Official Dolby Atmos Fans Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

What? Dolbys competitors want to prevent Dolby from having a monopoly in the supply of "immersive sound" systems to theater chains? How uncouth of them. What is the world coming to when a company's competitors won't allow them to have a monopoly?


Here is some news. At 50 -100,000 dollars/install (your estimate) most theatres are going to be "stuck" with 5.1 or 7.1 (like that is a bad thing?) audio systems for a long time to come. I doubt small market theatres will ever have Dolby Atmos. In fact, thanks to the switch from film prints to digital prints only, a lot of theatres in very small towns are going to end up closing, because the cost of conversion from film projection to Digital projection is cost prohibitive for them.

What's your definition of small market theaters, population-wise?

 

[Edwin-S]

Anything under a 100,000 people, give or take a few thousands. For example, I live in a city of about 75,000. The theatre here is a six-plex. I doubt that the chain that owns it (Odeon Cineplex) would ever spend the money to upgrade to Atmos sound in any of the auditoriums, given the size of them. Atmos sounds like it is mostly advantageous with large-format screens like IMAX. If that is the case, then the market for it would be even smaller: nothing under 500,000 people. I'm using Canada as my example because that is where I live. There isn't an IMAX or Digital IMAX theatre outside of a city of 1,000,000+ in this country as far as I can tell.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that some theatres in small cities and towns wouldn't spring for an upgrade to their sound system. After all, a theatre in a town of about 15,000, 1.5 hours South of where I live, installed a 3D digital projection system before the Odeon-owned plex in my town did; however, I consider that to be an exception when it comes to upgrading cinemas in smaller centres. The theatre in that city was independently owned and the owner must have really seen a benefit to installing the system. It is possible that he was in the process of an upgrade cycle and decided that for the difference in price he might as well add 3D projection.

Really, when it comes to upgrading theatres in small centres, I'm just going by experience in my own town. I was very unhappy when I heard that Odeon Cineplex was taking over Famous Players. Odeon Cineplex is absolutely the worst when it comes to maintaining and upgrading their theatres outside of large urban areas. Even now, at the Famous Players plex in town, I can see how little money Odeon spends. Ticket kiosks are perpetually down, screens have damage that has not been repaired and movable mattes rattle like they haven't been lubricated since they were installed.

Sorry, this turned into a diatribe; however, I'm still waiting for a decent stadium-style theatre to be opened in my town, so the thought that Cineplex would spend 50-100,000/auditorium to install Atmos in any of their theatres outside of Toronto,Vancouver or Calgary (to name a few) is totally foreign to me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Anything under a 100,000 people, give or take a few thousands. For example, I live in a city of about 75,000. The theatre here is a six-plex. I doubt that the chain that owns it (Odeon Cineplex) would ever spend the money to upgrade to Atmos sound in any of the auditoriums, given the size of them. Atmos sounds like it is mostly advantageous with large-format screens like IMAX. If that is the case, then the market for it would be even smaller: nothing under 500,000 people. I'm using Canada as my example because that is where I live. There isn't an IMAX or Digital IMAX theatre outside of a city of 1,000,000+ in this country as far as I can tell.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that some theatres in small cities and towns wouldn't spring for an upgrade to their sound system. After all, a theatre in a town of about 15,000, 1.5 hours South of where I live, installed a 3D digital projection system before the Odeon-owned plex in my town did; however, I consider that to be an exception when it comes to upgrading cinemas in smaller centres. The theatre in that city was independently owned and the owner must have really seen a benefit to installing the system. It is possible that he was in the process of an upgrade cycle and decided that for the difference in price he might as well add 3D projection.

Really, when it comes to upgrading theatres in small centres, I'm just going by experience in my own town. I was very unhappy when I heard that Odeon Cineplex was taking over Famous Players. Odeon Cineplex is absolutely the worst when it comes to maintaining and upgrading their theatres outside of large urban areas. Even now, at the Famous Players plex in town, I can see how little money Odeon spends. Ticket kiosks are perpetually down, screens have damage that has not been repaired and movable mattes rattle like they haven't been lubricated since they were installed.

Sorry, this turned into a diatribe; however, I'm still waiting for a decent stadium-style theatre to be opened in my town, so the thought that Cineplex would spend 50-100,000/auditorium to install Atmos in any of their theatres outside of Toronto,Vancouver or Calgary (to name a few) is totally foreign to me.

Maybe, that's true north of the border, but I live in a town of about 50,000 folks and just last month, they opened up a brand new 10 theater complex with three auditoriums with Dolby Altmos sound. One of them has a 70 foot screen and the other two are 56 foot screens.

Not every community is the same with different businesses supporting each community. No question, some small towns won't get what my town has, but I'm pretty sure my town isn't unique in that regard.

 

[Edwin-S]

Man, I can't imagine a 10 theatre complex being economically supportable by a population base of only 50,000 people. You guys must love the theatrical experience in your area, which is not a bad thing. Theatrical viewing in my town does seem to be a bit of a dying activity. I went to see The Lego movie on a late show and there was all of three people in the theatre, myself and two others. I might have to move to your area.

I cannot even imagine any chain opening a theatre with 70' screens in my burg. Although, I'd be bloody happy if they did. Frankly, I'd be happy if someone would open a stadium seating-style theatre up here. Atmos would be a bonus.

I did include the caveat that it was possible that theatres in smaller centres could opt to upgrade. I just think it would be less likely to happen and that 5.1 and 7.1 systems are going to be around for a long time. It was more the use of the word "stuck" that I had a problem with. It automatically suggests that a 5.1 or 7.1 sound experience is a cause to be disappointed, when clearly its not. I find theatres play at such loud volumes that any sort of directionality is lost. Most of the time, a person can't tell where it is coming from. It ends up sounding like one huge roar.

 

[schan1269]

You should MapQuest Lake County Indiana.Technically, all three counties on the lake.North of US30, Valparaiso is the single biggest town(Michigan City is close).But, when you have 20 towns/cities all with 25,000+ population in three counties...bunch of people.So, your 50.000 population doesn't fly here. Now if your 50,000 population is meant for when the next town is 400 miles away...

 

[schan1269]

By the way, if the three Indiana counties on Lake Michigan went Uni-Gov the way Allen(Fort Wayne) and Marion(Indianapolis) did...The population would be...MarionLakeAllenPorterLaPorte would still be top 10.

 

[Edwin-S]

You should MapQuest Lake County Indiana. Technically, all three counties on the lake. North of US30, Valparaiso is the single biggest town(Michigan City is close). But, when you have 20 towns/cities all with 25,000+ population in three counties...bunch of people. So, your 50.000 population doesn't fly here. Now if your 50,000 population is meant for when the next town is 400 miles away...

So the catchment basin in his area is more like 400,000 people to draw on for patronage at that complex? That would certainly make more economic sense for a 10 theater complex to be able to open there. Where I live the next largest population centre with a pop. over 50,000 is a six hour drive on a good day. Still, the catchment in my area has a large enough base to support a Costco, along with other big box stores. It is just that people from outside the immediate area have to drive for 1,2 or 3 hours to get here. People are willing to drive for 2 to 3 hours for a grocery run or big ticket item purchase, but not too willing to do it to attend a movie showing at a decent large format theatre........more's the pity.

 

[schan1269]

What. People don't take a day trip to buy groceries...and grab a movie the same trip?I drive, weekly, to the downtown fish markets in Chicago. I keep a cooler in the bed of the truck in case I do other stuff after picking up fish.How does my cooler not get stolen?Hazmat stickers.

 

[Bobby Henderson]

Edwin, you need to look at some theater installation maps for IMAX-branded theaters, as well as maps for Dolby Atmos equipped theaters. Both are going into markets large and not so large. They are not confined to markets of 500,000 people and up. It all comes down to how a theater chain is willing to invest its money into its auditoriums. Dolby Atmos is an expensive, very complicated sound format and sound system. However, standard movie ticket prices have risen quite a lot in recent years, and that's not including the high surcharges for digital 3D, digital IMAX or some other acronym-labeled big screen concept. The income from those surcharges make things like an Atmos sound system quite a lot more affordable for theaters to install.

Here's a few examples of Dolby Atmos in not so big markets. Allen Theaters in New Mexico has put Atmos onto four screens: one in Roswell, two in Las Cruces and one in Farmington. None of those are giant sized markets. Bismarck, North Dakota has a theater equipped with Atmos.

I don't expect Dolby Atmos to become a standard sound format found in every screening room in a multiplex theater. Quite a few changes and improvements would be needed in various pieces of cinema booth hardware to make such a thing practical. However, Dolby and various theater technology companies are working on that.

If a commercial movie theater expects me to pay $3, $6 or even more above the standard price of a movie ticket just to enter their special, big auditorium, I'm going to expect something quite a lot better than conventional 5.1 surround sound for that money. If the special, big theater is only going to show me a HDTV resolution 2K image and deliver loud yet conventional 5.1 audio I can get that in any standard d-cinema movie theater.

Regarding the issue of industry conversion to digital projection shutting down small town theaters, yes, some theaters are going to end up shutting down over this. However, lots of small town theaters across the country, even drive-in theaters, have managed to make the switch. Many of the small town theaters now facing closure simply procrastinated and hoped the conversion to digital would never happen. The writing has been on the wall for a decade. Theaters operators had options and opportunities to make the conversion process easier. The hold-outs just ignored those opportunities. I do feel sorry for the theater operators with budgets so small that none of the VPF arrangements would have worked. I don't feel so sorry for the others who could have made the switch but chose not to do so.

Over 90% of commercial theaters in the United States are equipped with digital projection. We're at that tipping point where movie studios can start releasing movies without any 35mm film prints and not take much of a hit from doing so. I hate it that film is dying. Unfortunately the few labs still making release prints have lost most of their best people. 35mm release print quality has been declining for years. Not very many people really know how to handle film anymore. That makes running something like a 70mm presentation a very risky act. Studios are getting far more protective of the prints they have. Repertory houses showing classic movies are now having a much harder time getting film prints. They're getting forced to show DCPs from hard discs or even Blu-ray discs instead.

 

[Bobby Henderson]

So far 2014 has been a pretty paltry year in terms of movie releases featuring sound in Dolby Atmos. Today things turn around a bit with two movies featuring Dolby Atmos mixes, 300: Rise of an Empire and Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Don't they have the order of those names backwards? I thought it was Sherman & Mr. Peabody originally.

If someone wants to see Mr. Peabody & Sherman in Dolby Atmos that viewer might have to visit a theater with 2 or more auditoriums equipped with Dolby Atmos. Obviously the 300 sequel is taking top billing. If a multiplex has only 1 Dolby Atmos capable house, 300 will likely be playing on it. Mr. Peabody & Sherman is doing a lot better with critics -currently a 76% "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes versus a 41% "rotten" rating for 300: Rise of an Empire. We'll have to see which movie actually does better this weekend.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So far 2014 has been a pretty paltry year in terms of movie releases featuring sound in Dolby Atmos. Today things turn around a bit with two movies featuring Dolby Atmos mixes, 300: Rise of an Empire and Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Don't they have the order of those names backwards? I thought it was Sherman & Mr. Peabody originally.

If someone wants to see Mr. Peabody & Sherman in Dolby Atmos that viewer might have to visit a theater with 2 or more auditoriums equipped with Dolby Atmos. Obviously the 300 sequel is taking top billing. If a multiplex has only 1 Dolby Atmos capable house, 300 will likely be playing on it. Mr. Peabody & Sherman is doing a lot better with critics -currently a 76% "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes versus a 41% "rotten" rating for 300: Rise of an Empire. We'll have to see which movie actually does better this weekend.

I viewed the latest 300 film today in Dolby Atmos. My first film with that audio codec. I was very impressed. I might see Sherman & Mr. Peabody during the week at a matinee.

 

[schan1269]

I viewed the latest 300 film today in Dolby Atmos. My first film with that audio codec. I was very impressed. I might see Sherman & Mr. Peabody during the week at a matinee.

How was the movie, itself?

 

[Robert Crawford]

How was the movie, itself?

It was what I expected it to be. A violence orgy! I had a great time so it probably doesn't speak well of me.

 

[Rob W]

. There isn't an IMAX or Digital IMAX theatre outside of a city of 1,000,000+ in this country as far as I can tell..

St. John's, Halifax , Kitchener, Kingston, Whitby, Winnipeg and Victoria are just a few of the cities with population under 1,000,000 with IMAX theatres, and those are just off the top of my head.

 

[RobertR]

How was the movie, itself?

I saw it over the weekend. It was ok, not as good as the first one. As far as Atmos goes, so far, I'm not all that impressed. I've seen Man of Steel and 300. Man of Steel was VERY loud, but I didn't notice particularly impressive surround effects. It may be that mixers aren't using the format to its full advantage. The only movie that seems to have done that so far is Gravity.

 

[Bobby Henderson]

I think Dolby Atmos is great. It's without a doubt the best, most sophisticated sound format being used in commercial movie releases. Unfortunately it is currently a hit or miss proposition to see a movie with Atmos audio and be impressed with the experience. For one thing, the theater's sound system has to be running properly (not every theater does a great job maintaining its sound systems). I loved the Atmos mix of Gravity (and was glad it won the sound editing and sound mixing Oscars). The Atmos mix for the last Hobbit movie was very good during certain sequences. Man of Steel and Thor: The Dark World sounded more like conventional 5.1 audio. The technology has offers great new levels of creative potential with sound. The sound editors and mixers just have to use it.

I'm not asking for garish, ping-pong mixes that pan the audio all over the place just for the sake of doing so. Generally, Atmos can open up the sound field and pull it away from all those conventional limitations. It can create surround fields that are more layered, more subtle and more lifelike. I don't really like how the vast majority of movies keep the dialog locked into the center channel. Atmos can bring back on screen dialog tracking effects like the classic Todd-AO 5-up-front scheme. And with the side and ceiling surround speakers going closer to the screen some dialog elements can seem like they're floating in front of the screen.

Great surround sound mixes take time to produce. Unfortunately a movie's sound mix is one of the last things that gets produced during post production. The sound editing and mixing team usually works under very tight deadlines. There's only so much a sound design team can do in a hurry. It takes a lot of work to produce a good 5.1 surround mix. To create an Atmos mix and do it well requires quite a bit more work than that.

Movie productions that intend to use Dolby Atmos will have to do more planning to get the most out of the format and have us customers talking about it after experiencing it. If the mix doesn't sound much different than a conventional 5.1 surround mix it isn't going to get much notice. And it won't put a dent in that "IMAX" thing (which by the way doesn't do anything more than 5.1).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've seen several screenings at the Dolby Atmos equipped theaters in NYC: specifically, the Regal E-Walk RPX screen in Times Square, and the AMC Empire ETX screen also in Times Square. The movies were: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Star Trek Into Darkness, The Wolverine, and Thor: The Dark World. (I've seen other films on those screens, but am including only the titles the Dolby Atmos website is saying were Dolby Atmos releases.)

Honestly, I've been hard pressed to tell the difference between what I heard in Atmos and what I got on other screens. Star Trek Into Darkness, for example, I saw in just about every format it was offered: 2D, 3D, IMAX 15/70, IMAX Digital. I didn't notice anything extra immersive about the sound when I saw it in Atmos. (To my mind, the expanded aspect ratio for the IMAX versions were what had the biggest impact on me, more so than the sound mix or the 3D.) I was actually really excited to check out Atmos, and was surprised to not notice anything particularly special about it.

I should add the caveat that when I go to a theatrical screening, I like to sit close to the screen - not the front row, but almost always in the first third of the house - basically I like the width of the screen to fill my POV. I'm wondering if maybe my preference to sit closer to the screen puts me at a disadvantage with the surround sound systems. I read a bunch about the format online and how the speakers are strategically placed above you at various points so that you're in the middle of the sound field, but from where I sat, the speakers were always behind me. Is it possible that I'm sitting too close to the screen to be able to appreciate the differences in the mixes and the separation of sounds? Or is it possible that the films I've seen in Atmos just weren't mixed in any super-exciting way?

 

[Bobby Henderson]

It's probably a bit of both. I usually sit in the "sweet spot" area of the auditorium, pretty close to the center if not a couple or so rows back toward the rear of the theater. In all the times I've had to sit close to the screen it seemed like the stage channel speakers were dominating and I couldn't hear the surrounds nearly so much. The back wall was hardly there. OTOH, Dolby Atmos requires more powerful surround speakers. Each speaker has to be able to push pretty high decibel levels so they can be heard properly by much more of the audience. If Dolby Atmos movies were mixed with classic Todd-AO style on-screen dialog panning there would be a greater advantage of sitting closer to the screen.

I haven't heard anybody say anything great about the Atmos mixes of the movies you mentioned. And I know from experience Thor: The Dark World was very conventional sounding.

One question: did either of those theaters in New York City play any of the Dolby Atmos sound format trailers (the "Unfold" and "Excite" trailers)? Both of those clips are very good demonstrations of what Atmos can do.

 

[Wayne_j]

It could also be that a big part of the improvement people see in Atmos is in the speakers and amps the theaters are required to install with Atmos. Since you are in New York, the average audio quality of the theaters in your area could be higher than those of the rest of the country therefore you don't get as much improvement based on the speakers.

 

[RobertR]

That would also explain why I'm not that impressed with Atmos. Southern California has quite a few high quality theaters.