This is topic Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema? 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=000758
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-05-2011, 07:59 PM:
I was just wondering. Can a system like SDDS, with five front, two back, and one sub, be re-created through D-Cinema? Dolby has a 7.1 standard for digital theaters, and why not Sony? They can bring the original layout of SDDS to their new revival format!
SDDS stands for Sony Dynamic Digital Sound. For the D-Cinema version, I was thinking of dropping the second D and making it SDS, Sony Dynamic Sound, because digital sound is now the worldwide standard.
What do you think of this idea?
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-05-2011, 08:13 PM:
They already do that on screens with SDDS processors.
In order to 'revive' SDDS, Sony would need to build and sell new cinema processors, instead of leaving this to Dolby and USL.
But since DCI now means simply 16ch of uncompressed PCM for everyone, I guess Sony has just given up on establishing another cinema sound trademark. Their digital cinema branding is '4k'. A speaker layout is not easy to communicate - as you don't see them behind the screen, and the acoustical impact to the audience is too unspecific.
Who would trust another Sony cinema sound system anyway?
- Carsten
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-05-2011, 08:20 PM:
The DCI spec has already reserved two channels for Left-Extra and Right-Extra, so it is certainly possible that we could see "five-across" in D-Cinema applications. We might see this used with new movies, or with revivals of movies released with SDDS-8 or Todd/A-O soundtracks.
But, for new titles, I don't think companies should be able to "brand" a sound format for digital cinema because they will all be delivered and processed the same way.
With 35mm it was necessary to buy special gear to make those formats work, but they all offered the same 5.1 -- nobody "owned" that part. One would not need an SDDS processor for a D-Cinema release that included Le/Re.
But why stop there? Why not incorporate the divided back wall from 7.1 and make it 9.1?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-05-2011, 09:00 PM:
What DCinema desperately needs if it wants to explore greater channels than 5.1 is a means of mix down for those that do not have the extra channels. There should not be special versions of the movie with 7.1 or what not. The system should self-configure based on how the system was installed.
LC/RC are channels 7/8 in the DCI spec. That part is done. But what if they used them? What do the 5.1 theatres do? Just not play those channels? That doesn't work any more than with Surround 7.1...where a 7.1 track playing in a 5.1 theatre just drops the back channels and instead feeds the Ls and Rs signals that presume a BLs/BRs as if it was a 5.1 mix. Yes you have sound but not as it was intended.
When SDDS was implemented in film, Sony controlled the processor too to ensure that the same print, 5.1, 8-channel or what have you played in ALL theatres since the cinema processor did the mix down, if necessary.
Ideally, the media block should be the device that deals with getting any sound format (future or current) into the least common denominator format...5.1 If the industry could standardize on that...then alternate super sound formats could have a more successful venture. It would not cost the exhibitor of they choose not to play but could benefit the exhibitor that spends the money on the exotic format.
This could also be done in the cinema processor too (if you think about it, it would not be too hard to have a DSP processor that takes the audio in the digital domain and remixes a 5-across to a 3 across or take a Surround 7.1 and turns that back to 5.1. These are straight recombining mixes. It would not cost much, technology wise. Just make sure that all boxes can handle the full 16 channels so future formats can also be dealt with. If it were standardized, then part of the obligation of a new sound format creation is also supplying the decode scheme for 5.1 systems. It isn't like there are so many mediablocks out there that it would be hard to provide the decode scheme with each feature that is more than a 5.1 mix.
-Steve
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-05-2011, 09:08 PM:
it'd have to be a director with high profile status that would want to use five across sound to successfully bring it back to the mainstream, or maybe say... a musical... like the rumoured 'Miss Saigon' oh how the 'Fall of Saigon'/helicopter scene would sound with a 75 instrument orchestra building it's dramatic crescendo with five channels of sound from behind the screen - oh the possibilities?!? oh the grandiose emotional high that the scene delivers with such powerful music and loud sound effects.
It was sad and discouraging when soundmixers kind of just stopped mixing in 8-channel SDDS sound, it brought back the showmanship and theater experience of past 70mm (five across sound) that just that is not replicable in the home theater setups - a plus since I really sought out 8-channel sound presentations.
question: how are IMAX speakers setup behind the screen, are there LC and RC channels of sound? I'd assume there are also height channels... right?
do the new ultra-large alphabet soup screens add five across behind the screen?
if a major motion picture were to resurrect five across sound in the immediate future, is the adding of two speakers (and ampage) behind more screens in the varying theatre chains, would it be an expensive upgrade?
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-05-2011, 09:38 PM:
Jonathan Goeldner:
quote:
question: how is IMAX speakers setup behind the screen, are there LC and RC channels of sound? I'd assume there are also height channels... right?
There are Left, Center, Right, and Height channels behind the screen, and two rear channels behind it. I don't know if the sub-bass is matrixed or discrete but I'm going to say matrixed because there's no mention of an LFE channel.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-06-2011, 07:10 AM:
With the abundancy of 16 channels in the spec, one could as well have 2 separate dedicated mixes in the DCP - a classical 5.1, and a more advanced 8ch.
The server/processor could have a fixed dedicated routing of the channels per screen. 5.1 screens would always get the 5.1 mix, 8ch screens would get the dedicated 8ch mixes.
These two mixes could be automatically created during the mastering, that is, the 5.1 being mixed down from the 8ch.
We now have the situation that some channels are already used for HI/VI applications. Some servers/installations have only 8 analog output channels, blocking 7/8 for HI/VI.
I heard that they are working on server based audio mixing and routing.
With variable routing, I see a heck of problems coming up. The DCPs would need to have metadata explaining the channel layout. Another format extension.
Leave the majority of installs at 5.1+optional 7/8 for HI/VI, and create a separate 8ch mix into 9-16. Those cinemas with a larger speaker matrix will easily afford the other 8ch of D/A conversion. That would also allow to play old 5.1 DCPs AND new multichannel DCPs even on the oldest installations. Single inventory. The old systems would simply ignore channels 9-16.
DCI clearly should have spent more brains into this years ago.
- Carsten
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-06-2011, 07:31 AM:
15/16 are to henceforth be the HI/VI-N channels. 7/8 were never intended for them though they have been used due to the vacancy left by LC/RC, for the moment. However, I don't think there are any players that can't deal with all 16-channels (DCI spec always had 16 channels).
Metadata is the key and it should have been used long before now anyway just to deal with 2D/3D Flat/Scope. A theatre should NOT need to program in different show starts...just designate on the installation which channel/macro/title is the 2D-Flat...etc...then the show itself should handle getting it selected.
The same should be true for the sound. I do not believe the plan of alternate mix formats would work since the channels will be consumed by competing formats. By having metadata that specifies the sound format and its decode schema, the processor and do with it as it can understand. Alternately, let the movie ALWAYS have a 5.1 version of the sound as well as the fancy version...if the player is programmed to understand the fancy version, then it plays that one but both versions should always be available (they figured it out with 2K and 4K...all systems have to handle both.
-Steve
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-06-2011, 09:15 AM:
I think Dolby, Doremi and XDC so far have only 'straight' audio routing, that is, DCI channels 1-16 got to server audio channels 1-16, so external channel assigment/routing is necessary.
Sony LMT300 has a audio routing module with a software based 16*16 crosspoint.
With that you can apply audio routing macros just like scope/flat for visuals.
Yep - it's insane that operators still HAVE to decide about programing flat/scope presentation. It certainly is good to have options to override, but more metadata use would be preferable.
- Carsten
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-06-2011, 03:43 PM:
http://isdcf.com/papers/ISDCF-Interop-audio-channel-recommendations-20110302FINALv2.pdf
- Carsten
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2011, 05:50 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Metadata is the key and it should have been used long before now anyway just to deal with 2D/3D Flat/Scope.
The problem with using metadata on audio is it won't work with uncompressed Linear PCM. The audio would need to be encoded in some sort of lossless format, not necessarily lossless compressed but "contained" within some sort of packeted kind of format where metadata could be added to the audio stream.
That sort of concept could support a variety of channel layouts without adding the storage burden of carrying multiple copies of the same soundtrack in different channel layouts. You could have a standard 5.1 mix and various extensions above that base mix could add the left-extra & right-extra channels behind the screen and 2 more surround channels. Tracks 14, 15 and 16 could be used to provide two ceiling surround channels and another sub-bass channel. That would ultimately provide an 11.2 audio track while preserving channels 7, 8 and 13 for HI, VI-N and motion simulation data capability.
Additionally, the sound mix could designed to play back in either 24-bit 48kHz audio in any of the mentioned channel layouts or bump up to 24-bit 96kHz.
But, yeah, the sound mix has to be able to fold down from 11.2, 9.1 or whatever into a standard 5.1 layout.
The DTS-HD Master Audio format uses some of those tricks on Blu-ray. A backward compatible lossy DTS 5.1 mix is stored in the "core" of the audio while various extensions open up the lossless and high resolution portions of the audio for more advanced home theater systems.
Obviously the downside to this approach is some company, be it Dolby, DTS, Sony or someone else, could end up "owning" the format, making it proprietary or "closed" and only able to work on certain name-brand pieces of hardware. The advantage with Linear PCM is it works on all d-cinema systems.
I guess the solution would be for the folks controlling DCI standards to use or develop some sort of open source lossless codec that could do all the stuff I described and be able to function on a lot or all of current d-cinema servers via a firmware update.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-06-2011, 06:10 PM:
I would like to know what sound format AMC is using for their RealD screens. AMC was pro-SDDS back in the day
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-06-2011, 06:19 PM:
AMC had some kind of "sweet deal" with Sony. They basically had SDDS on every screen. Does anybody know the specifics of the AMC/SONY deal?
AMC Old Pasadena 8 -- the one where I worked in the 90s -- had SDDS as the primary format, with Ultra-Stereo for analog (and non-sync).
Only one screen was different -- in addition to the SDDS processor, it also had a Dolby CP-65, Cat. 699 SRD reader, and a mag dummy for preview screenings -- plus a 5-deck platter to accommodate the track. Adding to its wackiness, that room was also the only one of ours that could reproduce SDDS-8.
As for the "sound format" for Real-D -- wouldn't it just be standard DCI audio? Are you asking what processor they're using?
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-05-2012, 11:38 AM:
so if a movie WERE to be released with the left/center and right/center channels of sound - how many theaters are set up that way - do the prior auditoriums that featured 8-channel SDDS still set up that way? How much of an expense is it for theaters to upgrade to two more additional speakers/amps? Don't the specialized ultra screens (ETX, XD, RPX etc.,) already have five front speaker set-ups in place?
Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 01-05-2012, 12:48 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
I would like to know what sound format AMC is using for their RealD screens. AMC was pro-SDDS back in the day
Assuming you're referring to processors, it's a hodge-podge. CP-750's are going in some houses, CP-650's in others, USL's in others.
Houses that were originally fit for 8-channel SDDS are now Dolby 5.1.
For 35mm, AMC has been slowly replacing SDDS with CP-650's for years. That said, my theatre still has 4 SDDS screens.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-05-2012, 12:48 PM:
Actually most technicians I know wish Sony would just dry up and disappear. SDDS sounded good when it worked but like everyting else Sony you have to go to Sony to get either repair parts or to get the boards fixed. And the latter was very touch and go... you literally didn't know if the repaired board was going to work right or not until you plugged it back in.
Mark
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-05-2012, 01:00 PM:
@ Mark: but the negativity towards Sony was their processors/sound decoding - right? If DCI has the specs and ability to encode/decode five front speaker sound, wouldn't it be less buggy since the sound is no longer physically on the film print.
quote: John Thomas
Houses that were originally fit for 8-channel SDDS are now Dolby 5.1.
so they've taken out the two additional speakers? so even if a studio were to mass release a 9.1 film everyone who wanted to take advantage and feature the film as such would have to rebuy/reinstall those speakers.
secondly from a preservation stand point wouldn't it make sense the five front channel mixes not only from 8-channel SDDS films but Todd-AO (and other 70mm films for that matter) to be digitally encoded and archived as such. With the demise of 35mm and 70mm, these mixes might never be heard ever again as they were in their theatrical runs.
Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 01-05-2012, 01:23 PM:
Not even removed; the speakers are still up there. The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-05-2012, 01:44 PM:
quote: John Thomas
Not even removed; the speakers are still up there. The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.
that's sad.
maybe I'm just more sensitive to sound, but five front channel sound just sounds so much fuller and dramatic. The classical music score (in 8-SDDS) for 'Immortal Beloved' was just beautiful. Even the Todd-AO 6-track sound stems are wonderfully mixed on the 'Sound of Music' bluray 5.1 disc with some excellent phantom imaging between the left-center/right center speakers.
On a somewhat related note, there are some current 5.1 mixes that are just plain sloppy or inconsistent. This is very evident in the mix done for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' - in one scene there is a character on the far left of the screen speaking and his voice is emitting from the direct center [eeesh] however in the same movie the surround sound is creatively mixed and ads some surprises [i.e, the bird in the classroom scene].
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-05-2012, 03:39 PM:
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
so if a movie WERE to be released with the left/center and right/center channels of sound - how many theaters are set up that way - do the prior auditoriums that featured 8-channel SDDS still set up that way?
Some older theaters equipped for 70mm projection can handle the "five up front" channel arrangement. Certain houses equipped (or previously equipped) with SDDS may still be wired to handle 5 stage channels of audio. However, most theaters that installed SDDS only wired the sound system for 5.1. Heck, SDDS could even be installed into a stereo/4.0 layout.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Don't the specialized ultra screens (ETX, XD, RPX etc.,) already have five front speaker set-ups in place?
I strongly doubt it. If any of those newfangled premium priced theaters have 7.1 it is likely in the newer 3 stage channels/4 surround channels layout, similar to what is used on Blu-ray in home theater. Dolby is trying to brand the format "Dolby Surround 7.1" regardless of the fact no Dolby encoding/compression scheme is being applied to the audio; it's straight linear PCM.
quote: John Thomas
The Public usually can't even tell if the SL and SR channels are switched off, so I can see why they wouldn't be too interested in preserving 7.1 auditoriums, not that I agree with that choice.
You can hear the difference under the right circumstances. The viewer either must be in a theater with a really big screen or he must be sitting close enough to the screen where the speaker source differences will be more noticeable. Obviously the movie mix itself must have audio elements panning across those five stage channels or placed in positions on the screen where the left extra and right extra channels would become noticeable.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-05-2012, 04:03 PM:
With the recent push for 48 and 60 fps, it's doubtful whether the extra channels backstage will make as marketable an impact as the visuals would.
Screen size is also a determining factor on whether 5 backstage full-range channels are required.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-05-2012, 04:49 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some older theaters equipped for 70mm projection can handle the "five up front" channel arrangement. Certain houses equipped (or previously equipped) with SDDS may still be wired to handle 5 stage channels of audio. However, most theaters that installed SDDS only wired the sound system for 5.1. Heck, SDDS could even be installed into a stereo/4.0 layout.
I strongly doubt it. If any of those newfangled premium priced theaters have 7.1 it is likely in the newer 3 stage channels/4 surround channels layout, similar to what is used on Blu-ray in home theater. Dolby is trying to brand the format "Dolby Surround 7.1" regardless of the fact no Dolby encoding/compression scheme is being applied to the audio; it's straight linear PCM.
You can hear the difference under the right circumstances. The viewer either must be in a theater with a really big screen or he must be sitting close enough to the screen where the speaker source differences will be more noticeable. Obviously the movie mix itself must have audio elements panning across those five stage channels or placed in positions on the screen where the left extra and right extra channels would become noticeable.
even though the sound source is the 5.1 (eventual bluray) mix I'd think those 'newfangled premium priced theaters' would really might benefit from five front sound - something that isn't replicable in the home theater setup. Dolby might be trying to take the credit of 7.1 but I really don't see DataSat (DTS) or SDDS trying to market it. The fact that The New York Times denoted 'The Muppets' being released in 7.1 is a definite step in the right direction.
Even though there are many examples of excellent sound mixing in the theater and on bluray, Pixar films really make fantastic use of directional dialogue - 'Toy Story 2' adds so much information from and in between the frontal sound stage, two extra channels might even seem redundant.
quote: Ian Parfrey
With the recent push for 48 and 60 fps, it's doubtful whether the extra channels backstage will make as marketable an impact as the visuals would.
Screen size is also a determining factor on whether 5 backstage full-range channels are required
Yes ‘film’ is a visual medium, but the merging of sound and it’s effectiveness seems to have gotten lost in the fray, as I see it sound has become second fiddle to 3D and digital photography – which is unfortunate.
The trend to make screens larger and more immersive absolutely needs the best that film sound can deliver. Cinemascope got the American public out of in front of their tv sets in the 1950's, the current ‘new’ ultra-large screens and the integration of 9.1 sound could also easily entice more folks.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-05-2012, 06:59 PM:
Because of the finances involved with D-Cin, NO ONE is interested in audio beyond the 5.1 mandated for vpf.
This will have to wait for "after the shake out." Louis
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-06-2012, 09:05 AM:
Louis... BY the time the shake out is done we will be hanging 40 foot wide very thin OLED screens and there won't be any projector. Speakers may have to go above the screen as in AMC.
Mark
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 01-06-2012, 10:05 AM:
Interesting topic! I'm part of the design team for the USL JSD-100 and also on several SMPTE standards committees, study groups, etc., and participate in the ISDCF plug fests. So, I'm very interested in what this group has to say!
On Lc/Rc, it is true that section 3.3.3 table 5 of http://www.dcimovies.com/DCIDigitalCinemaSystemSpecv1_2.pdf puts Lc/Rc on channels 7/8 for an 8 channel mix. Table 6 shows these channels unassigned in a six channel system (5.1). However, http://www.dcimovies.com/errata/v1_2/DCI-Errata_16-20_2008-1120.html removes these tables and makes reference to SMPTE 428-3-2006. This standard is currently being revised.
As I understand what is proposed for SMPTE 428-3, there are defined "sound field groups" that correspond to sound formats such as 5.1, 7.1SDDS, 7.1DS, etc. These sound field groups then consist of several audio channels in the DCP. The DCS will route the particular audio channel (destined for a particular speaker or speaker group) out a particular AES channel to the cinema processor. This routing can vary based on the sound field group specified for the particular DCP. Again, this is my understanding of what's proposed. The SMPTE site is down right now, so I can't get to the draft documents.
It appears the vast majority of auditoriums and the vast majority of content is 5.1. There is a little bit of 7.1DS content being distributed. While the DCP supports 16 discrete channels of PCM audio, two are generally allocated to HI/VI-N audio, and often another two are allocated to seat shakers. So that leaves you with 12 channels for the auditorium. I'm aware of a couple systems (Iosono and Auro-3D) that encode multiple channels into the DCP file and AES stream. In some cases, a single DCP can contain both 5.1 and larger mixes allowing for a "single inventory" for distribution.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, ISDCF has suggested putting HI/VI-N on AES channels 7 and 8. This is where 5.1 Interop DCPs put HI/VI-N, and Interop does not support channel routing. So, it appears most auditoriums are wired this way. It does cause interesting problems when people have the processor set for 7.1 and expect to get Lrs/Rrs on 7/8 but, instead, get HI/VI-N.
I suspect that as we migrate from Interop to SMPTE, the servers will be set to route audio as the auditorium is currently wired (which, in most cases, would put HI/VI-N on AES7/8). Once there is channel routing, there does not need to be a one to one relationship between position in the audio file and the AES output.
Other questions that come up are:
1. If you have an auditorium that has Lc/Rc and Lrs/Rrs speakers, what do you do when you play 5.1 content? Do you leave those speaker mute? Should you synthesize something? The JSD-100 allows Lc/Rc to be generated from L, C, and R. Lrs/Rrs can be driven by Ls/Rs (creating an L shaped surround), or a sum of Ls/Rs (creating a rear "center" surround).
2. Is the L shaped surround (where Ls includes the side and a portion of the rear wall) "acoustically correct?" It appears this is a common speaker installation, but at least one member of the SMPTE audio channel labeling group says it's acoustically incorrect.
3. Should a processor (or anything else) "downmix" higher channel count audio to a lower channel count? Currently, I don't think so. The movie producer wants a certain sound, and we should not change it. So, movies are currently distributed with different mixes (I've mostly just seen 5.1 and 7.1DS). But, clearly, drive-ins need to down to either mono or stereo.
So... interesting topic! I look forward to more comments.
Harold
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2012, 11:25 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
BY the time the shake out is done we will be hanging 40 foot wide very thin OLED screens and there won't be any projector.
I hope that doesn't happen. If the screen creates the light, rather than reflects it, that'll ruin the way movies look way more than the loss of film did. At that point it really will just be a big TV.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-06-2012, 02:39 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
At that point it really will just be a big TV.
Dunno about that .. for the simple fact of: no moving parts, lenses, no complex light engines, no bulbs to deal with...and price efficency with possible lower pricing due to simplified manufacturing techiniques that are presently in operation-just more on a grand scale...
And the OLED panels could be made modular (only disadvantage would be getting the field of light across the entire panel arrangement uniform where it would look like a one panel) where they are assembled to join one another to make any size of screen needed.
...and getting away with a very sharp image results with either sitting in the very front row or sitting clear in the back - no fuss with 2, 4+K resolution stuff needed by the imager chipsets.
Interesting concept for sure ... -Monte
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2012, 03:13 PM:
LED-based movie theater screens won't be happening for quite a long time. It just isn't practical or cost effective.
Regarding OLED, the technology is still very costly. It's mostly used in cellular phone displays. LG is showing off a new 55 inch OLED-based HDTV set. It weighs only 7.5 kilograms. But it will cost over $8000.
Traditional LEDs used in electronic variable message centers can have pixel pitch sizes reduced tight enough to squeeze 2K resolution into a movie theater sized screen. However the cost would be pretty outrageous. We're talking several hundred thousand dollars even with the price drops that have occurred in recent years. These kinds of displays need a lot of continuous maintenance. Driver boards (the LED tiles) go bad and have to be replaced. Other things happen inside of the unit, like problems with the controller. Then there's the issue of keeping colors consistent as driver board tiles are changed.
One upside, a LED-based movie screen wouldn't have to be solid. The LED driver board panels could be designed "porous" enough to allow speakers to be installed behind the thing.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
even though the sound source is the 5.1 (eventual bluray) mix I'd think those 'newfangled premium priced theaters' would really might benefit from five front sound - something that isn't replicable in the home theater setup.
The movie must have its sound mix created in the 7.1 format for the premium priced theater to make any use of it. No one is making movie mixes in the 5 up front stage layout anymore. Hardly anyone is bothering with the four channel surround layout even though it has an established path to home theater (which would make the extra effort and cost of doing a 7.1 mix more worth it).
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Dolby might be trying to take the credit of 7.1 but I really don't see DataSat (DTS) or SDDS trying to market it. The fact that The New York Times denoted 'The Muppets' being released in 7.1 is a definite step in the right direction.
Dolby, DataSat (DTS) and SDDS (R.I.P.) can't really claim ownership of the 7.1 channel linear PCM process. Basically it's just "7.1 Surround." Or "7.1 LCPM Surround." Linear PCM unfortunately has the image of being a generic audio format even though it is superior in quality to those data lossy compression formats used on 35mm film.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-06-2012, 04:03 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The movie must have its sound mix created in the 7.1 format for the premium priced theater to make any use of it. No one is making movie mixes in the 5 up front stage layout anymore. Hardly anyone is bothering with the four channel surround layout even though it has an established path to home theater (which would make the extra effort and cost of doing a 7.1 mix more worth it).
Dolby, DataSat (DTS) and SDDS (R.I.P.) can't really claim ownership of the 7.1 channel linear PCM process. Basically it's just "7.1 Surround." Or "7.1 LCPM Surround." Linear PCM unfortunately has the image of being a generic audio format even though it is superior in quality to those data lossy compression formats used on 35mm film.
why did 8-SDDS up and die anyway? Sony might have been aiming high in bringing back the five front layout but at least it got me to seek out those films that were mixed as such. The fact that DCI audio specs didn't ignore the LC and RC speaker layout (and are there) is a positive in my book. If they are there, why not use them?
The negativity towards anything other than standard 5.1 is pretty amazing (and hard headed) for an industry that is trying to keep its patrons coming back to watch films in the cinplex and not at home (or on their phones). 3D maybe more accessible to the masses, but sound has always been the one aspect where the theaters can excell and make completely unreplicable in home theater application. Fox tinkered with 7.1 with two titles, but then in turn didn't even encode the blurays as such. Universal has released a few blurays in 7.1, but nothing theatrical. Warners has yet to release any film in 7.1, theatrically or on bluray. I'm aware that no one can lay claim, or trademark 7.1, but Dolby has to be given some credit in their attempts in promoting it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-06-2012, 04:38 PM:
The simple thing that made SDDS die was the placement of the tracks on the film - on the edges where the wear factor is the worst. You were good for almost two weeks of SDDS playback before major dropouts happened.
Plus, where the SDDS processor couldn't be daisy chained in with the other processors in case if the SDDS track failed was the other big issue.
Outside of these above factors, SDDS actually was one pretty good system and had the expandability to go along with it. But the "supply and demand" syndrome pushed it out the door.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-06-2012, 05:19 PM:
Let us not forget the shitty repair support that SDDS also had. The tech guys were ok but factory service sucked beyond belief.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2012, 08:49 PM:
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
why did 8-SDDS up and die anyway?
Numerous reasons.
• The arrival of the Dolby CP500.
• Not enough 7.1 sound mixes.
• The Dolby brand name.
• The DTS fan base.
• SDDS track wear on 35mm prints.
• SDDS gear cost more than DTS or SR•D.
• Sony didn't do a great job supporting SDDS gear.
• Quite a few movies from Fox & Paramount lacked SDDS tracks.
• Dolby Digital was on the most film prints by far.
• DTS was #2 in movie releases.
• SDDS had no home theater counterpart like DD & DTS.
There might be additional reasons too.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
The negativity towards anything other than standard 5.1 is pretty amazing (and hard headed) for an industry that is trying to keep its patrons coming back to watch films in the cinplex and not at home (or on their phones).
Actually, I think the movie industry doesn't really give much of a damn about sound anymore. The movie studios don't seem to care all that much about keeping movie theaters on a higher standards level above how movies can be viewed in the home.
For close to a decade the technology has been there to deliver 10.2 channel surround in commercial movie theaters. The only thing that needed to take place was a few phone calls between movie studio heads, theater chain executives and a few key movie productions. That never happened. 5.1 was good enough despite what the latest, greatest hardware can do.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
3D maybe more accessible to the masses, but sound has always been the one aspect where the theaters can excell and make completely unreplicable in home theater application.
In recent years more has happened with audio in home theater than movie theaters. Dolby and DTS still have brand relavance with audio on DVD and Blu-ray. More DVDs were released with Dolby Surround EX 5.1 and DTS-ES 6.1 tracks than movies released in theaters with EX/ES mixes. The same thing is true with 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray. Not all that many movies have been released on Blu-ray in 7.1, but most of those movies were only 5.1 in theatrical release.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I'm aware that no one can lay claim, or trademark 7.1, but Dolby has to be given some credit in their attempts in promoting it.
It's still inaccurate advertising regardless of any higher purpose Dolby might be doing to promote 7.1 channel audio production in general.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2012, 09:26 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
For close to a decade the technology has been there to deliver 10.2 channel surround in commercial movie theaters. The only thing that needed to take place was a few phone calls between movie studio heads, theater chain executives and a few key movie productions. That never happened. 5.1 was good enough despite what the latest, greatest hardware can do.
You're forgetting one big elephant in the room: Money. People already bitch (incorrectly) that movies are too expensive. How do you expect exhibition to double the number of sound channels and not raise prices higher than they are?
I'd bet if you polled 1000 moviegoers and asked them, "Do you think movie sound needs improving, and if so would you be willing to pay around $3 or $4 more per ticket for such improvement?" you'd find that the vast majority would think it was just fine as is, providing they are in a theatre that has decent 5.1 sound and not some worn-out, mis-adjusted crap system.
Remember, most of the audience is NOT audio professionals.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-06-2012, 09:32 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
audience are NOT audio professionals.
...and actually, some patrons would be satisfied with MONO sound.
Funny how technology loves to push itself on the public when the public doesn't really need it..
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-06-2012, 10:20 PM:
The vast majority of the movie going public should be WOWED when they go to the movies.They should be shown the magic with the latest and greatest from the filmmaker and theater.
If those theaters and filmmakers did this they would have happy return business.When they enjoy the experience,it don't matter if they understand the technical reasons.The technical job is up to us.If it's bland they may not articulate why but they know they were not WOWED or taken care of so they go less and less.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 12:48 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You're forgetting one big elephant in the room: Money. People already bitch (incorrectly) that movies are too expensive. How do you expect exhibition to double the number of sound channels and not raise prices higher than they are?
Did I say every movie theater had to install 10.2 surround? A 10.2 surround equipped house doesn't have to be any different than how 70mm was treated back in the 1980s. Although it didn't really cost anything extra to see a movie in 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo versus seeing the same show in a theater a few blocks away in 35mm.
The wannabe Lie-MAX screens promoted by various theater chains are already charging a hefty premium for a product that really isn't any different from what can be seen or heard in a standard auditorium. They're just advertising that they're delivering image projection and surround sound that actually works. Whether they're actually delivering on that is another question. Overall that just makes the rest of the theater complex come off as a dump, even if it isn't. If a given multiplex was equipped properly and maintained its equipment properly its movies should look and sound as good as anything shown in those wannabe Lie-MAX houses. I see the price premium being charged for entry into those houses as a rip-off. I think IMAX Digital is a rip-off too. The only benefit it provides is brighter 3D versus that of Real-D, Dolby3D and others.
If a theater is wanting extra money from me for their "good" screen that "good" screen needs to deliver something better than average. 2K digital projection and 5.1 surround sound is now average. It is no longer a premium thing.
With a little software development (if it's not already available) movie productions could mix for something like 10.2 surround just as easily as doing a 5.1 mix. Honestly, it would probably be considerably easier and not nearly as costly for a Hollywood production to do 10.2 surround versus 5.1 surround than bump its 2K post production to 4K.
Regarding cost, going to the movies is expensive. I can't afford to go all that often and over the past few months that cost has been compounded with the addition of a girlfriend. A married couple and their kids are really going to rack up a serious bill.
Going to the movies might not be as expensive as seeing a Broadway play, big name act rock concert or a NFL football game. I don't know many people who can afford to attend such events on any sort of regular basis. You gotta be rich to afford going to lots of concerts and plays or have season tickets for a professional sport.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2012, 01:33 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Regarding cost, going to the movies is expensive.
There you go. You want all the bells'n'whistles in the "good auditorium" (which is probably where the movie you want to see is going to be showing), but you already think it's too expensive. You're not willing to pay the price that something costs.
This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.
The studios have not helped in this; they have de-valued their own product by making it available to the pop-machine crowd too cheaply.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 02:44 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.
This is totally untrue and incorrect. People WILL pay for an upgraded experience if the product is right and the venue gives them value. Hate to say it, but the IMAX Experience either in Digital or 15/70 adds value to movie going experience. The numbers don't lie.
How important has IMAX been to the film's success? Well, let's break this down domestically. IMAX ticket sales of $33.1 million account for a little more than 23% of the $141.2 million that the Tom Cruise movie has scored in domestic ticket sales. To put this into its proper perspective, just 300 of the 3,455 screens in this country screening the movie are IMAX. In other words, IMAX may account for just 9% of the film's screens -- but it has raised 23% of the revenue.
IMAX on cruise control
This is not to say that all upgraded/premium surcharge theaters add value. Ultra AVX is ok at best, ETX is not bad.....The 4K J. Edgar experience has nothing on the MI4 Digital IMAX Experience.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-07-2012, 04:19 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
...and actually, some patrons would be satisfied with MONO sound.
Funny how technology loves to push itself on the public when the public doesn't really need it..
wow, if the public doesn't care about sound AND the exhibitors/theater owners have a laissez-Faire attitude, then ... well... I give up... maybe theaters should just throw in the towel and we all just download all our movies via Netflix through our bluray players and handheld devices. The cynicism and resistance is really eye-opening and depressing.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-07-2012, 07:27 PM:
Why would you want to bring back SDDS. It uses a lossy compression system. Sony's compression system is terrible. It removes the harmonics, which are what give instruments their individual "sound". The homogenized audio it puts out sounds booring and lifeless. The theater digital systems use uncompressed audio.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-07-2012, 07:31 PM:
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
The cynicism and resistance is really eye-opening and depressing
Actually, the studios began this.
When magnetic stereo soundtrack for 35mm (and later with 70mm) came into being, there were actual "Decca Trees" - three mic assembly on location to record live in stereo.
"The Robe" was one of those films actually recorded in three track magnetic stereo.
Back then when stereophonic sound was the "in" thing, the voice track actually followed the character - voice track "panned" across the screen to follow the character(s)
Now, what do we have: all dialog recorded MONO and placed in the center channel with no panning to follow the character(s) and all of the explosions, music and such recorded stereophonically for Left/Right playback .. and the Surround channel was just an extension of the L/R channels...in basic form.
Granted, now surrounds recorded on separate channels, but were then matrixed for the inital Dolby EX and the DTS-ES systems to have a center rear channel-kinda of a backwards approach with this why these two processes faded away quickly.
Some folks just want to go to a theatre just to watch a movie-they don't care what and how sound comes out as long as they can hear(and understand) the sound playback, while there are others who wants an experience in watching a movie-why all of the gazillion channels.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 07:52 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
There you go. You want all the bells'n'whistles in the "good auditorium" (which is probably where the movie you want to see is going to be showing), but you already think it's too expensive. You're not willing to pay the price that something costs.
Back in the 1990s theaters were doing more in the way of providing good sound quality than they are today. THX certification was much more common and it mattered more back then. It also did not involve an extra premium charge on top of the regular ticket price.
Today, very few theaters are THX certified. The theater chains chose to save money instead on auditorium design, air conditioning systems, sound equipment choices and that annual certificaiton fee.
Standard ticket prices are 50% higher than they were 10 years ago. That's without adding on the extra fee for stuff like 3D, fake IMAX or an auditorium just selling a big screen and sound that works. Today I can spend over $20 by myself for a movie ticket, a soft drink and a regular bag of popcorn. That's for a standard 2D show. I can buy a steak dinner at a restaurant or buy the Blu-ray of the movie I'm watching for that money. If I take my girlfriend to the movie I can easily spend over $50. Concession stand prices have risen quite a bit at all the big chain theaters. I hear a lot of anger from my friends over that.
quote: Mike Blakesley
This is the root of the biggest problem the industry faces today: It costs a lot to put on a high-end movie experience, but people are so used to getting movies out of a pop machine for a dollar, or for free over the net, that they don't think of "going to the movies" as a premium experience anymore and aren't willing to cover what it costs.
Most movie theaters aren't delivering a "premium experience." They're delivering a fast food experience at prices well above the fast food bracket. Here's one thing the people who run the theater chains don't seem to realize: doing a job correctly, being competent, is not the same as delivering something of luxury worthy of being branded "premium." Doing the job right should be standard. Going above and beyond doing the job right is being premium.
There is no shortage of theater chain auditoriums where the sound system has the EQ character of a high school gym and the dynamics of a living room TV set. Digital 3D has been pushed hard, but it's far from being any perfect system. Complaints are widespread about dim images. Many theaters have 3D done wrong. Single projector 3D is being applied to screens way too big to handle it. Some systems are setup badly and have convergence issues. Or they're using a flawed setup (like Sony's Real-D branded thing). The "suits" don't care if the projected image looks like shit. They just want to put asses in the seats and still charge the premium price for it even if it looks bad. They want to charge a premium experience price without doing the damned job correctly.
Then there's the issue of crowd control. This is an even bigger problem than the widespread issues with sound and projection quality. If I'm going to pay a price premium above the standard $9.50 or so ticket price I sure don't want to see mobile phone displays lighting up the auditorium or have other kinds of disruptions screwing up the show.
Let's not forget about the quality of the movies themselves. Every year it seems like there's even more sequels and remakes than there was in the previous year. Why bother even going? That's my dilemma. Our Carmike theater here is run pretty well. But if the movies the theater is showing are crap that's still going to keep me away from the theater regardless.
It's not the audiences' fault if the cost structure for producing and showing movies has risen. It not their fault either for things like Red Box ruining much of the home video industry. The executives at movie studios and movie theater chains made those decisions themselves. If anything, audiences have given the movie industry way too much slack over doing a generally bad job.
The general public isn't made up 100% of Red Box customers and Internet torrent download free-loaders either. The broad economy in the United States is still pretty bad, even if it is in some sort of recovery mode. Living costs have gone way the hell up and wages have not kept pace with that inflation. Lots of people have been forced to make cut backs. That has included cutting entertainment costs, like going to the theater less often and renting videos instead. Even the cable industry is dealing with a lot of "churn" and people "cutting the cord" entirely.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-07-2012, 08:09 PM:
Course, all of this glitz and glamour, explosions and dramatic music/sounds, is sorta telling the movie goer that there is no story and no plot to the movie they're watching - massive sound/effects and eye candy is filling in that section of the movie.
Don't think that any cinema can help this issue out no matter what they do to attract the patron.
Sadly, it's not their fault that "Hollyrock" can't get a good movie out on the screen anymore...
"Citizen Kane" (for example) was a heck of a movie .. didn't need all of that extra stuff - it told the story and plot right there in straight (excuse the pun) "Black and White".
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2012, 08:26 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
This is totally untrue and incorrect. People WILL pay for an upgraded experience if the product is right and the venue gives them value. Hate to say it, but the IMAX Experience either in Digital or 15/70 adds value to movie going experience. The numbers don't lie.
Tom, quit smoking so much dope and try to keep up. I wasn't talking about premium-type venues like Imax and 3-D and etc. I was talking about your standard everyday-type movie theatre. Of course I know that people will pay for the premium experience...even if it isn't really all that premium, such as the "Liemax" thing. But what people are upset about, apparently, is the prices at garden-variety cinemas. (My feeling is that ticket prices are still not all that high, although concessions passed the ridiculous point long ago.)
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-07-2012, 08:34 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
Why would you want to bring back SDDS. It uses a lossy compression system. Sony's compression system is terrible. It removes the harmonics, which are what give instruments their individual "sound". The homogenized audio it puts out sounds booring and lifeless. The theater digital systems use uncompressed audio.
You seemed to have missed it that they were asking about using digital for a system with the 5 screen channels rather than literally bring back SDDS.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 08:44 PM:
quote: Chris Slycord
You seemed to have missed it that they were asking about using digital for a system with the 5 screen channels rather than literally bring back SDDS.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is asking for lossy SDDS is be resurrected. Although I would like to see an all-in-one film reader and processor capable of playing back DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS and Cinema Digital Sound from existing 35mm and 70mm film prints. It is possible to build such a thing for the revival theater market, but the chances of that kind of product being developed are virtually nil.
D-cinema can support 5 screen channels. But the trick is getting movie studios to mix anything in the format. The 10.2 surround format supports 5 screen channels as well as 4 surround channels. Add to that a ceiling surround channel and stereo sub-woofers instead of mono LFE.
I think such a thing is do-able for key movie theaters, particularly those which charge a premium price above the standard ticket price. It might make Lie-MAX easier to sell to people like me. I'm not optimistic any such thing will come about any time soon. The movie industry is affected too much with a Wall Street mentality right now.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-07-2012, 08:49 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
Why would you want to bring back SDDS. It uses a lossy compression system. Sony's compression system is terrible. It removes the harmonics, which are what give instruments their individual "sound". The homogenized audio it puts out sounds booring and lifeless. The theater digital systems use uncompressed audio.
Even though this started as a SDDS themed thread – the conversation has transformed into something along the lines of ‘wouldn’t it be nice if what 8-channel SDDS delivered could be replicated in D-Cinema application’ in other words the showmanship of the classic the pre-1978 70mm/6-track sound films [i.e, the musicals]. So it’s basically all culminated and concluded around the issues of money, lack of interest: 5.1 sound is fine, why fix it? and filmgoers and exhibitor’s really just don’t care.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Actually, the studios began this.
When magnetic stereo soundtrack for 35mm (and later with 70mm) came into being, there were actual "Decca Trees" - three mic assembly on location to record live in stereo.
"The Robe" was one of those films actually recorded in three track magnetic stereo.
Back then when stereophonic sound was the "in" thing, the voice track actually followed the character - voice track "panned" across the screen to follow the character(s)
Now, what do we have: all dialog recorded MONO and placed in the center channel with no panning to follow the character(s) and all of the explosions, music and such recorded stereophonically for Left/Right playback .. and the Surround channel was just an extension of the L/R channels...in basic form.
Granted, now surrounds recorded on separate channels, but were then matrixed for the inital Dolby EX and the DTS-ES systems to have a center rear channel-kinda of a backwards approach with this why these two processes faded away quickly.
Some folks just want to go to a theatre just to watch a movie-they don't care what and how sound comes out as long as they can hear(and understand) the sound playback, while there are others who wants an experience in watching a movie-why all of the gazillion channels.
That may be true, but Pixar is one of the few studios where the soundmixers actually pan and place dialog in the left, right and create phantom imaging between the two and the center channel. The soundmix may be dated, but 1995’s ‘Casper’ mix had dialog in all the front channels and in several scenes, placed in the surrounds. Sadly the art of truly creative and innovative mixing is gone, in my opinion.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 09:17 PM:
Here's by far the biggest problem with movie sound production:
It's all done at the last minute.
Productions at major studios and independents alike have pretty squeezed time schedules. There's only so much time allowed for pre-production, shooting and post-production. But the time element is more squeezed than any other when it comes to making the sound track. If you watch a movie during its opening weekend of release chances are you're going to hear a mix that didn't even exist a month prior to that, or even 2 weeks. The music score, foley effects, other sound effets and ADR are mostly being done in the final weeks leading up to theatrical release.
Now when it comes to a Pixar release the sound mix is generated in a far different manner. All the dialog is recorded before any of the character animation is done. The sound effects bed has to be generated from scratch, so more time is spent doing that. The music score is the only thing that can be generated after the animation is completed. Given some of the music may tie into movie marketing teasers more than a year out from theatrical release progress already has to be made on that front too. Last but not least Pixar takes 2-3 years to make movie. Different teams are working on different movies with overlapping schedules.
Nevertheless, I have heard some movies from time to time track dialog across the L,C,R stage channels and even into the surrounds. Fight Club is a good but not so recent example. Others exist. Not all dialog is rooted into the center channel.
If the audio editors and mixers didn't typically have such horribly demanding time deadlines they might have more latitude to be creative.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-07-2012, 09:37 PM:
which is a very good point Bobby, I know that director Joseph Kosinski and his soundmixers for 'Tron Legacy' re-did the mix for the blu-ray release - and it's by far one of the best 7.1 mixes created (... so far)
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 09:44 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Tom, quit smoking so much dope and try to keep up. I wasn't talking about premium-type venues like Imax and 3-D and etc. I was talking about your standard everyday-type movie theatre. Of course I know that people will pay for the premium experience...even if it isn't really all that premium, such as the "Liemax" thing. But what people are upset about, apparently, is the prices at garden-variety cinemas. (My feeling is that ticket prices are still not all that high, although concessions passed the ridiculous point long ago.)
You have to relax a bit. You mentioned "premium" experience in your post. Standard 35mm has never been a "premium" experience to begin with. Like THX auditoriums, past 70MM presentations, the emergence of DTS/DD/SDDS...those were premium experiences and right now we have "premium" experiences in IMAX Digital, ETX, AVX....SONY 4K, REAL D is NOT a premium experience...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-07-2012, 09:50 PM:
Neither is IMAX Digital, ETX, AVX, etc. Its all marketing fluff...or to be more precise, bullshit. Many of these so-called "premium" experiences don't even have masking! They just throw the image up onto the sheet and try to impress people at how big the SCREEN is, giving no thought to what the lack of masking is doing to the image.
EVERY auditorium in a complex should be the best that company is capable of providing. Small auditoriums CAN be awesome if they are designed properly. Few people do.
Tom, seriously...you need to lay off the weed.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 09:51 PM:
Brad, its does not matter what you or other people who work behind the scenes think is a premium experience. And it does not matter if it is marketing fluff.. it matters what the public will pay. This why movie fans don't always agree with critics or consumer publications.
I have no problem shelling out a few extra buck for IMAX Digital...I am the public now...as for weed, I don't smoke it..thanks.
quote: Brad MillerEVERY auditorium in a complex should be the best that company is capable of providing. Small auditoriums CAN be awesome if they are designed properly. Few people do.
I have no problem with small auditoriums J Edgar was great on a SONY 4K projector so was Enter the Void at Tiff, but MI4 was amazing at the AMC 16 IMAX where I saw it...there is not much that compares to that experience right now...Tiff 70MM included.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 10:07 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Brad, its does not matter what you think is a premium experience. And it does not matter if it is marketing fluff.. it matters what the public will pay.
Well that indeed is attitude coming from the suits running movie studios in Hollywood and major movie theater chains. In short, it's: fuck those customers. We hate them. We'll take their money and give them shit in return.
Telling Brad his opinion doesn't count on this topic takes a lot of brass.
quote: Tom Petrov
I have no problem shelling out a few extra buck for IMAX Digital...I am the public now...as for weed, I don't smoke it..thanks.
You're smoking some kind of rope to shill for Lie-MAX as hard as you do without actually getting paid for the effort.
quote:
I have no problem with small auditoriums, but MI4 was amazing at the AMC 16 IMAX where I saw it...
Anyone into trolling must be willing to believe his own bullshit.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 10:08 PM:
Bobby- The 23% who paid $33.1 million for MI-4 in IMAX can't be wrong can they?
quote: Bobby Henderson
We'll take their money and give them shit in return.
Says who? You?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Telling Brad his opinion doesn't count on this topic takes a lot of brass.
There is nothing personal against Brad...It was not personal at him, IMO, anyone's opinion who is not the public and who does not pay for a movie is different than those folks who pay their hard earned dollars for a movie...they are the one's who the studios, IMAX, Cineplex Odeon are listening to.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 10:40 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Bobby- The 23% who paid $33.1 million for MI-4 in IMAX can't be wrong can they?
Not all of those were Lie-MAX screens. I'd like to see the breakdown between real IMAX and fake IMAX on that one. Chances are strong the 15/70 shows generated a lot better business on per screen averages. I'm willing to drive some distance to see a 15/70 show. I'm not willing to drive any significant distance to see a show in Lie-MAX.
quote: Tom Petrov
Says who? You?
Tom, you go right ahead and keep believing the business people running movie studios and movie theaters have the conscience to give the public the best show possible. More people than just myself know they're willing to charge the public more while providing less. It's that way in many areas of business. If you don't believe this then you're a fool.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-07-2012, 10:41 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Bobby- The 23% who paid $33.1 million for MI-4 in IMAX can't be wrong can they?
That is the public TRYING to tell the theater owners that presentation DOES MATTER. Granted the public is typically brainwashed and ignorant, but the fact remains they are tired of the quality the typical theater produces. As home setups continue to get better and better, the entire exhibition industry is doomed if theater owners don't start putting their best efforts forward. If ATX, RPX, whatever that CinemarkX thing is, etc is the best those theaters can produce, they should do it in EVERY auditorium. (Now of course I don't mean a 60+ foot screen in every auditorium, I mean design each auditorium as if it was the best auditorium in the complex, and put your best-effort sound system in each one, regardless of whether it is awesome or awful in reality.)
DigiMAX has and always will be pathetic in my book. If it floats your boat, then great, but I've been around long enough to know what quality really is.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-07-2012, 10:41 PM:
At the risk of derailing this thread even further off the tracks, I must point out that the studios usually DON'T listen to the public, or else there would be better movies out there than the regurgitated garbage which seems to be the norm now.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-07-2012, 10:59 PM:
The 70mm at TIFF is very good but way too small to even come close to showing what 70mm can look like on a big screen. So it looks far superior to any liemax anyway but no contest if the theater matched the size of a typical liemax.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2012, 11:00 PM:
James - The top ten movies from last year were all sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. So why should the Hollywood suits think the public doesn't want more of the same?
People can talk all they want to about how they desire more original, edgy, risk-taking, etc. film-making but those people who make all the noise need to SUPPORT THE MOVIES THEY'RE ASKING FOR when they are made.
We're always hearing from people who say there aren't enough "family" films but most of those people never go to the family films we do play.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-07-2012, 11:13 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
now we have "premium" experiences in IMAX Digital, ETX, AVX....SONY 4K, REAL D is NOT a premium experience...
I'm not sure from the above if you're including Sony 4K in with the "premium experience" or not but either way you're wrong since 4K is higher resolution than IMAX can deliver to begin with but if the Sony is going through a 3D lens then it'll be worse than the IMAX Digital since that drops it down to 2K (and the image will be improved a bit by the people at IMAX).
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 11:15 PM:
quote:
I'm not sure from the above if you're including Sony 4K in with the "premium" or not but either way you're wrong since 4K is higher resolution than IMAX can deliver to begin with but if the Sony is going through a 3D lens then it'll be worse than the IMAX Digital since that drops it down to 2K (and the image will be improved a bit by the people at IMAX).
Who says resolution is the defining factor in a "premium" vs "non premium" experience?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 11:15 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The top ten movies from last year were all sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. So why should the Hollywood suits think the public doesn't want more of the same?
Movie theater attendance in 2011 dropped to its lowest level in 16 years. Not all of that can be the fault of Avatar either.
Hollywood's biggest releases are mostly sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. so it's no surprise at all if the top 10 mostly consists of that stuff. They're not giving customers any other choice other than to stay away from the damned theater. The biggest movies in the upcoming 2012 summer movie season are nearly all sequels. Pixar's movie Brave and a vampire movie starring Johnny Depp are the only originals out of that group.
quote: Tom Petrov
Who says resolution is the defining factor in a "premium" vs "non premium" experience?
Such a thing might matter to customers not willing to just throw their money after a damned company logo like what customers do when they pay to see a Lie-MAX movie.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 11:18 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Such a thing might matter to customers not willing to just throw their money after a damned company logo like what customers do when they pay to see a Lie-MAX movie.
Why don't you call it Imax Digital?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2012, 11:20 PM:
Because IMAX won't call it that. They just call it IMAX or "The IMAX Experience." I'll keep calling it Lie-MAX as long as they keep lying to customers.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2012, 11:20 PM:
Bobby- cool
quote: Victor Liorentas
The 70mm at TIFF is very good but way too small to even come close to showing what 70mm can look like on a big screen. So it looks far superior to any liemax anyway but no contest if the theater matched the size of a typical liemax.
Yeah I've seen a few movies at Tiff in 70mm. It is a good experience, the whole nostalgia, running one reel at a time, the projy in the booth....kinda like Pepsi Throwback... but nobody in Toronto really cares.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-07-2012, 11:57 PM:
It was packed when I was there Tom.
The size of the theatre is why it can never be a really big deal.
It looks more like excellent 35mm scope than 70mm at that size.
In the glory days of 70mm the screens were huge and many were curved Cinerama types.
The 70mm film festivals at the Toronto Cinesphere used to sell out in advance because it was on a scale which was a must see.
In London Ontario we had the Park theatre with a curved giant screen of 2 and a half stories floor to ceiling.It sold out for months with every big 70mm release.It closed in 1989 but it's still talked about. Those to young to know may not care but if you took them back in time to see it.
They would say"why did they ever close this"?
The Imax Scotiabank was sold out an hour before the 5pm show of MI4!
The liemax was not sold out.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-07-2012, 11:57 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Who says resolution is the defining factor in a "premium" vs "non premium" experience?
I'll answer your question with an explanatory story:
I ate at Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse in New Orleans with my mom and dad when mom was there for a research convention. It was supposed to be the best in town and since the guy runs several really good restaurants across the south, we figured it'd be good. Unlike myself and my dad, my mom ended up with a steak that was clearly never aged and was about as good as what you'd find in a regular grocery store. So she refused to pay the premium price, because the quality was demonstrably not premium. Now you can sit there and go "Who says the quality of the food is the defining factor in a premium vs non-premium experience?" but to me that is exactly what defines it. Sure, the decor and service and such come into play but if the food sucks it doesn't deserve the premium, no matter the rest.
That's how I feel about IMAX digital. The only thing I see that is arguably improved over a regular show is the fancier sound system. And improvement in sound has not normally been something that comes with a price premium added to it and as Joe pointed out before, not all of these sound installs are created equal so even the quality of this improvement could be a bunch of garbage. Hence, it is not a premium experience.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-08-2012, 12:08 AM:
quote: Victor Liorentas
The liemax was not sold out.
Which IMAX Digital was not sold out?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-08-2012, 12:22 AM:
quote: Chris Slycord
That's how I feel about IMAX digital.
In simple words ... "ya got cheated in what supposed to be a good deal from the beginning!"
Comes down as what Randy S. mentioning in that one thread: "where's the logic?"
Okey, two projectors to shoot the same image, mega gobs of sounds, et.al. , but isn't that presenting the same product that is showing in that one "regular grocery store", so to say?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2012, 01:49 AM:
Tom doesn't understand the term "premium" the way this recent discussion is treating it. He thinks premium means something super-deluxe that you would pay extra for, while the rest of the posters realize that it means what every movie theatre should provide, compared to the home experience.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2012, 02:56 AM:
Tom, I've got some news for you kiddo. The best sound system in the world will sound like ass if it is over-calibrated.
Similarly, old and under spec'd sound systems can sound BETTER than the even best system found in a LieMAX auditorium IF it is calibrated properly.
I'm not discounting the importance of speaker hardware and room acoustics because some systems will just suck no matter what, but the majority of the final sound quality depends upon who is tuning it. The tech cannot "just dial it flat". That goes not only for LieMAX but your precious "Xtraspecial" auditoriums too.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2012, 03:54 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie theater attendance in 2011 dropped to its lowest level in 16 years.
I only worked until late January in the theater business. I started working in the booth just over 16 years ago. Coincidence? Definitely not. Sorry, all.
quote: Tom Petrov
the projy in the booth
What? Projy??? Racist.
quote: Brad Miller
Tom, I've got some news for you kiddo.
He hears but he does not listen. Probably all the weed.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-08-2012, 11:23 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
He thinks premium means something super-deluxe that you would pay extra for, while the rest of the posters realize that it means what every movie theatre should provide, compared to the home experience.
He doesn't even think that. Look back where he essentially questions why the quality of the product would be the determining factor of whether it gave a premium experience or not.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2012, 11:27 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The biggest movies in the upcoming 2012 summer movie season are nearly all sequels. Pixar's movie Brave and a vampire movie starring Johnny Depp are the only originals out of that group.
That might be true but it would still be OK if they were good movies. "The Dark Knight Rises" looks like it'll be really good. Nobody minds a sequel if it doesn't suck.
But beside that point, "The biggest upcoming movies," you said. You can't predict what will be big. When you're talking an original or new title, big movies happen totally by accident, whereas sequels, remakes, etc have a built-in audience and a better chance at success.
The problem -- again and as usual -- is money. If I was a Hollywood suit, what am I going to do with my $200 million? Put it into an unknown title, plug some A-list star and into it, and hope it goes through the roof? Or hire Michael Bay to do another Transformers sequel and guarantee to keep my job?
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-08-2012, 12:50 PM:
Back in the late 80s, the owners of Columbia Studios hired British producer David Puttnam, who had won an Oscar in 1982 for producing Chariots of Fire, to run their studio. Puttnam was highly critical of the way Hollywood did business, and tried to do things a bit different by trying to make quality movies instead of supposed hits. He made the deal for School Daze, Spike Lee's first film after She's Gotta Have It, and bought The Last Emperor for the studio, but the vast majority of the movies he greenlit ended up neither financially nor artistically successful. He was fired after only a year on the job, and his failed experiment directly lead to Coca-Cola selling the studio to Sony. (Ironically, The Last Emperor remains the last film Columbia has won a Best Picture Oscar for.)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2012, 12:55 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You can't predict what will be big. When you're talking an original or new title, big movies happen totally by accident, whereas sequels, remakes, etc have a built-in audience and a better chance at success.
That would be true if movie releases were competing on an even field of play with only so many screens going to a given movie. During the summer movie season the major studios hog all the available screens to platform out all their big tent-pole sequels. The studios blow most of their production and marketing budgets on those movies. So there's little room or marketing push for anything new and different to have a place to be seen. Customers have little choice besides more sequels. The only way they can vote their disapproval is by staying away from the theater.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem -- again and as usual -- is money. If I was a Hollywood suit, what am I going to do with my $200 million? Put it into an unknown title, plug some A-list star and into it, and hope it goes through the roof? Or hire Michael Bay to do another Transformers sequel and guarantee to keep my job?
The Hollywood suits aren't just doing this with major movies. They're doing it with movies all over the map in terms of genre and market reach. Look at horror movies for instance. An original release like The Final Destination can be badly silly yet still spawn half a dozen sequels regardless.
The only time Hollywood studios make a serious attempt at marketing and releasing mostly new, original movies is during the fall push for awards from critics circles and ceremonies like the Golden Globes and Academy Awards. During this period independent studio releases gain more attention and often most of the awards. Some of those movies never find their way to suburban theaters or they play at there so briefly many customers don't realize it until after they have left. So most people end up seeing such movies via home video rental or premium cable.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-08-2012, 01:59 PM:
Mike,
I agree with you.
IF the sequel is well made, in that the story is sound - maybe like the original, maybe better than the original (I'm thinking of the 1986 Aliens) then I have no problems with sequels.
The two more recent James Bond films were good, in my opinion. Light years better than A View To A Kill.
But the problem, as I see it, is the "cart before the horse", or the franchise or effects or popular actor or actress or comedy writing team ahead of the story.
The story must be sound before the movie is made.
This is seldom the case.
Unfortunately, you are correct about patrons not attending original stories, but if a few more of them were made a year, maybe - MAYBE - they might get more people who won't watch just "anything" to go to the cinema.
I recall the "We need more family films" bruhaha of the 70s. The only one that was well attended was Benji. Most of the others were unwatchable.
There has always been a psychological disconnect between what we "need" and what we actually "do."
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-09-2012, 02:20 AM:
quote: Edward Havens
directly lead to Coca-Cola selling the studio to Sony
Heard that it was Garth Drabinsky of "Crapaplex Odeon" got the last straw with Columbia when Columbia pulled the holiday release date of "Last Emperor" to a Jan/Feb release date of 1988 release to be close to the Oscars and giving "C.O." no major movie for the holidays. Thus, he immediately broke the Coke contract and went over with Pepsi....and Coke sold off Columbia to Sony right after the Oscars to get back with Drabinsky and C.O.
If Tom wants an 'experience', he should head to a REG cinema that has an "RPX" - "REGAL Premimum eXperience" house.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-09-2012, 09:36 AM:
quote: Victor Liorentas
The vast majority of the movie going public should be WOWED when they go to the movies.They should be shown the magic with the latest and greatest from the filmmaker and theater.
If those theaters and filmmakers did this they would have happy return business.When they enjoy the experience,it don't matter if they understand the technical reasons.The technical job is up to us.If it's bland they may not articulate why but they know they were not WOWED or taken care of so they go less and less.
Victor,
Thank you for articulating my position in much less text than I ever seem to be able to manage. I completely agree that the moviegoing experience should be magical and theaters have a responsibility to deliver that magic.
Perhaps it is because of the fact that most dialog is mixed to the mono center channel (no panned dialog), but I've never found myself wishing for more screen channels, even when going to a theater with a 70+ foot wide screen.
Maybe it's because I've not experienced five screen channels since right after SDDS came out and the only theater in the Milwaukee Metro area had the capability. I simply don't know what I'm missing. Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing. Several years ago, I read an article in Widescreen Review where they were playing with a height channel by using a ProLogic decoder on the front center and the rear center (Surround Back) channel, to extract some sound information for the space above the viewer's head.
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them? Yeah, I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2012, 11:14 AM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
I think home theater audio, which at the time was at best 5.1 channels, was a factor in why not so many movies had sound mixes in SDDS with 5 stage channels. SDDS was the only format at the time trying to support the channel layout. Even 70mm mag prints from the late 1970's up through the early 1990's rarely ever supported the 5 up front layout. It was mostly Formats 42 and 43 with 3 stage channels. So if a movie production created a mix with 5 stage channels that mix was only going to be heard in theaters for just several weeks. If they did a 5.1 mix then it would play on for years after the theatrical release in the home theater venue.
I'll go even farther to say if Blu-ray disc didn't already support 7.1 channel audio with four surround tracks it would not have been added to movie theaters. For the past decade home theater has been doing more to drive improvements to movie audio than developments in commercial theaters.
quote: Scott Jentsch
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing.
Animated movies have more time to mess with audio since a good amount of the mix must be recorded before the sequences can be animated (lip sync digital characters with voice tracks).
quote: Scott Jentsch
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them?
I'm having a little trouble figuring out how a height channel can be added to the ceiling in a practical manner. It sure wouldn't be good if a mere speaker or two was installed up in the center of the ceiling. It would call attention to itself whenever sound came out of it. The ceiling surround would really need some kind of array of at least half a dozen or more speakers in order to blend in with the surround channels on the side walls.
Most commercial movie theaters have those flimsy drop ceilings. And then all the HVAC ducts are running around above it. It might be tricky fitting several speaker enclosures into what might be a mess of other stuff up there. Then again AMC was real big on sticking surround speakers up in the ceiling. But those speakers were close to the side walls. A ceiling surround array would need to be evenly spread across the ceiling in some manner.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
The movie business doesn't seem to be working that way anymore. With the Wall Street stock trader mentality dominating the movie studios they want to do as little as possible to inflate costs while generating ever more profit to the share holder. Unfortunately that means playing things safe, conservative, status-quo and trying to sell the customer the same old thing while expecting to charge more and more money for it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-09-2012, 12:50 PM:
Gonna date myself here to add to this sound discussion:
I remember when home stereo (with vinyl)came out in 1958..I was in grade school.
Those early phonographs were expensive to have due to the necessary additions to the unit to play back stereo. But, when that unit came home, "father" sat in his recliner, reading his newspaper and loved how the sound NOW seems to have depth instead of just being there in "2D" form.
We had a theatre in our town that was equipped with magnetic playback (course, I didn't know that until I was close to being a projectionist) and I could tell that these stereo movies sound fantastic .. and it was advertised as such in the movie ads of the newspaper "In Technicolor and Stereophonic Sound".
People had to check this new sound out while watching the movie and came out saying how great the film was with this added sound feature-and the feature was good too.
Thus picture and stereo sound became a good marriage to have. If you heard it in mono like the majority of the other theatres had and it just wasn't the same, but the movie was still good.
Stereo sound was considered that special "Premimum Event" of the feature back then. 70mm feature presentations was totally, the "Premimum Event" in the larger cities.
Now, what do we have in this present day: a horrible "marriage" of too much sound and so-so to bad movies...and they had to throw in "eye-candy" to really make the "marriage" complicated to difficult.
"Hollyrock" needs to return to the basics to get the audience back into those rocker seats that we do love.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-09-2012, 01:28 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
Victor,
Thank you for articulating my position in much less text than I ever seem to be able to manage. I completely agree that the moviegoing experience should be magical and theaters have a responsibility to deliver that magic.
Perhaps it is because of the fact that most dialog is mixed to the mono center channel (no panned dialog), but I've never found myself wishing for more screen channels, even when going to a theater with a 70+ foot wide screen.
Maybe it's because I've not experienced five screen channels since right after SDDS came out and the only theater in the Milwaukee Metro area had the capability. I simply don't know what I'm missing. Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing. Several years ago, I read an article in Widescreen Review where they were playing with a height channel by using a ProLogic decoder on the front center and the rear center (Surround Back) channel, to extract some sound information for the space above the viewer's head.
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them? Yeah, I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
Ugh – that should be the point of getting people into the cinema – having something that IS NOT replicable on their home theater systems – this isn’t rocket science folks - the cinema experience should always supercede what can be done at home. I’ve been lucky to really enjoy and love five front channel sound via 70mm and SDDS – that’s what got me to enjoy those films more because of the time and attention to creating and implementing the aspect of sound to its fullest – unfortunately every one is being swept up into the 3D craze and is downplaying the art of sound design – the exhibitors with their premium screens want to feature state of the art of sound, but the studios are locked into 5.1 to the point that any additional channels of sound into the mix is just an excuse to ignore it.
The film that experimented with the height channel that Widescreen Review mentioned was ‘We Were Soldiers’
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-09-2012, 01:34 PM:
I've been told by an industry person that panned dialog is rarely used now because of foreign releases. The other languages can just drop a dialog track in place of the English version and not have to do a complete panned remix. More efficient and less expensive that way.
Note I did not say "better", just cheaper and more efficient.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2012, 02:21 PM:
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
that should be the point of getting people into the cinema – having something that IS NOT replicable on their home theater systems – this isn’t rocket science folks - the cinema experience should always supercede what can be done at home.
There really isn't any point, anymore, in the cinema industry trying to out-do the home industry with sound and picture bells 'n' whistles. This is because no matter what is developed, the exact same companies develop the exact same advancements for the home (and sell it for a fraction of the price) because that's where the real money is.
What we CAN offer that the home doesn't offer is the size of everything. Picture and sound. Our 82-year-old theatre has a picture that's 402 inches diagonally...I would like to see anybody's tee-vee set top that. Obviously there are thousands of theatres with screens much bigger than ours. Even the smallest theatre screen is probably something like 240 inches. What's the average size of a TV these days? 45 inches or so?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2