"THX Theater Alignment" is a fraud

[Rander3127]

Years ago, when it first came out, the THX specifications for theatres were a Godsend. They mandated specific sound level and acoustical
behaviour a theatre must pass in order to be certified "THX Compliant." In addition, it also specified sound levels at which films were to be played back in order to ensure people in the theatre
could hear everything in today's wide bandwidth digital sound systems.
The reporting method they used worked and THX actually kept theatres
in-line as to their specific sound mandates to keep their THX certifications.
Alas, the THX mandate has become so watered down, so UNPOLICED
that it's a shadow of it's former glory. Theatres in multiplexes vary their playback volume and bass levels wildly, with no apparent method to it at all. Theatres in multiplexes (which are ALL granted THX certifications now) leak sound at high levels into adjacent rooms, clearly violating one of the key tenents of the THX mandate.
Meanwhile, NOTHING is done when they commit these violations.
Why? Because though theatres are reported to THX for violating the
specs of THX, Lucasfilm does nothing about it. They do not want to
jeopardize the lucrative market that has allowed them to grant THX
certification to nearly every new theater room that is opened.
In other words, THX now means nothing, as far as this aspect of it
is concerned.
THX's "Theatre Alignment Program" also (is supposed to) deal with
the quality of prints made of movies. Anyone who has gone to movies
in the past 20 years can easily attest to the FACT print quality at theatres has gone down. Wide variations in print densities, damage to
prints, dirt and artifacts are now common to movie going audiences.
This was not the case 10 years ago. Of course, this works in Lucasfilm's favour since they want all print movies to go away, to be
replaced with it's own electronic (digital) delivery of movies.
Lucasfilm should be ashamed of this blatantly non-caring stance
they've taken with their own creation. They have become interested only in the profits to be gained by introducing ever more questionable
"standards" standards which are not followed correctly in many cases.
-Rich

[Newbomb Turk]

At least THX still means the best sounding DVDs I have.

[Jerm]

THX is a joke with DVD's as well. It's supposed to mean the best sound AND the best video. So why are movies like Titanic THX certified, and they're not even anamorphically coded?

[1138]

It means something for theaters, but unless they enforce it, they kill that meaning.

It still means something (though less and less maybe) for equipment.

And it pretty much means jack in terms of DVD.

[Newbomb Turk]

When was THX supposed to mean anything about video? News to me. I always thought it was sound only, and IMO there ISN"T better sounding DVDs than these.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
When was THX supposed to mean anything about video? News to me. I always thought it was sound only, and IMO there ISN"T better sounding DVDs than these.

THX Mastered laserdiscs had "improved" audio and video transfers..... THX Mastered laserdiscs were more "meaningful" than a LOT of THX Mastered DVDs these days, which is why people have 0 "faith" in the THX logo anymore.

Things like edge enhancement and non-anamorphic video transfers are things people would assume woud violate THX standards since people tend to agree lack of edge enhancement and anamorphic video transfers are almost requirements when making a high-quality DVD.

I don't know what the THX certification process entails nor do I know what they specifically look for, if anything, when "branding" a DVD with the THX certification. Some think it's mainly a way to generate money for Lucasfilm since it cost a TON of money to go through the process.

I tend to have mized feelings about the THX certification issue, when it comes to DVDs. Maybe I would have a stronger opinion if I knew the details of what the THX certification and mastering process involves.

If nothing else, I LOVE the THX sound!

Peace.....

[Jerm]

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
When was THX supposed to mean anything about video? News to me.

According to the THX Website:
The mandate of Lucasfilm THX is to assure the highest quality picture and sound wherever movies are presented. Look for the THX trademark at movie theatres, on the finest equipment for home theatre, as well as on laser discs, videotapes, and DVD.

[Jerm]

Originally posted by tomdkat
If nothing else, I LOVE the THX sound!

Tom I so have to agree with you on this point. Heck, I love the THX trailer as well. Too bad, it doesn't mean a whole lot

[Pyrosecht]

Go to http://www.howstuffworks.com/thx.htm it explains THX in detail. You could also go to the THX website.

As for THX being bogus because they're not anamorphic. That's a bogus assumption. It is your opinion that a release has to be anamorphic for it to be quality. They only say the picture quality, as in dot crawl, mpeg artifacts, poor transfer, better bitrate, and better source material. You know, unimportant stuff like that.

THX DD soundtracks still sound better than regular DD. DD is shrill and bright as hell in the highs. It sounds like an echo chamber compared to THX.

Yes it's lost some of it's luster, but I feel a lot of that is because a lot of people bad mouth it because they expect it to meet their expectations and not the ones outlined by THX.

[Wirehed]

The best sounding DVDs in my collection are Superbits titles.

Not that THX sounds poor or anything, it's just not the best.

Basically it means someone paid for the licenceing and want you to believe they have a great sounding/looking DVD.

I think THX used to mean a lot more when it was stamped on a LD.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by Pyrosecht
As for THX being bogus because they're not anamorphic. That's a bogus assumption. It is your opinion that a release has to be anamorphic for it to be quality. They only say the picture quality, as in dot crawl, mpeg artifacts, poor transfer, better bitrate, and better source material. You know, unimportant stuff like that.

[snip]

Yes it's lost some of it's luster, but I feel a lot of that is because a lot of people bad mouth it because they expect it to meet their expectations and not the ones outlined by THX.

It's kind of funny to me that with ALL of the THX "bashing" that goes on, I have NOT heard ONE person say ANYTHING with regard to identifying what the THX certification criteria actually is vs what people think it should be. People then go further to make statements like "well, if their criteria doesn't include anamorphic video transfers, they need to improve/upgrade/revisit their criteria". This is NOT a quote, just a paraphrased example of ideas and opinions I've read in a number of places.

I'm not saying the THX criteria is the BEST criteria for DVD video (i.e. movies on DVD we buy today) certification, but until I know what their criteria is I really can't know how good or bad it is and I can only complain about things I want them to do......

There is an interesting thread over at AVS forum that discusses Star Wars Episode I, THX certification, and edge enhancement....

I had hoped the THX "workshop" that was mentioned would have taken place, but I guess it has NOT (at least not yet).

Is there anyway we, here at DVD File, can setup this kind of workshop?

Peace......

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by Seamonkey
Basically it means someone paid for the licenceing and want you to believe they have a great sounding/looking DVD.

Or that they wanted the cool THX sound at the beginning of the movie....

Peace.....

[Wirehed]

Originally posted by tomdkat
Or that they wanted the cool THX sound at the beginning of the movie....

Peace.....

and that never disapoints.

[Dom]

Back in the days of LD, you could be sure that a THX certified title gave you great picture and sound. I think the "problem" with dvd and THX is that dvd is a much better medium to begin with, and if the same quality standards apply for dvd and for LD, it's very easy for dvd to match them.

To give a made up example: the THX specification says this and this parameter has at least to be 8 to get the certification.
LD would have to tip-toe to some extent to get it on 8, but with dvd it's easy to get an 8 or even a 10 or 12. So the dvd that has it on 8 still would get the certificate, even though it had the potential to even be better.

Do I make any sense?

[RBB]

Originally posted by Dom
To give a made up example: the THX specification says this and this parameter has at least to be 8 to get the certification.
LD would have to tip-toe to some extent to get it on 8, but with dvd it's easy to get an 8 or even a 10 or 12. So the dvd that has it on 8 still would get the certificate, even though it had the potential to even be better.

That makes sense. If that example is true, then THX has lost its meaning when it comes to DVD. The logo needs to represent s step up from the norm to have any real meaning and to differentiate the product. As suggested earlier in the thread, a reexamination of their standards for DVD may be neccessary for it to regain integrity and to justify the added expense.

I agree that there seemes to be more difference between non-THX LDs and THX LDs than there is between non-THX DVDs and THX DVDs. I persoanlly think the sound is all in the transfer and WHO actually does it, just like albums. If the engineer is a maniac it'll sounds like crap, whether it's DD or DTS. I have heard some DD that's better and some DTS that's better. I still think the THX logo has meaning in that it won't suck, which is a step down from when it used to mean it would be superior.

But I tend to agree that THX standards are often met or exceeded with a lot of product on which the THX logo does not appear.

[Newbomb Turk]

Gentlemen, again I have to say that THX means sound to me. The letters used to be followed by: Lucasfilm Sound Systems. Whether or not it ever came to mean anything about video, to me it means that when I pick up a DVD and turn it around and see these letters:THX
I'm not gonna see these letters: Mono

[Dom]

[i]to me it means that when I pick up a DVD and turn it around and see these letters:THX
I'm not gonna see these letters: Mono [/b]

But that's not necessarily true. THX isn't about how many channels of sound there are, only the quality of them. The Terminator on LD (not sure about the first OOP dvd, though) was THX certified, and it was in glorious mono.

[Drexl]

I thought this thread was going to be about THX in theaters, not home video.

Anyway, Rander 3127, I don't know where you live, but where I do, there aren't many THX-certified theaters. I'd say maybe one out of every 15-20 theaters in multiplexes in the St. Louis area are certified. I've only been to one a few times over the years, and when I have, the sound was fantastic. I didn't notice the picture looking much better though.

One thing I'd like to know is how often they are re-certified. It's probable that a theater could get certified, but fail to keep those standards. I mean, we don't just use Video Essentials or Avia just once and throw it away. We have to check it every so often.

Are they really certifying that many theaters? You can check to see if one is certified near you at (where else?) THX.com. Many of the multiplexes they list have only one or two THX-certified screens, so you need to be sure you're in one of them when judging whether or not it lived up to the hype.

[egman]

It's a shame, but THX has really seemed meaningless in recent years. This is just more evidence to support that case. Reminds me when we were complaining about THX certifying transfers that weren't anamorphic. Not including anamoprhic enhancement as another bullet point in their program made the whole THX process seem counterproductive. I don't know exactly what they check, but it seems to me that when they are dedicated to ensuring the highest quality presentations, things like anamorphic widescreen should've been included.

tomdkat is right, that supposed THX engagement was kind of a lost oppurtunity. If they knew what problems the consumers have, like the issue of edge ehancement, we wouldn't be having these types of threads.

[DaViD Boulet]

The mandate of Lucasfilm THX is to assure the highest quality picture and sound wherever movies are presented. Look for the THX trademark at movie theatres, on the finest equipment for home theatre, as well as on laser discs, videotapes, and DVD.

If that was true (which it isn't, THX is lying), then only 16x9 anamorphic WS DVDs could be certified as 4x3 lbxed DVDs are wasting 33% of their resolution which, by definition, can't be the "highest quality picture" the DVD format can deliver.

THX is a meaningless logo and they know it. Talking their reps they run in circles to make excuses (like "the studio wouldn't pay for a new transfer so we had to approve this one") and contradict themselves about their own policy, agenda, certification criteria, and goals.

The logo bears no consistent meaning from one disc to the next. Therefore it means nothing.

[DVDgod237]

THX is a joke with DVD's as well. It's supposed to mean the best sound AND the best video. So why are movies like Titanic THX certified, and they're not even anamorphically coded?

So the movie can be on one disc. It would probably be 2 discs in anamorphic and dts.

[DaViD Boulet]

Well, Dances with wolves DTS 16x9 is spread over 2 discs and the audio and videophiles aren't complaining. but they sure do complain about a 4x3 lbxed Titanic.

Sounds like "to fit it all on one disc" is an excuse of convenience.

I'm sure we could have helped compression out by providing only a 192 kbps DD 2.0 track as well...but I doubt many home theater buffs would stand for it. So why is it ok to waste 33% of the image resolution to aid in compression?

BTW, as much as this argument was used (by THX...yes, this was in fact their official reason for SUGGESTING that Fox go 4x3 lbxed and not 16x9), you just wait and see. I'm sure a P/S Titanic is in our future (and all on one disc)...and will be making use of all 720 x 480 pixels making the "we couldn't do it cuz we didn't have the disc-space" argument moot.

In fact, the 2.35:1 16x9 image, still being letterboxed in the 16x9 frame, would be even EASIER to compress.

[Pyrosecht]

For people with single-disc DVD players two disc sets are equivalent to having to flip laserdisc which removes you from the movie and can destroy the experience. A movie that runs contiguos is preferable to most (including directors) because it allows full uninterupted enjoyment. I hate one movie on two discs and I own a 5 disc changer.

The argument of convenience is a valid one. You could have 3 times the picture quality you have now it will just take 3-4 discs to have it with current technology. Why do you think the movie is compressed in the first place? To fit it on the disc. You could have an awesome picture with no compression, but it's not really going to be all that feasible is it?

I own a widescreen HDTV and I don't give a shit about anamorphic because my display scales it for me. I have non-anamorphic discs that look better than their anamorphic counterparts. If people are so worried about getting the best widescreen picture they need to ditch the 4:3 television and get a 16:9 HD display with an outboard line doubler/scaler. Until then they shouldn't be complaining that the picture isn't the best it could be because they aren't watching it under ideal hardware conditions so it really doesn't matter. Besides, most analog TVs don't have the clarity to show you the 33% your complaining about that well anyway. Deciding the level of a discs picture quality based solely on if it's anamorphic is ridiculous.

[DaViD Boulet]

I own a widescreen HDTV and I don't give a shit about anamorphic because my display scales it for me. I have non-anamorphic discs that look better than their anamorphic counterparts.

Sorry to upset you

Firstly, my final point was that 16x9 anamorphic *would not* have required a dual-disc or flipper release for Titanic. That was just a lame excuse because Fox was not committed to 16x9 in those days and THX was opposed to 16x9 bcs of "downconversion" artifacts for 4x3 viewers and they didn't want to take the time/care to compress it properly for a 16x9 transfer.

Secondly, tell me an apples-to-apples comparison where you've seen a 4x3 lbxed image compared to a 16x9 *from the same transfer* where the 4x3 looked better on a 16x9 display? "A Bugs Life" is the only such apples-apples example I'm aware of and all who've compared (without downconverting 16x9 to 4x3) have been unanimous that the 16x9 is superior. The 16x9 vs 4x3 "Heathers" isn't an apples for apples comparison bcs THX filtered the crap out of the *new* transfer to remove grain the removed all the detail at the same time.

The fact that a 4x3 lbxed image from one film may look better than a 16x9 of another film is irrelevant. I'm sure there are 2.0 ProLogic DVDs out there that sound better than the 5.1 Wizard of Oz but that's not a testament to the virtues of 2.0 compared to 5.1. I'm sure when HD-DVD comes along we'll have some SD-DVDs that look better than *some* HD-films. Does that imply that the same SD-DVD that looks so great wouldn't have looked even better, all things being equal, in HD resolution?

No.

Had the same steller 4x3 lbxed transfers you enjoy been mastered properly in 16x9, you'd receive a 33% improvement in resolution. How is this bad?

[Pyrosecht]

I didn't say it was bad. It's just unconsequential. Most people still have analog televisions and won't be able to fully appreciate the difference. My point is that the people I see complaining the most about anamorphic still have 4:3 analog televisions. They need to get better equipment before they start complaining about picture quality.

If they want the best picture quality, as they say they do, then they need to invest some money to get it. If you have a good 16:9 HD display with a good video scaler (like I said earlier) then just about any WS will look just as good as it's anamorphic counterpart regardless of transfer if the source is good. I'm not talking about just using the "zoom" mode on your display, but having a dedicated scaler.

[DaViD Boulet]

My point is that the people I see complaining the most about anamorphic still have 4:3 analog televisions. They need to get better equipment before they start complaining about picture quality.

I think your reasoning above is wrong. Most of us are collecting DVD software with the future in mind. We want the discs we buy now to be an investment that will offer even higher quality when we finally *do* upgrade our video equipment.

How silly to say that one shouldn't worry that a DVD is anamorphic or not until they have a 16x9 TV. So I should *repurchase* all the 4x3 lbxed DVDs over again in 16x9 versions? What about studios that don't bother to re-release older titles very often (Disney)...doesn't it make sense that I should have pushed the studio to release their title in 16x9 the first time around so when I do upgrade to a 16x9 display now I have a 16x9 version to enjoy...rather than having to wait 10 years for the studio to revisit the title?

As a consumer I cared about 5.1 mastering when I only had a stereo audio system...because I knew I would be upgrading and wanted my software to take advantage of my new system. I cared about DTS encoding while I didn't have a DVD player that passed DTS output (even purchased some DTS DVDs with only 2.0 DD over the 5.1 DD disc) because I knew eventually I'd upgrade the player and wanted my discs to be "new" again with the added quality.

I don't have a front projection system yet, but you can bet that I'm letting the studios know I don't want excessive EE added to my DVD picture (TPM) because I want my DVDs to look their best on the big screen when I finally get that system.

I have over 400 DVDs and want them to be optimized for the best playback equipment...not "dumbed down" for obsolete gear so that they'll never look any better when I upgrade my hardware.

If they want the best picture quality, as they say they do, then they need to invest some money to get it. If you have a good 16:9 HD display with a good video scaler (like I said earlier) then just about any WS will look just as good as it's anamorphic counterpart regardless of transfer if the source is good. I'm not talking about just using the "zoom" mode on your display, but having a dedicated scaler.

Firstly, I've seen 4x3 lbxed DVDs scaled to 16x9 (by everything from my Panasonic rp91 to a Faroudja quadrupler) and yes, it helps and in some cases produces a beautiful picture. But even in the case of a the best 4x3 lbxed transfer (like Titanic, Abyss, or A Bug's Life) there is *still* an improvement that would be had with a native 16x9 image (as demonstrated by A Bug's Life). That's right. If you scaled the 4x3 lbxed Bugs Life using $$ gear to 16x9 and played it side-by-side the native 16x9 version, the native 16x9 version would still look better.

I agree than many scaled 4x3 lbxed transfers can look very very good. But they would have looked even better had they been native 16x9.

Why sound so discouraging about caring and pushing for the best? I want my investment in the DVDs I buy *today* to give their best on the 16x9 projector I buy *tomorrow*. Most DVD collectors don't view their DVD library as a disposble medium.

[Pyrosecht]

You can't just use a scaler on any old display and get the best picture. You need to use one that is optimized for your specific display. The internal one on most displays is of questionable quality (usually it is about the same as the cheapest of progressive scan DVD players). You say you don't have this kind of equipment and yet you maintain that you know it would look better. I own the equipment and use it everyday. I can tell you that it isn't the difference you seem to think it is.

My point still remains that until you have the equipment to give you every single tiny detail the medium is capable of you shouldn't complain about picture quality. Your arguement for anamorphic (future proofing), to me,