IMAX Enhanced

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I would expect some soundbars to have issues because much of the time they have stripped down decoders compared to a receiver or pre-amp. Just another reason to only get a soundbar for non critical viewing and a full sound system for the main home theater.

Oh please stop your soundbar assaults. It's getting too boring.

Are you going to pick those with smaller TVs as they offer a stripped down immersive experience over larger TVs and projectors?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Oh please stop your soundbar assaults. It's getting too boring.

Are you going to pick those with smaller TVs as they offer a stripped down immersive experience over larger TVs and projectors?

The rise in sound bar sales are the main reason we're getting more and more neutered soundtracks on home video, so it's a bit personal to me.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The rise in sound bar sales are the main reason we're getting more and more neutered soundtracks on home video, so it's a bit personal to me.

Just like blaming the victim in a car crash lol. Always someone else's fault.

Soundbars the new Diesel gate

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Just like blaming the victim in a car crash lol. Always someone else's fault.

Soundbars the new Diesel gate

No, because it's actually true and has been discussed on industry panels and home theater forum type interview sessions with studio executives. They are mixing to the more popular, but less capable sound bar and TV speaker crowd these days (Warner and Sony are about two of the last studio hold outs with their home mixes) and those products are not known for deep bass reproduction or wide dynamic range. It used to be that near field mixes were optimized for high end home theater systems.


I only crap on products that are, well, deserving of it.

[ChrisLikesBatman]

Originally Posted by lgans316

On Bravia Core, it is called IMAX Enhanced DTS. To the best of my knowledge, it has a special metadata that lights up IMAX Enhanced on AVRs but I think the bit rate is 768 Kbps as per the HUD which is the same as lossy Atmos.

Although the Sony TVs passes through IMAX Enhanced DTS via eARC, not all AVRs and soundbars are able to decode it correctly.

IMAX Enhanced DTS from Bravia Core is not decoded properly by my Samsung Q950 btw.

I wish Bravia Core had uncompressed audio like they do with video. Or at least a much higher bitrate for their lossy audio.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by ChrisLikesBatman

I wish Bravia Core had uncompressed audio like they do with video. Or at least a much higher bitrate for their lossy audio.

There is supposedly some issue with combining a fixed bitrate video stream with a variable bitrate lossless audio track with the current streaming technology.

What the industry needs is a next gen download service that is like the current BDA where the studios and AV manufacturers are all in accord with as good or frankly better A/V specs than Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray discs. A cheaper alternative to Kaleidascape, which is priced only for the upper class.



Otherwise, when the studios start to really put the brakes on discs, there will only be crappy streaming for the popcorn munching masses, or higher end mega pricey download services with nothing in between that still combines high bitrate video with lossless audio.

[cybersoga]

Streaming movies from Apple really isn't that bad, sometimes they do a better encode with half the bitrate than some badly encoded discs!

Technology is always moving forward and I can't imagine things will stay as they are forever.

Imax Enhanced though is mostly marketing rather than technological improvements

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by ChrisLikesBatman

I wish Bravia Core had uncompressed audio like they do with video. Or at least a much higher bitrate for their lossy audio.

In what world do they have uncompressed video? lol

[Hydra Spectre]

Apparently, according to Marantz, IMAX Enhanced 5.1 audio does exist.
However, such discs are super rare. Only Christopher Nolan has IMAX Enhanced 5.1 audio mixes, except for Evangelion:3.333 You Can (Not) Redo., which is a Japan-only IMAX Enhanced 4K UHD and probably the last one (unless Evangelion:3.0+1.11 Thrice Upon a Time is also an IMAX Enhanced 4K UHD).

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

In what world do they have uncompressed video? lol

I think folks forget that our discs are 10-20% the size of the original master after compression.

[nick4Knight]

I can't wait for 150GB file sizes (streaming/download), with even better compression standard, that represents basically a transparent to source video of the original 250-600GB of your example %

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think folks forget that our discs are 10-20% the size of the original master after compression.

A master of a 2 hour movie at 1080P is roughly 840 GB. At 2160P it's considerably more: 11.9 Gbits per second.

[ChrisLikesBatman]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

In what world do they have uncompressed video? lol

You know what I meant lol. Bravia Core is less compressed than some discs. Why give us the highest quality video available to consumers, while keeping the same low bitrate audio? I wish they could make both great.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think folks forget that our discs are 10-20% the size of the original master after compression.

What, are you kidding? There are some really odd numbers being thrown around here by several people, but here are the facts: uncompressed 2K for a 2 hour feature is 2TB @ 12MB per frame, for a 4K feature of equivalent length it's 8TB. When you consider that the largest available 1080p disc size for commercial content is 50GB and for 2160p it's 100GB (with neither of them rarely having the disc full to the brim with video + main audio anyway) then that puts things into perspective; for 1080p disc you're looking at a comparative maximum encode size of just 5% of the 2K master, and for 2160p disc it's a tiny 1.25% of the 4K master! And when you get into higher frame rates and 3D and whatnot the sizes of the masters are just bonkers, Gemini Man's full-fat 4K120 3D files equate to a whopping 92TB.

It's quite extraordinary when you think about it, it's not so much squeezing a quart into a pint pot but more like squashing an elephant into a thimble! But then there are other things being used to offset the amount of data being discarded e.g. chroma subsampling and the colour difference YCbCr colour space.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by lgans316

IMAX Enhanced DTS from Bravia Core is not decoded properly by my Samsung Q950 btw.

Par for them. DTS:X via DTS-HD HR was not supported at its launch either and then DTS:X supporting devices needed a firmware update for it.

Contrast to Dolby which had Atmos available and demoed via DD+ and TrueHD and MAT (which is the format Xbox One & AppleTV uses) at launch in 2014.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What, are you kidding?

Thanks Geoff D, I thought I was a bit on the high side!

Those numbers are why good compressionists are so important.

[bludarkknight]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

to this day I've never heard anything as awesome as laserdisc releases!!

theatrical mixes . blu 4k = remix near field tampered with for soundbar.
laserdisc sound rules the true lossless audio for big large speakers even cinema speakers are best with it .

Originally Posted by BadAss

Imax Enhanced is a con. It's not actually a real thing is it?

Take a 16:9 TV, bastardise it with black bars. Remove black bars and pretend it's enhanced. Huh?

Just shoot the movie 1.85:1 and release it 1.85:1. Call it normal.

it's liemax for digital cinemas and it's most certainly liemax for the home .
i have one rubbish movie , bad boys iii , dreadful dtsx . i'm surprised apollo 13 dtsx didn't get imax enhanced and that is also dreadful tampered with dts most parts of the mix have been near field tampered with missing LFE.1 in few scenes and dialogue pan that makes no sense ?
i personally do not like imax or liemax they ruined some famous cinemas just to have the imax fanboys thinking they are seeing imax . i can no more see imax enhanced on my oled 16:9 or video projector than anyone else .
yes, strongly agree , imax enhnaced is a con .

[Hombre1]

Sony Bravia OLED TVs and LED TVs have IMAX Enhanced and DTS audio for long time.
But it's DTS (bitrate 768 Kbps) and not DTS:X.

Q1 is it DTS-HD Master Audio or DTS HD high resolution?
Q2 Does this effect the video bitrate and Dolby Vision?
(No DV on Bravia Core and only HDR)

[avs commenter]

I like that DTS is coming to streaming. But I question if there will really be much of a difference or improvement from what we have now

[Hydra Spectre]

If I ever make a film, it should be shot on film.
The film would never be presented in pan-and-scan if it were shot on anamorphic, Techniscope or 70mm. (Ranging from 2.20:1 to 2.75:1)
But if I shoot on flat 35mm/Super 35 or IMAX 70mm, the ratio would be different depending on the source. I also hope to shoot in 35mm/70mm native 3D. And even HFR (just overcrank the cameras like you’re shooting in slow motion, but play it back in the actual speed).
The theatrical release would be similar to Avatar, where 1.85:1 screens and LieMAX screens get 1.85:1 versions, while CinemaScope screens get it in 2.39:1. True IMAX would be in 1.43:1. 70mm showings would be cropped to 2.20:1. 35mm prints would exclusively be in flat. Meant to be projected in 4:3.
The streaming and Blu-ray releases would either be 16:9 or slightly letterboxed in 1.85:1 (if I think it should look more cinematic). But the DVD version would be formatted in non-anamorphic 4:3 and be in an aspect ratio from around 1.33:1 to 1.50:1.
If the film is VAR Scope and 4:3, the film will expand to 16:9 or 1.85:1 for some scenes on Blu-ray/streaming. But the DVD would be non-anamorphic widescreen for the Scope scenes while most of the 4:3 screen would be filled up on the flat/IMAX scenes.
I would also make films in 4:3 and/or VistaVision 1.50:1 across all screens.