Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New THX Trailer

This is topic New THX Trailer - Eclipse 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=002263

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-01-2015, 11:15 AM:

Received a letter from THX stating that there is a new logo trailer, called Eclipse.

30-second and 45-second versions are available in 5.1 and 7.1, and there is also a 30-second version for ATMOS.

The new trailer features a new version of THX 'Deep Note audio mark', "regenerated" at Skywalker Ranch by Deep Note's original composer, Dr. James "Andy" Moorer.

I'll get to take a look at it today.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-01-2015, 02:57 PM:

What's THX? [sleep]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-01-2015, 03:47 PM:

We need a new trailer from Dolby. Sphere is now what, 4 years old? And Countdown is at least five.

Somebody on here (I'm talking to you, Joe Redifer) should produce a cool musical "stereo surround sound" trailer (non-branded). Add the theater's logo to it and it would be worth some bucks. I would love to buy such a product IF the sound was good on it.

The key word is "musical." I'd like to hear something that isn't necessarily bombastic and loud and scares old ladies (like Sphere does), but melodic and sounds amazing and shows off the surrounds.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-01-2015, 03:58 PM:

There are so many new Dolby trailers. You just need to upgrade!

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-01-2015, 04:33 PM:

There is also an updated Dolby Atmos Unfold trailer.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-01-2015, 04:43 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The key word is "musical." I'd like to hear something that isn't necessarily bombastic and loud and scares old ladies (like Sphere does), but melodic and sounds amazing and shows off the surrounds.

I always loved the Dolby Train trailer. Maybe not extremely melodic, but nonetheless an amazing demo of what can be done with good surround sound.

As far as I know, it never made it into a DCP version. I found a decent version on a DVD once, but it's interlaced and looks ugly after being deinterlaced and upscaled to 2K, no matter how many filters you put over it...

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-01-2015, 05:46 PM:

EXCITING!! Can't wait to see it!!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-01-2015, 06:54 PM:

quote:
There are so many new Dolby trailers. You just need to upgrade!

No I don't because the current equipment is working just fine. The idea is to give the audience something new once in a while. I shouldn't have to spend a zillion dollars on un-needed upgrades to do that, especially when I am PROMOTING THEIR BRAND NAME.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 04-01-2015, 08:50 PM:

To bad Dolby does not do any advertising these days about what theatres have the Dolby Atmos system. Many years ago when Dolby Digital came out they had signs/banners all over the theatre and box office about the new digital sound. Only 3 cinemas have the Atmos system in place in San Francisco and they have no signs or banners outside the theatre or near the entrance of what auditorium is showing the new system. A nice one sheet that they can keep up inside would be a nice touch. At least the 2 chains that do have this system do play the Dolby Atmos logo before the movie starts! The managers need to plug what they have. I think Dolby will send them banners and signs to advertise the Atmos sound system If they have it. Or maybe they have a charge for them and the managers/circuits don't want to pay for the material? My gym is next to Dolby in SF, next time I'll try to talk to someone about this problem and maybe they will give me some items and I can personally bring to the 3 theatres to help promote Atmos. I don't even work for Dolby but have always loved their surround sound.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-01-2015, 08:59 PM:

I like the new THX trailer. It's pretty much _just_ the Deep Note building up to the familiar climax. And the visuals are cool to look at.

I know what you mean about Dolby's "Spheres" trailer being bombastic and frightening li'l ole ladies. THX "Amazing Life" evoked a similar reaction.

THX "Eclipse" is probably about as low-key as it could get.

Now I just need to figure out which movie to debut it with...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-01-2015, 11:35 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Somebody on here (I'm talking to you, Joe Redifer) should produce a cool musical "stereo surround sound" trailer (non-branded).

Careful what you wish for! I have some free time next week I think.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-02-2015, 12:03 AM:

I don't see why Dolby should invest time and money on promoting a) a pretty much dead format (Dolby Digital for cinema) or b) a format that does not belong to them (pcm) or anyway that any other manufacturer can playback with the same exact result.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-02-2015, 12:35 AM:

Warren ran the 30 second version in Atmos at the Broken Arrow location when I was there two weekends ago.

I liked it! [thumbsup]

AJG

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-02-2015, 12:56 AM:

Like to see some new Real D tags along with some ATMOS tags to download for SP usage.

Barco does have one nifty tag called "Barco Stinger"

-Monte

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-02-2015, 05:47 AM:

It would be a simple matter to use KDMs to ensure the Dolby trailers only play on "Dolby" equipment (which includes Doremi now). Or only issue the KDM if there is a CP650, 750 or 850 registered to that server.

However, I agree, Dolby has everything to gain to keep the Dolby brand associated with cinema and movies in general. DTS has no cinema presence anymore so they could keep in consumer's mind that movies = Dolby.

They are way overdue for having new snipes for Dolby Digital Cinema, 7.1, and Dolby 3D. And while 7.1 can't really be proprietary to Dolby...having it associated with Dolby only benefits the Dolby brand. No other brand can really capitalize on it.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-02-2015, 06:04 AM:

I guess the simplest way to avoid trailer abuse for Dolby Atmos is to simply only publish those DCPs with an Atmos soundtrack and an entirely silent 7.1 PCM track?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-02-2015, 01:15 PM:

quote: Terry Monohan
To bad Dolby does not do any advertising these days about what theatres have the Dolby Atmos system.

Cineplex has(had) made some effort in advertising Dolby Atmos when it first came out and they bundled it in with their AVX brand which IMHO was the wrong thing to do. There simply is way too many formats and options, Cineplex just recently now offers films playing UltaAVX in 3D with Dolby Atmos and D-Box all in one individual auditorium, that is why branding overkill. Cineplex had in the past all sorts of different advertisements at the local theater including Dolby Atmos banners and Dolby Atmos standees, but the Dolby Atmos brand name was always over shadowed by the UltraAVX name.

Dolby Atmos IMO needs to simply separate itself from everything else in the marketplace so that when someone watch a film that has a Dolby Atmos soundtrack they simply just get the Dolby Atmos message experience. I am more than certain that Dolby Cinema will require owners to have to follow strict branding guidelines.

I have said in the past that Dolby Atmos will go the route of Dolby EX or Dolby 7.1 in that nobody really cares. I am skeptical in that 99% of the general movie going public really have no idea what Atmos is. I have never ever met a person who knows that IMAX using dual projectors just like I have never met a person who knows that Atmos using overhead speakers and forget about them knowing what object based audio means. I have however met more than a few people who know what AVX means.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-02-2015, 02:28 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have never ever met a person who knows that IMAX using dual projectors

The point is not to teach people how a system works but to associate a great experience with that.

THX "sounds great and the seats shake". That's it. There's nothing else your customer needs to know.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 04-02-2015, 09:51 PM:

Terry Lynn**Thanks for your note about some of the theatres in Canada and Dolby Atmos. You would think with Dolby having It's main office and even expanding soon in SF they would have some great signage and advertising in the 3 theatres that they have Atmos playing in. We are all waiting to the rumors one cinema soon in SF will have Dolby Vision put in? The place to put this in as a demo and open to the public is the single screen Vogue Theatre in San Francisco. Remodel the place and put in Dolby Vision and advertise It please. I think Dolby Atmos will catch on with the public the more theatres have It installed and they plug It. Let's see the studios put the Dolby Atmos logo on the movie ads/posters with a *IN SELECT THEATRES.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 04-02-2015, 10:20 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have however met more than a few people who know what AVX means.

That's Aerovox, right? I remember capacitors made by them.

Harold

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-03-2015, 10:26 AM:

quote: Marco Giustini
The point is not to teach people how a system works but to associate a great experience with that.

THX "sounds great and the seats shake". That's it. There's nothing else your customer needs to know.

There is nothing wrong with teaching people how things work, THX Moo effectively showed off the surrounds and what is going on inside a movie theater, Dolby 7.1 Surround was pretty good with the "all around you" at the end and IMAX used to thoroughly explain the IMAX system before they switched to digital DMR.

But you are right, a good experience and to associate that experience with a brand is smart, but Dolby Atmos has way too much sub branding going on with the PLF locations.

quote: Terry Monohan
We are all waiting to the rumors one cinema soon in SF will have Dolby Vision put in? The place to put this in as a demo and open to the public is the single screen Vogue Theatre in San Francisco. Remodel the place and put in Dolby Vision and advertise It please.

IMO, Dolby needs to stick to what they do best and what they are best known for and that is sound. The whole Dolby Cinema I don't think is going to work. They need to separate themselves from everything else you just see Dolby or Dolby Atmos as the branding.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-03-2015, 05:33 PM:

of course there's nothing wrong. What I meant is that they should associate the brand with the experience not necessarily with the knowledge of how the system works.

The Atmos 'amaze', which is my favourite, does that and that's perfectly fine of course.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-03-2015, 06:38 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
...not necessarily with the knowledge of how the system works.

This goes back to my carbon arc days at the drive-in, and later on, with indoor operations:

Our booth was ground level with the rest of the building and the entrance door was just right there.

I would be sitting in an easy chair between changeovers to watch the film when other duties were accomplished.

Patrons would walk by and see the machinery through the door and ask me why of the two machines.

I, then proceed to tell them, in great detail and showing them exactly what goes on, the technique of doing reel changeovers with the cue marks on the screen.

I've had some returned patrons tell me that ever since I showed them this procedure, that it has ruined their moviegoing experience since they now see and wait for the cue marks to appear.

And to this day, the ones that knew me during this era have told me that they still look for cue marks.

And, it's funny they ask why they don't see any more cue marks anymore and I reply back that they're experiencing a digital movie - no longer is film being used.

-Monte

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 04-03-2015, 10:09 PM:

I just watched it on YouTube.

Let's go back to the beginning. If you collect older CDs, you might be familiar with a trio of letters on the back of the jewel case. The first letter was the tech used to record sound, the second being the method it was mixed in, and finally the last is for the mastering. On a CD you may get a couple of A's for Analog or a couple of D's for Digital. Some cases, usually with contemporary classical recordings, you'd get D's all across the board. Let's apply this to the Deep Note.

In the 80's, it was AAA for optical and magnetic. In the early 90's it was AAD for digital sound on film and video. In the mid 90's it was ADD to accommodate 5.1 digital sound, and subsequent ADD revisions followed (Broadway 2000, Science of Sensation) for the longest time. They all traced back to that 4-track analog recording, and if you're Wendy Carlos these would be DAAA, DAAD, and DADD, since it was computer-generated.

Eclipse is historic because it introduces the first DDD (or DDDD for Wendy) Deep Note. Sorry, Grand doesn't count because it was an alternate itteration of the piece to co-exist with J.A.M.'s original version, along with James Horner's Cimarron. The Deep Note was Moorer's baby, and it was time for it to come of age, leaving young adulthood into straight-up adulthood. This transformation has made the revered, and reviled by some, piece of maximallist math-disco written with minimallist ethos into a nastier, deadlier aural monster, and I love it.

I miss the charm of the original 1983 recording. Eclipse may have turned that kick-ass ass-kicker into an adorable ass-kicker, and the recording that gave several Generation Y kids and Millenials nightmares, including myself, is now beaten by one of its own successors. For the first time, the 1983 Deep Note that stood the test of time is trumped by something scarier. The intimidating Generation X aural equivalent to a powerful drug cartel, is now an old fart that yells with a raspy voice. Not even the "saucier" remixes of the Note made in the 2000s were able to be at equals with the 70mm Baby Boom flavor. Eclipse gives us a Note that is so beastly I can't describe his actions here unless I want a ban. Last thing I would say is that it's refreshingly masculine after the previous effeminate trailers of the 2000s.

The graphics were simple, in classic THX fashion, but effective paired with the audio. I don't understand the significance of "see you on the other side." Was that a tribute to Harold Ramis? Was it about death? It's far more cryptic than "The Audience is Listening," and makes Eclipse the first THX trailer to become existential rather than escapist.

I'm still waiting for the 24-bit remaster of the original recalled Cimarron trailer. Modern state-of-the-art theaters can handle it, why not introduce it to a new generation?

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-04-2015, 05:51 AM:

I would call it 'iris'!

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-04-2015, 10:18 AM:

quote: Marco Giustini
of course there's nothing wrong. What I meant is that they should associate the brand with the experience not necessarily with the knowledge of how the system works.

I do agree with you, but in the case of Atmos, this is not happening when you have a PLF message and perhaps a THX logo before the movie. Dolby needs to get as many cinemas as possible to just advertise Atmos and nothing else.

quote: Terry Monohan
. You would think with Dolby having It's main office and even expanding soon in SF they would have some great signage and advertising in the 3 theatres that they have Atmos playing in.

Are the 3 theaters in SF that have Atmos, are they PLF theaters? Or do they just have Dolby Atmos?

quote: Connor Wilson
I just watched it on YouTube.

I just saw the trailer on YouTube. To be honest, its not very good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-05-2015, 11:30 PM:

The new THX Eclipse trailer is pretty decent looking. Some of the visuals make me think of the iris on an eyeball. I think the animators went kind of nuts with the lighting effects on the dark THX logo once it appeared. It's a little too flashy and disco like. Hopefully I'll get to hear the new trailer in action the next time I visit a Warren Theater either in Moore or Broken Arrow.

quote: Terry Monohan
To bad Dolby does not do any advertising these days about what theatres have the Dolby Atmos system.

Dolby does have a theater installations map that can be filtered to show only Atmos equipped theaters.

Unfortunately that map is only going to be good for people already familiar with Dolby Atmos or any other Dolby process. More really needs to be done at the movie theater level. Dolby could provide some help for that, but movie theaters have to do some of the work too since they all have their own specific sign systems. Theaters that have "digital signs," like HDTV screens doubling for movie poster cases could be showing videos from Dolby that could help promote Dolby Atmos. Each theater chain has its own unique web site and site layout. Dolby could give them suggestions what to do, but in the end each theater chain has to incorporate promotion for Atmos into their own web sites themselves.

Another problem: all the alphabet soup labeled, premium priced auditoriums. Theater chains are trying to put all their marketing oomph behind concepts the customers only confuse with IMAX' own very murky and deceptive branding. Those acronyms ultimately mean absolutely nothing. Customers don't know any of the specifics behind why a bigger auditorium has the acronym label and a higher ticket price. In most cases there is justification for the higher price. I don't think it's worth a price premium to watch a movie in standard single projector 2K or 4K and with 5.1 or 7.1 surround. There has to be more to it than that. At least there is some understanding for it with IMAX (they're all at least dual projector theaters). But IMAX often charges an even higher price than many other premium big screen theaters and yet only delivers HDTV resolution imagery and 5.0 surround. Their 4K laser projection system and 12 channel surround format upgrades are very long overdue.

Maybe Atmos can gain more traction with Dolby Cinema theaters, whenever they start appearing. Haven't seen any deals with American circuits inked just yet.

quote: Steve Guttag
However, I agree, Dolby has everything to gain to keep the Dolby brand associated with cinema and movies in general. DTS has no cinema presence anymore so they could keep in consumer's mind that movies = Dolby.

That could change once DTS launches the DTS:X format they're developing to compete with Atmos. Of course the bigger question is whether the partnership between DTS & Barco will result in Cinemark upgrading all those new Auro 11.1 installations to DTS:X. I don't like Auro, particularly because it has no 7.1 channel base layer. Lossless height and ceiling channels, but no discrete back wall surround channels is a step backwards. The primary channels being dropped to 16-bit as opposed to 24-bit is also a step backwards.

quote: Terry Monohan
I think Dolby Atmos will catch on with the public the more theatres have It installed and they plug It. Let's see the studios put the Dolby Atmos logo on the movie ads/posters with a *IN SELECT THEATRES.

Dolby Atmos is a very expensive system to install, especially if it is done right. The CP-850 cinema processor costs close to $30,000. Surround speakers in an Atmos system have to be more powerful than typical surround speakers. The best Atmos systems will have all the surround speakers separately amplified, not to mention have 3-way or 4-way stage speaker systems, plenty of sub-bass cabinets and at least a couple sub-bass cabinets in the surrounds. Not every Atmos equipped theater does that.

Atmos isn't treated very well in terms of branding with specific movie releases. Some movies will include a Dolby Atmos logo on the poster, but often at very microscopic sizes. Not all Atmos movie releases feature the Atmos logo on the end credits, but they'll include a Dolby Digital logo even if there aren't any theaters playing the movie in 35mm and lossy Dolby Digital.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-06-2015, 02:46 AM:

OH MY GOD I LOVE IT. It is literally perfect. Just when you think it's done building, it proceeds to blow your face clean off!!! Can't wait to see it in theaters!!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2015, 06:03 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
That could change once DTS launches the DTS:X format they're developing to compete with Atmos. Of course the bigger question is whether the partnership between DTS & Barco will result in Cinemark upgrading all those new Auro 11.1 installations to DTS:X. I don't like Auro, particularly because it has no 7.1 channel base layer. Lossless height and ceiling channels, but no discrete back wall surround channels is a step backwards. The primary channels being dropped to 16-bit as opposed to 24-bit is also a step backwards.

Nope...you missed it. DTS and Datasat are not one in the same. DTS has ZERO presence in Cinema. They are just in the home market. Datasat has zero presence in the home market (or effectively zero). Datasat has aligned themselves with Auro. Dolby, on the otherhand has a very visible presence in both cinema and home. At the moment, they are uniquely able to capitalize on one market to help the other. Now, if your claim is that other companies like USL might use DTS' technology and license it in their box...I suppose...but it will be a tough sell to get people to spend a lot of money (it still is going to be an expensive infrastructure) to put in such a system. As it is, the market has already diluted with Atmos and Auro going at it. With Auro's chief "benefit" is that it is a cheaper system to buy/install.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-06-2015, 10:19 AM:

I know DTS and Datasat are separate companies now. Nevertheless they do indeed have some association with each other when it comes to next-gen audio formats. Both are partnered with Barco and Auro on this too. Supposedly some of the movies with Auro 11.1 mixes are using DTS MDA format in the mixing process. Datasat is selling audio processors for use with Auro 11.1 installations.

DTS:X has been announced for home theater. The company is planning a bigger "unveiling" April 9. From what I've read the DTS:X format is supposed to be "flexible" in being able to adapt to various speaker configurations. However, it is not compatible with Dolby Atmos and appears to have its preferred configuration modeled after Auro. So that may ultimately set the stage for channel-based Auro 11.1 installations to transition to DTS:X (or "Datasat:X" or "Auro:X").

quote: Steve Guttag
Datasat has zero presence in the home market (or effectively zero).

They do have the LS-10 home cinema processor, designed to play back Auro 11.1 and 13.1 audio tracks.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2015, 10:31 AM:

As I said...effectively zero.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 04-06-2015, 02:39 PM:

Just wanted to chime in... as old as it is, my favorite tag was always the original dts flying disc "The Digital Experience" trailer. Was running that in our dts houses up until we went digital, mostly for me.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-07-2015, 09:38 AM:

Totally agree Jason, the DTS flying disc was always the best digital sound trailer for any of the formats in 90s. The later DTS trailers were never as good.

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 04-08-2015, 10:07 AM:

Excited to hear this at a theater!! Was wondering if THX would ever come out with anymore of these.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-08-2015, 01:03 PM:

quote: Jason McMillan
my favorite tag was always the original dts flying disc "The Digital Experience" trailer.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Totally agree Jason, the DTS flying disc was always the best digital sound trailer for any of the formats in 90s.

The digital format snipe I thought the best was the first one for Dolby Digital (the train...). The DTS flying disc one was pretty good but always sounded too bright (and too often screened with non-digital presentations). I don't think any of the digital-sound snipes were as good or as memorable as the 70mm-mag version of THX "Deep Note."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2015, 01:10 PM:

The critical thing was having a Dolby Stereo Digital "train" trailer with the original mix. It was the most powerful and dynamic. At least three versions of the "train" trailer have been made. There was a longer Dolby Stereo Digital "train" trailer with some flute stuff in it. Dolby re-did the "train" trailer with the 1995 Dolby Digital logo, but the mix was toned down compared to the original.

I still loved the THX "Cimarron" trailer and wish they would create HD and DCP versions of it.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 04-08-2015, 01:28 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
The digital format snipe I thought the best was the first one for Dolby Digital (the train...)

Sadly, I worked for AMC Theatres (I know, I know) at the time digital got the big push back in the early 90s. We had one DTS, one Dolby Digital, and 16 SDDS units at my theatre at the time.

The only Dolby trailer I ever had was the Dolby "City" trailer... I liked it well enough. Personally I thought the original SDDS snipe sounded like crap but we had to use it on every SDDS screen. AMC started sending their feature presentation snipes (Mr Clip) with SDDS on them and we were pretty much told to use SDDS exclusively (and I hated SDDS.. constantly dropping in and out of analogue).

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-08-2015, 02:54 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
The DTS flying disc one was pretty good but always sounded too bright (and too often screened with non-digital presentations).

Universal printed that DTS flying disc snipe on the heads of a number of movies that year, so every theater that played a Universal print that summer (Heart and Souls, etc.) got free DTS snipes even if they didn't have DTS.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2015, 03:06 PM:

Universal Studios was attaching DTS trailers to their movie releases until early 1994. I remember watching The Paper here in Lawton at the Cache 8 theater. The flying disc trailer played in the glory of what sounded kind of like analog stereo.

One thing DTS had to correct pretty quickly: adding a film ID to the time code. The original prints and discs to Jurassic Park and Heart and Souls didn't have that data in the time code, making it possible for the audio from Jurassic Park to run during a showing of Heart and Souls if someone forgot to change the discs.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 04-08-2015, 03:45 PM:

My favorite THX trailer was the one where the robot flies to the corners to fix the surround channels.
My favorite time watching it was at the UA Galaxy in San Francisco, when the little robot flew to the back right but the sound came from the back left, and vice versa.

My second favorite THX trailer was the original.
My favorite time watching that one was at the Mann Cherry Creek 8 in Denver, when it played without audio at all and everyone laughed when the text said "The audience is listening" at the end.

I'm not sure what THX stands for, but it isn't quality assurance.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-09-2015, 09:59 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As I said...effectively zero.

Earlier today DTS officially announced DTS:X for both the home market and for cinema. We'll have to see what happens over the next few months to see what DTS:X does to change that "effectively zero" situation.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-10-2015, 06:23 AM:

Yup...we'll see. I so glad that the whole DCI thing succeeded in avoiding another Digital Sound wars thing! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-13-2015, 04:04 AM:

It was clear that Dolby and the gang would not just sit still and leave it at 7.1 LPCM, wasn't it? [Wink]

Unfortunately, "innovation" (or progress or whatever you want to call it), in a free market economy primarily works by breaking standards or defacto standards. If everybody is doing the same thing, the only difference you can make is price. And a race to the bottom is not what you want if you're calling yourself Dolby.

From an engineering point of view, I would love it the other way around: First create a decent new standard, then bring in the products. But that's unfortunately not where the big bucks are.

I finally managed to play the trailer on a big screen and I actually liked it. I'm not sure if everybody really appreciates the non-stop spinning though. Manny refereed to old ladies getting all frightened by the somewhat bombastic "Dolby Spheres" trailer, this one might spin their head around.

And yeah, there will be many obvious complaints about the re-engineerded deep note, but I also kind of liked it. It sounded a little bit cleaner than the original incarnation.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-13-2015, 06:17 AM:

I don't fault the companies for trying to get an edge. But it doesn't really serve the exhibitors very well, at this point. What they don't need is another expensive thing to set themselves apart (except maybe in the very biggest markets).

Another problem with immersive is that for the average movie goer, it isn't enough of a difference from a discrete channel based soundtrack like 7.1 As you "race for the top," you, geometrically, are spending more and more money to get that next increment of "better" that fewer and fewer people will notice or care about.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-13-2015, 06:27 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Another problem with immersive is that for the average movie goer, it isn't enough of a difference from a discrete channel based soundtrack like 7.1 As you "race for the top," you, geometrically, are spending more and more money to get that next increment of "better" that fewer and fewer people will notice or care about.

I will agree with this. A well done 9.1 mix (7.1 plus L&R ceiling) will be very close to an Atmos or MDA result. Certainly less than 10% of the audience will notice.

On the other hand, if you make an auditorium with a gigantic screen, 100% of the audience will notice it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-13-2015, 08:33 AM:

No...skip the ceiling speakers altogether. And nobody will notice the difference. This is a very old and tired subject. The ability to get significant information and directional cues from overhead is a VERY VERY difficult thing and it has been tried just about since the advent of surrounds.

With ears on either side of one's head, the impression of audio height is tough. Furthermore, one is often very restricted in the amount of height they have to create this illusion. This makes for directional challenges but also coverage issues.

The time/value of creating an effective ceiling sound system will necessarily be difficult and expensive. Putting in a half-assed ceiling system is a waste of time and money...always has been.

Not surprisingly, I've yet to hear a notably improved Auro sound track. Adding height to a 5.1 or even a 7.1 mix isn't going to get you much and if you have to exaggerate the mix to get the height channels to be "heard" then you are likely going to get into the gimmicky category.

As it is...putting sound in the theatre where there is no picture to back up the audio cues borders on silliness.

For instance, it is good surround practice to have an airplane take off on screen and fly over the audience by turning all of the surrounds one to carry the audio of the plane over the audience (and one could claim that an object based surround system like Atmos would do this well).

However it is a VERY bad practice to have an airplane LAND by flying over people's heads and appear on the screen. When you place an audio cue not backed up by a visual, people will tend to "look" for what they hear and there isn't anything there but speakers...the suspension of disbelief if gone and you are back in a theatre. Some used to call it the "Exit Sign syndrome". You put a noise in the surrounds...when people turn to see what it is...what they see is the Exit sign in the theatre in the back corner.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-13-2015, 05:07 PM:

I agree that those height channels are of limited use. But I wouldn't call them entirely useless. Like I already mentioned in the DTS:X topic, we often tilt our heads around and then we're better able to detect those height cues. And yes, it's better to skip those than to do an half-assed attempt.

The biggest annoyance for me though, is the misuse of height channels. The best known example is rain, which, unless you're under a roof, you hear falling around you and not above you.

The "Exit Sign Syndrome" is certainly of importance, but don't you think we're largely over it by now? People also don't run screaming out of a theater if they see a train coming at them anymore. [Razz]

Most people must have become used to surround sound by now. If they hear the plane arriving from the back of the theater and see a landing strip in front of them, they surely know there's going to be a plane. I guess it will be more confusing to not show any plane landing at all. [Wink]

Another important factor is that too much realism might actually cause distraction. For example, simulate a noisy crowd and people might even think it originated in the very room they're sitting in.

Posted by Dave Young (Member # 8390) on 04-13-2015, 07:54 PM:

The plane analogy is an interesting one. I was driving with my top down today behind the airport and a Cessna came in behind and to my right for a landing. I was going around a bend and there were some ornery trucks in the oncoming lane so I didn't crane my head. I did distinctly notice that I had the very rare sensory experience of hearing that plane above me and wondered how high it was.

I imagine that height sound is such a small eventual percentage that zeroing it in with the overheads is not entirely worth it. Unless, of course, it was for a particular feature that had an extraordinary number of height effects needed.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2015, 09:14 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't fault the companies for trying to get an edge. But it doesn't really serve the exhibitors very well, at this point. What they don't need is another expensive thing to set themselves apart (except maybe in the very biggest markets).

When the exhibitors are selling "large format" (or rather digital yet fake large format) to the public at a significantly higher ticket price they probably ought to provide something more than just single projector video and ordinary surround sound. There's lots of standard priced theaters that do 4K and 7.1. Presenting something not noticeably different from what a standard priced auditorium delivers and just putting it on a bigger screen and making the sound a bit louder isn't worth a $3 to $6 premium above what's already kind of an expensive ticket.

quote: Steve Guttag
With ears on either side of one's head, the impression of audio height is tough. Furthermore, one is often very restricted in the amount of height they have to create this illusion. This makes for directional challenges but also coverage issues.

How is this different from real life sounds? I have no problem hearing other sounds above me, such as the noisy HVAC system in a bad quality movie theater. I don't need ears on top of my head to hear birds, planes or other noises that occur naturally above my listening position. I don't need an ear between my nose and mouth to locate sounds in front of me either.

What is it about speakers in the ceiling that makes it impossible for them to work versus anything else making noise from above? I have to say I've been in a few oddly designed AMC theaters in the past where the surround array was stuffed up in the ceiling rather than down on the side and back walls where it should be. I had no problem whatsoever hearing those speakers above me. It was very distracting since there was no sound field to the sides. Just big sound in front and on top.

One area where I do believe ceiling surrounds have coverage problems is in stadium seated theaters with the unequal distance from floor to ceiling going from the back row to the front row. People farther up and back will hear the ceiling surround speakers far better than people closer to the stage. This is yet another reason why stadium seated rooms are inferior to traditional sloped rooms for optimal surround sound. Back wall surround imaging really isn't very good in stadium seated rooms regardless if they're wired only for 5.1 or wired for Atmos or Auro.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The biggest annoyance for me though, is the misuse of height channels. The best known example is rain, which, unless you're under a roof, you hear falling around you and not above you.

Rainfall coming out of only the top channel speakers would be annoying. However, I have not heard any movie mixes in Atmos do that. Noah had a lot of torrential rain noise, but none of it was confined to only the ceiling surrounds.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-14-2015, 04:20 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
How is this different from real life sounds? I have no problem hearing other sounds above me, such as the noisy HVAC system in a bad quality movie theater. I don't need ears on top of my head to hear birds, planes or other noises that occur naturally above my listening position. I don't need an ear between my nose and mouth to locate sounds in front of me either.

Sure you'll be able to hear those noises, but your mind also often plays tricks on you while giving the sound a location. It's reasonable to question whether or not those ceiling speakers really matter very much in giving you those location cues.

As a matter of fact, they do, but just not as much as you'd probably think they do. That's why in my opinion, placing sounds on the correct height doesn't need as much resolution as placing it in the planar field around you.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Rainfall coming out of only the top channel speakers would be annoying. However, I have not heard any movie mixes in Atmos do that. Noah had a lot of torrential rain noise, but none of it was confined to only the ceiling surrounds.

Guardians of the Galaxy does this. I was watching this with my brother in Atmos. He also immediately noticed it and later told me it sounded weird and fake. And if I remember correctly, even the Atmos Amaze trailer does this to some extend.

quote: Bobby Henderson
One area where I do believe ceiling surrounds have coverage problems is in stadium seated theaters with the unequal distance from floor to ceiling going from the back row to the front row. People farther up and back will hear the ceiling surround speakers far better than people closer to the stage. This is yet another reason why stadium seated rooms are inferior to traditional sloped rooms for optimal surround sound.

The Atmos room equalization process accounts for the fact that front rows are located further away from the top speakers than the people sitting in the back to some extend, so this isn't really a big issue. The other argument you bring forward certainly is an issue for both highly sloped stadium seated auditoriums, but also for very deep rooms. It's not only an issue for Atmos, but also or decent 6.1 or 7.1 representation. Also, sitting close to the back wall in such an auditorium while watching a movie with a 7.1 mix can sound highly unnatural.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-14-2015, 06:46 AM:

Problems with ceiling speakers are multi-fold. It depends a lot on one not sitting straight to get any feel for the localization and it will vary based on how far your head is shifted.

You also have a coverage issue. You don't want to cause a false localization due to beaming (one speaker is so close to your listening position that you really just have that one playing at you for all effects, it will sound like what it is). In a high-ceiling auditorium, the problem is greatly reduced.

The perceived benefit versus cost versus effect has NEVER and I mean NEVER panned out in the upwards of 60-years it has been tried. What we have now with Atmos over previous attempts is the ability to localize sounds. Of the half-dozen Atmos performances I've heard...some did better than others but I haven't really had a mix yet that had me coming away thinking...this is how sound should be done. Mind you...VERY few mixes have done that for me. Sound of Music comes to mind...and incredible 6-track mix. I'm not sold that an immersive sound mix will improve that.

I do fear that immersive audio will drain financial resources like Surround-EX and HFR have done before it and cause the industry to dump money into only be abandoned shortly thereafter (or effectively abandoned). I'm VERY pleased to see that Surround 7.1 has quite a few mixes...despite no real marketing behind it. Not because I've put many in but that it costs the industry effectively zero and you can mix in it or not. I do see 3D continuing to decline as well (and hoping it does but that is a personal thing).

If people want to improve the sound...the 5-across was the right direction and Atmos has that...and then move the dialog with the actors...that is the kind of "immersion" I like as it sells the illusion better and continues the suspension of disbelief. Fancy gimmicky surrounds do the opposite, often.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2015, 12:38 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sure you'll be able to hear those noises, but your mind also often plays tricks on you while giving the sound a location. It's reasonable to question whether or not those ceiling speakers really matter very much in giving you those location cues.

I have no problem correctly hearing the position of a particular sound, whether it is coming out of a speaker or if it is a naturally occurring sound. One thing is certain: side surround speakers are never going to trick my mind into thinking the sound is occurring any point above me.

There are lots of complaints about gimmicky surround sound, ping-pong effects and what not. The truth is a distracting ping-pong effect can happen just as easily with 5.1 surround and even plain 2 channel stereo. A ping-pong problem isn't really the fault of a sound format, it's mostly the fault of the person who created the audio track. It's up to the sound designer to use the creative capabilities of any given sound format in a tasteful way.

Dolby Atmos can, when used properly, create a more natural sounding surround field than what a conventional surround array can deliver. Conventional surround is locked into a horizontal plane. We don't hear real world audio like that, despite only having 2 ears on the left and right sides of our heads. Confining an object oriented surround format only to side and back wall speakers could actually create something even more distracting. Audio objects are more likely to sound like point source effects coming from a specific side or back wall speaker. The ceiling surrounds can help create phantom imaging to spread out the sound into a fuller, more diffuse space.

5.1 surround is very deficient in being able to portray fly-by & fly-aruond effects in commercial auditoriums. You have to be sitting in exactly the right place for those effects to be convincing at all. Otherwise you'll just hear a big left wall & right wall stereo effect. Some stadium seated theaters, even ones wired for 7.1, can't deliver much of a back wall surround image because the surround speakers are stuffed up into a narrow area between the ceiling and highest back row of seats. You'll hear it only if you're sitting close enough to the rear channel speakers. Once again, fly-by & fly-aruond effects aren't going to work very well for a lot of people in the room, particularly if it is a large room and the surround speakers are the of the typically tiny, under-powered variety in most theaters. Object oriented sound formats like Atmos and DTS:X can render far more convincing surround effects when those effects are needed. The Atmos mix of Gravity had FAR better surround panning effects than I ever heard with any 70mm mix or 5.1/7.1 mix. The difference isn't even close.

quote: Steve Guttag
The perceived benefit versus cost versus effect has NEVER and I mean NEVER panned out in the upwards of 60-years it has been tried. What we have now with Atmos over previous attempts is the ability to localize sounds. Of the half-dozen Atmos performances I've heard...some did better than others but I haven't really had a mix yet that had me coming away thinking...this is how sound should be done. Mind you...VERY few mixes have done that for me. Sound of Music comes to mind...and incredible 6-track mix. I'm not sold that an immersive sound mix will improve that.

Regarding cost: we have a different movie-going environment now where customers are expected to pay an extra $3, $6 or more just because of a fancy acronym logo on the side of a building. That auditorium needs to deliver more than just plain 2K and 5.1 on a bigger screen and louder surround system to justify charging that high premium.

I've been impressed with some Atmos movie mixes, like Gravity and Edge of Tomorrow and then not so impressed with other mixes, like Thor: The Dark World or Man of Steel. That's not the fault of Atmos. It's the fault of the people not using the creative tools in an effective manner. And then there is the additional variable of whether a particular theater's Dolby Atmos installation is a good one. A theater operator can go anywhere from a minimal 9.1 configuration to having all 64 output channels utilized or any point in between. Unfortunately that means a given movie could sound crazy awesome on one Atmos system and sound hardly any different than conventional 7.1 on another system. DTS:X is going to have a much greater problem in this area with little if any standardization on equipment or speaker configurations. The DTS:X label could end up being totally meaningless if surround sound fans have no idea what to expect with it.

quote: Steve Guttag
I do fear that immersive audio will drain financial resources like Surround-EX and HFR have done before it and cause the industry to dump money into only be abandoned shortly thereafter (or effectively abandoned). I'm VERY pleased to see that Surround 7.1 has quite a few mixes...despite no real marketing behind it. Not because I've put many in but that it costs the industry effectively zero and you can mix in it or not. I do see 3D continuing to decline as well (and hoping it does but that is a personal thing).

In the case of Surround-EX, that was always going to be an interim audio format. 7.1 with quad surrounds effectively replaced it in both commercial movie theaters and in home theater. LPCM 7.1 has more mixes now because it is supported in home theater via LPCM, Dolby True-HD, Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD sound formats. On the high end movies mixed for Dolby Atmos will usually have a 7.1 track.

HFR has only been a really controversial thing. It's never going to catch on as long as movies still have to look like they were shot on film.

I think 3D is declining due a few reasons. The novelty of 3D has worn off for a lot of people. Movie tech heads like me have been put off by all the 2D-3D conversions. Customers are getting price fatigue and feel it's better to save a few bucks watching the movie in 2D. Prices for 3D movies on Blu-ray are fucking ridiculous and they stay sky high long after the regular 2D version to dropped to bargain bin pricing. Hardly any video stores offer Blu-ray 3D movies to rent. Netflix has a few 3D movies to watch, but you need a fantastic Internet connection for the 3D to work. 3D TV sets have various hassles; for instance, I don't like how the shutter glasses on my TV drink those little round batteries so fast. Overall 3D has been poorly managed and big blaring ads of "experience it IMAX 3D and Real D" aren't going to make a damned bit of difference.

What's going to be interesting in the long term is if all these fake large format theaters and other high priced screening concepts can survive. I already have a pretty nasty attitude toward those types of theaters. If sound formats like Atmos die off and the 3D trend also dies there will be very little justification for keeping those big screen theaters around, at least at their premium price points. Big screen and louder audio but still in conventional sound/projection formats isn't worth the premium price hike.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-14-2015, 02:01 PM:

Bobby,

With respect to EX...it survived until the end of mainstream film mixes and was to continue into DCinema...hence the 6.1 format exists...every Dolby server has shipped with a test DCP for it and big gun TMS systems like Cinedigm had a special audio cue for it.

It wasn't until the first 7.1 mix came out that the notion of EX in digital dropped like a lead ballon. The only thing that EX had going for it in the DCinema world was universal compatibility. The same DCP would play fine in all cinemas, EX or 5.1 I don't know of any DCPs that had an EX mix though.

That said, people did invest in EX decoders only to find their content choices to be more than limited.

With respect to HFR and 3D...since it came as the thick of the DCinema conversion was going on...there was a rather massive push/consideration for it. People had to, like 3D before it (remember, series 1 machines didn't have the bandwidth to handle triple flash until the VERY last generation), back pedal their products and figure a way to deal with it before the first Hobbit came out. The net result for all of that effort has been one trilogy with luke-warm reception and the promise of one more feature by a 3D fanatic. Yet we now have standards in place for it, TMS systems have cues for it, IMB companies have features (most are licensed) for it. Thus far, it has been a dud that people have had to spend money one. As an installer, we felt obligated to recommend IMBs for 3D at that time since if HFR had been a hit, it would have been a zero cost upgrade though I still prefer conventional mediablocks with SDI connectivity.

All of this stuff has cost money to exhibitors and manufacturers alike. Most of it doesn't pay off but you never want to be left out of the next "hit." If you were an early 3D adopter...you made out...once it became mainstream...the bang for the buck died too.

I agree that PLF theatres should have a better-than-typical sound system to as well as picture and I think Dolby's idea on their system is just that. I still haven't heard the worthwhile overhead effects though.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2015, 06:03 PM:

One really annoying thing about Surround EX for theater operators: it was supported a lot better on DVD than it was in movie theaters where it was more badly needed. Some movies would have their theatrical release in conventional 5.1 and then appear on DVD with Dolby Surround EX 5.1 or DTS-ES 6.1 discrete audio tracks. That nonsense took value away from the DD-EX and DTS-ES processors various theaters installed.

7.1 LPCM was an improvement over lossy compressed DD-EX and DTS-ES formats. Unfortunately no one figured out how to make LPCM 7.1 fold down to 5.1 properly so a DCP could have a single, universally compatible LPCM track.

quote: Steve Guttag
I agree that PLF theatres should have a better-than-typical sound system to as well as picture and I think Dolby's idea on their system is just that. I still haven't heard the worthwhile overhead effects though.

It could very well be Atmos equipped theaters near you are not well configured. For Atmos to sound great numerous variables have to be in place. Fundamentally the movie mix has to take advantage of Atmos' capability otherwise it's not going to sound noticeably different from a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix. The theater's Atmos system needs a sufficient number of separately amplified and more powerful than usual surround speakers otherwise an aggressive Atmos mix will still sound like conventional surround sound.

Dolby Cinema has some promise; however, I think Dolby will have to make some tweaks to the design. Images I've seen of one of the first Dolby Cinema installations show what seems to be a pretty small screen and the screen is common width at that. That's not going to go over well with customers, especially if they have to pay a pretty high surcharge to enter. Dolby Vision enhanced imagery could be controversial unless it preserves a film-like image.

IMAX has to get its new dual 4K laser projection system and 12 channel sound system deployed ASAP. So far one theater in Toronto and the TCL Chinese Theater in LA have been upgraded. Supposedly more than 70 of these new systems have been ordered. But it's a mystery where they're all going to be installed. From my own selfish perspective I don't know if Carmike will install one of these new 4K systems in the IMAX branded theater they're building here in Lawton. However, I would not be surprised at all if the new theater was equipped with older 2K equipment, even hand-me-down equipment from another IMAX branded theater in a larger city. Judging from the building's construction the IMAX house is going to be pretty big. Its roof looks at least 20 feet higher than the rest of the building, which looks about 30'-35' tall.

Laser-based projection could turn into an important thing that ends up being a requirement for premium big screen theaters, especially if Dolby Cinema and IMAX openly tout it with their name branded theaters.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-15-2015, 04:47 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I have no problem correctly hearing the position of a particular sound, whether it is coming out of a speaker or if it is a naturally occurring sound. One thing is certain: side surround speakers are never going to trick my mind into thinking the sound is occurring any point above me.

I guess the only way to be sure is doing an ABX test, preferably with your head mounted. [Wink]

Then again, like I put it before, people, not just you and me, are certainly capable of perceiving height in sound. Even if it's aided by tilting your head, which we naturally do.
The question remains though, in how often this really is useful. The height and location information in general becomes less relevant once an object is located further away from the listener or if it's going below a certain frequency level.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Object oriented sound formats like Atmos and DTS:X can render far more convincing surround effects when those effects are needed. The Atmos mix of Gravity had FAR better surround panning effects than I ever heard with any 70mm mix or 5.1/7.1 mix. The difference isn't even close.

I've seen Gravity in both Atmos and 7.1 sound. The Atmos version was in a very large auditorium. The 7.1 version was in a much smaller auditorium and while the Atmos version sounded better, the 7.1 version wasn't really that much worse.

In smaller theaters, where all speaker arrays can easily reach you at roughly the same SPL, a traditional 7.1 setup isn't really so much worse than Atmos. One thing Atmos can do in big rooms if done right, is increase the sweet spot.

Gravity excelled in how it approached sound mixing. The same can be told about Birdman, which even doesn't have an Atmos track, then again makes excellent use of the 7.1 channel layout.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It could very well be Atmos equipped theaters near you are not well configured. For Atmos to sound great numerous variables have to be in place. Fundamentally the movie mix has to take advantage of Atmos' capability otherwise it's not going to sound noticeably different from a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix. The theater's Atmos system needs a sufficient number of separately amplified and more powerful than usual surround speakers otherwise an aggressive Atmos mix will still sound like conventional surround sound.

I've experienced Atmos in quite a few theaters right now. At least three of them have been designed in close cooperation with Dolby, one of them even calls itself Dolby Cinema and was, as such designed conforming Dolby's most intricate specifications.

While Dolby Atmos sounds great in big rooms, the step up from a smaller sized rooms built conforming to THX specs is just minimal in my opinion. I see great potential in MDA formats as a uniform method of delivery, but it's clear to me that a smaller room doesn't need a gazillion of audio channels to have great sounding surround. The biggest benefit of autonomous speaker channels in big auditoriums is probably that all speakers can now also be individually tuned, to better match the conditions inside the room.

The added value for those overhead speakers can still be debated. I've indicated that before, but in my opinion, we should invest in more speakers behind the screen first, especially in large venues, before adding speakers to the ceiling.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-15-2015, 06:49 AM:

Bobby, I've heard Atoms numerous times in genuine Dolby set up/equipped theatres where they were demoing how great the format was...still...the overhead part was less than satisfying.

Remember too, in stadium seating theatres...your height to speaker gets progressively less as you head to the rear of the auditorium. In theory, the density of speakers should be increasing as the height diminishes...but that would be yet more money thrown at the problem. A problem that just hasn't proven itself to be a problem.

Also as to the other over-head attempts of yesteryear and the need to justify higher ticket prices...remember back then we had hard-tickets on roadshows that did command a premium price. For that, they typically got things like 70mm...which was a night/day improvement over the 35mm optical mono in both picture and sound.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-15-2015, 10:46 AM:

My projection booth has a window that opens to the outside. When I was running film it was fun to poke my head out the window and yell at friends going by. They would NEVER think to look up above them, they'd always think the sound is coming from street level. So I can see the point about overhead speakers being not good for much except "voice of God" type things.