Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

[Mike Blakesley]

Haven't had a chance to watch it all the way through yet, but the crowds have been good and people are liking it. One guy told me he thought the visuals were "as groundbreaking as Star Wars." I don't know about that, but it does look amazing, I have to say, even in our 24fps 3-D version. You can definitely tell it's not the same as the 3-D Dolby Cinema Atmos Vision Whatever version that we saw samples of in L.A., but it's pretty damn close.

The sound mix seems good too, from the samples I've listened to. Lots of good surrounds and bass. There are a lot of spots where the score reminds me of some of the music from "Titanic," with choral vocals.

I didn't know what to expect from patrons regarding the 3-D, but it's been a positive so far. We've had absolutely zero "gripes" about it being in 3-D, and the ones who didn't realize it's in 3-D have seemed to be pleasantly surprised about the fact. We opted not to do a 3-D surcharge this time around, considering inflation and all....I figure we paid for the equipment the last time, so this time we didn't need to do it. But we never had many complaints about the surcharge before, and this time we've had zero comments about the lack of one. No complaints about the length of the show, either.

It'll be interesting to see how it holds up once Christmas has gone by and the kids are back in school. I'm looking forward to watching it one of these days when things calm down a bit.

[Jon Dent]

The bits that I watched looked really good too, when the camera was relatively calm. When things got moving during action scenes the image had a choppiness to it that I didn't like. We're doing 24fps so I wonder if that's 48fps footage with every other frame tossed out? In any case it's distracting. Plus, while the water looked really good most of the time, you could regularly see random weirdness in the simulations, especially with breaking waves on rocks. It's getting closer, but still not quite there yet.

The sound mix was very nice. Cameron's movies have always had A+ sound, and this is no different. I really wish we had an Atmos system with movies like this.

Story wise it's very much in line with the first Avatar, almost to a fault. Similar simplicity and broad stroke storytelling.

I'm watching the full thing this week and I'm curious to see how badly I feel the length. The Batman had me squirming near the end and it's a full 20 minutes shorter.

Final random observation: I wish more filmmakers would use James Cameron as an inspiration when it comes to filming action scenes. Cameron is still a stone cold wizard when it comes to action choreography.

[Jon Dent]

Watched the full beast tonight. Good news is that it was definitely long, but it was never boring or dull to look at. This is a drop dead gorgeous looking movie. While it is a visual improvement over the original Avatar, the differences are largely subtle. In fact, it's surprising just how well the original holds up next to this, despite 13 years and a whole slew of rendering technology changes. Avatar really was ahead of it's time in 2009.

The soundtrack is impressive as well, easily matching Top Gun: Maverick in dynamics, surround activity and low end. This one works the subwoofer really hard in several places.

Like I stated above, James Cameron is still brilliant when it comes to action staging. There are some wonderfully intense and kinetic scenes in the movie, and even with all the swooping cameras and fast cuts they never devolve into random chaos like so many films do.

The story, on the other hand, is just okay, and there's not much to latch onto. The writing tries to give Quaritch some additional depth that was missing the first time around, but every time he gets close to going somewhere interesting, the script rudely yanks him back into "Evil Villainy" mode and the subtlety goes right out the window. Sully and Neytiri are sidelined through large chunks of the film, and Neytiri might as well not even be in it, as she has almost nothing to do outside of ten minutes of "Mama Bear" freak-out near the end (which is, admittedly, intense). Even the "Evil Humans Doing Horrible Things" scenes fail to resonate much because they're just so generic by this point. No, this whole plot lives and dies on the shoulders of the Sully children, and it actually does pretty well by them. Their interactions feel genuine, and they sound like actual kids. They talk back, eyeroll, tease each other, compete, complain about having to bring their bratty little sister along everywhere, and feel like actual living characters. Sure I couldn't tell the two brothers apart and Kiri is clearly Sigourney Weaver with a pitch shifted voice, but it worked anyway.

Is it better than the first movie? Not really. It's pretty much on the same level. Beautiful to look at and listen to, while having very little plot depth or character outside of isolated moments. Definitely worth seeing on a big screen with loud, top notch sound. I didn't see it in 3D or Atmos, but I imagine those would make it even more of a spectacle.

[Mike Blakesley]

We finally got a chance to watch the movie last Saturday.

I wanted to either watch the original before seeing this one, or at least read the synopsis on Wikipedia. Unfortunately due to the holiday chaos I didn't get a chance to do either one, so I was a bit lost in the first half of the story. After that, though, the movie sort of kicked in for me and I was really into it during the second half.

I suppose I was a bit distracted by the visuals, which are amazing, as everyone says. The underwater stuff is truly spectacular. I found myself watching for "long shots" having read about the actors having to hold their breath for minutes underwater. Thanks to my dwelling on the mechanics of it all, I probably forgot to absorb the storyline. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

We watched the movie with a group of friends who had rented the theater for a private showing. They had requested that we stop the movie for an intermission halfway through, so we used the app "Runpee" to determine a good pee-break spot and paused the movie at that point. (We would only do that for a private showing, of course.) It was PERFECT, there was a sort-of cliffhanger line of dialogue and a bit of climactic music and that's where I stopped it. It was almost like a real built-in intermission. Everyone got a bathroom break and spent a few minutes talking about what we'd seen so far, and then it was back into the movie. Why the studios don't embrace the idea of an intermission for these long movies is beyond me. It improved our watching experience immensely. They should at least make it an option for movies over 140 minutes -- build separate part-one and part-two DCPs, and then maybe a themed 10-second INTERMISSION card, and let the theater decide whether to use it or not.

Anyway, I thought the movie was really good but I need to reserve final judgement until I watch it again -- hopefully able to really concentrate on the story this time.

[Joe Redifer]

I had no plans to see this movie, but the GF was kind of interested. I wanted to see it at a Dolby™ Theater just to see what all of the hubbub was about.

THE MOVIE
This movie needed an editor. It has absolutely no business being 3 hours long. Remember in Aliens when Newt slid down the chute and had to be rescued? James Cameron does. Remember when the Titanic was sinking? James Cameron does. Remember the Aesop's fable called The Lion & the Mouse? James Cameron does. Remember Free Willy? James Cameron does.I kind of lost track of the story half way through. Why so much effort to kill one blue guy, specifically? Is he John Connor? I do think the movie is worth seeing once, though. There's not a whole lot of story here. I still don't care for the planet natives. They scream like banshees whenever anything bad happens. Like when they shoot the animal in the ocean while trying to coax the villagers where blue John Connor is. I swear they did something digital to make it look like their mouth opened unnaturally far as he screamed about it. Blue John Connor's wife is the same with her constant screaming. The action scenes were actually the most boring parts of the movies. Everything else was better, and I felt they concentrated on the action too much.

The 3D effect was extremely good, and really that's why this movie exists. Without it, it wouldn't hold up. Like I said it's worth seeing once, and that's why. I would not want to watch it again even for the 3D. The 48fps was interesting. They kept switching back and froth from 24 to 48 again and again. When it would switch to 24fps, it felt like it was suddenly dropping frames, like the projector couldn't keep up or the hard drive was having issues. It was very odd which scenes were 48fps. James Cameron said some nonsense like "The fast moving scenes are 48fps and the slower ones are 24fps". STFU James, I see through your bullshit. There were plenty of action scenes in 24fps and plenty of just sitting around and barely moving that were in 48fps. I honestly believe that the ONLY reason the entire movie isn't in 48fps is so that you'd get used to it being 24fps for a bit and then suddenly be "wowed" with 48fps again... all the way through the entire movie. If it had stayed at 48fps, most people would likely have forgotten about it 3 or 4 minutes in. I think a lot of scenes are practically 2D for this very same reason. They do a lot of shots where things are far off in the distance and as a result it looks 2D. Then the next scene is kinda IN YO FACE with the 3D. There was also one quick shot towards the end inside a cockpit that was 100% 2D for no reason.... well except maybe to make the 3D in the next shot look more impressive.

THE THEATER
I watched this in auditorium 14 at AMC Flatirons Crossing in whatever-the-hell-city-it's-in Colorado, which is a Dolby Cinema auditorium. It features Dolby Atmos. The surround speakers on the wall were quite tall and thin. Very large for a surround speaker, each with 6 woofers, two midranges and what looks like some kind of horned tweeter. There were at least 18 of these speakers on the walls in the room, though the ones toward the back were smaller since otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit due to the exciting stadium seating feature many auditoriums are equipped with. On the ceiling were I'm guessing 16 or 18 speakers which looked to be single driver cabinets, but it was hard to tell. I don't know what brand of speakers they were. So... how did it sound? Honestly... nothing special. Like most "Premium" movie theater auditoriums, the treble (1.2Khz and up) is cranked all to hell, giving it a "way too loud" feel. As a result it sounds very thin and tinny. Dialog has no audible low end. Like I said, every premium auditorium I have ever been to is like this. Seriously, what the hell? I'm 49 years old, which means I can't hear all of the high frequencies I used to be able to back when I was a 24 year-old buttmunch. I can only imagine how this sounds to those 20 and under... but then again people in that age group are stupid simply because of their age, so they will probably tell themselves it sounds great, because "loud". The aforementioned surround speakers rattled on both sides of the auditorium. I'm not sure if it's because they were being overdriven, blown, or not installed properly and are getting ready to fall off. The center channel popped a few times in the high end, likely because it was being overdriven by excessive treble. The subwoofers sounded OK. I could feel them sometimes, but it was not as good as my home. Not even close, in fact. Kind of sad. I think I heard some overhead action at one point where it was raining or water was dripping, but honestly it wasn't very noticeable. Again, not as good as the Atmos in my house. I was sitting about mid-way back, the center of the auditorium. Maybe if I were sitting further back (and therefore closer to the ceiling) it may have been more noticeable. The trailers were LOUD AS FUCK and of course wrought with treble. How unprofessional. I could hear adjacent auditoriums going through their paces before the movie and sometimes during the movie.

As for the image, there was a demo up front after the trailers saying "This used to be what normal movie theater black looks like but here's our black. Be amazed". And it did look pretty damn good. Certainly not "no masking necessary" good, but good. Nice, bright and colorful. The main problem is that the bottom corners of the screen were constantly illuminated by room lights I'm guessing. Yeah, wanna get rid of that? Get masking. GTFO with that "no masking needed" nonsense. It was a floating screen. Both projectors (Christies I'm assuming) were on for the exciting Noovie pre-show. It's not the movies without Noovie AND THAT IS A GOD DAMNED FACT.

THE PISS BREAK
I had much warm-to-hot piss to eject towards the end of the movie. I could have probably made it, but then some of Blue John Connor's kids were still in trouble and I was like "Christ almighty I need a break because I just can't be bothered to care" so I decided to take a break. My piss break was pretty exciting. I had the bathroom all to myself and I used the middle urinal. The acoustic effects of my pee splashing on the porcelain was perfect, and no Movie Tunes or equivalent was being piped into the bathroom. It was a long pee, probably close to a minute before I was all done. It's a long movie, after all. After I washed my hands, I was presented with a choice of a Dyson air dryer or paper towels. I chose the paper towels because I'm not a god damned barbarian. After I was done, I just followed the excessive treble back to my auditorium.

[Mike Blakesley]

"Movie Tunes," wow I forgot all about that. Or maybe I blocked it from memory.

I'm glad to hear someone else besides me say that Atmos is NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE. I've heard Atmos in around four or five venues so far, including CinemaCon (which admittedly isn't really a movie theater per se, but they put the absolute best of everything in that place so it should count).

The only place I'd say the sound was "impressively different" than regular digital cinema sound was at an off-site demo theater we went to during CinemaCon, because they were running content that was engineered to impress theater owners about Atmos. Your typical movie soundtrack just doesn't freaking need that many channels. Besides, most sounds in real life don't come from overhead. Even if something like thunder was coming from overhead, they could put the sound in the side surrounds and your BRAIN would place it over your head, which is the way surround sound works, but I guess you can't sell a hundred amps and speakers to a theater unless you convince them they gotta have it.

I'm still mystified in the switching between 24 and 48fps. First of all, if the switching is obvious, isn't it kinda distracting? I thought distractions were bad. And why not run the whole movie in 48 vs. just parts of it? Are they concerned with file size?

I'm in complete agreement the movie is too long. Like all movies with fight scenes, the fight scenes go on for too long. Even if it was a justifiably long movie, it should have an intermission. I would love to see NATO lobby for that to happen. I seriously don't get why it can't... intermissions would be simple as pie in the digital realm. Don't the idiot filmmakers, and the studios, realize that sitting there for the last half hour of the movie squirming in your seat ruins your experience far more than interrupting things for five minutes would?

Here's an idea -- stick the movie credits in the intermission! That'd kill two birds with one stone. You'd get an intermission, and the crowd would come out right when the movie ends, so you could still have just as many shows per day.

[Joe Redifer]

Your typical movie soundtrack just doesn't freaking need that many channels.

It's quite effective in more quiet scenes, when you have a bird flying around or something similar to that. It's quite impressive. But most movies use it when all of the other channels are going like crazy, like during action scenes. There's no way to isolate the sound from the overheads with all of the other chaos going on. It's not necessarily that most movies don't need overheads, it's just most/all sound mixers suck at utilizing them.

I'm still mystified in the switching between 24 and 48fps. First of all, if the switching is obvious, isn't it kinda distracting?

YES. At least to me. My GF didn't notice it (though she did notice the audio sounded "tinny" which was her word that she used). However she did say she was reminded of videogames a bit but never put thought into why that might be.

[Steve Guttag]

Your typical movie soundtrack just doesn't freaking need that many channels.

It isn't "that many channels." It is the location of sound objects. Imagine if if actors were not allowed to move and you just had three squarish images on screen to represent left, center, and right. If you wanted someone to move across the screen all you could do is cut from one camera to the next or have a rather jerky transition. That is how much of cinema sound has been handled. Yeah, you can pan but once you start panning the quality notably suffers. In the surrounds, you had but one "channel"...followed by two "channels" then three "channels" and up to 7.1 with four "channels." The problem with channel based is it also has the size and shape of the theatre come into play as to how it sounds. A 7.1 system in a long skinny theatre is different than in s short-fat one as the rear speakers could vary greatly. With Atmos, it isn't that one is saying "play this effect out of channel 23." It is playing this object at coordinate at x, y, z and the room size/shape is factored in. Being able to locate a sound, wherever. The number of speakers/amps is the "resolution" of the system...not the number of channels anymore than 2K/4K are to the picture. The more resolution, the better the clarity of picture or sound.

As for the Top Surrounds...They remain the fool's gold, for me. Humans are just not built to get a great sense from the overhead (no ears up there)). We are much better suited to distinguish side based location and then front to back. Furthermore, I think that overhead speakers, if not very well done and the mix isn't done well can muddy up the mix. Sure, if one is trying to convey wind or even rain, they can add a fullness to it all. I agree with Joe that the benefits of them are more easily heard in the quieter scenes than in the heavy action. However, the side/rear speakers can have things whizzing by in the action scenes still.

[Leo Enticknap]

Here's an idea -- stick the movie credits in the intermission! That'd kill two birds with one stone. You'd get an intermission, and the crowd would come out right when the movie ends, so you could still have just as many shows per day.

I suspect that the craft unions, whose agreements with production companies specify that their members must have an on-screen credit (which I understand is why, starting in the late '70s, credit crawls became so long), would not like that idea at all. They at least want the pretence that moviegoers will see their members' names up in lights! Nor would the big theater chains, as they often schedule only a 2-3 minute gap between shows on the assumption that auditorium cleaning will be done during the credit crawl. 3.5-hour shows are bad enough (fewer shows in the day) from a theater operator's perspective, but having to program more time between them would aggravate that even further.

[Jon Dent]

It isn't "that many channels." It is the location of sound objects. Imagine if if actors were not allowed to move and you just had three squarish images on screen to represent left, center, and right. If you wanted someone to move across the screen all you could do is cut from one camera to the next or have a rather jerky transition. That is how much of cinema sound has been handled. Yeah, you can pan but once you start panning the quality notably suffers. In the surrounds, you had but one "channel"...followed by two "channels" then three "channels" and up to 7.1 with four "channels." The problem with channel based is it also has the size and shape of the theatre come into play as to how it sounds. A 7.1 system in a long skinny theatre is different than in s short-fat one as the rear speakers could vary greatly. With Atmos, it isn't that one is saying "play this effect out of channel 23." It is playing this object at coordinate at x, y, z and the room size/shape is factored in. Being able to locate a sound, wherever. The number of speakers/amps is the "resolution" of the system...not the number of channels anymore than 2K/4K are to the picture. The more resolution, the better the clarity of picture or sound.

I really like the IDEA of what Atmos is, i.e. a single, playback system independent file that can be decoded into damn near any format. Agreed that it's current implementation in theaters can be problematic. When the volume goes up, you just can't spatially position stuff the same way.

[Harold Hallikainen]

CRITIC’S NOTEBOOK ‘Avatar’ and the Headache of High Frame Rate Filmmaking


Why do James Cameron and others experiment with this? Intended to eliminate blur, it is actually unnerving in scenes involving humans or real objects.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/m...rame-rate.html



Jack Champion as Spider in “Avatar: The Way of Water.” The higher frame rate used in some shots can make actors look hyper-real.Credit...20th Century Studios


By Ben Kenigsberg

Jan. 2, 2023
5 MIN READ For all the praise lavished on how convincing, immersive and detailed Pandora looks in “Avatar: The Way of Water,” one aspect of the imagery is intensely distracting: the director James Cameron’s use of a high frame rate. If you saw the movie at a top-notch theater and noticed that certain moments had the glossy, almost hyper-real veneer of a soap opera, that is because he is employing a tool that no filmmaker has yet succeeded in making appealing at scale.

Movies are a succession of still images, shown very rapidly. The frame rate is simply the speed at which those still images are captured by the camera and later projected back at the viewer. At the beginning of the sound era, the rate was standardized at 24 frames per second.

That number stuck for several reasons, but when I wrote about this in 2016, the editor Dean Goodhill offered a convincing explanation. In the late 1920s, 24 frames per second hit a sweet spot. Go slower, and the sound would be muddy. Go faster, and you would have difficulty getting images to register on the film stocks of the time.

But for some directors and cinematographers, particularly those interested in fast action, 24 frames per second has always been insufficient. When an object moves too quickly across the screen, viewers might see a blur. If movies would only add more frames, the argument goes, then a spaceship could zip from one end of a giant screen to the other, and audiences would see it with perfect clarity at every point in its trajectory. Additional frames also, in theory, make it easier for our brains to process digital 3-D.

The problem is that increasing the frame rate begins to make everything look hyper-clear. That extreme sharpness, far from being an unalloyed benefit, changes the whole texture of the image, giving it a look that we associate with video and stripping away whatever mystique and aesthetic allure comes from longer time gaps between frames. The Return of ‘Avatar’

The director James Cameron takes us back to the world of Pandora for the sequel “Avatar: The Way of Water.”

When Peter Jackson released “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” (2012) at 48 frames per second, reviewers complained that the extra frames interfered with the suspension of disbelief. Instead of seeing hobbits, you saw actors in hobbit makeup. Ang Lee faced similar criticism with the 120-frame-per-second “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk” (2016) and “Gemini Man” (2019). Instead of watching characters in an action movie, you were watching a documentary of Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead at a table.

The first “Avatar” (2009) ran at 24 frames per second, but for the sequel, Cameron, who has long expressed interest in another option, has hedged. If you see the 3-D version of “Avatar: The Way of Water” in IMAX, Dolby Cinema or any presentation labeled “HFR,” parts of the movie will play at 48 frames per second. Other moments mimic the standard 24. (Technically, the projector is running at the higher rate; it’s just that the 48-frame-per-second scenes show an additional set of snapshots in time every second.) Image
Filmmakers have hoped the higher frame rate would make fast action, like shooting an arrow, clearer.Credit...20th Century Studios


There is no discernible rationale for Cameron’s choices: The rate often shifts within a scene or when he cuts to another angle on the same object. And the technique isn’t simply used for action scenes and fast camera movements, the most obvious potential sources of blur or judder. Some of the action is shown at 24, and some quiet, character-driven shots are at 48.

The alternation is rarely seamless. The first three shots of Edie Falco as General Ardmore are at 48 frames per second, but the fourth shot switches to the standard rate. Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) hugs one child at 48 frames per second and then two children together at 24. Spider (Jack Champion) grabs a fire extinguisher at 24 frames per second, then uses it to smash controls on a panel at 48. When the poacher Scoresby (Brendan Cowell) loses his arm, there are two shots of the severed limb. The first is at 24; the second, the reverse angle, is at 48. You wouldn’t want any blur on a flying arm.

Shots submerged from beginning to end are in the high frame rate, and in general, the device is less unnerving when the image simply involves water, Na’vi and tulkun, the whale-like creatures, because we’re watching visuals heavily augmented with effects. But the format becomes a liability when a human being — or any recognizable, real-world object — enters the frame. Suddenly the actors-in-costume, documentary effect is back, and it has the paradoxical consequence of making this $600 million movie look cheap. Certain shots during the tulkun hunt resemble a first-person video game — partly because some video games adopted high frame rates long ago.

Furthermore, whenever the movie downshifts from 48 frames per second to 24, the image — to my eyes — momentarily looks flickery, almost like a form of slow motion, as if your mind is once again learning how to convert still images into a movie. Those of us who have heard the hype about high frame rates have long wondered whether they constitute progress or gaslighting. If eliminating blur was always a white whale for technicians, for viewers it might be a solution in search of a problem. By toggling between two frame rates, “Avatar: The Way of Water” implicitly concedes that more isn’t always better.

Still, if you had talked to the late Douglas Trumbull, who got his start designing photographic effects for “2001: A Space Odyssey,” you would get the impression that nearly everyone toying with high frame rates has been doing it wrong. Trumbull was one of the pioneers of the technology; beginning in the 1970s, he developed a format called Showscan that would have played movies at 60 frames per second. In more recent years, he was pushing a system he called Magi, in which movies could run in 3-D at 120 frames per second.

When we met for coffee in February 2020, he explained — as he had in 2016 — how his system differed from those used by the high-frame rate movies that had been released so far. He promised that movies shot with it would look “fully cinematic,” not like soap operas.

“I have to show it to people,” he said. “I’m so tired of talking about it and explaining this and being put in this defensive position by Ang Lee and ‘Gemini Man’ and ‘Billy Lynn.’”

Magi was about to make its public debut with a short that Trumbull had directed, “Imagination!,” about Nikola Tesla, that would play at the NY Energy Zone, a new visitor center in Utica, N.Y., run by the New York Power Authority.

I’d like to tell you how “Imagination!” looks, but when I went up to Utica for a day, the projector had gone down, with no imminent prospect of repair. The earliest it might be fixed is this week.

If high frame rate looks good anywhere, it remains elusive.

[Steve Guttag]

Agreed that it's current implementation in theaters can be problematic. When the volume goes up, you just can't spatially position stuff the same way.

I don't know what you are agreeing to. I have not found it to be problematic. I have found many Atmos system to be done too cheaply to be as effective. And, of course, it is up to the person mixing the movie to to utilize tools available. Just because a title has an Atmos mix, it doesn't mean it is equivalent in terms of time/effort spent on it. Furthermore, one is not obligated to place objects everywhere just because they can. The sound should always help tell the story that people are seeing. If you are really conscious of a sound effect, to a degree, that is a failure. The sound should continue the suspension of disbelief in what one is seeing.

[Jon Dent]

I don't know what you are agreeing to.

What you said here:

As for the Top Surrounds...They remain the fool's gold, for me. Humans are just not built to get a great sense from the overhead (no ears up there)). We are much better suited to distinguish side based location and then front to back. Furthermore, I think that overhead speakers, if not very well done and the mix isn't done well can muddy up the mix. Sure, if one is trying to convey wind or even rain, they can add a fullness to it all. I agree with Joe that the benefits of them are more easily heard in the quieter scenes than in the heavy action.

As well as many Atmos theaters not having decent (or well tuned) equipment. Based on Joe's description, he seems to have run into that problem.

That's all.

[Bobby Henderson]

Dolby Atmos had the potential to be pretty incredible. The problem is too many variables have ruined that potential.

The first issue is the sound mix. Far too many movies claiming to have Atmos mixes are barely distinguishable from conventional 5.1/7.1. The sound editing and mixing is the last thing done in a movie production and it's usually done in a mad rush. A few sound object "sprinkles" here and there probably isn't going to be enough to wow anyone. All these movies that are Atmos-in-name-only screw over any theater operator that actually does put together an Atmos sound system that works properly.

Dolby really needed to have a program kind of like THX certification for setting up Atmos-capable sound systems. From my point of view it doesn't seem like any standards at all are being followed. Cinemas are free to cut corners on the speakers, amplifiers and anything else yet still be able to claim the movie is being shown in Dolby Atmos. My guess is: in order to configure Atmos correctly in a commercial cinema you gotta really spend out the ass on hardware (and maybe even other features in the auditorium) in order to get the desired effect. And you gotta continue to spend money keeping that sound system maintained.

I haven't visited all that many Atmos-equipped theaters. Of the ones I've visited in Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado there has not been any consistency in terms of audio quality. I've seen that "unfold" Atmos trailer in most of these venues. It's been different in one place to the next.

The best Atmos style audio I've heard in a theater was at Harkins' Cine Capri theater in Oklahoma City (when the system was still relatively new). Movies like Gravity and Edge of Tomorrow were incredible there. Lots of activity in the ceiling and wall surrounds. But even at its best that theater's sub-bass setup wasn't adequate (it would get badly over-driven by that "unfold" trailer). I've been to other Harkins locations with Atmos that haven't sounded as good. But then again, that could be the movie's sound mix.

I like the image quality at Dolby Cinema theaters (I've yet to see anything in 3D at one though). Of the few Dolby Cinema locations I've visited they've all been middle of the road for sound quality. Worst Atmos experience: Broken Arrow Warren theater. Image quality was terrible (and terribly warped) on the deep curve "Grand Infinity" screen. Side and back wall surround activity wasn't great in this balcony room. I guess I should have paid extra for the balcony seats. I didn't hear the ceiling surrounds at all. It looked like they had only a few speakers way up there.

I should also point out when I compare sound from one cinema to the next these days I'm already grading things on a curve. I don't know what it is about stadium seated theaters but I've yet to visit one that had outstanding A+ audio quality. As much fun as it was hearing the Gravity mix with some well done Atmos playback, the theater's sub-bass wasn't all that great.

I honestly believe that the ONLY reason the entire movie isn't in 48fps is so that you'd get used to it being 24fps for a bit and then suddenly be "wowed" with 48fps again... all the way through the entire movie. If it had stayed at 48fps, most people would likely have forgotten about it 3 or 4 minutes in.

I doubt most people would notice the difference between 24fps and 48fps in the first place. We live in a reality where the vast majority of people leave their HDTV displays in their default set up: with all the motion smoothing stuff turned on. The 48fps stuff would probably make them subconsciously feel the imagery looked just like their TV set at home.

[Steve Guttag]

As to Atmos...there is actually a bit of a set of standards. One has to submit plans to Dolby...attain approval for the equipment as well as the design. It takes quite a bit of time to get it right, really. And, once all is completed, one has to submit photos of the installation to show that it was put in as it was shown in the drawings. In addition to that, one has to submit the "DAD" files which have the actual recordings of the audio sweeps and the phase "pops." The Dolby Atmos processor tunes the room (using the installer's mics/plexer). Certainly, one can hand-tune as many channels as desired.

I think Dolby's desire to be inclusive has lead to most any speaker can be submitted and so long as its "specs" are sufficient, they are good to use. Timbre is not revealed in mere speaker specs. Additionally, Dolby has allowed various economies like pairing and culling of the surrounds...which lowers the resolution of the object placement, which gets you closer to the 7.1 mix. They also don't require 5-screen channels unless you go beyond a 40-foot screen. I can honestly say, regardless of room size, all of my Atmos rooms are 5-screen channel and no culling or pairing of surrounds were done. I may not always use the maximum recommended number of speakers on a side/rear/top but I think we're always using a very sufficient number (never at the bottom of the range)...we use what makes sense and fits the room. The results have been quite good and if they mix the move well, the system will reproduce it.