or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Star Trek: Into Darkness in Dolby Atmos
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek: Into Darkness in Dolby Atmos - Page 3

post #61 of 106
I saw it in Imax in the SF East Bay. (Emeryville)
I agree with the OP - The volume was (like many/most) movies, too LOUD. What was really bad were the interminable (20 minutes) of commercials (called pre-views in the movie business). The volume was so loud that a group started yelling "Turn it down"!!! If the actually movie had been that loud, I would have left and demanded my money back.
Overly loud movies have been around for at least 15 years. I'd rather watch a movie at home.

Re: Lens Flare - From wiki:
J. J. Abrams, the director of the 2009 version of Star Trek, used this technique. "I wanted a visual system that felt unique. I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame." Many complained of the frequent use, Abrams admitted it was "overdone, in some places."[6]
I guess he forgot what he said 3 years ago. Personally, I didn't notice this as a real problem.

I really liked the casting of the crew. The characters were all true in acting and accent to the original ST. [Yes, I did attend one ST convention in LV and bought some memorabilia at the Christie's auction a few years ago.]

=====
An enjoyable movie experience - a sellout of 3040 at the restored Paramount Theater in Oakland when they played "Casablanca". No overly loud artificial sound effects. I don't need noise or artificial special effects to be entertained.
post #62 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

To be absolutely clear about this, the assumption was that no Atmos with ETX versus IMAX, I would choose IMAX.
I was with you in that theatre watching 'Prometheus' and you later told me how much clearer the ETX image was compared to IMAX and I told you how much better the 7.1 soundtrack track was compared to IMAX's 5-speaker presentation. There was no Atmos and no laser projector at that screening, and yet you had nothing but praise for the experience (especially the bass).

So let's not make these hard-n-fast rules about which you would prefer when you yourself have preferred the opposite (even when there was no Atmos). Rather than taking a mindset of one vs the other, I have no problem saying that each venue has its advantages.

The tall aspect ratio and 6-story height of the 70mm IMAX presentation of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' was unique and visually immersive in a way that the ETX presentation (even the digital IMAX presentation) wasn't. However, the Dolby Atmos soundtrack had directionality and envelopment that 5-speaker playback couldn't possibly achieve.

The same can be said for 'Oblivion': looked great in digital IMAX (since it was composed specifically for that 1.9 aspect ratio) and sounded great in ETX (since it was the first Atmos originated mix). Glad I saw it both ways rather than trying to pit one against the other.
post #63 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


I was with you in that theatre watching 'Prometheus' and you later told me how much clearer the ETX image was compared to IMAX and I told you how much better the 7.1 soundtrack track was compared to IMAX's 5-speaker presentation. There was no Atmos and no laser projector at that screening, and yet you had nothing but praise for the experience (especially the bass).

So let's not make these hard-n-fast rules about which you would prefer when you yourself have preferred the opposite (even when there was no Atmos). Rather than taking a mindset of one vs the other, I have no problem saying that each venue has its advantages.

The tall aspect ratio and 6-story height of the 70mm IMAX presentation of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' was unique and visually immersive in a way that the ETX presentation (even the digital IMAX presentation) wasn't. However, the Dolby Atmos soundtrack had directionality and envelopment that 5-speaker playback couldn't possibly achieve.

The same can be said for 'Oblivion': looked great in digital IMAX (since it was composed specifically for that 1.9 aspect ratio) and sounded great in ETX (since it was the first Atmos originated mix). Glad I saw it both ways rather than trying to pit one against the other.


Actually, Oblivion was not the first Atmos mix; Brave holds that distinction. And I agree that both ETX/Atmos and Imax have their advantages. I prefer the Imax image, especially with 3D since the ETX theater went from dual-projector to single-projector. But I prefer Atmos sound.

post #64 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The same can be said for 'Oblivion': looked great in digital IMAX (since it was composed specifically for that 1.9 aspect ratio) and sounded great in ETX (since it was the first Atmos originated mix).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

Actually, Oblivion was not the first Atmos mix; Brave holds that distinction.
'Brave' wasn't originated in Atmos. That distinction goes to...

http://stereostoneusa.com/blog/from-brave-to-oblivion-dolby-atmos-turns-one-with-over-30-films-and-100-screens
Quote:
Tom Cruise’s recent sci-fi adventure Oblivion is the most recent film to get the treatment, as well as the first title to get a native Dolby Atmos mix. Having that native mix allowed the sound team to envision and design the Oblivion mix for Dolby Atmos right from the start. That way, they could create a specific soundfield with Dolby Atmos in mind.

On April 10, “Oblivion” premiered at the Dolby Theatre, becoming the first native Dolby Atmos mix on a Hollywood title
post #65 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I was with you in that theatre watching 'Prometheus' and you later told me how much clearer the ETX image was compared to IMAX and I told you how much better the 7.1 soundtrack track was compared to IMAX's 5-speaker presentation. There was no Atmos and no laser projector at that screening, and yet you had nothing but praise for the experience (especially the bass).

So let's not make these hard-n-fast rules about which you would prefer when you yourself have preferred the opposite (even when there was no Atmos). Rather than taking a mindset of one vs the other, I have no problem saying that each venue has its advantages.

The tall aspect ratio and 6-story height of the 70mm IMAX presentation of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' was unique and visually immersive in a way that the ETX presentation (even the digital IMAX presentation) wasn't. However, the Dolby Atmos soundtrack had directionality and envelopment that 5-speaker playback couldn't possibly achieve.

The same can be said for 'Oblivion': looked great in digital IMAX (since it was composed specifically for that 1.9 aspect ratio) and sounded great in ETX (since it was the first Atmos originated mix). Glad I saw it both ways rather than trying to pit one against the other.

There is no contradiction. If I had to choose one, I gave my rationale. However, I don't mind seeing it both ways.
post #66 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

There is no contradiction. If I had to choose one, I gave my rationale.
Which is why I gave an example of you preferring the opposite. Hence the contradiction.
post #67 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

You're right; I misremembered the standard. Thanks for linking to that document. It's very scary to think that exposure to 85 dBA for 16 hours is acceptable to OSHA, not to mention 100 dBA for 2 hours! I would definitely argue that the standard needs to be strengthened. BTW, I took "barely" out of the original post.

I wonder if there is really enough research that has been done on this to say much. The OSHA numbers from my own experience seem ok. But, my sample size is 1…. which isn't good research. I believe that there is also Psychosomatic factors that cause us to perceive "too loud" differently. I know that I find 90db of clean music to not be irritating at all. But, if there is distortion, it is very irritating. Now, is the damage to my ear drums different with clean vs distorted 90db music different… I doubt it.

I would have to read the OSHA standard a little closer… but I think if I remember right… (I don't really enjoy reading through OSHA documents) An employer has to make hearing protection available at somewhere around a 50% dosage level.
post #68 of 106
How many of you would go back to an Atmos theater? Star Trek was a little to punchy for me at times. Man of Steel, Fast 6 (Atmos?) and Pacific Rim should all sound crazy.

Noob question-is the closet thing to Atmos at home, DTS Neo X?
post #69 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post

How many of you would go back to an Atmos theater? Star Trek was a little to punchy for me at times. Man of Steel, Fast 6 (Atmos?) and Pacific Rim should all sound crazy.

Noob question-is the closet thing to Atmos at home, DTS Neo X?

Neo:X is a matrix decoding scheme like Dolby ProLogic. You're still limited to the discrete channel makeup of the soundrack: 5.1 or 7.1 The extra speaker outputs are ways of enhancing and expanding the sound of the regular mix. It does not add channels where they do not exist.

Hybrid channel/object formats like Atmos and even 100% object-oriented formats (like certain forms of DTS MDA) use discrete metadata control for each specified sound "object." Each speaker in the system becomes individually controlled. If you had a mixing renderer and post mix theater processor that could address 64 speakers, you would, in effect, have 64 individual "channels" at your disposal and could pan to any one of them.

All sound objects can be full frequency... and they even encourage mixers to get creative (some have only used the surround palette in limited ways up to now)... object-oriented audio is "3D" audio for 2D or 3D films, documentaries, music performances, etc. You can have three-axis control of the sound, giving it more depth, height, and width. There are subwoofer outputs for the surround arrays as well as the standard mono LFE channel.

DTS, and to some extent Dolby, want object-oriented audio introduced to home markets with UHD media, games, streaming, and broadcasts.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 5/24/13 at 2:41pm
post #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


Actually, Oblivion was not the first Atmos mix; Brave holds that distinction. And I agree that both ETX/Atmos and Imax have their advantages. I prefer the Imax image, especially with 3D since the ETX theater went from dual-projector to single-projector. But I prefer Atmos sound.

Oblivion is the first movie to be mixed in Atmos and not mixed in 5.1 and 7.1 than converted like Brave was. I think thats what he was referring to.
post #71 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post



'Brave' wasn't originated in Atmos. That distinction goes to...

http://stereostoneusa.com/blog/from-brave-to-oblivion-dolby-atmos-turns-one-with-over-30-films-and-100-screens


I stand corrected. According to Dolby, Brave was mixed first in 7.1, then the original soundtrack assets were remixed in Atmos, whereas Oblivion was the first movie to be conceived and mixed first in Atmos, after which that mix was re-rendered down to 7.1 and 5.1. In any event, I think this is a minor distinction without a real difference; to me, it doesn't matter which one was mixed first in Atmos. Both were mixed in Atmos from original soundtrack assets. The important thing is to experience the Atmos mix if possible, which is superior to a 7.1 or 5.1 mix in my view.

post #72 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post

How many of you would go back to an Atmos theater? Star Trek was a little to punchy for me at times. Man of Steel, Fast 6 (Atmos?) and Pacific Rim should all sound crazy.

Noob question-is the closet thing to Atmos at home, DTS Neo X?


I will go to an Atmos presentation over anything else any day of the week. From Dolby's Atmos website, F&F6 is not Atmos, while Man of Steel and Pacific Rim are. For a complete list of Atmos movies, go here:

 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/content/movie/release/dolby-atmos-movies.html

 

To answer your question, I suppose it's fair to say that the closest thing to Atmos at home would be DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX, but there are no commercially available soundtracks mixed in 11.1; both systems synthesize the extra channels. Plus, neither one has speakers on the ceiling.

post #73 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post


Oblivion is the first movie to be mixed in Atmos and not mixed in 5.1 and 7.1 than converted like Brave was. I think thats what he was referring to.


See my response to sdurani. According to Dolby, Brave was first mixed in 7.1, then the original soundtrack assets were remixed in Atmos; it was not a conversion from 7.1.

post #74 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

I'm still waiting to find out if the Oblivion 7.1/5.1 soundtrack was a downmix of Atmos or a separate mix.
From the Neve (studio console maker) website:
Quote:
Oblivion was the first movie with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack to be mixed natively. ...The soundtrack to the film was the first to be exclusively mixed in Dolby Atmos - no 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks were mixed at all. All other required formats were derived in the RMU as a down render afterwards and the DFC was the host for the entire project (including Atmos metadata automation) from day one of the pre-mix through the final mix concluding with the Atmos Print-master.
Regarding 'Star Trek Into Darkness':
Quote:
The soundtrack was mixed in 7.1 using the AMS Neve DFC Gemini console on the Hawks stage at Fox by Academy Award winner Andy Nelson and Will Files. Will, who also worked on Disney Pixar's Brave - the first movie released with a Dolby Atmos up-mixed soundtrack, then took the automation data from the DFC Gemini session at Fox and created the native Dolby Atmos mix for Star Trek Into Darkness at Skywalker Sound using one of their AMS Neve DFC Gemini consoles.

http://www.ams-neve.com/news-and-events/surrounded-darkness-and-oblivion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

I think this is a minor distinction without a real difference; to me, it doesn't matter which one was mixed first in Atmos.
Sorta like 3D these days, where the distinction between natively-shot and post-converted is becoming a minor distinction due to the improving quality of the latter. Still, it would be nice to know which soundtracks were natively Atmos, even if just to satisfy my curiosity. I'm guessing it will be relatively few titles, considering how many Atmos soundtracks came before 'Oblivion'.
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post

Noob question-is the closet thing to Atmos at home, DTS Neo X?
The closest thing to object-based mixing at home is video game surround sound. Sound effects are not placed in any particular channel but instead rendered to particular locations based on what you do with the controller. Localization is accomplished by routing the sound effect to either the speaker closest to the intended location or sometimes more than one speaker (e.g., you pan a sound effect between your centre speaker and left speaker, so the sound effect is routed to both speakers and phantom imaged inbetween). Video games have been doing Atmos-like mixing for years, with real-time rendering no less.
post #76 of 106
Not to drag this thread too far off "star trek" but it never ceases to amaze me that so many on an audio video forum find 85-110db levels for a 2 hour movie to be too loud.

And I largely agree. It's fine that others seemingly enjoy it- there's also a % of the populace that enjoy habanero peppers...but the vast, vast majority find them much too hot...especially for extended consumption (read: 2 hour movie).

And the usual "well if it's not distorted or strained it sounds great" holds about zero water with me. Maybe in the dynamics dept, but not 85-105/110 dbs for 2+ hours. My system and others I've heard stretching into the tech and $ stratosphere all do it with relative ease and...it's most times too freakin loud for most people.

I doubt theater volume levels will be changing anytime soon (and yes they can back it off 5-10dbs and retain the spirit/essence of the soundtrack exceptionally well, thank you).

Fortunately we can put together pretty damn solid home systems and season to taste.

James
post #77 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The closest thing to object-based mixing at home is video game surround sound. Sound effects are not placed in any particular channel but instead rendered to particular locations based on what you do with the controller. Localization is accomplished by routing the sound effect to either the speaker closest to the intended location or sometimes more than one speaker (e.g., you pan a sound effect between your centre speaker and left speaker, so the sound effect is routed to both speakers and phantom imaged inbetween). Video games have been doing Atmos-like mixing for years, with real-time rendering no less.

funny you mentioned that. I'm in the process of rebuilding my HT for the new PS4 and Xbox One later this year.
Im upgrading my AVR, TV and speakers. There is some pretty amazing audio in video games today, the new Tomb Raider has some excellent positional sound.

Great thread, I find this stuff fascinating!
post #78 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


From the Neve (studio console maker) website:
Regarding 'Star Trek Into Darkness':
The soundtrack was mixed in 7.1 using the AMS Neve DFC Gemini console on the Hawks stage at Fox by Academy Award winner Andy Nelson and Will Files. Will, who also worked on Disney Pixar's Brave - the first movie released with a Dolby Atmos up-mixed soundtrack, then took the automation data from the DFC Gemini session at Fox and created the native Dolby Atmos mix for Star Trek Into Darkness at Skywalker Sound using one of their AMS Neve DFC Gemini consoles.

http://www.ams-neve.com/news-and-events/surrounded-darkness-and-oblivion
 

Thanks for the clarifications! The only thing I question is the statement that the Brave Atmos soundtrack was "up-mixed," which implies it was derived from the 7.1 mix. According to Dolby, the original, discrete soundtrack elements were mixed in Atmos from scratch after the 7.1 mix had been made.

post #79 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

The only thing I question is the statement that the Brave Atmos soundtrack was "up-mixed," which implies it was derived from the 7.1 mix. According to Dolby, the original, discrete soundtrack elements were mixed in Atmos from scratch after the 7.1 mix had been made.
It might not be one or the other, since Atmos mixes can have channel beds. So maybe they mixed a 7.1 track and then took only those elements that required movement and/or overhead localization and put those particular objects on the Atmos bus. If the 7.1 mix has already been done and 70% of the sounds are where the mixer wants them, then it doesn't make sense to start from scratch when only 30% of the sounds need the unique capabilities of Atmos. They could save some studio time ($) by putting only that 30% on the Atmos bus and leaving the rest in their original channel beds.
post #80 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Hybrid channel/object formats like Atmos and even 100% object-oriented formats (like certain forms of DTS MDA)

MDA is also a hybrid format. I asked a sound mixer friend of mine about this, and he said that there will always be some sound elements that make more sense to lay in as channel beds rather than 3D objects. For example, a background musical score. You don't want the position of the musical instruments to shift from speaker to speaker. They should remain constant no matter what's happening on screen.

Now, you could code the entire score as 3D objects and still force them to remain locked to specific speakers, but that's a lot of needless effort when putting them in channel beds is much easier and sounds exactly the same, if not better.
post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

Thanks for the clarifications! The only thing I question is the statement that the Brave Atmos soundtrack was "up-mixed," which implies it was derived from the 7.1 mix. According to Dolby, the original, discrete soundtrack elements were mixed in Atmos from scratch after the 7.1 mix had been made.

As you say, "upmixing" implies that someone started with a completed 7.1 mix and then applied some post-processing to convert it to another format - like upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, which any A/V receiver can do in real time. That's not possible with object-based audio. The mixer will need access to the original sound elements in order to code them as discrete objects.

However, in the case of a movie like Brave, the mixer used the completed 7.1 mix as a foundation, stripped out certain channels, and then went back to the sound elements for those channels and re-coded them as discrete objects.

Oblivion, on the other hand, was built for Atmos from the ground up. The 5.1 and 7.1 options for that movie were down-renders from Atmos.
post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post

Probably because this movie had 30 minutes filmed in the taller IMAX format. The movie had a varying aspect ratio like the Dark Kinght and it will just be cropped the whole time in a non-IMAX theater. I really like the look of the IMAX format scenes personally. It jsut gives a whole different immersive feel compared to 2.35:1

Now I will definitely go see it again in IMAX (there's a real 15/70 reasonably close by). I've been waiting for confirmation on the variable AR (I quite liked it in the Dark Knight movies--I really hope the home release offers this option as well).
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


See my response to sdurani. According to Dolby, Brave was first mixed in 7.1, then the original soundtrack assets were remixed in Atmos; it was not a conversion from 7.1.

Ya sorry I wouldn't have posted that if I would have noticed sdurani's response before I posted. Sorry to sdurani too didn't mean to repost same info.
post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post

How many of you would go back to an Atmos theater? Star Trek was a little to punchy for me at times. Man of Steel, Fast 6 (Atmos?) and Pacific Rim should all sound crazy.

Noob question-is the closet thing to Atmos at home, DTS Neo X?

I would and will most certainly go back to an Atmos theater. I actually have now 3 times and to me its just amazing. And its a 4.5 hour drive for me. I love hearing effects pan from speaker to speaker and all around you. Its just so addicting and the Atmos mixes just seem to have more life to them.
Edited by Reddig - 5/25/13 at 6:47pm
post #85 of 106
I want to see (and hear) the Star Trek movie in the next couple of day. I attended the Atmos viewing of Die Hard at the ArcLight Sherman Oaks cinema and enjoyed the sound. Is it a trade off in sound and video choosing Atmos over say the Woodland Hills IMAX?
post #86 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelman View Post

Is it a trade off in sound and video choosing Atmos over say the Woodland Hills IMAX?
The (Woodland Hills) IMAX presentation has the changing aspect ratio that the filmmakers intended but is limited to 5 speakers. The Atmos presentation at Archlight (Sherman Oaks) uses over 40 speakers to image sound around and above you but doesn't differentiate the IMAX footage from the 35mm shots. So, yes, it's a trade off between sound and picture.
post #87 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

The worst thing about the movie... More so that the way too many one-liners and "throwbacks" to previous movies, was J.J. Abrams lens flare crap.

That is disappointing, it is amazing how directors forget that “its what in front of the lens that counts” and not the lens/camera itself. I also very much dislike jerky, handheld camera work. I was surprised that Super 8 did not have more than it did. Ejected Mission: Impossible III and Star Trek after just a few minutes. With JJ as producer on Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol I thought it would be the same way but was glad to see it was done (camera work) quite well.

Oh well, saves me the trouble of a rental later on!!
post #88 of 106
I saw it in a lousy theatre with lousy sound and it didn't hurt the movie a bit. It was still lousy.
post #89 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kauaidoug View Post

I saw it in a lousy theatre with lousy sound and it didn't hurt the movie a bit. It was still lousy.

Thanks for your lousy contribution to this thread. rolleyes.gif
post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I would take that answer with a grain of salt. Having seen it both ways, the 5-speaker IMAX sound system (not just 5 channels, but 5 speakers) cannot compete with the 40+ speakers at the typical Atmos install, especially since each of those speakers is getting an independent signal. If you're looking for an excuse to go to a nearby theatre rather than driving to Burbank, that's a different story. But let's not pretend a 5-speaker system sounds better than Atmos or that the ETX theatre isn't showing the movie in Atmos.

I saw it in the same theater and I think part of the confusion is that there was no Atmos trailer before the film. It simply played after the AMC "Feature Presentation" without fanfare.

That said, the Atmos was incredible. I saw this across the hall in IMAX first and was somewhat disappointed in the sound. Much of the dialog was obscured and difficult to understand. Not so in Atmos, clear as a bell.

The bass response was amazing. When the Enterprise spiraled out of control it rumbled overhead and forward. I haven't experienced that since I was in the USAF and had a heavy cargo jet rumble above me, flying not far above the flightline. Something I won't forget.
Worth the drive.

And, yes, the trailers were too damned loud!
Edited by PeterTHX - 5/29/13 at 4:29pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Star Trek: Into Darkness in Dolby Atmos