thing like a sound format?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-28-2011, 03:22 PM:

I still see DTS credited at the end of certain movies these days, not Datasat. They use the home DTS logo as well. Bottom line is that I don't think anyone really cares anymore, sad as it is.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-28-2011, 04:16 PM:

I think the crowd's involvement with sound ended with the introduction of digital and THX. Everything more advanced is just to diverse to communicate or talk about.

I think only a very small percentage of moviegoers ever really knew what THX was.
Yet it was a well known 'trademark' for high end surround sound for most of them. I rarely heard anyone talking about 'Dolby'. The THX trailer was really effective in that sense. I think you just can't top it with all the stuff that came afterwards.

Everything following multichannel, subwoofer and digital is too complicate to communicate. And there's too many logos nowadays anyway.

- Carsten

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-28-2011, 10:21 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The advertising situation today is very different from how it was back in the late 1980s when you could open a newspaper movie ad and see a big 70mm logo listed above a block of movie theater locations.

That's probably because digital sound has become the norm. It doesn't cost the studios anything "extra" to release 35mm with digital tracks. It's become standard operating procedure for them.

70mm, on the other hand, was never SOP. It was an added distribution expense, but it was an expense that was justified since the 70mm houses outperformed the 35mm houses. One gets the impression that 70mm was regarded as a "necessary evil" for the distributors. An evil that they were all too anxious to rid themselves of when digital sound on single-inventory 35mm became a reality.

Anyway, the special listing block in the ads was part of the necessary evil -- they were going to the trouble and expense and they wanted to capitalize on it.

The practices and economics are different today.

quote: Carsten Kurz
I think the crowd's involvement with sound ended with the introduction of digital and THX. Everything more advanced is just to diverse to communicate or talk about.

Agreed. It's not exactly what Holman meant when he mentioned asymptotes (in his 10.2 demonstration/lecture) but I must admit, this is what I was thinking.

Besides, I wonder how many of the theatre OWNERS on here would HONESTLY take down their screen and rewire and retool for 5 screen channels. I expect many would SAY they'd do it. But would they really go ahead and shut down a screen and write the cheque to make this happen? Especially knowing that Le/Re has come n gone twice...

...and considering the EX fiasco...

...and now 7.1

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-28-2011, 10:50 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Everything following multichannel, subwoofer and digital is too complicate to communicate. And there's too many logos nowadays anyway.

I don't agree. The public has little trouble remembering multiple brand names, especially if the people doing the marketing work are doing their jobs effectively. For example, I'd have no trouble at all naming 10 different brands of computers, HDTV sets, soft drinks, potato chips or restaurant chains. I could probably do the same for numerous other product categories. I think I can name at least 10 movie studios, with perhaps a couple or so being defunct studios.

quote:
That's probably because digital sound has become the norm. It doesn't cost the studios anything "extra" to add the digital tracks. It's standard operating procedure for them.

It is true 5.1 digital surround sound has become the standard audio format for the majority of movie theaters, but not all. 5.1 digital is pretty common in home setups, but not in every home either. There's not much special to it, particularly when we're talking about the old lossy compressed formats.

However, LPCM 5.1 is better than the old formats. Jumping up to 7.1 should be even better than that. Yeah, Blu-ray can do lossless and uncompressed 7.1. But lots of movie theaters were still advertising 5.1 and even 5.1 EX when DVD was doing 5.1 as well as 6.1 Discrete.

Ultimately the movie studios and theater operators would just need to get out the message "hey, this sound we're presenting is something you can't recreate in your home." That would be true in the case of 5 stage channel audio.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-28-2011, 11:05 PM:

Oh, Bobby...

You and I both know it would only be a matter of time before it became available in the home. I believe the only reason we have not seen "five across" in the home is that there just isn't enough content. And the reason there isn't enough content is that the format has not proven to outsell "three across" theatrically.

As for 5.1 not being the norm for all THEATRES, it certainly is the norm for PRINTS being released today.

As for theatres that are still playing analog sound...

WTF? -- It really isn't that costly to implement, is it?

As for theatres not promoting their sound systems: I had an experience with a multiplex that had different sound systems in different houses -- DTS, SRD and Analog -- and management did not want to go to the trouble of specifying which movies were in the digital houses because they didn't want to have to keep track of that. (Especially since the ads had to be submitted in advance.) They wanted/needed the flexibility to move top sellers to the larger theatres. Some movies bombed upon opening and, in that case, they'd get "bumped" to a smaller house which usually did not have digital sound. Also, some houses were capable of playing SRD and DTS - the managers were afraid they'd advertise the wrong one. And, in the case of DTS, nobody ever had the confidence that the discs would show up in time for opening day. Lastly, the owners didn't want to call attention to the fact that some of their screens were better, while some were "less than." This is a similar philosophy to the notion that "every seat is the best seat in the house."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2011, 12:04 AM:

Yes, with digital technology just about any kind of digital media that can be played in a movie theater can in theory be played in the home. But how many people are going to go to the trouble? Despite the availability of discrete 7.1 audio on Blu-ray I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Blu-ray player owners have speaker setups of 5.1 channels or less.

Commercial movie theaters have a lot more space and capability to install sound systems that dramatically surpass the capabilities of what people can stick into their living rooms. It's relatively easy for anyone to accomplish a 3 channel stage in the home using a traditional pair of stereo tower speakers and a center channel speaker. What do you do for the LE and RE speaker channels?

I think the movie theaters that are charging big premiums above standard ticket price have an obligation to reach higher standards of presentation quality as well as offer experiences in image resolution and audio one cannot recreate in the home. "Lie-MAX" doesn't deliver that. It's only offering 2K resolution and standard 5.1 audio. I can pretty much get that on Blu-ray. Theaters aspiring to premiere class status need to be delivering top of the line experiences as well.

On theaters showing 35mm but still with analog sound, I agree: WTF? With so many movie theaters getting rid of film equipment it would seem there would be a surplus of dormant DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS processors laying about. Nevertheless, a great deal of movie theaters are still playing analog sound. The 12-plex in our local mall still has most of its screens equipped only with analog sound. Most of the theaters in small towns around in this region are showing 35mm with stereo optical audio. And this is despite the fact a few small town movie theaters do manage to invest well in their theaters.

The Washita Theater in Cordele, Oklahoma (a town of 2000 people) is THX certified and can play movies in Dolby Digital. Canadian, Texas is an even smaller town. The Palace Theater in that town not only is THX certified, but it also has a 4K Sony digital projection system. So, yes, about those other places that can't even manage to move up to 5.1 digital audio on 35mm: WTF?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-29-2011, 12:07 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
But how many people are going to go to the trouble? Despite the availability of discrete 7.1 audio on Blu-ray I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Blu-ray player owners have speaker setups of 5.1 channels or less.

Exactly the point that's being made -- The general public doesn't care.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the movie theaters that are charging big premiums above standard ticket price have an obligation to reach higher standards of presentation quality as well as offer experiences in image resolution and audio one cannot recreate in the home. "Lie-MAX" doesn't deliver that. It's only offering 2K resolution and standard 5.1 audio. I can pretty much get that on Blu-ray. Theaters aspiring to premiere class status need to be delivering top of the line experiences as well.

But how big is your screen? I'm afraid this is one of those areas where "size does matter."
And do you get your Bluray day-and-date?
More important - how good is your popcorn? [Big Grin]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-29-2011, 12:24 AM:

One of our local first runs was running 11/14 houses with digital sound, but I know its dropped as systems have broken down and not been fixed. I can bet the lack of care comes from the imminent switch to DCinema.

The discount house has no digital sound anymore, despite it having at least a few back when GCC ran the joint. Add to that, the past two movies I've seen there have been in mono. A serious WTF?!

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2011, 12:48 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Exactly the point that's being made -- The general public doesn't care.

I don't think the situation is that simple. Sure, some people don't give a flying fart about sound or picture, but then some of those people would pay to sit in lawn chairs and watch the movie projected on a bed sheet hanging from a clothesline.

Home theaters aren't as complicated to set up as a movie theater system, but they're still kind of a pain in the ass. Not too many people are going to look forward to upgrading to 7.1 by replacing their receiver and then having to run twice as many surround speaker leads through the attic or under the floor. Plenty just live with 5.1 in the house and put off that upgrade to 7.1 for later. That doesn't automatically tranlate to 7.1 surround or five up front making no difference in the movie theater.

quote: Manny Knowles
But how big is your screen? I'm afraid this is one of those areas where "size does matter."

For five up front in the home screen size definitely matters. IMHO most HDTV sets, even ones in the 52"-60" range, aren't nearly big enough to make 5 up front audio worthwhile. I think you need a pretty large projection screen in order to do it right. Very few home theater setups feature that.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-29-2011, 01:02 AM:

...and I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out -- with the bed-sheet example.

BTW the same "pain in the ass" attitude you're describing is what will keep established theatres from doing Le/Re.

The only way something new will overcome the PITA factor, is if it can be proven that the format earns more revenue for the theatre(s) that have it.

Five across has come and gone. Twice.

Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 01-29-2011, 08:56 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't think the situation is that simple. Sure, some people don't give a flying fart about sound or picture, but then some of those people would pay to sit in lawn chairs and watch the movie projected on a bed sheet hanging from a clothesline.

I guess you wouldn't be up for my backyard movie nights... with 16mm movies in MONO. The simplicity of setting up one stage channel is a nice break too. I've never had a complaint about the presentation (I had one neighbour ask why the picture was red from my dvd).

...but on the other hand, these events are more about the beer anyway.

As far as home cinema, I really only bother with 5.1. It seems like a lot of expense for setting up 6.1 or 7.1 if most movies aren't mixed for it anyway (I'd imagine most cinema setups use this line of thinking as well) adding extra front speakers seems silly in that scenario as well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2011, 10:55 AM:

I can see why the five-across idea isn't ever going to catch on. There are too many owners who think 3-across is just fine. Our screen here is 30 feet wide (wall to wall) and our previous owner didn't even think 3-across was necessary....he thought you needed at least a 40 or 50 foot screen to even notice the separation.

As for the various sound formats and etc....it's not so much that the public doesn't care, it's just that they are not into specifics. Lots of people don't even know what brand of car they drive. I would guess 90% of people could not tell you what brand of TV is in their living room. My wife loves good sound but I would wager she does not know or care how many channels our theatre system is.

We've had digital sound here since the mid 90s and to this day, nobody has ever asked me what brand of processor we have, or how many channels we have, or even whether we have subwoofers or not. All they really want to know is, "Does it sound good? Yes? Ok, I'll take two tickets."

I have always thought that the biggest selling point in theatre vs home is the SIZE of both picture and sound. Even with a good home system, you're probably still in a dinky 15 x 20 foot room at most. Just on physics alone, a good sound system in a theatre will blow that home sound out of the water. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of people don't have that good of sound anyway; they put a couple of speakers on a wall and call it good.

This is why the postage-stamp sized mall theatre screens need to go away. THIS is what the home market is better than. A real good theatre system with a big screen and big sound will blow every home system away.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-29-2011, 11:34 AM:

I run a 15 screen, and when we were full 35mm, we only had 4 screens with digital sound. The other 11 didn't even have split surround. At one point all 4 had DTS, but then we stole a 650 from another theatre. Now we have 5 dlp screens and 10 35mm, 8 of which are still analog and have a single surround channel. We still have 1 dts house and 1 dolby.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-29-2011, 12:04 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson

'I don't agree. The public has little trouble remembering multiple brand names, especially if the people doing the marketing work are doing their jobs effectively. For example, I'd have no trouble at all naming 10 different brands of computers, HDTV sets, soft drinks, potato chips or restaurant chains. I could probably do the same for numerous other product categories. I think I can name at least 10 movie studios, with perhaps a couple or so being defunct studios.'

You are writing this in a professional-dedicated film-handlers forum. Are you representative for 'the crowd'?

Besides that: Even if someone remembers a cinema sound logo or brand - he has no means to qualifiy it. Shaking subwoofers - yes. Sound coming from the surround - yes. 'Digital' - yes. But 7.1? No One except some nerds ask for it. The crowd expects good sound in general nowadays. But that's it.
Why should that encourage any theater owner towards an investment? Some with regard to competition and dedication probably will.

But 'a comeback'?

- Carsten

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-30-2011, 01:06 PM:

For the exhibitor, it is ALWAYS about $$$. If he doesn't get any sense that 7.1 or any other format has a palpable public-driven demand that will bring his grosses up, no way he's going to invest. Does anyone see a MAJORITY of the public clammoring for 8 or 10 channel sound? And it is ALWAYS about the majority of the public, not the niche audio/cinemaphiles. Even if Hollywood supplied it, would they even advertize it in a way that would fullfil that key exhibitor question: will it give me a decided economic advantage?

We just read about the great efforts made by lots of dedicated, creative people, tops in their field, at Chase who reconstructed the original 5 across sound mix for WEST SIDE STORY at great time and I am assuming at great expense. Now go to the AFI-Silver website and see if you can see even a cursory mention that the 70mm print they will be playing will have that Oscar Award Winning sound mix. Sure, a number of us myself included are all excited about it and might even be thinking of trecking down to MD to see it, but we are not Joe Public Moviegoer.

Occasionally we get lucky that there are still a few left in Hollywood who still care about quality and not the bottom line and will go thru the trouble to do this kind of work, BUT, it is the exception. And you have to wait 50 years for an anniversay for something like this to happen. It won't be the norm.

If I were a betting man, I certainly wouldn't put my money on 7.1 or higher track counts becoming a new standard any time soon.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-30-2011, 02:55 PM:

I agree with those who think that we should have better formats theatrically and theatres must always keep ahead of what's available for the home.

Having said that, I really don't think we're going to go back to five screen channels and even if we did, it would be a joke (like it became in the late 60s) because movies won't get mixed for them. Which is why Dolby created the 70mm baby boom format in the first place.

Five screen channels in the traditional format is not going to happen for the home because there's nowhere to place the extra two channels except in the most esoteric of home theatres. It's hard enough for most people to get that center channel in the right place. And for those people who can afford and are willing to put up with extra speakers, they're already going for either wide or height channels.

Furthermore, I disagree with Bobby that there's so much interest in high quality audio for home theatre. There is among the kind of people who populate sites like bluray.com, but those are a tiny niche fraction of consumers. For a variety of reasons, consumers don't seem to be very interested in high quality home audio anymore. There will always be a few people who buy $10,000 loudspeakers and have $ million home theatres that look like movie palaces, but those are certainly the exception to the rule. I don't think a single new higher end A/V receiver was announced at CES this year aside from a slight upgrade from NAD.

So sure, the capability for 7.1 or more is there for the home, but only a fraction are using it. Also, the cards on Blu-ray aren't in yet. While Blu-ray did about $1.7 billion in the U.S. in 2010, it was still only a 15.2% share of the market for physical video media. And certainly a fair number of those sales would have been DVD had BD not existed. Also, if you look at the best selling titles, by the time you get to #10, it's selling maybe 5% of what the top title is selling, so this (at least so far) is solely a hit-driven business in spite of some really fine catalog releases. And as downloading video has more impact, it's not definitely assured that BD is going to be around or if around, that it will get as much attention and releases. So if BD doesn't do well, I think we'll see far fewer 7.1 mixes or the extra channels will be generated by automated processes.

I agree that newspaper advertising has been severely lacking in providing good information about presentation formats. Even when New York City had THX certified theatres, it was never advertised. What was the point, if you're not going to promote it? Not that Dolby's 7.1 format is really going to make a perceptible difference, but try finding a theatre that has it (even though a fair number do). Los Angeles theatres were always much better at this, although I don't know what they're doing today. I think one of the issues is that now that there's far less competition in the theatrical presentation business, a chain doesn't really have any vested interest in moving customers from one theatre to another. It would only make sense for them to push formats if they were playing the same film as a competing chain.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-30-2011, 03:00 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Even if Hollywood supplied it, would they even advertize it in a way that would fullfil that key exhibitor question: will it give me a decided economic advantage?

This is probably the post that makes the most sense. There is no economic advantage. There would be no point really.

I could see IMAX, UltraAvx etc adding more and more speakers behind the screen. The real growth right now in the industry is in premium auditoriums.

What we might see is ambiance speakers like Dolby ProLogic II...something like that might work but I can't see an old building upgrading.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-30-2011, 08:51 PM:

http://www.afi.com/silver/new/nowplaying/2011/v8i1/screenvalentines.aspx#wests

It isn't like they are hiding the 70mm part of it. Just how much promotion are they supposed to do for a 3-day showing? It is probably scrolling across their marquee too.

-Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-31-2011, 12:49 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
For the exhibitor, it is ALWAYS about $$$.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You don't really think it was ever otherwise, do you? Any exhibitor, now or in the past, who puts in a "better" anything does it to differentiate himself from the competition (whether it be another exhibitor or TV or whatever) and hence make more $$$.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-31-2011, 10:00 AM:

I seriously doubt that five screen channels would ever become popular, either in commercial theaters or (especially) in the home. I've never come out of a movie theater wishing that there were some extra screen channels (except for when the center channel is buzzing or isn't working, which might be helped if there were more speakers to pick up the slack, but that's another issue). I have a 100" wide screen in my home theater, I see no need for additional screen channels.

There isn't source material to make it worth it, IMO. If studios were to begin mixing directional dialogue again, maybe, but I don't see them doing that any time soon.

I have problems with the position that theaters must see a direct correlation to revenue in order to make any kind of investment, but that's no surprise to anyone here that's had to read one of my rants on that topic. I can definitely see the business need to keep an eye on the bottom line, and to control one's costs and to maximize the return on investment, so I get that.

The difficult thing is that we are not talking about an assembly line making widgets. If you can make a $10 investment in the widget-making process, and save $5 on every run, it's a no brainer to do something like that. It's a cut and dried, all-numbers comparison of cost vs. benefit.

Machines are nice that way, but when you introduce lots of variables, like you do when you are dealing with people, it's not so cut and dried.

Presenting movies to a paying audience has an incredible amount of variables involved, and anyone that thinks that they can nail down a firm spreadsheet comparison of the return that can be made on a particular investment in a movie theater is delusional.

Many theaters are perfectly fine delivering mediocrity. I compare them to McDonalds, as the best you can hope for is that the experience is consistent, so that at least you always know what you're going to get even if what you're getting isn't that great to begin with.

In Wisconsin, we are dominated by the Marcus chain. There's an AMC here and there, one Cinemark, and some independents, and that's it for competition. I've been to the Marcus Ridge Cinema three times in the last month and a half (which has to be a new record for me), and every show has had some issues that mar the presentation.

The thing is, most people probably don't notice, at least not enough to say something. So using the bottom-line approach to doing business, one would say that nothing more has to be done. The audience isn't complaining, and therefore, why spend money taking care of the issues or doing anything to improve the presentation?

But what would happen if those issues were resolved, and some extra steps were taken to improve the movie-going experience? I was in a packed 250-person auditorium on Saturday seeing Tangled (which impressed me, since it's been out so long), so that's probably 100-150 paying adults to which an impression is being made.

How many more tickets could the theater sell to other movies in the future if the presentation were more impressive?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-31-2011, 11:04 PM:

Zero.

You said it was a packed house.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-01-2011, 01:06 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
You say that like it's a bad thing.

No, Mike, I say it because in any discussion of the pros and cons of any format, the bottom line always have to be included in the mix and it is almost always the domanant factor for the exhibitor. And that's not a bad thing, its business reality. If exhibitors weren't good business men, there wouldn't be theatres for us to see movie in regardless of the number of sound channels or the size of the screens.

Some times in our tech discussions we overlook that reality as the CEO of IMAX will gladly point out.