Slashdot Mirror
'IMAX Enhanced' Promises Highest-Quality Image, Sound Experiences For Home Theater Setups (audioholics.com)
Audiofan writes: Just when we thought Sony learned their lessons from past formats DOA, they are at it again this time by teaming up with IMAX and select partners to certify the "IMAX movie experience" for home theater setups. Will Sony be on the losing side against already established Dolby Vision and HDR10 or will they leverage IMAX's immersive picture and sound quality on top of these other technologies? This smells like a format war or at the very least more consumer confusion. The new certification and license program from IMAX and DTS will give what they say to be the highest-quality image and sound experiences for home theater. "IMAX and DTS [as well as partners Denon, Marantz, Sony, and Paramount Studios] aren't clear as to whether this will be significantly different from DTS:X immersive 3D sound other than to say, 'The DTS:X codec technology (is) integrated in home audio equipment to deliver an IMAX signature sound experience,'" reports Audioholics. "To be accepted into the program, leading consumer electronics manufacturers will design top-of-the-line 4K HDR televisions, A/V receivers, sound systems and other home theater equipment to meet a carefully prescribed set of the highest audio and video performance standards, set by a certification committee of IMAX and DTS engineers and Hollywood's leading technical specialists."
The report notes that the program will use an IMAX post-production process "to digitally re-master content to produce more vibrant colors, greater contrast and sharper clarity," as well as "deliver an IMAX signature sound experience."
The report notes that the program will use an IMAX post-production process "to digitally re-master content to produce more vibrant colors, greater contrast and sharper clarity," as well as "deliver an IMAX signature sound experience."
Plenty of money to be had, as long as there are still some younger folks left in these western nations who still have good hearing.
And there's me with a barely-HD projector on an 8-foot white projection screen, with the audio coming out of it in what might as well be mono sound because the directionality makes no difference (i.e. the thing making the sound in the movie isn't off to my left, it's just on the left of the screen most of the time, which is... in front of me, and the box making the sound is behind me anyway), streaming the videos off my phone over a ChromeCast via a 4G connection on a "SD-only" package.
And you know what? It's not just as good as any cinema... it's better. Because an 8-foot screen from a sensible distance away (the calculator I found says 17 feet) fills your vision just the same while also offering a res that they'd need 8-16K or greater on an humongous screen to match, and most cinemas aren't that.
People also forget that "1080p" is really "2 Megapixel". 4K might be "33 Megapixel" but there is no way in hell it's 10+ times better, or that you can see 10 times more detail at any sensible distance.
Sorry, but cinema is dying in my country. Too expensive. Empty most of the time. Too much upselling and ads. No technical incentive to watch it compared to buying even the cheapest of projectors.
Sony had a lot of format losses, But a lot of successful ones too. Even for the losses they made money from many of them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/...
What's more it's going to be a long long time for old content to be upgraded.
At this point it's probably easier to wait for the inevitable Hollywood remake and hope they don't fsck it up (increasingly unlikely), or just accept that even 4K is overkill for many cinema setups and almost all home ones, let alone 8K.
In my expereince, even when original high quality (70mm/IMAX/etc.) filmstock was available and still in good condition, there have still been some pretty poor quality cash-grab Blu-ray releases of the original, and I don't see this being any different. Additionally, a lot of CGI wasn't rendered with sufficient resolution for the original release to save time and money, so unless there's enough financial justification for a re-render (which assumes the original files and compatible software are still available) you're only going to get any scenes with CGI in them upsampled anyway. This is why there has never been - nor is there ever likely to be - a high-res release of "Babylon 5", amongst other movies and series from the same era.
It's even worse if you're into real classics that were shot on lower grade filmstock that has had longer to deteriorate, in which case you might as well just get the existing "Collectors Edition" DVD/Blu-ray/stream and let your player/display handle any upsampling. It's going to be far cheaper than buying all the media again, and I doubt anyone is going to really notice the image quality difference compared to having a professional studio doing the upsampling. 4K/8K seems to be more about the new content anyway - think about how many classics were re-released on DVD and compare with the numbers re-released for Blu-Ray - a trend I expect to continue given the YouTube mindset, which might not be a bad thing if it means Hollywood leaves the classics alone.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I for one am waiting to see them shrivel up and die. They deserve it, after how they (repeatedly!) treated their customers.
And how to for headphones?
I mean, seriously. What for?
All the shit are telling me about cinemas... from loudly talking during the movie over throwing popcorn, bright phone screens and crying babies to dirty seats ... none of that is the case here in Germany, and AFAIK most of Europe. Our cinemas are squeaky-clean, well-climatized, and everybody is quiet and behaving unless it fits. (E.g. things that are a plus and part of the experience, like everybody in the room gasping or laughing at the same scene.)
Our problem and only reason people are going to the cinema less, is that the media industries have decided to steal even more money and work even less for it, by inventing the criminal concept of "intellectual property" (an oxymoron of amazing obviousness)... meaning, that instead of financing the new, innovative and daring productions, they are complete pussies, and rather recycle the same old "i.p." over and over and over again.
At least US productions. German productions are even worse, as most movies are all the same one genre of shitty comedy in sitcom lighting or green-tinted pseudo-moral thriller. (And if you don't think those are the same genre, you haven't seen recent German movies yet. ^^)
None of that is the fault of the cinemas.
in fact, when there IS a good movie in our cinemas, they are flooded with people.
So I feel bad for them. Yet another good thing ruined by the coke-headed Content Mafia thieves.
Audiophiles don't care about new surround formats. Quite a few won't touch anything digital with a 10 foot pole. Some will *maybe* go in for multichannel SACD, but that's it.
Naw, this is geared toward people who buy a new receiver every time a new surround format comes out. Most audiophiles also won't touch a receiver with a 10 foot pole.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
>"This smells like a format war or at the very least more consumer confusion."
To me, this smells like typical marketing crap.
It think the author is wrong in thinking this involves some new format/tech (HDR10/DV/DTS).
Sounds to me more like a marketing program disguised in techo-babble, which would compete with THX, .
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
because, well, why not? 10 times better tweeter sounds and a noise floor so quiet your ears will go DEAF and more channels that Amsterdam has hooker hangouts along the canals. But then there's this poophead here,
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphm...
Into the black with him!
which might not be a bad thing if it means Hollywood leaves the classics alone.
May Ted Turner burn in hell for colorizing the greats of noir.
don't most high end home stuff have dtsx & dolby atmos? and can do more with firmware updates?
I'm on to Sony now. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for much more invasive DRM crap.
It doesn't matter to me anyway. My home has been Sony free for 10 years and I will never allow another Sony product into my home.
They'll need ipv6 compatible cables too.
Yes, because audiophiles are literally the only group on the entire planet who are absolutely consistent in their opinions across the entire grouo.
They aren't consistent about much, but they are consistent in their dislike of most surround formats.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1080p -- 2 Million Pixels, 4K -- 8 Million pixels, 8K -- 33 Million pixels.
4K is for the most part way overkill for most movies. I watch most of my stuff in 720p (1 Million pixels) as it is very, very superior to SD or DVD on my tablet. On my 8 foot projection screen 1080p makes a visible but not dramatic upgrade from 720p. That said, some wide screen movies would be better on a wider screen and we are throwing away some of our 2 Million pixels on letter-boxing. When Blu-Ray came out they should have had a 3 Million pixel Wide Screen option at 1080p, this would have twice the usable pixels of regular letter-boxed 1080p.
4K is really sweet for programming and browsing and having multiple windows in general.
8K haven't really seen any up close, can't imagine it is much needed much currently -- but I could be wrong -- can never have enough windows :)
VR at 1440p still has a lot of screen door. I suspect 4K VR will be about good enough, but not affordable soon. Eye tracking and Foviated rendering will be needed to make 8K VR viable (though we are then at a point 8K starts to make sense).
Letter To Iran
So what are the open equivalents
right now the display standards are being locked in and you want something 8K :
Hybrid Log-Gamma
HDR10+ (supported by apple TV and Samsung/LG)
for audio its about the number of speakers and position... both DTSX and Atmos are BROKEN for home setups they do not enforce the placement or provide guidance strictly so its pretty much pointless...
can someone please just release an open standard for meta data with 22.2 audio which prescribes exactly what to do when downmixing ?
thanks then we will be without the marketing BULL
Don't even get me started on that. :) Oh, sure, it's kinda interesting for something like the WWII news reel footage, but taking a film that was deliberately lit and filmed as film noir[1] and colourising it just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding of what the film and lighting directors were trying to achieve in terms of look and mood.
[1] For those that don't know, "Film Noir" is not so much a genre like "Sci Fi" or "Fantasy", despite often being referred to as such, but quite literally what "Black Film" implies; if you were to remove the artificial lighting and re-shoot with the same settings in the available ambient light you wouldn't see a thing - the negatives would be effectively blank. It's *all* about the lighting setup, and the use of monochrome film played a huge part in that, which is why noir films were still being shot in monochrome even after colour stock was available. Colourising it would be almost as bad as some lunatic releasing a "Special Edition" where Greedo shoots first.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Just another meaningless logo to tick a box.
The worst scam is whatever cables Monster Cable is currently selling.
Monster Cable products are overpriced and often wildly over engineered but they are generally of solid quality and do what they represent. QED they are not a scam in the legal sense of the word. They just aren't good value for money for most people. Their marketing and sales tactics tend to prey on ignorance, insecurity, and credulity of their customers but they aren't actually misrepresenting what they are. It's just that what they are provides minimal to no value added over much cheaper alternatives for those who care to look. They are a textbook case of let the buyer beware but that is not the same thing as fraud.
4K is really sweet for programming and browsing and having multiple windows in general.
I find it nice for home movie watching too. Yes you generally can see the difference between 1080p and 4K in many cases because the limit of your ability to perceive resolution is greater than the resolution of 1080p. I have both 4K and 1080p versions of The Martian and on my 65inch TV I can see there is a difference between the two from my couch 12-15 feet away. I have to get close to see all the detail of 4K but I can tell there is a difference from further away. Details pop out enough to be noticeable.
If you want to argue that the difference between 1080p and 4K for general home movie watching is strongly into diminishing returns I would certainly concede the point in most use cases. 4K is better but it's not even close to the improvement from the old SD to 1080p. You really have to be pixel peeping to notice in many cases.
8K haven't really seen any up close, can't imagine it is much needed much currently -- but I could be wrong -- can never have enough windows :)
I could see it being useful for desktop monitors. I currently have three 28" 4K monitors on my desk and I could theoretically replace them (and then some) with a single 8K monitor of similar size which would be large. I could also see it being useful for large informational displays in public places. For home movie viewing I'm not really sure there is much value added.
Another Anonymous Coward noted:
because, well, why not? 10 times better tweeter sounds and a noise floor so quiet your ears will go DEAF and more channels that Amsterdam has hooker hangouts along the canals. But then there's this poophead here,
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphm...
I make it a rule not to waste mod points on AC comments. I broke that rule for this one, because the amount of technical detail in the link it included, and the links it contains to tools that will let interested parties actually test many of the assertions its author makes are, in fact EXTREMELY informative. Anyone who cares about audio quality for end-user playback needs to understand the scientifically-tested-and-confirmed facts about the physiology of human hearing and the effects of various sampling rates on user-detectable qualitative differences between them.
The article linked does a superb job of providing the factual information that's necessary to understand both the technical issues involved in audio sampling, mixing, mastering, and playback, and the experimental bias that colors most anecdotal observations about the physiological capacity of humans to distinguish between them during playback. If you want to discuss the subject with any real level of technical expertise, you really need to understand the issues it dissects ...
(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)
--
Check out my novel ...
I just saw 2001 in IMAX a couple weeks ago, and there's no way you're going to duplicate that at home. The sound was awesome, the image filled my peripheral vision, and it was just an incredible experience. Again. Same inscrutable mad computer, same unknowable ending. But... if you try to duplicate that sound at home, you're going to have your neighbors complaining about the "noise" for 3 doors down the block in each direction, assuming you can get the audio gear to do it anyway. I don't think my Pioneer early-90's 125 watts / channel driving the Cerwin Vega CE-3A's would come close to what I heard in the theater. No way I could get a screen big enough into the house.
IMAX at home is just not going to happen.
All the shit are telling me about cinemas... from loudly talking during the movie over throwing popcorn, bright phone screens and crying babies to dirty seats ... none of that is the case here in Germany, and AFAIK most of Europe. Our cinemas are squeaky-clean, well-climatized, and everybody is quiet and behaving unless it fits.
By and large people behave themselves in movies here in the US. The people that are complaining are mostly just looking for reasons to not go and are exaggerating the scale of the problems that do occur. I go to probably 5-10 movies per year at a variety of theaters and it's pretty rare (read almost never) to have another patron severely disrupt the experience. Heck lately my local theaters have been upgrading the seats and other amenities to pretty comfy options too. The few times someone has gotten out of line I've seen the movie theater workers deal with the person rather quickly.
What the complainers don't grasp is that going to a movie is a social outing as a general proposition. It's a way to spend time with people you like doing something entertaining. It doesn't really matter if the movie experience isn't absolutely perfect in every detail because it's not really about that. I go to movies with my wife and daughter or sometimes friends to be with them. The movie is as incidental to that activity as the choice of restaurant afterwards or the car we use to get there. If someone talks during the movie I'm not really going to get bent out of shape because if the movie is any good I'm probably going to see again someday anyway. It's just a movie after all. Don't take it so seriously.
No kidding ... my 55" TV with surround sound and my leather recliner to me are far more interesting and comfortable than going to a damned cinema.I haven't seen a movie in a theatre in years, and likely never will again.
So what you are saying is that you have no friends and rarely leave the house. You be you but I prefer to be a bit more outgoing in my social life.
Here's a tip - it's not actually about the movie or the sound. It's about time with people you care about. Don't take it so seriously.
object based is good but as the poster points out it never really match's the studio so it always not shaped in the correct way, a standard layout would be better
If you've already built a home theater, you almost certainly did so because you don't care about the "IMAX experience" nearly so much as you value your privacy and personal space. I would not-so-humbly cite myself as an obvious example: I have a decent 1080p projector throwing 110" on the wall (no screen -- just a light blue-gray painted room) with a mid-range Bose 5.1, and my primary media driver is a simple AppleTV 3 -- not even the latest model. I think it's actually a decent setup; it certainly meets my own viewing needs, and it more than meets the needs of the primary audience. And who do you think that might be? My kids, of course. Does anyone honestly think that a group of young children is going to know the difference between the "IMAX experience" and my humble setup? Of course not -- frankly, most adults probably wouldn't know the difference between a 1080p projection and a 4K HDR projection, even if you specifically pointed it out to them.
Which makes me wonder, as I noted in the post subject: who could possibly be the target audience for such a setup? My best guess: top one-percenters, who got there by way of an inheritance or a lottery. People who throw money at stupid crap, because they can. People who only want "the best"... specifically because some salesman told them that it's the best.
Honestly... how many such people does Sony think they can sucker, before the well abruptly runs dry?
Part of what you say is true, but definitely not the part about the sound. Even a simple $200 5.1 sound system can make a movie feel much "larger" even on a small screen (provided that you sit close), than a huge screen with poor sound.
I have 2 systems in different countries - an 800x600 projector with a 120' screen in Greece, along with a Yamaha 5.1 audio amplifier and Klipsch speakers, powerful Jamo sub etc, and a 55' Full HD Plasma with a mid-range Samsung integrated 5.1 system in the UK. They are both better than a regular cinema (hence I only go to giant Imax showings - which is the only experience worth paying extra), and I certainly enjoy the SD projection system more, although the better sound makes a good part of the difference.
Our cinemas are squeaky-clean, well-climatized, and everybody is quiet and behaving unless it fits.
And don't forget, you can have a beer with your movie.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm building a home cinema, so this is a current topic.
Speakers are icing on the cake. 5.1 or 7.1 oder Dolby whatever - that is not what matters. A good screen matters, and good soundproofing matters. I'm still fighting with that last, still have too much echo in the room. The effect on sound quality is dramatic, and no amount of whatever tech will solve that, I just need to figure out how to best stop the sound waves from bouncing around.
But low-tech isn't so hip, so no headlines.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Is THX even revelant these days? I noticed theaters aren't using them like the famous Chinese theater in HollyWEIRD. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
You are not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K per se, but rather technical details of the video codec.
While I'm sure you are correct that the codec plays an important role, I'm not confused about what I'm seeing. I definitely can see the greater resolution and thanks to some digital image related jobs I had a few years back plus the fact that I do a lot of hybrid photography I know what I'm looking at better than many. One of my hobbies is wildlife photography and I could show you the same image at 1080p and 4K on the same screen and unless your vision is terrible you'd be able to see there is extra detail in the 4K image from a fair distance away. There is no one sized fits all answer to where your ability to perceive additional pixel resolution ends but it's definitely higher than 1080p from typical couch distance if you are paying attention and have reasonably good visual acuity. (which I do)
Now in fairness almost all of the time it doesn't matter. Watching The Avengers in 4K versus in 1080p doesn't really add to the experience since 1080p is more than adequate for the purpose. For most movies you'd probably never notice the difference unless you were looking very closely which kind of defeats the point of enjoying the movie itself.
4K discs generally have HDR (high dynamic range) , WCG (wide color gamut)., and 10 bits per color band (BD is 8 bit).
They also display more pixels with more information. I'm by no means arguing that pixel density is the end all be all but let's not pretend it doesn't matter at all.
none of that is the case here in Germany, and AFAIK most of Europe.
Same in Canada.
Where do these whiners live?