my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema? Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 03-05-2011 07:59 PM                     I was just wondering. Can a system like SDDS, with five front, two back, and one sub, be re-created through D-Cinema? Dolby has a 7.1 standard for digital theaters, and why not Sony? They can bring the original layout of SDDS to their new revival format! SDDS stands for Sony Dynamic Digital Sound. For the D-Cinema version, I was thinking of dropping the second D and making it SDS, Sony Dynamic Sound, because digital sound is now the worldwide standard. What do you think of this idea?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-05-2011 08:13 PM                     They already do that on screens with SDDS processors. In order to 'revive' SDDS, Sony would need to build and sell new cinema processors, instead of leaving this to Dolby and USL. But since DCI now means simply 16ch of uncompressed PCM for everyone, I guess Sony has just given up on establishing another cinema sound trademark. Their digital cinema branding is '4k'. A speaker layout is not easy to communicate - as you don't see them behind the screen, and the acoustical impact to the audience is too unspecific. Who would trust another Sony cinema sound system anyway? - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-05-2011 08:20 PM                     The DCI spec has already reserved two channels for Left-Extra and Right-Extra, so it is certainly possible that we could see "five-across" in D-Cinema applications. We might see this used with new movies, or with revivals of movies released with SDDS-8 or Todd/A-O soundtracks. But, for new titles, I don't think companies should be able to "brand" a sound format for digital cinema because they will all be delivered and processed the same way. With 35mm it was necessary to buy special gear to make those formats work, but they all offered the same 5.1 -- nobody "owned" that part. One would not need an SDDS processor for a D-Cinema release that included Le/Re. But why stop there? Why not incorporate the divided back wall from 7.1 and make it 9.1?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-05-2011 09:00 PM                     What DCinema desperately needs if it wants to explore greater channels than 5.1 is a means of mix down for those that do not have the extra channels. There should not be special versions of the movie with 7.1 or what not. The system should self-configure based on how the system was installed. LC/RC are channels 7/8 in the DCI spec. That part is done. But what if they used them? What do the 5.1 theatres do? Just not play those channels? That doesn't work any more than with Surround 7.1...where a 7.1 track playing in a 5.1 theatre just drops the back channels and instead feeds the Ls and Rs signals that presume a BLs/BRs as if it was a 5.1 mix. Yes you have sound but not as it was intended. When SDDS was implemented in film, Sony controlled the processor too to ensure that the same print, 5.1, 8-channel or what have you played in ALL theatres since the cinema processor did the mix down, if necessary. Ideally, the media block should be the device that deals with getting any sound format (future or current) into the least common denominator format...5.1 If the industry could standardize on that...then alternate super sound formats could have a more successful venture. It would not cost the exhibitor of they choose not to play but could benefit the exhibitor that spends the money on the exotic format. This could also be done in the cinema processor too (if you think about it, it would not be too hard to have a DSP processor that takes the audio in the digital domain and remixes a 5-across to a 3 across or take a Surround 7.1 and turns that back to 5.1. These are straight recombining mixes. It would not cost much, technology wise. Just make sure that all boxes can handle the full 16 channels so future formats can also be dealt with. If it were standardized, then part of the obligation of a new sound format creation is also supplying the decode scheme for 5.1 systems. It isn't like there are so many mediablocks out there that it would be hard to provide the decode scheme with each feature that is more than a 5.1 mix. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-05-2011 09:08 PM                     it'd have to be a director with high profile status that would want to use five across sound to successfully bring it back to the mainstream, or maybe say... a musical... like the rumoured 'Miss Saigon' oh how the 'Fall of Saigon'/helicopter scene would sound with a 75 instrument orchestra building it's dramatic crescendo with five channels of sound from behind the screen - oh the possibilities?!? oh the grandiose emotional high that the scene delivers with such powerful music and loud sound effects. It was sad and discouraging when soundmixers kind of just stopped mixing in 8-channel SDDS sound, it brought back the showmanship and theater experience of past 70mm (five across sound) that just that is not replicable in the home theater setups - a plus since I really sought out 8-channel sound presentations. question: how are IMAX speakers setup behind the screen, are there LC and RC channels of sound? I'd assume there are also height channels... right? do the new ultra-large alphabet soup screens add five across behind the screen? if a major motion picture were to resurrect five across sound in the immediate future, is the adding of two speakers (and ampage) behind more screens in the varying theatre chains, would it be an expensive upgrade?  |  IP: Logged Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 03-05-2011 09:38 PM                     Jonathan Goeldner: quote: question: how is IMAX speakers setup behind the screen, are there LC and RC channels of sound? I'd assume there are also height channels... right? There are Left, Center, Right, and Height channels behind the screen, and two rear channels behind it. I don't know if the sub-bass is matrixed or discrete but I'm going to say matrixed because there's no mention of an LFE channel.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-06-2011 07:10 AM                     With the abundancy of 16 channels in the spec, one could as well have 2 separate dedicated mixes in the DCP - a classical 5.1, and a more advanced 8ch. The server/processor could have a fixed dedicated routing of the channels per screen. 5.1 screens would always get the 5.1 mix, 8ch screens would get the dedicated 8ch mixes. These two mixes could be automatically created during the mastering, that is, the 5.1 being mixed down from the 8ch. We now have the situation that some channels are already used for HI/VI applications. Some servers/installations have only 8 analog output channels, blocking 7/8 for HI/VI. I heard that they are working on server based audio mixing and routing. With variable routing, I see a heck of problems coming up. The DCPs would need to have metadata explaining the channel layout. Another format extension. Leave the majority of installs at 5.1+optional 7/8 for HI/VI, and create a separate 8ch mix into 9-16. Those cinemas with a larger speaker matrix will easily afford the other 8ch of D/A conversion. That would also allow to play old 5.1 DCPs AND new multichannel DCPs even on the oldest installations. Single inventory. The old systems would simply ignore channels 9-16. DCI clearly should have spent more brains into this years ago. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-06-2011 07:31 AM                     15/16 are to henceforth be the HI/VI-N channels. 7/8 were never intended for them though they have been used due to the vacancy left by LC/RC, for the moment. However, I don't think there are any players that can't deal with all 16-channels (DCI spec always had 16 channels). Metadata is the key and it should have been used long before now anyway just to deal with 2D/3D Flat/Scope. A theatre should NOT need to program in different show starts...just designate on the installation which channel/macro/title is the 2D-Flat...etc...then the show itself should handle getting it selected. The same should be true for the sound. I do not believe the plan of alternate mix formats would work since the channels will be consumed by competing formats. By having metadata that specifies the sound format and its decode schema, the processor and do with it as it can understand. Alternately, let the movie ALWAYS have a 5.1 version of the sound as well as the fancy version...if the player is programmed to understand the fancy version, then it plays that one but both versions should always be available (they figured it out with 2K and 4K...all systems have to handle both. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-06-2011 09:15 AM                     I think Dolby, Doremi and XDC so far have only 'straight' audio routing, that is, DCI channels 1-16 got to server audio channels 1-16, so external channel assigment/routing is necessary. Sony LMT300 has a audio routing module with a software based 16*16 crosspoint. With that you can apply audio routing macros just like scope/flat for visuals. Yep - it's insane that operators still HAVE to decide about programing flat/scope presentation. It certainly is good to have options to override, but more metadata use would be preferable. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-06-2011 03:43 PM                     http://isdcf.com/papers/ISDCF-Interop-audio-channel-recommendations-20110302FINALv2.pdf - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-06-2011 05:50 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag Metadata is the key and it should have been used long before now anyway just to deal with 2D/3D Flat/Scope. The problem with using metadata on audio is it won't work with uncompressed Linear PCM. The audio would need to be encoded in some sort of lossless format, not necessarily lossless compressed but "contained" within some sort of packeted kind of format where metadata could be added to the audio stream. That sort of concept could support a variety of channel layouts without adding the storage burden of carrying multiple copies of the same soundtrack in different channel layouts. You could have a standard 5.1 mix and various extensions above that base mix could add the left-extra & right-extra channels behind the screen and 2 more surround channels. Tracks 14, 15 and 16 could be used to provide two ceiling surround channels and another sub-bass channel. That would ultimately provide an 11.2 audio track while preserving channels 7, 8 and 13 for HI, VI-N and motion simulation data capability. Additionally, the sound mix could designed to play back in either 24-bit 48kHz audio in any of the mentioned channel layouts or bump up to 24-bit 96kHz. But, yeah, the sound mix has to be able to fold down from 11.2, 9.1 or whatever into a standard 5.1 layout. The DTS-HD Master Audio format uses some of those tricks on Blu-ray. A backward compatible lossy DTS 5.1 mix is stored in the "core" of the audio while various extensions open up the lossless and high resolution portions of the audio for more advanced home theater systems. Obviously the downside to this approach is some company, be it Dolby, DTS, Sony or someone else, could end up "owning" the format, making it proprietary or "closed" and only able to work on certain name-brand pieces of hardware. The advantage with Linear PCM is it works on all d-cinema systems. I guess the solution would be for the folks controlling DCI standards to use or develop some sort of open source lossless codec that could do all the stuff I described and be able to function on a lot or all of current d-cinema servers via a firmware update.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-06-2011 06:10 PM                    I would like to know what sound format AMC is using for their RealD screens. AMC was pro-SDDS back in the day  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-06-2011 06:19 PM                     AMC had some kind of "sweet deal" with Sony. They basically had SDDS on every screen. Does anybody know the specifics of the AMC/SONY deal? AMC Old Pasadena 8 -- the one where I worked in the 90s -- had SDDS as the primary format, with Ultra-Stereo for analog (and non-sync). Only one screen was different -- in addition to the SDDS processor, it also had a Dolby CP-65, Cat. 699 SRD reader, and a mag dummy for preview screenings -- plus a 5-deck platter to accommodate the track. Adding to its wackiness, that room was also the only one of ours that could reproduce SDDS-8. As for the "sound format" for Real-D -- wouldn't it just be standard DCI audio? Are you asking what processor they're using?  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 01-05-2012 11:38 AM                     so if a movie WERE to be released with the left/center and right/center channels of sound - how many theaters are set up that way - do the prior auditoriums that featured 8-channel SDDS still set up that way? How much of an expense is it for theaters to upgrade to two more additional speakers/amps? Don't the specialized ultra screens (ETX, XD, RPX etc.,) already have five front speaker set-ups in place?  |  IP: Logged John Thomas Film Handler Posts: 75 From: Boston, MA Registered: Sep 2011 posted 01-05-2012 12:48 PM                     quote: Tom Petrov I would like to know what sound format AMC is using for their RealD screens. AMC was pro-SDDS back in the day Assuming you're referring to processors, it's a hodge-podge. CP-750's are going in some houses, CP-650's in others, USL's in others. Houses that were originally fit for 8-channel SDDS are now Dolby 5.1. For 35mm, AMC has been slowly replacing SDDS with CP-650's for years. That said, my theatre still has 4 SDDS screens.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.