Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's up with these 2.0 channel trailers?

This is topic What's up with these 2.0 channel trailers? 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=001125

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-02-2012, 12:53 PM:

Is anyone else getting trailers that are just made in stereo (rather than 5.1).

It's not happening often admittedly but i've had a few in.

The first was for Robert Rodriguez's Machete. When we ran this trailer my theatre was still a mix of digital and 35mm houses. The digital trailer was a 2 channel stereo mix, yet the exact same trailer on 35mm had a full 5.1 SRD track.

Had this happen with a few other trailers too since. (think it was either Haywire or Cold Light of Day where the trailers were a 2.0 mix)

Most recently - the trailer we are running right now for 'Seeking a Friend for the End of the World' the mix is 2.0 stereo. It sounds really weird playing in the middle of a set of other trailers that are all 5.1. (mainly because the dialog is coming from the left and right channels rather than the center).

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-02-2012, 01:02 PM:

I'm running a 2.0 trailer for "The Deep Blue Sea."

But it gets even better: Not only is the audio 2.0 -- it's mixed so "hot" that I have to play it with the volume turned way down to 3.8 [Eek!]

Oh, yeah -- and the aspect ratio is 1.85 letterboxed inside 16x9 -- so with "true" 1.85 masking the trailer looks "bread-boxed" with a black border all the way round.

I guess we're just lucky to have a trailer at all.

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 06-06-2012, 02:09 PM:

This was discussed previously in this thread Mono sound in Universal legacy movies . I awoke Universal to the same problem in the audio mastering of their legacy movies, as they were being rendered in to digital (d-cinema) versions. My guess is that the audio tracks created for DVDs were simply being applied to the DCP, which was wrong. Those DVD (?) two-channel tracks were, similarly, L and R, and no center.

To their credit, Universal saw the error of their ways and will subsequently render out mono tracks on C channel only. And they will, they say (and we hope) re-do the ones they've already done incorrectly, which, FWIW, includes all the original Marx Brothers movies. Center channel mono will be in center channel only.

But that case was for old mono tracks. Your situation is more contemporary stereo. Same problem, different situation.

These post-production houses (just as in the case of Universal) didn't pay attention in class, and don't seem to understand that d-cinema is not the same as film sound. DCI specs are quite clear on the subject: there is no such thing as matrix-decoded audio. It's discrete tracks only. Left is left. Right is right. Center is center. Etc. If these post houses send out DCP material with two channel tracks (LT/RT), they are NOT going to play back as proper stereo! NO! It is NOT the same as Dolby SR, or any other analogue process.

And, you are quite right: the sound field feel, in that mode, will be somewhat strange in the seating area, because there will be no C (Center) channel. The room will feel (depending on where one is sitting) like the sound is off to the far left, or far right, and nowhere near where sound "should" be coming from, i.e., the center. Dolby techs would describe it as being "left heavy", or "right heavy". The sole seats in the venue that would hear anything approaching a semblance of correct stereo sound would be those along the precise centerline of the theatre. One seat per row of seats! Quite ridiculous!

Wake up, you post-production houses! LT/RT is not what you are supposed to put on d-cinema tracks! It's like putting square tires on a car -- it doesn't work! You can NOT simply apply the same master track that you're going to throw on the film print! It's a whole 'nother type of sound! Wake up!!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 02:41 PM:

quote: Paul H. Rayton
The room will feel (depending on where one is sitting) like the sound is off to the far left, or far right, and nowhere near where sound "should" be coming from, i.e., the center. Dolby techs would describe it as being "left heavy", or "right heavy".

FWIW - This is more correctly the result of the "precedence effect" or the "law of the first arriving wavefront."

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-06-2012, 03:31 PM:

While I support discrete audio for DCinema, it is a bit unfortunate that matrix processing wasn't put into the spec. I mean say an older film only has a matrix stereo element available, how would you get that to play correctly on dcinema equipment without remixing? Not that this is likely, but one never knows. Once again, home theatre in many ways has a lot more audio processing flexibility.

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 03:37 PM:

You *can* route an Lt/Rt via a DMA8plus, if one is present.

I have a spare cable handy in case I'm forced to do that -- but I'd only do that for a feature. I'm not rewiring the system for trailers.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-04-2015, 12:15 AM:

It has been 1214 days since the last post.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-04-2015, 12:15 AM:

Also -- I would expect to find a 4.0 discrete master "in the vault" for any film released with an Lt/Rt matrix. THAT's what they really SHOULD use.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-04-2015, 12:34 AM:

A lot of homebrew DCPs and shows that have a "TV mix" that we get are 2.0 ProLogic, too. One of the things I like about the AP20 is that it can matrix these. Using serial cues in our DSS200, it's pretty easy to swap between DCP "straight through" and DCP 2.0 matrix, even between individual ads and trailers.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-04-2015, 12:48 AM:

I also use DSS200 serial cues to trigger sound format changes (that are not part of the built-in capabilities).

Lately, I've taken to using the "U1" input of the CP650 for Master Digital In with Pro-Logic decoding, instead of re-wiring to use the DMA8plus. I have to re-assign U1 when I'm showing 16mm, but that's become something of a rarity, compared to how many DCP's I'm getting with 2.0 sound. In the end, I realized it is easier to assign/reassign U1 as-needed, rather than rewire as-needed.

Even so, I still need to use serial commands to control the (QSC) DCP-300 processor, for handling things like:

Dual Mono -- with/without Academy roll-off
Stereo -- wide versus narrow
Surround -- 5.1 versus 7.1

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-04-2015, 09:48 AM:

quote: Michael Brown
Is anyone else getting trailers that are just made in stereo (rather than 5.1).

Yes, but I'm not loosing any sleep over it.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 10-04-2015, 10:00 AM:

You can do matrix decoding from L/R with a CP750 as well, the command is in the long list. The setting is sticky though, if it doesn't get set back for a normal movie you get matrix'ed L/R instead of 5.1 or 7.1.
This is not an unusual requirement with an IMB, IMS, or ICMP system where HDMI audio is passed through the projector to the audio processor. They want to play a Blu-Ray that only has DTS digital audio - but for some unimaginable reason the Dolby CP750 will not decode DTS digital!
I set up a "HDMI sound" server macro that changes the CP750 to L/R decode mode and add a cue setting it back to discrete in every digital movie macro.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2015, 02:22 PM:

Our "END_SHOW" cue always puts the CP750 (or whatever processor) back to normal 5.1 mode.

Left should go to Left

Note, the DCP 200/DCP300 CAN do a matrix decode...they just forgot to make it available to the Digital 1/Digital 2 input formats. It WILL be there on the next release of the DCP software. The problem really is in the omission in the DCP software itself, not in the DCP firmware.

If you create a 2.0 format. Set up everything properly for say 5.1 in Digital 1. Save it and then open up the dcg file (it is a text readable file) and search for "MatrixType". On the format you created, change the type to:

<MatrixType>SurroundDecode</MatrixType>

In the SurroundDecode format, it should make it an Lt/Rt decoding format.

Upload that file to your DCP

Naturally, use this at your own risk but I have a theatre where this is working as they get a LOT of DCP 2.0 formats movies (they run festivals).

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 10-04-2015, 04:04 PM:

Steve: I put that cue in "Show End" but of course someone ejected a Prologic show before the end and, the next 5.1 was L/R and the results of Prologic on non-encoded content. So it goes in each 5.1 format macro now...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2015, 07:36 PM:

Yeah...all of my Flat/Scope cues presume 5.1 as well and force the end user to choose 7.1 (let alone 2.0) for the same reason. You can't idiot proof everything...the idiots are just too clever in their desire to circumvent the best of intentions.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 10-05-2015, 11:51 AM:

I don't mind the trailers that are 2.O as long as they are in stereo. When the main film hits the screen with 5.1 or 7.1 or more stereo surround It makes a big difference in the cinema sound experience. People came to see the main feature not the trailers. So many people are so late in getting in the cinema before the main movie starts they are to busy waiting in long lines to buy a popcorn or drink items by understaffed concession help. The studios give so much away with the fast two second cut edited trailers at least they may hold back on the full stereo sound for the real movie when It comes out in the future. Many trailers are shown with rough cut footage as many times the film is still being shot. The stereo surround sound may not even be ready yet when they rush to tease the public with a sneak preview.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2015, 03:27 PM:

quote: Terry Monohan
The studios give so much away with the fast two second cut edited trailers at least they may hold back on the full stereo sound for the real movie when It comes out in the future.

I am fine with playing the trailers at a somewhat softer volume than the main feature, since trailer sound is so ridiculously loud-mixed anyway, but I'm against playing them in mono. After all, people are constantly looking at trailers on their crappy phones or computers with cheap-ass speakers -- why should we give them a substandard soundtrack when they're exhibited where they should look and sound the best?

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-05-2015, 09:55 PM:

Back in July or August, I did a screening of "The Wind Rises" (2013) and was
astounded that the sound was one single mono (center channel) track, with
NOTHING on any of the other channels. No stereo, no surrounds, no subwoofer.
Zip, zero, nein, nothing, nada. Total silence.

I was running this in a rather large auditorium and I thought the center
channel only audio sounded 'thin' in the big house and it was obvious,
even if you weren't sitting in the front of the house, that only one
back-of-screen speaker was active.

Lacking a patch panel or DMA-8 at this location, I re-jiggered the sound
system a bit to at least get the mono channel to all three screen speakers.

Still mono- - but sounded much better in the room.

Who makes a mono movie anyomore anyway these days?
(OK- - except maybe for Woody Allen)

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-06-2015, 02:39 AM:

Woody Allen's past few movies have actually been in 5.1- I was genuinely surprised.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-06-2015, 07:08 AM:

Mono played out of LCR generally is horrible and ruins the dialog, depending on where you are sitting. I would NEVER have done that and have heard its effects from the theatre perspective.

Even Kintek knew to try and keep the dialog hard center and to duck L/R to keep it that way.

In this day and age, if the film-maker wanted it to be more than mono, they would have made it that way. Did you re-edit the movie too?

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-06-2015, 01:09 PM:

Steve, I would normally agree with you.
But in this particular room, with this particular movie, and after spending
quite a bit of time 'listening', I decided to do the L-C-R.

And I stand by that decision in this particular situation.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 10-06-2015, 02:26 PM:

This idea of stereo and multiple speakers gets lots of people into trouble. The old 16mm projection systems were pretty good for dialog as there was only one speaker. Single source is best for understandable dialog.

When stereo came along the 2 channel concept is wonderful as long as the same sound does not emanate from both channels. This multi time displaced sound is ok for background music and effects but does absolutely nothing for the understanding of speech.

I am always disappointed at the sound from the pa system in our theatre. There are two line arrays, one on each side of the stage, that play all of the sound from the live shows. Because the articulation of speech and vocals are hard to understand, the operator turns up the level. The resulting multi sources and then sound from the room makes the dialog even less intelligible.

The only pa that really worked in our space was a cluster above the center of the stage and that system allowed you to understand the dialog and the vocals with great clarity.

Multi sourced dialog can work in a few seats (with equal distance from all the speakers) but it is bad in the rest of the house.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-06-2015, 02:41 PM:

Kenneth is describing the Precedence Effect -- also known as the Law of the First-Arriving Wavefront.

Steve -- I can't wait to get my hands on that DCP300 Pro-Logic update, so I can once again dedicate the U1 input for 16mm.

Also -- to be clear -- I don't so much care about the trailers, although I do usually decode them (unless my U1 input is configured for an upcoming 16mm show) -- the trouble is that there are FEATURES being released this way. Universal is notorious for this.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-06-2015, 07:54 PM:

I'm almost getting to the point of hating movie trailers.

There's lots of shit not to like in movie trailers these days, so I don't see it as any big loss for a new movie trailer to be played in mono or stereo as opposed to 5.1 or even freaking Dolby Atmos.

Movie trailers are as bad as ever at spoiling a show. Some practically show the entire movie condensed from 2 hours down to 2½ minutes. "Thanks, Marketing Guys! Now I don't have to bother seeing the damned movie!"

But here's the thing I've grown to hate: the current "style" of movie trailers.

The problem is the "style" isn't current at all. It's horribly stale with a number of movie trailer conventions going well past the point of cliché. The folks coming up with this shit, be they people in the movie studio, some marketing company or what not, just need to quit and start a career doing something else.

It's like these guys are going back and lifting style beats from the first teaser trailer for Twister or any trailer that actually wowed people 15 or 20 years ago. Look at that Twister teaser and then watch the first one for Star Wars: Episode VII. See any style similarities? Black screen, flash glimpses of something, etc. Just be sure to make the sound mix overbearing as hell and use an edit style that could give someone an epileptic seizure.

ABC just played a trailer for Pan as a TV commercial. With all the thundering whooshes, booms, drum slam things and what not the sound mix could have passed for a new Die Hard sequel trailer. The tone just didn't fit what I think is supposed to be a movie for kids.

I literally laughed at a TV commercial for The Walk. It had all sorts of dramatic drum bangs and some low bass "whooommmm" sounds. I imagined all the loud movie trailer racket shaking Philippe Pettit off his cable, especially that "whoooommmmm" part when he lays on the cable. I remember when that guy tightrope walked between the World Trade Center towers. That stunt was crazy scary regardless of any clip art boom-whoosh sound effects.

I used to get pretty annoyed if a movie on DVD didn't include its trailers. Not anymore. The trailers for new movies are so repetitively unoriginal they're a waste of disc real estate on Blu-ray or even at YouTube.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 10-07-2015, 11:17 AM:

Some smart director or studio needs to look at the old trailers from the 40's & 50's with all the wording flashing across the screen and do something like the glass lettering they used. Make It look more modern with all today's fonts available. This won't work on all films but I think the public talking and looking at their cell phones may take notice to something new on the screen. Can you imagine a creative sound mix guy using the right surround only and starts the trailer by saying 'Thanks for coming to our theatre today, now lets show you a special preview of our new action movie coming soon to this theatre' then hit the stage speakers in stereo with the preview trailer, but the end part of the action hit trailer have It mixed with all the surrounds on. The people who edit today's trailers need to change things around and just stay on a few choice important parts of a new movie to show and build It up with tease lettering and suspense. The crowd will want to see the film when It comes out. They start to do advertising so early now on TV and cinemas that the movie crowd is so bored seeing the same trailer for 5 months. At least they should make a few different type cut trailers so the public can be entertained and not a sleep. Very few studios do this today, like they spent all the money on the film shoot and they are not creative in doing multi advance advertising.

Posted by Marlon Martins (Member # 8823) on 10-07-2015, 11:32 AM:

There are a lot of videos on Youtube about the similarity of trailers. this one is a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc71YvWG0GQ

I'm also annoyed. My brother said "after inception, every movie has the "BWWWAAAASSSSS" [Big Grin]

I believe they use the same recipe "because it works". the same way movies use the same "workflow".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-07-2015, 01:29 PM:

quote:
There's lots of shit not to like in movie trailers these days,

Agreed. At conventions, my favorite day used to be the day we had the trailers ("product reels," in convention talk). But all the trailers are so mind-numbingly similar, what's the point?

My biggest pet peeve is the super-fast cuts they use. There are almost no cuts longer than two seconds. Even if they use a line of dialogue that's longer than that, they'll cut to a different image while the dialogue continues. It's like trailers are made for people with ADD.

I also am annoyed by the constant bang, whoosh, boom drum sounds. And I don't even want to get started on the volume levels.

But, when you're competing for the attention of people who have five-second attention spans and are constantly being bombarded with other things clamoring for their eyeballs...what are you gonna do?

I blame the internet. Used to be, people had to come up with their own ideas. Now everybody can share everything. Fresh creative thought is much harder than just pasting somebody else's stuff in.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2015, 08:57 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
My biggest pet peeve is the super-fast cuts they use. There are almost no cuts longer than two seconds.

It's not only the editorial pace, but also the style used. The editing conventions are unlike what you would find in a normal movie, TV show or even in music videos for that matter. The only other place where I see the same kinds of edits (and dramatic boom-whoosh sounds) used is in promo commercials for TV shows. TV shows are trying to be more "cinematic" in their advertising (and production style). Meanwhile feature movies are feeling more like 2 hour TV shows.

I don't know the specific terms for these edits and transitions. I just know they look like visual clip art when I see them. There's the repeat fade to black, sometimes punctuated with a flash frame of white. The sound mix will usually have a big noise on each fade/cut. BOOM BOOM BOOM! Then there's the technique of showing only brief glimpses of action on an otherwise black screen, but with lots of racket. I don't know what you call that robo-jump cut thing where they throw in this rapid judder and partial fade thingie on a dramatic shot.

Just about anyone could bring up lots of other editing style examples that get repeated like crazy in movie trailers. You could watch just one action movie trailer and find an example of almost every movie trailer editing cliché in the tool kit. The rare thing is a movie trailer that has a normal looking editing style and doesn't pound you over the head with clip art boom noises.

quote: Mike Blakesley
But, when you're competing for the attention of people who have five-second attention spans and are constantly being bombarded with other things clamoring for their eyeballs...what are you gonna do?

My opinion: screw those ADHD viewers. They're not going to be reached by the movie trailers regardless of how loud they're mixed or spastic in editing style. They'll find out about the movie on Snapchat or something.

It's just like movies that are made assuming everyone in the audience is stupid. Or they do really stupid shit with the plot and characters, assuming everyone is so stupid they won't notice. Dramatic narrative on a grading curve. Movies are better when they're made in a manner that gives the audience credit for having at least some level of smarts.

Of course, making a movie geared for smart people and marketing it towards smart people isn't so easy.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I blame the internet. Used to be, people had to come up with their own ideas. Now everybody can share everything. Fresh creative thought is much harder than just pasting somebody else's stuff in.

I don't think that's the issue. I blame the giant global media parent companies of movie studios. They're the ones dictating the decisions to keep re-selling the same idea and dumbing the shit down so non-English speaking viewers in China or wherever will buy the product.

These trailers are so freaking derivative that I swear there has to be some kind of special software they have that just samples the movie's material and auto-generates 1,287,849 variations of the trailer for focus groups to digest.

Technology is not far off from being able to do this. It may be able to do so already. At Adobe's MAX keynote earlier this week they were showing off some new "remix" feature that would take some 3 minute long song and seamlessly edit together key beats from it that could fit down into something like a 30 second spot. One click and its done. Scary. Scary for how any creative soul could be further drained away from something. "Just let Audition generate 10 versions of the cut, screw all that time trying to mix together something manually!"

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-11-2015, 11:27 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's not only the editorial pace, but also the style used. The editing conventions are unlike what you would find in a normal movie, TV show or even in music videos for that matter.

The modern trailer is where Soviet montage went to die. Furthermore, now that kids can make trailers on their Macs (not needing 35mm prints meaning that low-budget pics that previously wouldn't even have had trailers now have them with a vengeance - I've even seen trailers for five-minute shorts films!), they ape the style badly, sometimes with hilarious results, but most of the time just plain boring.

It's a long time ago now, but I loved the teasers for the late 1990s Godzilla, because they totally defied that convention, consisting of very long, static shots within which the action builds. If you're not paying attention throughout, you won't get the punchline (at least, not completely). They were probably completely ignored by people trying to find their seat, munching popcorn and that sort of stuff, though.