or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Gravity in 3D and Dolby Atmos
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gravity in 3D and Dolby Atmos - Page 5

post #121 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Since, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the information I came to this thread for I've now concluded is considered an industry secret and unanswerable, I'm now gone and unsubscribing.

Well, if true, that's awfully petulant of you. "You didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, so screw you guys, I'm outta here!" Doesn't exactly make us want to help answer your question.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
I don't blame you for running away. But again, if you don't know ("unanswerable") how many discrete feeds there are, then why are you so convinced it can't be 64? What is it about that particular number that you find so incredulous?

 

:)  I think the answer he wants is: 42.

post #122 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Since, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the information I came to this thread for I've now concluded is considered an industry secret and unanswerable, I'm now gone and unsubscribing.


Well, if true, that's awfully petulant of you. "You didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, so screw you guys, I'm outta here!" Doesn't exactly make us want to help answer your question.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

 
I don't blame you for running away. But again, if you don't know ("unanswerable") how many discrete feeds there are, then why are you so convinced it can't be 64? What is it about that particular number that you find so incredulous?

smile.gif  I think the answer he wants is: 42.
smile.gif

Except that HDMI v2.0 only supports 32.
post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I think the answer he wants is: 42.
smile.gif Except that HDMI v2.0 only supports 32.
Maybe bitstream those soundtracks, so that channel count doesn't matter?
post #124 of 164
Atmos is a tool. DTS MDA is a tool. Auro3D is a tool. Some, like the former 2, seem like better tools with more capabilities, but they're still tools nonetheless. What you actually do with the tools at hand is the rub.

A skilled sound engineering team will understand the capabilities of said tool and use it wisely and to great effect. This is like any "talkie" movie from the beginning until now. There are sound guys/gals who are better at their job than others.

Because Gravity seemingly was only a 7.1 + objects mix, perhaps that's why the overheads didn't play such a prominent roll as supposedly something like in The Hobbit where even dialog was steered to the overhead speakers to create the illusion of a character speaking from above the action on screen.

It will be interesting to see if DTS and Barco get traction with open-source MDA because they tout, as an added benefit of their rendering software, the ability to pull object sounds out of the speaker arrays and "float" them out into the audience by means of advanced psychoacoustic panning techniques rather than the traditional phase and amplitude adjustments. For example, a bullet fired from a gun doesn't just track through the speaker arrays from front speakers to back speakers, but sounds like it is flying right at you and passing by your ear for a more 3D effect.

I, for one, would love to be able to sit in a demo session to hear exactly what they're talking about.
post #125 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I don't blame you for running away. But again, if you don't know ("unanswerable") how many discrete feeds there are, then why are you so convinced it can't be 64? What is it about that particular number that you find so incredulous?

Another factor that zillch fails to consider is that not every theater needs 64 speakers. That number was chosen as a maximum to accomodate monstrously huge auditoriums. A smaller auditorium (and I mean "smaller" only in relative sense, given that we're talking about rooms as big as the Dolby Theatre [formerly Kodak Theatre] where the Oscars are held) don't need that many speakers to achieve the same sonic result.
post #126 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I think the answer he wants is: 42.
smile.gif Except that HDMI v2.0 only supports 32.
Maybe bitstream those soundtracks, so that channel count doesn't matter?

Assuming they'd want to be compatible with existing audio systems (which is quite a rash assumption, of course), it seems to me that they'd be likely to provide a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack plus supplemental bitstreams of objects -- as many as a particular audio processor could handle.
post #127 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Atmos is a tool. DTS MDA is a tool. Auro3D is a tool. Some, like the former 2, seem like better tools with more capabilities, but they're still tools nonetheless. What you actually do with the tools at hand is the rub.

A skilled sound engineering team will understand the capabilities of said tool and use it wisely and to great effect. This is like any "talkie" movie from the beginning until now. There are sound guys/gals who are better at their job than others.

Because Gravity seemingly was only a 7.1 + objects mix, perhaps that's why the overheads didn't play such a prominent roll as supposedly something like in The Hobbit where even dialog was steered to the overhead speakers to create the illusion of a character speaking from above the action on screen.

It will be interesting to see if DTS and Barco get traction with open-source MDA because they tout, as an added benefit of their rendering software, the ability to pull object sounds out of the speaker arrays and "float" them out into the audience by means of advanced psychoacoustic panning techniques rather than the traditional phase and amplitude adjustments. For example, a bullet fired from a gun doesn't just track through the speaker arrays from front speakers to back speakers, but sounds like it is flying right at you and passing by your ear for a more 3D effect.

I, for one, would love to be able to sit in a demo session to hear exactly what they're talking about.

Hell yeah. Bring it on! smile.gif
post #128 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It will be interesting to see if DTS and Barco get traction with open-source MDA because they tout, as an added benefit of their rendering software, the ability to pull object sounds out of the speaker arrays and "float" them out into the audience by means of advanced psychoacoustic panning techniques rather than the traditional phase and amplitude adjustments. For example, a bullet fired from a gun doesn't just track through the speaker arrays from front speakers to back speakers, but sounds like it is flying right at you and passing by your ear for a more 3D effect.

It's an exciting concept, but I'm a little skeptical. MDA was developed by SRS Labs before DTS bought them, and I assume that this psychoacoustic panning is based on the same techniques as SRS's virtual surround processing, which I've never been much impressed by.
post #129 of 164
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It's an exciting concept, but I'm a little skeptical. MDA was developed by SRS Labs before DTS bought them, and I assume that this psychoacoustic panning is based on the same techniques as SRS's virtual surround processing, which I've never been much impressed by.

Iagree   SRS sucks.

post #130 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Because Gravity seemingly was only a 7.1 + objects mix, perhaps that's why the overheads didn't play such a prominent roll as supposedly something like in The Hobbit where even dialog was steered to the overhead speakers to create the illusion of a character speaking from above the action on screen.
Hobbit started out as a 7.1 mix too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

A smaller auditorium (and I mean "smaller" only in relative sense, given that we're talking about rooms as big as the Dolby Theatre [formerly Kodak Theatre] where the Oscars are held) don't need that many speakers to achieve the same sonic result.
There were some articles written at the time of the Atmos install in the Dolby Theatre and, from what I remember, they had 2 or 3 renderers talking to each other. This implies that they might have gone beyond 64 speakers. Of course they have a huge room and multiple balcony levels to address with their speaker placement. Shame that the only time this venue is used for movies is at premieres.
post #131 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Funny how the promotional literature, movie poster, and the retail box made no mention of that "3.1" part, just the 5.1 part.wink.gif


Through my research I've come to the conclusion that there currently aren't any 62.2 (64) speaker movie theaters, anywhere, not even at Dolby. In theory, Dolby sanctioned Atmos theaters can have as little as 9.1 speaker feeds to a max of 62.2. [The largest number of discrete speaker channels currently used in any Atmos theater in the US, that I'm aware of, is said to be 43, but new venues are popping up constantly, so that can change at any moment].  To answer your question theoretically though, "somewhere between 1 and 64", depending on the scene, the movie, the number of objects used, and if the objects move about, at all. Many are fixed.
---

Atmos is pitched to us as [paraphrased] "..and it cleverly scales down easily to 5.1 and 7.1 for smaller systems and venues, with the appropriate speaker mapping", but in truth, the way it is made is just the opposite, for many, if not most releases, including Taken 2 and Chasing Mavericks. What has been done is the 5.1 or 7.1 sound has been scaled up, by third party audio engineers/mixers, not the original mixing artists who then mess with it by simplistically adding, among other things, reverb, delays, "double bussing", and almost haphazardly adding "a few" objects, some moving, some fixed, assuming they can isolate them from the original mix, that they think would be appropriate, through a rather bumbling process of trial and error, it would seem:

http://designingsound.org/2012/11/ambiences-with-dolby-atmos/

Since, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the information I came to this thread for I've now concluded is considered an industry secret and unanswerable, I'm now gone and unsubscribing.
Bye all!

Thank god lol.biggrin.gif
post #132 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It's an exciting concept, but I'm a little skeptical. MDA was developed by SRS Labs before DTS bought them, and I assume that this psychoacoustic panning is based on the same techniques as SRS's virtual surround processing, which I've never been much impressed by.

It sounds like they've moved passed the early SRS design stages, so much so that DTS bought the company to snatch that research. They're making it sound like they're taking metadata controlled object based audio and improving the way these sounds are steered in x-y-z coordinate "space." Pan potting mono stems could definitely use a fresh perspective in this regard. The dubbing stage/demo room at DTS headquarters, where they're testing their MDA rendering software, still uses multiple speaker arrays (including overhead locations) in the same vein as Dolby Atmos or Auro3D. Dolby also acquired an audio technologies company to try and improve Atmos.

If I was able to check out a demo, I would jump at the chance to take them up on the opportunity. At least I could then hear for myself whether or not SRS had improved their game significantly like DTS and now Barco are trying to convince the industry of.
post #133 of 164
I usually avoid the IMAX DMR presentations, but I saw "Gravity" in IMAX at a theatre that is (or was) equipped for 70mm IMAX, but for this presentation used the two digital projector setup. Looking up at the booth after the show, I couldn't tell whether the 70mm IMAX projector was still there or not.

While still a bit too dim in 3D, the presentation was surprisingly good and even though I'm a big fan of Dolby Atmos, the IMAX sound was quite impressive - it was crisp, clean and at appropriate room filling, but not blasting levels with great separation between channels. It didn't quite have the refinement of a great 70mm Dolby magnetic presentation, but it was very close. I'm an ex-recording engineer and I really cannot stand it when the sound is oppressively loud and in some movies, even dialog scenes are way too loud, but I never found it too loud in this presentation, which surprised me. The only sequences that I found loud were the ones with that low frequency throbbing sound, which actually sounded like the woofers were going into oscillation, although I don't think they actually were - I think that was the intended sound effect. I found that effect annoying and room-filling but not so loud that I wanted to hold my ears and not so loud that it vibrated objects in the theatre. I was very impressed by that level of restraint.

I saw the last James Bond movie in either Lie-MAX or ETX (can't remember which) and I actually had to wear hearing protection for that one. Since I travel on the NYC subways, I always carry hearing protection with me.

While the IMAX presentation did not have the overhead speakers and rear woofers that Atmos has, I still found the sound mix to be highly effective and with a level of separation between channels, especially for the radio communication sequences, that you don't usually hear in today's mixes. I'd love to compare it to an Atmos presentation, but at today's ticket prices in NYC, I think I'll use that money to see something else.

Most Dolby Atmos films are first mixed in traditional 5.1 or 7.1 and then "sweetened" with the Atmos object model. Dolby has been trying to get the mixers to perform the mix in Atmos and then mix down to 5.1 or 7.1, but I don't think anyone has actually done that yet. I think that will happen when there's a much higher number of Atmos theatres. The UI on the Dolby website is so bad, you can't get a list of all the Atmos theatres, but it looks to me like there's about 90 screens in the U.S. now equipped.
post #134 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Hobbit started out as a 7.1 mix too.
There were some articles written at the time of the Atmos install in the Dolby Theatre and, from what I remember, they had 2 or 3 renderers talking to each other. This implies that they might have gone beyond 64 speakers. Of course they have a huge room and multiple balcony levels to address with their speaker placement. Shame that the only time this venue is used for movies is at premieres.

When they first installed, the Dolby CP850 Atmos processor wasn't available yet, so they had to rig up a bunch of processors to make the system work. There's a picture on the web somewhere (I just looked for it, but couldn't find it) of such a temporary setup that had racks and racks of processors. Now that the CP850 is available, my bet is that that's the only Atmos processor (+ perhaps a backup and some future device) that's in that booth (although I would love to believe that the Dolby theatre is also still equipped for 70mm 6-track mag and also has a CP200 in there, which many consider to be the best Dolby processor ever built).

While you can go beyond 64 speakers by tying speakers together, that's just the opposite of what's intended by Atmos. Each surround speaker gets its own amplifier channel in Atmos. But as of today, Atmos is limited to 64 audio channels, although when I attended an early presentation, they said it could eventually go to 128. In the Dolby screening room in New York which is relatively small, they probably are using about 26 speakers.

I haven't been to the Dolby Theatre, but I know it's very tall. How do they handle the overheads?

It just so happens that I was at the Audio Engineering Society convention in New York today and there was a session about Ray Dolby. The guy really was an incredible genius (although he probably had nothing to do with Atmos since he was already ill when it was developed).
post #135 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I usually avoid the IMAX DMR presentations, but I saw "Gravity" in IMAX at a theatre that is (or was) equipped for 70mm IMAX, but for this presentation used the two digital projector setup. Looking up at the booth after the show, I couldn't tell whether the 70mm IMAX projector was still there or not.

While still a bit too dim in 3D, the presentation was surprisingly good and even though I'm a big fan of Dolby Atmos, the IMAX sound was quite impressive - it was crisp, clean and at appropriate room filling, but not blasting levels with great separation between channels. It didn't quite have the refinement of a great 70mm Dolby magnetic presentation, but it was very close. I'm an ex-recording engineer and I really cannot stand it when the sound is oppressively loud and in some movies, even dialog scenes are way too loud, but I never found it too loud in this presentation, which surprised me. The only sequences that I found loud were the ones with that low frequency throbbing sound, which actually sounded like the woofers were going into oscillation, although I don't think they actually were - I think that was the intended sound effect. I found that effect annoying and room-filling but not so loud that I wanted to hold my ears and not so loud that it vibrated objects in the theatre. I was very impressed by that level of restraint.

I saw the last James Bond movie in either Lie-MAX or ETX (can't remember which) and I actually had to wear hearing protection for that one. Since I travel on the NYC subways, I always carry hearing protection with me.

While the IMAX presentation did not have the overhead speakers and rear woofers that Atmos has, I still found the sound mix to be highly effective and with a level of separation between channels, especially for the radio communication sequences, that you don't usually hear in today's mixes. I'd love to compare it to an Atmos presentation, but at today's ticket prices in NYC, I think I'll use that money to see something else.

Most Dolby Atmos films are first mixed in traditional 5.1 or 7.1 and then "sweetened" with the Atmos object model. Dolby has been trying to get the mixers to perform the mix in Atmos and then mix down to 5.1 or 7.1, but I don't think anyone has actually done that yet. I think that will happen when there's a much higher number of Atmos theatres. The UI on the Dolby website is so bad, you can't get a list of all the Atmos theatres, but it looks to me like there's about 90 screens in the U.S. now equipped.

Have you heard the Dolby Atmos mix to compare? It really did start to show how the multiple array of speakers in the auditorium can be used for pin point placement far beyond the IMAX or traditional theater sound systems. The use of directionalized dialog that spilled off into the surrounds (especially for the main actor dialog tracks, not just the various Earth squawk placed at random places in the auditorium) was pretty impressive and not at all distracting. It added, it did not subtract from the experience. OTOH, I've always found the firm anchoring of dialog to the center screen speaker (no matter where the person speaking actual was in or out of the frame) to be far more glaring.
post #136 of 164
This was my first experience with Dolby Atmos, and I was very impressed! I was glad the movie was not any longer...you can only stretch that story so far, but it was enjoyable. I saw it at the ICON Theater in St. Louis Park, MN.
post #137 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I haven't been to the Dolby Theatre, but I know it's very tall. How do they handle the overheads?
They're on overhead trusses that are lowered for movie showings.



post #138 of 164
I sure wouldn't want those rigs dangling over my head!! smile.gif
post #139 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I sure wouldn't want those rigs dangling over my head!! smile.gif
Then don't sit in the mother-in-law seats (the seats directly under the speakers).
post #140 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It sounds like they've moved passed the early SRS design stages, so much so that DTS bought the company to snatch that research. They're making it sound like they're taking metadata controlled object based audio and improving the way these sounds are steered in x-y-z coordinate "space." Pan potting mono stems could definitely use a fresh perspective in this regard. The dubbing stage/demo room at DTS headquarters, where they're testing their MDA rendering software, still uses multiple speaker arrays (including overhead locations) in the same vein as Dolby Atmos or Auro3D. Dolby also acquired an audio technologies company to try and improve Atmos.

If I was able to check out a demo, I would jump at the chance to take them up on the opportunity. At least I could then hear for myself whether or not SRS had improved their game significantly like DTS and now Barco are trying to convince the industry of.

I listened to a demo of MDA from SRS right as the news that DTS had acquired the company was still breaking. It wasn't an ideal environment - a hotel conference room with a bunch of speakers on stands. But as a proof of concept, MDA worked exactly as object-based audio is supposed to work. The rep selectively turned off some speakers to demonstrate the virtualized surround processing. That was OK, but decidedly inferior.

I was in the DTS demo room the day before, but they weren't able to talk about the SRS acquisition or object-based audio at that time.
post #141 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It will be interesting to see if DTS and Barco get traction with open-source MDA because they tout, as an added benefit of their rendering software, the ability to pull object sounds out of the speaker arrays and "float" them out into the audience by means of advanced psychoacoustic panning techniques rather than the traditional phase and amplitude adjustments.
There's been no discussion of psychoacoustic panning in MDA for cinema that I am aware of. But it is true that object audio can be rendered by wave field synthesis (e.g., IOSONO), and that can indeed create interior effects.
post #142 of 164

Thanks for the review! But I have seen it in 3D and found it quite boring

post #143 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleks30 View Post

Thanks for the review! But I have seen it in 3D and found it quite boring

You're not alone. biggrin.gif
post #144 of 164
I saw this in RPX Dolby Atmos and IMAX. The Atmos showing did have a great surround experience that was noticeably missing in the IMAX presentation. However, the size of the screen in the IMAX showing had the clear advantage, and made for a much more visceral experience, even with some janky 3d glasses giving me cross talk on the edges. IMAX was also louder overall, but not nearly as detailed. Now I have to see movies in Atmos and IMAX to get the full experience, lol. I hope that IMAX begins to use something like Atmos in the future to really push the experience over the edge.
post #145 of 164
Sandra Bullock was much more annoying the second time around.
post #146 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukley View Post

I hope that IMAX begins to use something like Atmos in the future to really push the experience over the edge.

IMAX using Atmos? No, not going to happen. IMAX has its own proprietary sound format, and Dolby is a competitor.

IMAX creating something of its own like Atmos? Possible, but I certainly haven't heard any rumors of that.
post #147 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukley View Post

Sandra Bullock was much more annoying the second time around.

user banned from thread. wink.gif
post #148 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

user banned from thread. wink.gif
Don't even kid about that. Thread wars have been started on much less...
post #149 of 164
Just keeping some facts straight.

The largest IMAX screen is at Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia

117.1 ft x 97.4 ft
post #150 of 164
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleks30 View Post
 

Thanks for the review! But I have seen it in 3D and found it quite boring


To each their own!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Gravity in 3D and Dolby Atmos