Letterbox Review
Dear Gary: I am a projection and sound technician (for movie theatres, not the home version), and there are a few things that I would like to discuss. First off, why all the hoopla over DTS? I don’t get it. Theatrically, DTS is probably the worst sounding digital format there is. Don’t get me wrong, I still think it sounds great. The data is compressed 4:1 on two and sometimes three CD-ROM discs. Should sound a lot better than Dolby Digital or SDDS, right? No way! First off, DTS is only 5 real channels, not 5.1. What’s that you say? DTS has a dedicated subwoofer channel? Nope! The stage channels (left, center, right) are all 20-20,000Hz as far as frequency response goes. The surrounds are limited to 80-20,000Hz. The subwoofer is limited to 20-80Hz. Basically what DTS does is take information in the surrounds below 80Hz and route it to the subwoofer “channel.” Now I don’t read Widescreen Review regularly so I don’t know if you have ever covered that. But if you doubt me, call DTS and ask them. I also simply think that both Dolby SR•D and SDDS sound better (theatrically) than DTS. Dolby SR•D seems to have much tighter (and more) bass. Same goes for SDDS. In DTS’ defense, however, they do seem to have more aggressive surrounds. All I know is that when we have all three properly calibrated units in the same auditorium with the same print, SDDS sounds best followed by Dolby Digital. I won’t use audiophile snobbery (most really are snobs) to explain why. (The audiophile would say something like—“DTS is better! I say so! It uses more 1s and 0s, therefore it’s just better! My ears are so damned good that I can tell a HUGE difference between the sampling rates of 44.1KHz and 44.2KHz!”) Sorry, but it just seems like that’s the way audiophiles seem to think (of course not ALL of them, so try not to be offended unless you actually do think like that.) I just know what sounds good and that’s what counts. I couldn’t care less if DTS has a larger bit rate. It doesn’t matter at all. The ONLY thing that matters is how it sounds. Another downfall about DTS is that sometimes it is difficult to get the CD-ROM discs. What if you are a second run theatre and the place that had the print before you did not return the discs? Not much good having a DTS unit will do for you there! It really doesn’t matter, because it seems as if DTS is slowly fading out. Fewer and fewer prints come with DTS, even though they have the largest installed user base of the three digital platforms. The DTS unit itself seems to be made VERY cheaply, especially the earlier units. OK, what are the downfalls of Dolby Digital and SDDS? Well, I guess I have to be fair since I have already ripped on DTS. As far as Dolby Digital is concerned, I really wish they would have put it on both sides of the film. It would have been more expensive, but it would have been worth it. If anything less than a perfect splice goes through, it will cut out to analog SR for a second and then back in. Very distracting! But if you are a good projectionist that won’t be a problem. What is a problem, however, is the lab splices that commonly come with prints. These are cement splices in the middle of the reel done at the lab when they switch to another roll of film either before or after printing. These will cause Dolby SR•D to fail nearly 100 percent of the time, accompanied by a loud POP as the cement splice goes through the analog reader. A good projectionist will remove the one frame where this occurs, because that is much less distracting than the noise. However, sometimes all is for naught because the printing machines go crazy when a cement splice goes though, and you can sometimes see the color dye of the film shift on screen after this. Of course, this wreaks havoc with the Dolby Digital track, which can cause it to cut to analog for several minutes before digital is restored. This is very common. This is where Dolby Digital should have spent more time in the design lab before it was rushed out with Batman Returns. SDDS? Well, the first batch of units sold (or given away, depending on who you talk to) had bad LED arrays, all of which had to be replaced after 1000 hours or so. Other than that, I have had absolutely no problems ever with SDDS. It never cuts out for any reason because of the duplicate tracks, it is very reliable, and it sounds incredible! The plastic molding of the reader itself is cheap, but who cares? Now I have an issue with your magazine. I understand that you only review products in the letterbox or widescreen format, which is fine. But why do you refer to letterbox LaserDiscs/DVDs or whatever with the term WIDESCREEN? The proper term should be LETTERBOXED. WIDESCREEN can only be applied to the anamorphic DVDs for right now. Why? Let me tell you! When I watch a pan-and-scan LD on my normal 1.33:1 TV, the image is about 26 inches straight across, left to right. When I watch a “widescreen” LaserDisc, the image is about 26 inches straight across, left to right. It is not any wider! It is letterboxed preserving the original aspect ratio, which I enjoy, but it sure isn’t any wider! If you went to a movie theatre where the flat 1.85:1 screen filled the entire wall, and then the masking moved down from the top about 10 feet to make it a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, would you call that “widescreen?” No! It’s smaller than “normal” flat aspect ratio! You’d be asking for your money back! Many many theatres do this, unfortunately, so that the bigger picture is actually smaller. This is the same thing as letterboxing a DVD or LaserDisc. Exactly. You can call the 16:9 TVs widescreen and get away with it, because in a limited sense they really are just that, even though they are still much more narrow than even the standard 1.85:1 flat picture. I enjoy both DTS Digital Surround and Dolby Digital sound in the home, but the image has a long way to go before it can compete with film. Yeah yeah, I know. “But the theatres I go to the xenon bulb is very dim and the sound sucks and there are scratches and it is not framed right and it is out of focus and it started late and blah blah blah.....!” you scream in protest. Not at any of my theatres! Do not judge the entire exhibition industry by some of the loser movie theatres you have been to. Many are run by unskilled operators. THX does not make a difference because they only come out for the original install and then never come out again unless the theatre really requests it. They just sit back and collect the $$$. THX does not guarantee quality. You don’t need THX. It’s just a good set of guidelines that anybody can follow if they care about presentation when building a theatre. I have several non-THX houses that look and sound much more natural than some of my THX houses! Of course, my THX houses rock anyway. Anyway, sorry for all the rambling. I just hope that you videophiles are not to snobby and set in your own little world to listen. I get a lot of video people coming up to the booth thinking they know everything. They are very humorous because they don’t. We make fun of them after they leave. I have had people tell me that I needed to adjust my “red convergence on the projector or adjust the color to take out some of the over-saturated blues or even rewind or pause the film.” Then we get those losers who purport to know everything about sound and they ask us what we set up our levels at. I tell them and then they say something like “Gee, I sure hope your subwoofer can do more than 90dB SPL. That’s pitiful. My sub at home can do more than that.” What people like this don’t realize is that at 90dB with pink noise at a fader setting of 7, it’s up to the movie itself to get louder than that, which most of them do, but the “audiophiles” don’t like to listen to that kind of reasoning. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve met some nice audio/ videophiles who are not like that and are actually pleasant to deal with. Every once in a while we get somebody who has questions instead of comments and we can talk to them seriously, and those are the kind of people who make a difference if they have a suggestion.
Joe Redifer
Research Editor Michael Coate Comments:
I agree with all of your points regarding your explanation of why you feel “widescreen” should not be the term used when describing widescreen movies since one’s television doesn’t get any wider; it only gets shorter. However, think of widescreen as a buzz-word. Personally, I don’t care what terminology is used just as long as the discs I watch aren’t in a cropped format. Call it what you want, “letterbox,” “short screen,” “half screen,” “the format most people hate....” Who is to say that letterbox is the “best” term or the only term that should be used? The home video industry has been using several different terms interchangeably over the last 10 years anyway including letterbox, widescreen, videoscope, matted and original theatrical format. The boxed set edition of The Abyss even goes so far as to call itself a “widescreen letterbox edition.” So what does that tell you? Additionally, many consumers (and even many who work in the home video industry) seem to believe that widescreen implies a 1.85:1 aspect ratio presentation and letterbox encompasses the 2.35:1 titles or vice versa. Widescreen is simply a generic term that can be applied to many situations, but primarily is used when describing any presentation that is intended to be shown in a theatrical environment “wider” than 1.33:1. The position of “Widescreen Review” has always been to support the releasing of movies to the home video market in their theatrical form and to educate consumers into understanding the value in viewing movies in their original intended form. By embracing this concept, the term “widescreen” is used in the context of referring to the original theatrical exhibition format, not whether or not one’s television is any wider than it was when viewing another program. There are far too many variables concerning differences in the soundtrack formats and their presentations in a theatre but I essentially agree with your sound format and theatrical presentation comments. It’s great to know there are still some projectionists and theatre employees who believe that “showmanship” is a top priority.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com