Got Your Insider Updates Right Here

[palmage]

I just said it wouldn't be more than a foot deep. You think a ride vehicle isn't going to have more than a foot of depth to it?

I'm just throwing out ideas. I didn't claim to have blueprints to the frickin ride system

Settle down Slim

 

[cdatkins]

Hmmm...the X-Wing ships in Star Wars all have canopies over the cockpit...I wonder if the open top isn't supposed to give you the feeling that you are flying through space in an X-Wing....

 

[Pete C]

I did the projection for Wild Arctic and Akbar and we used split head projectors because the hardware couldn't take the shaking.

So again, where could you put the projectors?

I don't really see why we would get into what is possible or impossible with a new ride system that nobody has seen before. With new technology old problems can be solved.

 

[Since1976]

I don't really understand your argument about Soarin, because Soarin is already a LOT more like BTTF than this concept. Soarin is a bunch of ride vehicles all facing a large screen.

Sorry...what I meant was for the SOARIN' ride vehicle (where you are seated with your feet dangling) to be adapted so it fit logically and thematically within a STAR WARSy mode of transportation.

Seriously, once you've experience flight the way SOARIN' does it, being sealed off in a cabin just doesn't thrill you the same way. But, like I said, the experience as described in this insider's post sounds pretty good to me!

 

[imagineer boy]

Sorry...what I meant was for the SOARIN' ride vehicle (where you are seated with your feet dangling) to be adapted so it fit logically and thematically within a STAR WARSy mode of transportation.

Seriously, once you've experience flight the way SOARIN' does it, being sealed off in a cabin just doesn't thrill you the same way. But, like I said, the experience as described in this insider's post sounds pretty good to me!

Well, the Star Trek ride in Las Vegas is enclosed, but has a large window that looks into a small imax screen in front of the simulators and gives a pretty good effect.

Besides, I doubt Lucas would approve of Soarin' type of vehicles to be allowed as vehicles in the star wars universe since there's really nothing like them in the movies.

 

[Lee]

if his sources keep feeding him, they aren't worried. As I said, Disney is well aware of this as it has been going on for weeks. Apparently, no one cares.

Bingo.
When my sources tell me stuff, it's with the intention that I put it out there. In the years I've been posting stuff, not one of my sources has gotten into the slightest bit of trouble, much less fired. If I hear it, or it ends up here, it is not TOP SECRET stuff. That's the stuff you don't hear until the just before it goes public.

As for a first-hand source (a WDI employee for example), if they post it openly on a forum, it's done with no concern of repercussions. It's the things they don't post that could cause the problem.

 

[DisneyCane]

I just wanted to chime in on the DTS vs AC3 thing.

One major difference between DTS and AC3 is the method of compression. Not necessarily dynamics (volume) but the actual data compression.

DTS is not about low bitrate, not at all. This is why the 5 channel DTS track on the original pirates movie sucks up 700+ MB of the disk. DTS concentrates on preserving the audio quality and yet fitting the same 5 channel data onto a physical piece of media. Theatre systems actually use regular CDs encoded with raw DTS for playback. A time code on the film keeps the audio in sync with the video.

AC3 is Dolby's version of a similar format. However, data compression is really the goal. AC3 is pre mp3 and AAC, and it shows. The artifacts that exist are pretty nasty. The maximum bitrate is 448 kbps on a DVD if you want your DVD to meet standards and play on most players. The reason the compression method was developed was to actually fit a packet of audio onto each frame of film. So the audio is encoded optically on the 35mm film itself. The problem for theatre versions is that the film over time wears out. Audio data is therefore lost. I've heard this in some really bad theatres that just run their print to death.

One thing that is nice is that DTS HD is really going to be HD. Normally we hear 16 bit 48 KHz audio on DVDs and on most BlueRay and HD-DVD releases. AC3 really wasn't well designed for anything more than 16 bit anyway. DTS HD isn't really even the same format as the original DTS. Now, with DTS-HD we can get 24 bit 192 KHz if we desire. Why in the world would we need this? Simple, we're human. Dynamics really do matter to us. When we experience normal life, we hear sounds that register very low, and some that are exessively loud. Digital audio at 16 bit just can't reproduce the dynamic range our ears prefer. However, 24 bit audio provides a massive improvement. With extremely good recording and playback equipment sounds as simple as a paper clip dropping on concrete or a train horn buzzing by can be reproduced at their original dynamic range. As for the KHz thing, it is simple. We comprimise on quality so often that we all don't know what we're missing.

To give you an idea, all of our phone calls on land line phones are at 8 KHz. This means that only low frequencies and up to a limited point are heard. Essentially we miss a ton of information. Digital audio capture is the reason for this loss. We have to limit the number of times we sample a sound. Well, high pitched sounds require that you sample them thousands of times per second in order to even remotely reproduce them. Since the human ear can only really hear to about 22 KHz (44 KHz digital) then what is the need for higher sampling rates? Simple, with 44.1 Khz or 48 KHz sampling we only scratch the surface of fidelity. With 96 KHz recording people generally notice that high frequency sounds have a "crisp" quality to them. That is simply because they've been sampled a proper number of times, and the full detail has been preserved. At 192 KHz, this same effect is experienced, but even for sounds outside of the human spectrum. Sonic research into marine life samples very high frequencies because some animals communicate at frequencies we can't even hear.

So, technobabble aside, the DTS has always been a higher quality sound, but Ac3 (Dolby Digital) takes up less space and can be placed directly on film if necessary. For consumers, most won't notice the difference. In theatres, it really is noticable. Theatres generally have better sound reproduction systems than we do at home. Some even have proper room environments, that really helps the situation.

I believe that if Disney were to use DTS-HD they would use a version that exists that can handle many more channels of unique audio. So, instead of just 5 channels, or 7 channels, maybe they use 64 channels. I've heard unreliable sources tell me that Soarin' uses 136 channels of distinct audio. Crazy part about Soarin' is that those channels are all either above you, below you, or to your sides. However, not much is really behind you. I'd imagine the use in a new ride system would not match traditional theatre use, as Soarin' demonstrates.

OK, I hope this clears up some of the confusion, or at least causes more curiosity about good audio. You know, we all get screwed left and right by the "consumer" quality of audio. Basically it is because most of us just don't know any better. That, and if we all could get the very high quality audio running at home, why would we visit IMAX and stadium seating theatres with amazing sound?

Ryan

Sources:

I've worked on many studio projects, been in radio for years, and geek out on audio in general. AC3 is something I've had the direct experience with, but DTS is so proprietary that even Apple's Final Cut Studio doesn't really support it.

DTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theater_System

AC3 (Dolby Digital): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac3

I don't have time to read this whole thread but I saw some questions about this at the beginning and then I saw this post so I wanted to add some accurate info.

OK, first of all, if DTS is going to be used on this ride I can just about guarantee that it will be the DTS special venue system. This system is capable of delivering uncompressed audio that can be stored on a hard drive. There is no concern for soundtrack storage space in this situation so why would they use any compression technology and have to design a playback system. The DTS special venue system can be easily fed a time code to sync the playback. As somebody else said, THX is a set of standards and there is no reason to use Dolby Digital in any form because compression is not needed for this application.

Second, the information on AC-3 is inaccurate. Dolby developed the AC-3 codec for the HDTV broadcast standard. It was designed to be able to deliver 5.1 digital audio over the limited bandwidth of an HDTV broadcast. Then Dolby discovered that enough data could be printed on film to utilize AC-3 at a 320 kpbs to deliver 5.1 digital audio printed on film. Considering the compression ratio (which is around 12:1 in the cinema system) and the time it was developed in the late 80's it sounds pretty darn good.

Finally, whoever told you that about soarin' is either wrong or you misunderstood. Either they meant that there were 136 tracks used in mixing to create the soundtrack or they meand that there are 136 speakers in the room (which is possible if there are any speakers on the ride vehicles themselves. There are certainly not 136 channels of audio.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I just wanted to chime in on the DTS vs AC3 thing.

One major difference between DTS and AC3 is the method of compression. Not necessarily dynamics (volume) but the actual data compression.

DTS is not about low bitrate, not at all. This is why the 5 channel DTS track on the original pirates movie sucks up 700+ MB of the disk. DTS concentrates on preserving the audio quality and yet fitting the same 5 channel data onto a physical piece of media. Theatre systems actually use regular CDs encoded with raw DTS for playback. A time code on the film keeps the audio in sync with the video.

AC3 is Dolby's version of a similar format. However, data compression is really the goal. AC3 is pre mp3 and AAC, and it shows. The artifacts that exist are pretty nasty. The maximum bitrate is 448 kbps on a DVD if you want your DVD to meet standards and play on most players. The reason the compression method was developed was to actually fit a packet of audio onto each frame of film. So the audio is encoded optically on the 35mm film itself. The problem for theatre versions is that the film over time wears out. Audio data is therefore lost. I've heard this in some really bad theatres that just run their print to death.

One thing that is nice is that DTS HD is really going to be HD. Normally we hear 16 bit 48 KHz audio on DVDs and on most BlueRay and HD-DVD releases. AC3 really wasn't well designed for anything more than 16 bit anyway. DTS HD isn't really even the same format as the original DTS. Now, with DTS-HD we can get 24 bit 192 KHz if we desire. Why in the world would we need this? Simple, we're human. Dynamics really do matter to us. When we experience normal life, we hear sounds that register very low, and some that are exessively loud. Digital audio at 16 bit just can't reproduce the dynamic range our ears prefer. However, 24 bit audio provides a massive improvement. With extremely good recording and playback equipment sounds as simple as a paper clip dropping on concrete or a train horn buzzing by can be reproduced at their original dynamic range. As for the KHz thing, it is simple. We comprimise on quality so often that we all don't know what we're missing.

To give you an idea, all of our phone calls on land line phones are at 8 KHz. This means that only low frequencies and up to a limited point are heard. Essentially we miss a ton of information. Digital audio capture is the reason for this loss. We have to limit the number of times we sample a sound. Well, high pitched sounds require that you sample them thousands of times per second in order to even remotely reproduce them. Since the human ear can only really hear to about 22 KHz (44 KHz digital) then what is the need for higher sampling rates? Simple, with 44.1 Khz or 48 KHz sampling we only scratch the surface of fidelity. With 96 KHz recording people generally notice that high frequency sounds have a "crisp" quality to them. That is simply because they've been sampled a proper number of times, and the full detail has been preserved. At 192 KHz, this same effect is experienced, but even for sounds outside of the human spectrum. Sonic research into marine life samples very high frequencies because some animals communicate at frequencies we can't even hear.

So, technobabble aside, the DTS has always been a higher quality sound, but Ac3 (Dolby Digital) takes up less space and can be placed directly on film if necessary. For consumers, most won't notice the difference. In theatres, it really is noticable. Theatres generally have better sound reproduction systems than we do at home. Some even have proper room environments, that really helps the situation.

I believe that if Disney were to use DTS-HD they would use a version that exists that can handle many more channels of unique audio. So, instead of just 5 channels, or 7 channels, maybe they use 64 channels. I've heard unreliable sources tell me that Soarin' uses 136 channels of distinct audio. Crazy part about Soarin' is that those channels are all either above you, below you, or to your sides. However, not much is really behind you. I'd imagine the use in a new ride system would not match traditional theatre use, as Soarin' demonstrates.

OK, I hope this clears up some of the confusion, or at least causes more curiosity about good audio. You know, we all get screwed left and right by the "consumer" quality of audio. Basically it is because most of us just don't know any better. That, and if we all could get the very high quality audio running at home, why would we visit IMAX and stadium seating theatres with amazing sound?

Ryan

Sources:

I've worked on many studio projects, been in radio for years, and geek out on audio in general. AC3 is something I've had the direct experience with, but DTS is so proprietary that even Apple's Final Cut Studio doesn't really support it.

DTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theater_System

AC3 (Dolby Digital): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac3

Will I be quized on this later?????:dazzle:

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Well, the Star Trek ride in Las Vegas is enclosed, but has a large window that looks into a small imax screen in front of the simulators and gives a pretty good effect.

Besides, I doubt Lucas would approve of Soarin' type of vehicles to be allowed as vehicles in the star wars universe since there's really nothing like them in the movies.

Sure there are....the Ewoks used them on Endor in #6

 

[DMC-12]

"Would that be worth something to you or should I just hit clear?"

"Here... try using the mouse"

"Hello Computer..."

:lol: :lookaroun

 

[DMC-12]

Waste of space you say? Isn't it one of the most well-received attractions in all of Disney?

(Or did you mean that the attraction was actually good...just the location was a waste?)

The old queue was an irritating waste of space. It choked traffic in the entire pavilion. Couldnt get anywhere with all the people standing in the middle. Thats what I ment. :wave:

 

[Master Yoda]

Well, the Star Trek ride in Las Vegas is enclosed, but has a large window that looks into a small imax screen in front of the simulators and gives a pretty good effect.

Besides, I doubt Lucas would approve of Soarin' type of vehicles to be allowed as vehicles in the star wars universe since there's really nothing like them in the movies.

The Wookiee Ornithopter used in Episode 3 would fit the bill.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Very cool..Thanks for the updates!

 

[DisneyDellsDude]

Does anyone know if Star Tours II will be the actual name of the attraction, or will it still just be Star Tours? OR... will it be a brand new name?

 

[WDWFREAK53]

The old queue was an irritating waste of space. It choked traffic in the entire pavilion. Couldnt get anywhere with all the people standing in the middle. Thats what I ment. :wave:

Ah yes, I wholeheartedly agree

 

[imagineer boy]

Sure there are....the Ewoks used them on Endor in #6

The Wookiee Ornithopter used in Episode 3 would fit the bill.

Yes, but those things flew ON LAND. Not in space where there's no air.

 

[Master Yoda]

Yes, but those things flew ON LAND. Not in space where there's no air.

Very true, but the OP never said that it would be in space. Regardless of which Star Wars vehicles could me used in conjunction with the Soarin type simulator, I to doubt that it is the ride system that will be used based on the description of what is to come by the OP.

 

[imagineer boy]

Very true, but the OP never said that it would be in space. Regardless of which Star Wars vehicles could me used in conjunction with the Soarin type simulator, I to doubt that it is the ride system that will be used based on the description of what is to come by the OP.

Eh, its going to be in space. How can you have a ride called STAR Tours when its not in space?:lol:

 

[Champion]

Does anyone know if Star Tours II will be the actual name of the attraction, or will it still just be Star Tours? OR... will it be a brand new name?

It won't be called Star Tours 2.

 

[Master Yoda]

Eh, its going to be in space. How can you have a ride called STAR Tours when its not in space?:lol:

Oh believe me I agree that at least some portion of it will be in space but they easily have enough options where if they wanted to some or all of the attraction could be in the atmosphere of a planet.