Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound of Music DCP format

This is topic Sound of Music DCP format 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=001571

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-16-2013, 11:50 PM:

Have any of you played the Sound of Music in DCP? If so, what where the sound format options? Did any offer the original mix (5-stage, mono surround). If LC/RC are supported, what channels did they put them on?

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 07-17-2013, 10:01 PM:

I ran the "The Sound Of Music" DCP about 2 years ago, and at the time it was standard 5.1 audio only. It was a rather early rendition of the show to DCP and possibly (though I seriously doubt it) they remedied the situation in a later version. Possibly someone else will have a more recent report.

It kind of ticks me off, really: all these classic musicals, with wonderful original, 5-across sound mixes -- all being lost now, possibly forever. All that restoration work on "West Side Story"? Not on the DCP. It will only be possible to hear that classic, splendid original mix if played along with the 70mm print.

I don't begrudge the 70mm print it's excellent audio, but I do feel that there has been a conscious decision by the studio "powers that be" to simply forget 5-across sound, even though the original DCI audio tracks specifically included LE and RE (or, for us old codgers, tracks #2 and #4) for film soundtrack uses. And there is no shortage of places with the appropriate speakers and amps, more's the pity.

I have one piece of DCP content that actually does have all the "correct" 5-across audio (and it sounds great, FWIW). It's from a private party, not a major studio, wouldn't you know. One day we had those LE and RE amps turned on and later played a normal DCP, and were a bit surprised to discover that at least one of those official LE and RE audio pairs had been given over to the descriptive audio track.

So, I fear, the battle is lost. We will never hear full "Todd-AO" audio again with the legendary, great musicals of the past in DCPs. And, as I say, it's a pity because with 16 audio tracks available for DCI content, why didn't anyone read the specs and put the descriptive audio in one of the OTHER channels, 9-16? I know -- someone cheaped out, and then it was too late to remedy when others adopted the same incorrect channel usage. IMHO, that was inexcusable.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-17-2013, 10:49 PM:

Long term, you will find that the ADA channels will be on 15/16...that is the SMPTE standard and is prevalent in Europe already. I'm not as pessimistic as you are on LC/RC. It is just a matter of time before the ToddAo mix show up on DCPs...they are supported in just about every format/standard out there.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-22-2013, 07:15 AM:

So for all the dozens of Dolby's Atmos speakers all over the theatre, do they actually specify 5 screen channels with speakers behind the screen? In other words, can an original "5 across the front" TODD-AO format film play in an Atoms theatre and actually present sound in the correct location behind the screen. Or can it just place sound anywhere as long as it's out in the theatre?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2013, 01:19 PM:

5-screen channels is the "preferred" arrangement because it provides for greater localization. It is not "required."

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-27-2013, 05:42 PM:

what's sad and unfortunate about the non-inclusion of five channel spread sound, is that in fifteen years time all these film's re ('down') mixed to 5.1 sound will become the standard and replace what 70mm sound sounded like. The studios like to 4K this and that, add more and more channels of surround sound, that it's basically turning it's back on classic film sound/music mixing. DTS at least had the common sense to jump on board and archive and encode the mag 6-channel audio stems in their original configurament for 70mm prints, yet when it comes to DCP application not one studio is implementing what is perfectly achievable in DCP form. It doesn't make sense.

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 07-27-2013, 08:16 PM:

This might help some of the questions, although not all.

http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/site/dlxportal/docs/The_Sound_of_Music_Ingest_Letter.pdf

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-27-2013, 11:18 PM:

I'm digressing here, so who did the DCP encoding of 'Cleopatra'? Another Fox release that could and should retain the five screen channel mix. I know that it's being touted as the 4K restoration, but is the DCP "true" 4K resolution?

back on subject though, I read recently that Robert Wise wasn't all that enamored with the implementation of the constant use of surround sound to distract what is happening on screen. This is odd, since it appears that Fox Home Video is pretty much going against the grain, by making the DVD and the DCP with 5.1 (discrete stereo surround sound) and the bluray with an additional two channels in the surrounds (7.1) - talk about being excessive and not taking Wise's intent to heart.

MGM did this as well to the 7.1 blu-ray mixing of 'West Side Story'. I don't know if a DCP has been created, but I'd be certain it didn't use the recently found, restored five screen channel that were culled and added back to the recent 70mm prints that have been making the theatrical revival circuit.

(... oh and I was more than confused what Sony did with the DCP of 'Oliver!' that I recently saw at Landmark E Street. The DCP looked exactly like the German bluray I have... but... unlike the bluray which has 5.1 audio, the DCP was not presented as such. In two channel stereo, which placed nearly all the vocals either to the left or right of the screen and nothing in the middle 'center channel'. This movie got the deluxe 70mm / 6-track 'five screen' mix for it's initial theatrical run, here though, for a film like this NOT to have a center channel of sound was glaring and sounded waaaay off.)

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 07-28-2013, 01:41 AM:

The new DCP of CLEOPATRA that we just ran was 2K, and we've been promised a 2K of WEST SIDE STORY.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-28-2013, 09:05 AM:

The Sound of Music sheet also seems to list it as 2.35 ratio rather than the 2.2...was it even taken from the 65mm elements? It doesn't seem to honor the original composition nor the original sound.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-28-2013, 01:04 PM:

For these transfers of 70mm shows, I wish they would use full-width and not letterbox inside 16x9, 1.85 or 2.39 the way they have been doing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-28-2013, 01:52 PM:

What do you mean, Manny? Where is 16x9 coming into the discussion of DCPs of 70mm titles? Are you saying that they are literally taking the BluRay transfer and then just exporting it to DCP?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-28-2013, 03:15 PM:

2001 is rumored to be a blowup of the Bluray master.

Okay, I just checked and it wasn't letterboxed in 16x9 -- it was letterboxed inside 1.85 -- But the file size was very small (77GB total) -- and the on-screen image was heavily pixillated.

Was it in fact a blowup of the Bluray master? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is this: The fact that we can legitimately question this means something went terribly, terribly wrong. One should expect 70mm movies like 2001 to look better than typical 35mm transfers. Not worse.

I suspect the problem is that most d-cinema installs are only set up for 1.85 and 2.39, so the distributors feel the need to fit the 70mm ratio(s) into one of those, for maximum compatibility. This is wrong thinking, in my opinion. Dual inventory would've been the better way to go -- same as it was with film.

That, and DCI should've specified all known ratios.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2013, 03:15 AM:

Years ago when I was avidly anti-digital after seeing the first outings of pre-DCI digital projectors...you know, the ones that are now good for nothing more than being used as flower-pots. I remember countering someone who accused me of not being open to new technology. I said that I have no allegiance any particular technology; I just want the new technology, whatever it is that replaces the old, to be BETTER or at least as good as the old.

I am an exhibitor -- a curator of our motion picture heritage. All I want is to be able to recreate for my audiences the same incredible experiences I had when I sat as a youngster watching 70mm presentations of LAWRENCE or MYFLADY or 2001. I told my critic, if they have a system that would let me recreate the same level of image quality that I saw, I wouldn't care what the technology that was in my booth. I would be the first to embrace it wholeheartedly. But, I was absolutely, wholeheartedly sure what I was seeing in those first digital roll-outs couldn't even come close to reproducing even what 35mm film was doing at the time.

We certainly have come a long way with what digital can do, but as far as the great classics, if the studios are handing out a DCPs made from BR master and compressed on top of that, then digital is still nowhere near a faithful reproduction of what we know the original to be. If this is what the studios are pulling out their asses and passing it off as representative of those masterpieces in their libraries, then it is still a fact that taken as a complete system, from master scanning to the final DCP release and what audiences will see on the screen, digital STILL is not capable of giving my audience the same experience as those original classics. Without the will of the studios' honchos to make the BEST mastering for DPC rerelease, it never will.

What we have here is a failure to commit to the best reproduction quality possible. They are handing out a xerox copy of a Monet painting and telling the audience they are looking at an original. Damn Philistine swine.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-31-2013, 07:18 AM:

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "Ditto" - what Frank said. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
There have been several occasions in the past year where I've had theater
owners who kept their 70mm machines 'in place' ask me what it would take to put
them back in operation again. Sadly, in most cases, the digital installers made sure
this would be almost technically, or financially, impossible or impractical.
(and then there's that little issue of finding decent prints)

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-31-2013, 12:36 PM:

When I saw Sound of Music at Cinemark last year, it was 2.21:1 (pillar boxed on a common height screen). I don't know how it couldn't have been 4K it looked so damn good. The sound itself was also absolutely perfect.

The best digital presentation of a classic I've ever seen. Truly film-like.

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-31-2013, 03:43 PM:

quote:
If this is what the studios are pulling out their asses and passing it off as representative of those masterpieces in their libraries, then it is still a fact that taken as a complete system, from master scanning to the final DCP release and what audiences will see on the screen, digital STILL is not capable of giving my audience the same experience as those original classics. Without the will of the studios' honchos to make the BEST mastering for DPC rerelease, it never will.

Frank,

I agree with the sentiment. But if we're going to criticize digital because of corporate misapplication of the technology, then we'd have to also criticize film on the same grounds.

Surely, by now, we've all seen many film prints that were disappointments, including brand new film prints made from DI's and printed at high-speed...and used repertory prints that were past their prime.

In both cases -- film or digital -- misapplication of the technology is the problem. Not the technology itself.

I am not anti-film or even pro-digital -- I'm looking at what is, in the most practical sense, better for our audiences, given the real-world choices available to us. (As distinguished from the theoretical choices that might be available in a parallel universe, where studios make different choices based on best practices.)

And I won't even go too deep into the subject of projectionist misapplication of technology, except to say that was part of film's downfall, too.

If I am "anti" anything, it's living in Fantasyland and pretending that film would be the better choice today.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2013, 07:37 PM:

And I agree 100%. As I have said, I don't care what piece of equipment is in the booth, as long as it can give my audience a top draw presentation comparable to what the filmmaker captured on film. And if it were 70mm TODD-AO, then future generations should be able to see a replica of that work.

What makes me crazy has nothing to do with technology (although I sure wish digital projectors were completely incapable of showing anything BUT 4K DCPs and that they simple shut off if a DVD or BR player is hooked up to them. What is frightening to me is the prospect that the older classics, the truly great films of the last century, may never be available to the public and experienced as we were able to experience them as kids. This has much less to do with the technology as it does with the will and committment or lack thereof by the studio big-wigs to provide DCP copies mastered to the highest level that the technology is capable of providing. Copying a DVD master to a DCP certainly doesn't rise to any level of acceptibility. This isn't about the technology, it's about corporate committment to quality and making older titles available.

I consider the art house the same as any museum -- the place where the great artifacts of our film legacy are preserved for the next generations. Digital or film is inconsequential; it's all about the attitude of the copyright owners toward their libraries which are the repositories of that wealth of motion picture history. The studios in many cases (not all and not all the time, but enough to make a general observation) have been
consistantly recalctrant in the way they treat their libraries and making them available to the willing exhibitor. They are just as at fault today when they nonchalantly tell an art-house exihibitor to run a DVD rather than a properly mastered DCP, just as much as they at fault in the past when they sent out garbage prints to that art house exhibitor. The end result is the same -- digital or film -- audiences that should have be inspired and edified by the beauty and power of those great titles were robbed. The Studio Robber Barrons.

Classic titles belong as much to the American people as they do to a comglomerate that has been given monopolistic protection by power of the US Governement and free police enforcement by the FBI for them.

And hence comes the failure of the Library of Congress which when monopoly protection has been given by way of copyright protection, the owner was SUPPOSED to make sure a pristine copy (2 in fact) of the highest quality were deposited with the LOC (i.e., the American People) for safe keeping. It has fallen far from the mark in that regard. Protecting the work for the Public is or should be the other side of the coin of protecting the copyright holder from infringers. Somehow when all that we can show to the public are beat up prints or DVD copies, the public has gotten screwed.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-31-2013, 08:59 PM:

These studio bean-counters seem to be more interested in the bottom line than image quality, BUT my thought is: Do the bean counters actually know what to look for when critically evaluating an image? Or does some tech-head engineer pass off the Blu-ray master transfer as "just as good as 70mm" and the suits take his word for it, not knowing any better and assuming the engineer is giving them the best thing possible?

What's really mystifying is that high-profile directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, and the others aren't making more noise about this kind of thing.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-31-2013, 11:58 PM:

OK Frank -- we agree!

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-01-2013, 11:38 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
If I am "anti" anything, it's living in Fantasyland and pretending that film would be the better choice today.

Exactly. I was so excited to see "The Master" in 70mm and the print was filled with dirt from end to end and even without the dirt, the image simply didn't look that great. I don't know whether this was a lab problem or whether a projectionist inexperienced with film (or 70mm film) dropped the core and spilled the entire film onto the floor, but I thought to myself, "if this is the way film is going to look, I'd rather see digital".

About a year ago, I went to see "Lord Jim" in 70mm at the Walter Reade in NYC. The screen was far too small, the sound was only fair (although since then I've been told that "Lord Jim" was recorded with only 3 channels, not six) and it was not a great experience.

In addition, today's amplifiers and speaker systems sound nothing like the B-chains of the past.

So IMO, even if 70mm screenings were to come back (aside from the few theatres that still occasionally have them), there is essentially no way to replicate what they used to feel like with bright, large screens in which the audience was engulfed by the image, crisp prints if you didn't wait six months to see the film and great analog magnetic sound, if you found the "right" theatre to see it in, all in the technology of the time which had both advantages and disadvantages. It's can't be reproduced any longer and it's just not going to happen.

I think RPX and ETX are an attempt to reproduce that experience in a digital world. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I suppose many would think IMAX is such an attempt. Personally, I've never loved IMAX.

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 10-08-2013, 10:13 AM:

Does the DCP have the intermission?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2013, 01:12 PM:

It's all about the details. With "digital" there are many details that can be missed and alter image/sound quality steps down below optimal quality levels. Some details are missed accidentally. Other quality reducing decisions are made deliberately. Movie theaters and their customers are totally at the mercy of either scenario.

With digital content there are many technical issues not everyone is going to catch. Studio executives and other management types are often not technical oriented people (like the vast majority of the population). We assume every decision maker in the chain is going to understand the quality differences between a lossless or uncompressed video master, versus a lower bit rate encodes tailored specifically for Blu-ray or HD Broadcast or HD streaming or mere DVD. But not nearly all of them do. For most people a digital file is no different than the other. They may not even notice the tremendous differences in file size between the two. There's a new HD master of The Sound of Music? Can you e-mail it to me?

I deal with that issue all the time with graphics files. To the average person a graphics file is a graphics file. They don't know the differences between raster-based and vector-based art. They don't know the difference between RGB & CMYK or the difference between spot & process colors. They don't know color depth (8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit HDR). They don't understand the differences beween pixel image formats like JPEG, GIF, TIFF, BMP & PSD or vector formats like AI, EPS, PDF, CDR & SVG as well as some of those file types being able to contain both raster & vector content. A bunch of these technical factors with graphics often creep into the movie-making process.

For "digital" to be done right the movie industry on the whole better standards of practice must be used, from the on-set origination level where the actors are in front of the camera all the way to the exhibition level where the projector light is hitting the screen and sound is coming out of the speakers. All the various people involved can't be just doing whatever is convenient and assuming it's all good because "digital" is digital.

The end results of what customers are experiencing in the theater will be a lot better if the technology is used to its best potential rather than being shoe-horned into the lowest common denominator out of some lazy/cheap guy's convenience.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-08-2013, 02:36 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
So IMO, even if 70mm screenings were to come back (aside from the few theatres that still occasionally have them), there is essentially no way to replicate what they used to feel like with bright, large screens in which the audience was engulfed by the image, crisp prints if you didn't wait six months to see the film and great analog magnetic sound, if you found the "right" theatre to see it in, all in the technology of the time which had both advantages and disadvantages. It's can't be reproduced any longer and it's just not going to happen.

I think there is a viable market for 70mm in today's exhibition industry, the enormous demand for 15/70 for such films as The Dark Knight, Star Trek Into Darkness or Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol back this up. Furthermore, The Master was a spectacular hit for the 70mm theaters that played it, not so for the non 70mm theaters where it did just average.

The next film to give film a go will be the next Christopher Nolan feature, I can see a few hundred 35mm theaters along with whatever IMAX venues are still able to operate 15/70. From what I hear, most former IMAX venues still have the 15/70 projectors on a sliding system.

While I certainly do not want to come across as saying that 35mm could make a comeback, I believe that there is a very small opportunity for it in the future and that goes for 70mm as well.

quote: Martin Brooks
I think RPX and ETX are an attempt to reproduce that experience in a digital world. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I suppose many would think IMAX is such an attempt. Personally, I've never loved IMAX.

I am assuming you mean replicate the 70mm experience from the 70's and 80's, if that is what you mean then I could agree. Although they are not technically the same, the concept of charging more for a so called upgraded experience is similar.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2013, 03:09 PM:

I never had to pay an upcharge above standard admission price to watch a Hollywood movie in 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo (or even 70mm Dolby SR or 70mm CDS). I never had to pay extra to watch a movie in a THX certified theater either.

This surcharge model for digital 3D, big screens with big sound, etc. is all an IMAX created phenomenon.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-08-2013, 03:31 PM:

I am sure there were high prices somewhere.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-08-2013, 04:17 PM:

In toronto 3d always had a surcharge long before IMAX ever did 3d and in certain theatres particularly downtown the ticket price for 70mm was higher

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2013, 04:20 PM:

Speaking of surcharges and upcharges... In 1965 the tickets to Sound Of Music were $2.50 at the Michael Todd Theater in Chicago. Reserved seats, 5 front channels and a flat screen, 70mm, JJ's with Ashcraft Super Cinex's and an Ampex tube sound system, projectionists at this location made nearly $50.00 an hour back then! All they sold at concessions was popcorn and soda. The Cinestage next door was almost the same except it had a deep curved screen and DP-70's.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-08-2013, 06:53 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
We assume every decision maker in the chain is going to understand the quality differences between a lossless or uncompressed video master, versus a lower bit rate encodes tailored specifically for Blu-ray or HD Broadcast or HD streaming or mere DVD.

The biggest problem I have with this statement (and a lot of other assumptions made in this thread and others of its ilk) is that it assumes the decision makers are the ones doing the quality assurance. It also assumes quality is put ahead of all other considerations, which anyone who's been alive since Gordon Gekko uttered that immortal line written by Oliver Stone, knows is never the case in the modern age.

I once worked for an independent production and distribution company in New York ten years ago, who had several truly classic B-movies in their library. As VHS became DVD, they remastered their biggest library titles for the new technology, but quite often the lesser titles released on DVD were just the original VHS master transferred to DVD. One title, an Australian title starring Dennis Hopper, was mastered 2.39:1 letterboxed inside a 1.33:1 frame, and that's how it went out on DVD, even though it was sold as a "widescreen" edition. Why? Because the cost of doing it right (remastering for DVD for the higher resolution or even to have true 16:9 widescreen) was have been difference between releasing a title and not releasing a title.

Why should a company like Universal spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up and properly rescan and remix a title like Fast Times at Ridgemont High for 2K or 4K DCP projection when 95% of its playdates will be limited to a single evening ordered by a company like Rave (to use a specific example of a show we did last year)? Multiply that by the thousands of titles they have in their library, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for an extremely niche market. It's probably why Sony Repertory only has one or two new DCP versions of their back catalogue created each month. How many people are ever really going to want to see The Tingler, with Percepto! or without? It's just too small a market.

You want more classic titles transferred correctly to DCP? A lot of people are going to have to roll the dice, put their money on the table and create a new market for repertory cinema. Something my wife and I are prepared to do in four years, after she graduates law school.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2013, 10:40 PM:

Edward, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not talking about taking an old title that doesn't have a modern digital master and putting it through a film scan and digital intermediate work flow.

My point: there is pretty clear evidence studio people are just grabbing the "digital asset" nearest to their fingers and using that. A movie may have a perfectly good HD/2K uncompressed master that would be a great source for a DCP. But maybe it's in another building or something. The low bit encodes for Blu-ray, HD broadcast, digital streaming, etc. may be closer at hand. At the very least they are a lot easier/faster to copy and take up far less disc space. Besides, no one will know the difference.

I deal with this kind of unprofessional shit all the time in print graphics work. People routinely grab the nearest thing available and just use that. All the time companies will give me their logo or whatever as a damned low res JPEG image when I know full well they have a vector version of it.

Good standards of practice are often inconvenient. Bad standards of practice are often faster/easier and not enough people will call the folks taking shortcuts on it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-08-2013, 10:49 PM:

Exactly the above. I know recently I saw a concert at a local theater that's for a blu ray that's upcoming in a few weeks. It was truly obvious that they used a final compressed master used for the blu ray itself. Blown to the big screen, every dark section looked awful.

Granted, it could've been that it was shot for 1080p but it looked worse than the 1080p-sourced movies I recall.