|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What does Fox use to determine digital formats?
|
|
|
|
|
Rick Long
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 759
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-18-2001 10:31 PM
Thank you both. So often when I go to a theatre, the night before I do a routine service there, I am dismayed to see so many digital playback units lying idle, because no one gave consideration as to what films were encoded with what type of digital track.First thing I do the next morning, when I arrive to do service (alone, btw) is to play "chess" with the digial units in order to acheive maximum digital performnance. As you can imagine, this takes some time, finding out which prints are in which digital format. Different features between the matinee' and night shows add to the fun. These posts help me to speed up this process.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-19-2001 04:31 PM
I know the SRD track comes with standard Dolby analog mastering. How does dts and sdds compare cost-wise? Perhaps that is the issue.Karen, what would the approximate cost be for a 6 reel film running 1 hour 45 minutes in dts? Is the cost more varied in respect to the quantity of prints, or is most of the cost in original mastering? John Luttrelle or Al Barton, could you tell us approximately what it would cost for the same film to be encoded in sdds? Is the cost affected further with the need for special printers, or are most labs fully set up to run sdds on all printers anyway?
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 10-19-2001 05:02 PM
Brad asked: "are most labs fully set up to run sdds on all printers anyway?"AFAIK, all the large labs that do release prints are capable of printing "quad track" (analog, Dolby Digital, DTS time code and SDDS), on most of the printers they use for release printing. Of course, the sound negative needs to have all tracks recorded. Kodak developed a special "pan sensitive" sound recording film for this purpose, since different colors of light are used to expose each track:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2374.shtml Any added lab cost is in assuring the quality of the tracks, as different equipment is used to check each type of track, and a defect in one of the tracks may mean redoing the reel.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 10-27-2001 05:34 AM
AFAIK, there is no additional mastering charge, if you're going to use SDDS 8 track, as they want to support 8 track as a major difference in cinema going experience. There is a charge on 5.1 track, but that is definitively not the reason. Making dts disks for foreign markets maybe another thing, AFAIK, distributors have to pay for the glass master, and with a small release this would add up a "substantial" ammunt to release budgets.
In recent year, at least in Europe SDDS has spent substantial investments on lab and recording site consultancy to ensure, that prints are delivered in runnable condition. As known, a single ACM (fallback to analoge) marks a print as non runnable, as do more than a few of those extremely ugly DCM's (digital fallback). In past the laboratory quality has been the major problem with SDDS prints. We now find those problems to occurr with SRD tracks, brand new prints to play 6-7-F on the initial screenings. Looking at the tracks with microsope, you can see the blurry exposure.
One reason to use a specific format on a major release, is reliability in premium theatres, as distributors want to have their film going with outstanding performance. So funny, not all all prints have dts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-27-2001 05:30 PM
Hi Karen,Looking at our pictures, we seam to have something in common. Would you like to go out? I will buy the bananas. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist). I was surprised to find that "Bedazzled" only had dolby digital (and optical). No DTS, or SDDS.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic