You might remember David Griesinger from Boston (MIT), and his thorough research of human hearing related transfer functions. That is extremely apparent in IMAX theatres and always have been. I've always been a proponent of LC/RC as 3 screen channels have very obvious (to me) gaps between the speakers. At present, LC/RC are only used on Dolby Atmos mixes (even though they can be mixed directly on channels 9/10 of the AES tracks). I was in a recent screening where some creative person used the surrounds to move a pressure wave back (after an explosion) so one got a sense of the explosion rather than just the big "boom" that a 5.1/7.1 track would provide. I suppose, if one is trying to create an "outdoors" feel to the soundtrack, having the top surrounds, as a unit, can help convey that in conjunction with the side surrounds. How people hear is extremely biased towards lateral changes (that is how ears are placed) so vertical changes will be perceived differently by different people, mostly due to posture. The most gimmicky part of Dolby Atmos is the Top Surrounds, as are MOST "height" channels. Naturally, Mono Surround cares the least about room shape but all surround/effects is fed to all locations, losing all sense of directionality aside from it not being on screen. The particulars of the room shape don't affect the result as much as they do on 7.1. 5.1 is more uniform from theatre to theatre than 7.1, as a result. The 7.1 performance in a short fat theatre is very different than the one in a long-skinny theatre. Dolby Atmos takes into account the theatre's geometry and where speakers are located relative to the object that is being moved about, 7.1 does not. How someone mixes their film is entirely up to them. It provides resolution to sound the same way more pixels or larger film gauges provide more resolution to image. Not that it can't be used as a gimmick but there is no inherent gimmickness about it. Screen-X pops on/off and projects on the side walls (on their "screen" material.not just random wall covering) and it has very pronounced seams on the mating between the normal screen and the walls.ĭolby Atmos I don't consider a gimmick.
Cinerama puts all of the image out there, mostly in front of you, unless you happen to be in the very front. Cinerama didn't have the side panels pop on/off all throughout the movie, like Screen-X. That was merely the technology of the day and the same people that did Cinerama were fresh off of doing Vitarama for training the military (with even more projectors). Cinerama didn't want the seams and it did everything it could to de-emphasize them/blend them. I really hate it when people try to compare it to Cinerama.they are completely different. I'm firmly in the Screen-X is a gimmick camp. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Screenx movie registration#
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.Īlso, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. To get to the registration page click here. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate. The forum you are looking at is entirely new software.
0 kommentar(er)
