What's wrong with Hollywood?

[AudioPostExpert]

Arthouse films are not videos, they are films meant to be screened in arthouse cinemas (not commercial cinemas).

I could counter that argument by saying that just because an arthouse or festival cinema has been rigged to screen videos doesn't mean that the videos which it screens somehow magically become cinema. I think we're starting to go round in circles on this point now though, so I'm not sure there's much to be gained from discussing it further. I've tried to make my point, it up to you if you accept it or not.

I might even agree except that I think the essential experience of the cinema can still be felt in different presentation formats.

And yet a filmmaker you have quoted (Bela Tarr) would, and indeed has, strongly disagreed. I agree that the basic elements of story, etc., still exist and can be appreciated/enjoyed but by definition many of the fine details of filmmaking, the details which differentiate cinema from video and which professional filmmakers spend the majority of their time and creative energy on, are lost. Again though, we're now going round in circles.

I feel like Mozart's music is still his music even if it is performed by different performers and recorded by different people. ... In the same way, I feel like the cinematic text can have different interpretations or translations while still being the same work.

I don't feel that way and your Mozart analogy demonstrates why. The output of a traditional classical music composer is not music, it's a wad of paper with a bunch of strange dots on it! For it to become music, someone (a musician/s) has to interpret those dots and create the music. It's then up to the audience to judge the composition and the musician's interpretation and execution. In this sense a composer is more like a screenwriter. However, filmmakers/directors are more like the musicians or orchestral conductors than the composers, directors are the people who create the interpretation (of the script) and produce the performance (film).

We know Mozart had a rather base sense of humour, flair and an anti-establishment streak and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that at least some of his performances (interpretations) reflected these aspects of his personality. Modern performances of Mozart tend to be within fairly strict modern performance conventions, the very definition of "establishment". Are these modern interpretations still art? Definitely! Are they still enjoyable? Absolutely. Are they still the same pieces of music? As far as re-creating the same notes, in the same order is concerned, "yes". Do they still capture the essence and all of Mozart's intentions? This we'll never know, possibly they do but I think it's extremely likely that at least some of Mozart's intentions have been lost and it's entirely possible that so many of his intentions have been lost that the very essence of some of his music has been "lost in translation". It's still essentially the same piece of music but maybe the implications are different and therefore what the audience feels and experiences is different, either just in parts or in it's entire meaning/feel.

I wouldn't say that the fact that it's [2001] themes are still relevant today is a fluke of history, it's just the product of an extremely talented artist with interesting observations about the world, just like any great work of art that continues to speak to people.

In the late 60's computing was still in it's infancy, I contend that there was no way of knowing that the theme of us being ruled/controlled by computers would still be an AI fear/issue decades later. Our history of computing/software development could just as easily have been different, where the potential issues of AI had long since been addressed and forgotten. In which case the theme of 2001 would not still be relevant and maybe not even understood/appreciated by anyone except computing historians. I'm not questioning Kubrik's talent or his chosen theme, I'm just saying that the fact the theme is still relevant after nearly 50 years of extraordinary computing advancements is essentially just luck.

Well I would argue that making a film as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey is never a bad thing ...

You're joking right?

Merriam Webster's first full definition defines cinema as "motion picture —usually used attributively."

Does Marriam Webster wish to make films for a living? If not, then it doesn't apply to what I stated!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

I could counter that argument by saying that just because an arthouse or festival cinema has been rigged to screen videos doesn't mean that the videos which it screens somehow magically become cinema. I think we're starting to go round in circles on this point now though, so I'm not sure there's much to be gained from discussing it further. I've tried to make my point, it up to you if you accept it or not.

Well it was your answer to my question about extremely low budget foreign films that made me bring this up. Actually now I see quite clearly that we strongly disagree on this point. "Videos" with cinematic form that are screened at any cinema (including festivals or arthouses) are cinema. How can you say that Dogme 95 films are not cinema? How can you say that the countless amounts of digital films produced in many nations are not cinema? I think that the view of cinema that you present is one that excludes many national cinemas which are challenging notions of what cinema is (I'm particularly thinking about Nollywood actually and not arthouse films). I think that these old views of cinema are growing less and less relevant as films (or motion pictures if I have to call them that) are being experienced in different ways.

And yet a filmmaker you have quoted (Bela Tarr) would, and indeed has, strongly disagreed. I agree that the basic elements of story, etc., still exist and can be appreciated/enjoyed but by definition many of the fine details of filmmaking, the details which differentiate cinema from video and which professional filmmakers spend the majority of their time and creative energy on, are lost. Again though, we're now going round in circles.

Well I only mentioned Tarr as an example of a filmmaker who clearly doesn't work with commercial cinematic conventions, I didn't mean to say that I knew of or agree on his views about this particular point. I strongly disagree with Tarr and with many older generation filmmakers. I'm not speaking as someone who only watches films on home video, I watch films on home video and on the big screen. The differences are not enough to justify separating the two as completely different experiences. If I watch a 2001 on a 70mm print on the big screen or at home on a Blu-Ray, I'm still experiencing the same film text (even though it is a different version). And I think that my example of how music is adapted to different performances and literary texts to different translations is similar to this. And I would even add that it's the same as listening to say The Beatles on different formats, one can listen to them in either mono or stereo mixes, one can listen to them on Vinyl or CD or lossless files or lossy MP3 versions, and even though each 'translation' is different and some of them are even objectively superior, you are still listening to the music of The Beatles.

I don't feel that way and your Mozart analogy demonstrates why. The output of a traditional classical music composer is not music, it's a wad of paper with a bunch of strange dots on it! For it to become music, someone (a musician/s) has to interpret those dots and create the music. It's then up to the audience to judge the composition and the musician's interpretation and execution. In this sense a composer is more like a screenwriter. However, filmmakers/directors are more like the musicians or orchestral conductors than the composers, directors are the people who create the interpretation (of the script) and produce the performance (film).

We know Mozart had a rather base sense of humour, flair and an anti-establishment streak and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that at least some of his performances (interpretations) reflected these aspects of his personality. Modern performances of Mozart tend to be within fairly strict modern performance conventions, the very definition of "establishment". Are these modern interpretations still art? Definitely! Are they still enjoyable? Absolutely. Are they still the same pieces of music? As far as re-creating the same notes, in the same order is concerned, "yes". Do they still capture the essence and all of Mozart's intentions? This we'll never know, possibly they do but I think it's extremely likely that at least some of Mozart's intentions have been lost and it's entirely possible that so many of his intentions have been lost that the very essence of some of his music has been "lost in translation". It's still essentially the same piece of music but maybe the implications are different and therefore what the audience feels and experiences is different, either just in parts or in it's entire meaning/feel.

Well I disagree right from the start, since I think it's clear that Mozart composed music, and it is likely that he had original intentions on how this music was to be performed. Moreover, Mozart is the primary author of his music just as in most cases the film director is the primary author of his films (we can debate about this, but I would say that in most films this is the case). I can see your point about Mozart being more like a screenwriter, but I would say that this works only in some respects. In any case, when I listen to different performances of Mozart's music, I still recognize it to be Mozart's music. In the same way, when I watch Kubrick's work on different formats, it is still recognizably Kubrick's work. My main point with this though was that I don't think that most artworks even in different mediums must be experienced in their original format/intention in the first place which is why I think that there is quite an exaggeration when people compare digital with film unfavorably or watching films on the small screen vs. the big screen.

In the late 60's computing was still in it's infancy, I contend that there was no way of knowing that the theme of us being ruled/controlled by computers would still be an AI fear/issue decades later. Our history of computing/software development could just as easily have been different, where the potential issues of AI had long since been addressed and forgotten. In which case the theme of 2001 would not still be relevant and maybe not even understood/appreciated by anyone except computing historians. I'm not questioning Kubrik's talent or his chosen theme, I'm just saying that the fact the theme is still relevant after nearly 50 years of extraordinary computing advancements is essentially just luck.

You and I may have different readings of the film, but I find this to be only one facet behind what makes 2001 such a great, universally powerful film. I think once the potential issues of AI have been addressed and forgotten, 2001 will remain powerful because it's not even primarily about that (at least in my opinion).

You're joking right?

Well you seem to imply that making a film like 2001 in the way that it offers visual spectacle while at the same time being thought provoking is a bad thing. You seem to think that these newer blockbusters are better, and that's perfectly valid but that's not what I look for in cinema.

Does Marriam Webster wish to make films for a living? If not, then it doesn't apply to what I stated!

No, the thing is that you seem to act as if your definition of cinema is the only one that's correct, when this is simply not true at all. But let's just stop these arguments about the definition of cinema since they get in the way of more interesting things we discuss occasionally.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

"Videos" with cinematic form that are screened at any cinema (including festivals or arthouses) are cinema.

What do you mean by videos with "cinematic form"? Ignoring this for now though, is a road car, with no suspension or safety belts/features which can only be driven on a specially surfaced private road, still a road car?

How can you say that Dogme 95 films are not cinema?

I don't know to whom or to what thread you're referring but it's not me, I never mentioned Dogme 95 films, let alone said they are not cinema! You seem to be arguing against yourself with this statement though, you do know that one of the fundamental "rules" of Dogme 95 was to specifically meet the technical requirements of cinema of the time? Now whether the Dogme 95 filmmakers used the framework of technical specifications of cinema (and of their own Dogme 95 "rules") to tell their stories in the most effective way or in a way which would be acceptable to today's audiences is entirely another matter.

How can you say that the countless amounts of digital films produced in many nations are not cinema?

I can't ... and that's why I didn't!! Were you intoxicated when you wrote this?

I think that the view of cinema that you present is one that excludes many national cinemas...

I'm not presenting a "view", I'm presenting the "fact" that cinema has certain technical specifications which differentiate it from video. I'm also presenting the "fact" that today's most successful filmmakers all use that differentiation to improve the audience's theatrical experience over the video experience.

I think that these old views of cinema are growing less and less relevant as films (or motion pictures if I have to call them that) are being experienced in different ways.

No, they are just as relevant today, if not more relevant, than they have ever been! The day when that relevance ceases to exist is the day that cinema itself ceases to exist. Fortunately, cinema is currently growing globally, rather than ceasing to exist.

I strongly disagree with Tarr and with many older generation filmmakers.

Fortunately, the continued existence of the film industry does not depend on your personal agreement/disagreement!

I'm not speaking as someone who only watches films on home video, I watch films on home video and on the big screen. The differences are not enough to justify separating the two as completely different experiences.

Probably somewhere around half a billion people last year not only did appreciate the differences but paid $36billion to experience those differences, a 4% increase on the previous year btw! Again, fortunately your personal views are irrelevant!

Well I disagree right from the start, since I think it's clear that Mozart composed music, and it is likely that he had original intentions on how this music was to be performed.

None of which has existed for over 200 years! All we have now is the dots on the page and however one cares to interpret those dots.

In any case, when I listen to different performances of Mozart's music, I still recognize it to be Mozart's music.

With the exception of friends and family of some youth or other amateur performances, no one pays to listen to a performance just to recognise a Mozart composition. They pay to listen to a particular musician/s interpretation of a Mozart composition. You personally might only care about recognising Mozart's music and that's your choice but it's out of step with paying classical music audiences and more importantly, if you had any desire to become a professional classical musician you'd have no choice but to look deeper and appreciate the nuances of musicality (interpretation). And, you would learn that musicality can be defined as all those elements in a performance which are not specifically notated in the printed score.

In the same way, when I watch Kubrick's work on different formats, it is still recognizably Kubrick's work.

I would choose something other than 2001 for purely entertainment value and if I were watching it for study purposes I would want to be able to appreciate the filmmaking nuances beyond just being able to recognise it as Kubrik work.

My main point with this though was that I don't think that most artworks even in different mediums must be experienced in their original format/intention in the first place ...

Absolutely they don't. Anyone could be entertained/enjoy looking at a photo of the Cistine Chapel ceiling or watching Gravity on an iPhone. But, this isn't a forum for "anyone", it's a forum specifically for filmmakers and those wishing to learn the art/craft of professional filmmaking and who therefore need to be able to study, appreciate and understand the precise nuances of the current professional practitioners.

Well you seem to imply that making a film like 2001 in the way that it offers visual spectacle while at the same time being thought provoking is a bad thing.

No, I specifically said "although some of the basic principles are the same, the precise execution is quite different. Investing the amounts required to make a blockbuster today, aimed at the film market of the late 1960's would obviously be commercial suicide!"

You seem to think that these newer blockbusters are better, and that's perfectly valid but that's not what I look for in cinema.

You seem to be putting "what you look for in cinema" above any consideration of the reality of the film world in which you wish to work. Inflation adjusted, 2001 cost roughly a third of what a tentpole blockbuster costs today and took about $100m (inflation adjusted) on it's initial run, which would be an utter catastrophe by today's standards. The cinema market continually evolves and changes and it does so largely in response to the evolution of audience expectation. If 2001 only made the equivalent of $100m on it's release in 1968 how much would it make from today's audiences? I therefore take it as a given that "these newer blockbusters are better" within the constraints of today's cinema market than 2001.

No, the thing is that you seem to act as if your definition of cinema is the only one that's correct, when this is simply not true at all.

I never said it's "the only one that's correct", I said it's the only one "that really matters if one wishes to make cinema professionally".

Throughout your reply you seem to be saying that there is no substantive difference between cinema and video and advocating some sort of experimental or historical film style video making as the way forward for aspiring filmmakers. I just don't get your logic: Your approach is pretty much guaranteed to fail, in which case you've failed! Alternatively, if by some unfathomable miracle you succeed and destroy the differences between film and video, then you'll have destroyed the reason for cinema to exist and there will be no film industry to aspire to, in which case you've failed! The only way you succeed is with an unfathomable miracle and if your goal is to destroy the cinema industry. Doesn't make much sense to me, but good luck with your endeavours anyway.

Much of what I've said above is just a re-phrasing of what I've already said, so I think it's time for me to bow out.

G

 

[NickClapper]

(replying to post several posts up)

That's interesting stuff APE. Like so much of the filmmaking process, it sometimes feels like things are improving and evolving at such a rate that it's hard to keep up. Some day, people will laugh at the VFX and sound design of Gravity, I'm sure (the same people who would snicker at through early cinema now).

What do you think the step after Atmos will be? And do you foresee a way that independent filmmakers will be able to replicate the Atmos mix, without needing to employ a big studio? Obviously 5.1 was, once upon a time, only available to the biggest movies, and technology, combined with the progress of other technologies driving prices down, has changed that. Will the same thing happen with Atmos do you think?

 

[MiniJamesW]

What do you mean by videos with "cinematic form"? Ignoring this for now though, is a road car, with no suspension or safety belts/features which can only be driven on a specially surfaced private road, still a road car?

No, but in that case you are talking about functional objects and not art. I don't think that cinema has to be viewed in a commercial movie theater to be cinema, you clearly do. That's why we disagree.

I'll honestly say that I don't know for sure what I mean by "cinematic form" however I do know how to distinguish it (as do most audiences). When people watch a movie on a TV, on Netflix, or on an airplane they can distinguish it from a TV show, a work of video art, or say a Powerpoint or a YouTube video. This points to a cinematic form that can be presented in different formats. I'm sure if I took the time to analyze and compare and contrast the different mediums I can give more specific qualities that make up cinematic form as opposed to other moving image media, but for now I think it's just so intuitively recognized that it's fine for these purposes.

I don't know to whom or to what thread you're referring but it's not me, I never mentioned Dogme 95 films, let alone said they are not cinema! You seem to be arguing against yourself with this statement though, you do know that one of the fundamental "rules" of Dogme 95 was to specifically meet the technical requirements of cinema of the time? Now whether the Dogme 95 filmmakers used the framework of technical specifications of cinema (and of their own Dogme 95 "rules") to tell their stories in the most effective way or in a way which would be acceptable to today's audiences is entirely another matter.

Well you are right about that, but it is digital video blown up to 35mm, which is why I mentioned it.

I can't ... and that's why I didn't!! Were you intoxicated when you wrote this?

I'm sorry, but in your view, the film production of Nollywood is not cinema (logically if cinema has to be released at a commercial cinema), I even mentioned this. There are also different filmmakers working on smaller budgets that make these "videos." I'm trying to say that many of these would still be cinema even if they don't quite meet the technical standards. I'm not sure why you had to resort to asking me if I were intoxicated when I wrote this.

I'm not presenting a "view", I'm presenting the "fact" that cinema has certain technical specifications which differentiate it from video. I'm also presenting the "fact" that today's most successful filmmakers all use that differentiation to improve the audience's theatrical experience over the video experience.

Okay, I don't quite think this is a fact, I agreed with you earlier but I'm starting to think differently. But then since you are presenting a "fact" then I am wrong and this is not worth discussing.

No, they are just as relevant today, if not more relevant, than they have ever been! The day when that relevance ceases to exist is the day that cinema itself ceases to exist. Fortunately, cinema is currently growing globally, rather than ceasing to exist.

If more people watch films on other presentation formats than on the big screen, I think it's becoming less relevant. This is especially noticeable once you see that most films made today are made with other presentation formats in mind.

Fortunately, the continued existence of the film industry does not depend on your personal agreement/disagreement!

Firstly, there is multiple film industries, and secondly well I know it doesn't depend on my agreement/disagreement. We also don't entirely agree on what the film industry is, because I include what you call "videos."

Probably somewhere around half a billion people last year not only did appreciate the differences but paid $36billion to experience those differences, a 4% increase on the previous year btw! Again, fortunately your personal views are irrelevant!

And how many more were watching on Netflix, YouTube, streaming services, and home video?

None of which has existed for over 200 years! All we have now is the dots on the page and however one cares to interpret those dots.

Those "dots" are music.

With the exception of friends and family of some youth or other amateur performances, no one pays to listen to a performance just to recognise a Mozart composition. They pay to listen to a particular musician/s interpretation of a Mozart composition. You personally might only care about recognising Mozart's music and that's your choice but it's out of step with paying classical music audiences and more importantly, if you had any desire to become a professional classical musician you'd have no choice but to look deeper and appreciate the nuances of musicality (interpretation). And, you would learn that musicality can be defined as all those elements in a performance which are not specifically notated in the printed score.

I never said that I listen to performances of Mozart's compositions to recognize Mozart. At least initially everyone listens to a performance of Mozart's compositions just to listen to Mozart's music, then one can appreciate musicality and different interpretations.

I would choose something other than 2001 for purely entertainment value and if I were watching it for study purposes I would want to be able to appreciate the filmmaking nuances beyond just being able to recognise it as Kubrik work.

Well yeah, most people would too, although I find 2001 to be one of the most enjoyable films, but of course not everyone feels this way. Again, who said that I watch/study Kubrick's work to recognize it as a Kubrick work? I was only trying to say that his work can be viewed in different presentation formats and still be the same work, just as listening to different performances of Mozart is still listening to Mozart's work.

Absolutely they don't. Anyone could be entertained/enjoy looking at a photo of the Cistine Chapel ceiling or watching Gravity on an iPhone. But, this isn't a forum for "anyone", it's a forum specifically for filmmakers and those wishing to learn the art/craft of professional filmmaking and who therefore need to be able to study, appreciate and understand the precise nuances of the current professional practitioners.

And yet much of the film industry is aimed at audiences who will experience these works in non-theatrical formats.

No, I specifically said "although some of the basic principles are the same, the precise execution is quite different. Investing the amounts required to make a blockbuster today, aimed at the film market of the late 1960's would obviously be commercial suicide!"

You seem to be putting "what you look for in cinema" above any consideration of the reality of the film world in which you wish to work. Inflation adjusted, 2001 cost roughly a third of what a tentpole blockbuster costs today and took about $100m (inflation adjusted) on it's initial run, which would be an utter catastrophe by today's standards. The cinema market continually evolves and changes and it does so largely in response to the evolution of audience expectation. If 2001 only made the equivalent of $100m on it's release in 1968 how much would it make from today's audiences? I therefore take it as a given that "these newer blockbusters are better" within the constraints of today's cinema market than 2001.

First of all, I don't want to be a blockbuster filmmaker or a Hollywood filmmaker in any sense. Secondly, you and I seem to view "better" in different ways. Your way of seeing a film as being "better" is having more commercial success. I happen to think that 2001 is artistically superior to most films let alone most blockbusters.

I never said it's "the only one that's correct", I said it's the only one "that really matters if one wishes to make cinema professionally".

Ah okay. Although I still think filmmakers should think about the more likely presentation formats that their films will be viewed in.

Throughout your reply you seem to be saying that there is no substantive difference between cinema and video and advocating some sort of experimental or historical film style video making as the way forward for aspiring filmmakers. I just don't get your logic: Your approach is pretty much guaranteed to fail, in which case you've failed!

Actually no. Firstly, I have always recognized the differences between different film industries. I happen to want to make films that would fit the "arthouse" market as opposed to the "mainstream" market. I don't think everyone should do this, nor do I even want this to be the case. I never said I want filmmakers to repeat what they've seen in film history, I wouldn't want another 2001, just another film of that quality. I don't see anything wrong with filmmakers experimenting, if you think that is the way to failure then we're just completely different as you like may prefer more conventional filmmaking. In any case, I probably don't even want to succeed according to your definition of "success" in the film industry.

Alternatively, if by some unfathomable miracle you succeed and destroy the differences between film and video, then you'll have destroyed the reason for cinema to exist and there will be no film industry to aspire to, in which case you've failed!

No in that case I succeed at eliminating what I view to be a huge problem, American-centric views of cinema. Doing this would open much more doors for filmmakers (although in your opinion they shouldn't be called "filmmakers") in other countries. But I'm not aspiring to destroy the differences between film and video, I think it's clear that both of them are extremely related as films later get presented as videos.

The only way you succeed is with an unfathomable miracle and if your goal is to destroy the cinema industry. Doesn't make much sense to me, but good luck with your endeavours anyway.

Well my goal is just to make films, probably for an audience that enjoys more "arthouse" type films. No different from the goals of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Wong Kar-Wai, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Lisandro Alonso, Gaspar Noe, Hong Sang-soo, etc.

Much of what I've said above is just a re-phrasing of what I've already said, so I think it's time for me to bow out.

Well yeah, I think that would be best, we're not really getting anywhere anymore. I did enjoy talking to you, especially since I did learn a lot, but I suppose we have very different views on cinema.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Some day, people will laugh at the VFX and sound design of Gravity, I'm sure (the same people who would snicker at through early cinema now).

That's difficult to imagine but I'm sure you're right.

What do you think the step after Atmos will be?

That is extremely difficult to say. I'll try not to get too technical but DA (Dolby Atmos) represents a very significant step forward in cinema sound. Although there were many essentially experimental cinema formats, dating back to the late 1930s, mono was the de facto standard cinema audio format from 1927 to about 1977 (Star Wars), with the advent of Dolby Stereo (a 4 channel format). The next major step forward after Dolby Stereo was Dolby SRD (Dolby Digital 5.1) in 1993 but all the improvements since then (Dolby EX, various flavours of DTS/Datasat, SDDS, Dolby 7.1) have in essence been aimed at addressing the stereophonic (the perceptual positioning of sounds between the speakers) component of theatrical sound. In home 5.1 systems you have 5 satellite speakers (Left front, Centre, Right front, Left surround and Right surround) in cinema sound systems you don't (!), there are no Left or Right surround speakers, instead there are a bunch of smaller speakers spread all the way around the cinemas' side and back walls. This significantly improves the "sweet spot" effect, where only a handful of the audience would otherwise experience the soundfield (the width and depth of the sound between any two speakers), by diffusing the soundfield with all those smaller speakers placed all around the cinema but of course at the expense of the coherence of the soundfield. The end effect is that we have to be very careful and are much more constrained in how we mix theatrical 5.1 than in how we mix for home 5.1 because we have a point source in home 5.1 (actual Left and Right surround speakers) but just a very diffuse and non-coherent soundfield in theatrical 5.1. In other words, we have a full 360deg soundfield in home 5.1 systems (in theory, if it's setup right!) but essentially a 45deg (or so) soundfield in theatrical sound with the rest of the 360deg essentially being a bit of a fudge. Rather than trying to reduce the amount of fudge, which essentially is what Dolby EX and 7.1 aims to do, DA takes a whole new approach and treats each one of those smaller diffuser speakers as an individual point source and in addition adds two banks of speakers in the ceiling. So now we have a full 3D soundfield to play with rather than just a fudged 360deg soundfield on a single horizontal plane. How much an improvement to audience experience this makes does of course depend on how filmmakers employ DA, and not just how they employ the sound system itself but how they design the visuals to justify it's full use. That's what was so special about Gravity, which was specifically designed for DA throughout (not just the obvious action sequences) but The Hobbit for example was designed for 7.1 and the DA mix is essentially just an enhanced 7.1 mix rather than a filmmaking paradigm shift.

There are still some issues with DA and I think that future advances will all be about resolving those issues, effectively just incrementally slightly enhancing DA but I don't see anything beyond the fundamental DA technology without a huge paradigm shift. IE., bypassing the speaker/human hearing interface completely and beaming audio data straight into the audiences' brains (maybe via some sort of implanted chip). This is real sci-fi stuff though and many decades away (at least). Of course, this is all utter guess work, I've really no idea!

And do you foresee a way that independent filmmakers will be able to replicate the Atmos mix, without needing to employ a big studio? Obviously 5.1 was, once upon a time, only available to the biggest movies, and technology, combined with the progress of other technologies driving prices down, has changed that.

There's an (apparently) hidden issue in this question, which I'll deal with first: I mentioned above the differences in the surround soundfield between theatrical 5.1 and home 5.1 and vaguely about how it affects the mixing of the two different formats but there are a number of additional differences both with the surround channels and with all the other channels (front speakers and LFE channel); how the low frequency content is designed and mixed, EQ differences between the horn based speakers required in large rooms (cinemas) as compared to the cone based speakers suitable for small rooms (home), dynamic range and level differences, plus timing and other acoustical differences. In the home or even in a high quality commercial studio, there simply is not the required volume/size to employ horn based speakers, 20 or so diffuser speakers and sub-woofers, general timing and acoustics and the perception of loudness and distance simply do not operate in a small space how they operate in a large space. You have to realise that the perception of sound is not just about the speakers, it's usually less than 50% about the speakers, it's about the room the speakers are placed in and in cinema sound compared to home or studio sound you have a completely different room, completely different number and placement of speakers and even a different type of speaker! I could got into much more detail but to cut a long story short, there really is very little in common between a home or studio 5.1 system and a theatrical sound system! It's relatively cheap to have a 5.1 mix made because effectively you just need a bog standard stereo studio with 3 additional speakers, plus a sub-woofer and some extra processing power. The resultant mix may sound great in that studio and even on an average home 5.1 system but what it will sound like on a theatrical sound system is anyone's guess; it could sound almost the same, it could be an utter disaster or it could be anywhere in-between.

When Dolby Digital was first launched, for the first year or so, it was only available in the major studio's own dubbing/mixing facilities and a handful of the biggest independent commercial audio post facilities. It was expensive but it wasn't a priority for anything other than the biggest budget features because there were few cinemas which had installed DD anyway. By the end of the 1990s it had become the de facto standard and pretty much every film made for theatrical distribution had a DD mix but by then all the independent commercial audio post facilities had DD installed and there was the capacity to meet the demand. However, DD was a propitiatory format which required special equipment to create the format and print it to 35mm film and Dolby would not sell that equipment! The only way to get that equipment was to build a dub stage to Dolby's specifications, get Dolby certification and then they would loan you the required equipment (accompanied by a Dolby technician) for the duration of the mixing and then take the equipment away again until the next film mixing session. Dolby's dub stage specifications were extremely exacting and called for a big room. In fact I had an acquaintance who pretty much had to pull their dub stage down and start again from scratch because one of the dimensions was an inch too short and Dolby refused to certify it! This meant that while the prices/cost of a DD theatrical mix did drop somewhat once all the independent dub stages had installed it, it wasn't a drop which made it cheap. The most major dub stages charge over $5k a day but the cheapest are still around $2.5k a day. Then came DCP which deliberately did away with DD and Dolby's almost monopoly, you can't even put a DD mix on a DCP. This hasn't really opened up the field though because all cinemas are still built exactly or very closely to Dolby audio specs and anyway, as discussed above there is no way around the requirement for a large theatrical dub stage, if one is to commission a mix with any confidence that it will actually work in a cinema. I think I mentioned before that there are ways these days to reduce the requirement for a large theatrical dub stage but (!), only under certain conditions, and we're talking about reducing not eliminating, and it's still relatively expensive compared to what no budget filmmakers are used to, and it's a higher risk strategy!

So, to answer your question; will DA go the way of DD? The answer is "yes", with a very high degree of certainty and probably almost exactly the same path/course. Or at the very least, that is what Dolby is hoping/aiming for as DA is also propitiatory. Will filmmakers be able to make theatrical DA mixes without a big dub stage? Again, DA will follow DD 5.1, so the answer is "no", just as you still need a big theatrical dub stage for a theatrical 5.1 mix you will need one for exactly the same reasons with DA. I can't see anyway of completely eliminating this requirement until the time comes when we can do away with the whole speaker/human hearing paradigm. BTW, Dolby has recently announced a home/consumer version of DA, it had to come! I personally don't see it taking off, it will need a new A/V Receiver and a minimum 9.1 speaker system or a new satellite speaker system with additional up facing cones to bounce sound off the ceiling (which sounds like a very messy solution to me). Seeing as most consumers can't even setup a 2 speaker stereo system properly, getting a 9.1 (or the equivalent) setup to produce any meaningful improvement from the experience is going to be beyond all but the most ardent (and wealthiest) home cinema fanatics IMHO.

However DA could, in time, make the theatrical filmmaking process a little easier/cheaper as in theory the conversion from theatrical DA mix to home DA mix should be simpler and the conversion from home DA mix to home 7.1, 5.1 or stereo could be handled automatically, providing of course that consumers have an A/V Receiver, BluRay player and/or TV with a Dolby DA chip inside. Also in time the theatrical filmmaking and distribution process will become a bit easier and cheaper as 5.1 and 7.1 cinemas upgrade to the latest Dolby Cinema Processor, which can downmix a DA mix to 7.1 and 5.1, potentially eliminating the need to create or distribute the separate 5.1 or 7.1 theatrical mix which is currently necessary. Again though, it maybe many years before we reach the tipping point of enough cinemas having DA or a DA processor that distributors feel they can get away with not requiring separate versions.

G

 

[APZmedia]

I love this thread!