Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Projection in a Drive-In Theatre

This is topic Digital Projection in a Drive-In Theatre in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000165

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 03-27-2001, 08:11 PM:

Digital projection is certainly a common topic of discussion these days and it seems like you can't pick up an industry publication without seeing an article or two about "digital." However, I've never once heard of a any demonstrations of the technology in an outdoor venue. I wonder if the research and development folks that are pioneering digital projection have considered its use at drive-in theatres or in other outdoor settings like amusement parks, etc.

Putting aside for now any discussion about who's going to pay for it, I'm just curious to know if the technology is or will in the future be adaptable to large outdoor screens and still produce acceptable results. From what I've read it seems that a larger lamp is required to project a digital image than would be required for a film image for the same size screen. Add moonlight and other sources of ambient light and things become even more complicated. Can the internals of a projector using DLP technology handle the heat that would be produced by a xenon lamp that might well have to exceed 7K? Has anybody heard of any outdoor tests that have been done or that might be planned?

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 03-27-2001, 08:26 PM:

That'd be cool!!!!!

What about an IMAX drive-in?

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-27-2001, 08:41 PM:

The Digital Cinema theatres I have seen have been on screens less than 50 feet wide. I recall the Cinemex Mundo "E" site in Mexico City is slightly larger, as reported at a ShowEast seminar.

To light a really large low-gain screen like a drive-in, it might be possible to "gang" two or three projectors, and superimpose their images. There is also the possibility of "tileing" the images to make a larger image (sort of like 3-strip Cinerama). Of course this would mean two or three times the already very high cost.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-27-2001, 11:46 PM:

Until something is proven all I can say is get a shovel and dig a very deep hole because I smell death in the air.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-28-2001, 06:58 AM:

The owners of the new "Bumpers Drive-In" slated to open this year near Baltimore say they have tested and will install SOME KIND of digital projector on an 80 foot screen I think they said. The cost was apparently around $65K. ?????

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-28-2001, 07:16 AM:

For $65,000 they won't have much resolution, contrast or brightness on an 80-foot screen. (IMHO, the digital image will be barely visible). Lighting an 80 x 33.5 foot gain=1 matte surface screen to 12 footlamberts would require about 32,000 lumens. I don't know of any digital projector that even comes close, at many times that cost.

You could easily light that screen to 16 footlamberts with 70mm film. Even 35mm film could be lit to about 8 footlamberts on that screen, at much less cost than digital.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-28-2001, 09:02 AM:

Yes, I agree with John. Who would you possibly get any kind of decent picture, especially with a full moon shining on the screen? I hope they don't paint the screen silver.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-28-2001, 09:03 AM:

Randy,
I too have wondered if such a system could work with a drive-in theatre. The more I listen to and read about digital projection systems, it "almost" makes me want to re-consider my entire drive-in project.

It's hard for me to imagine investing $300,000.00 to build my drive-in and 5 years down the road the technology changes to the point where I won't be able to project an image to the screen. If the numbers everyone's quoting are right, I would have to spend as much on the projection equipment as I would for the total cost of theatre construction and the land combined.

My goal was to open and operate the theatre for about 10-15 years, and then when "Home Depot", "Lowes", or "Kroger" comes knocking on the door, take the money and run.

John had mentioned "ganging" two or three projectors together and super-imposing their images. I've done this at the church I attend and it worked very well. We have a 40'hydraulic-lift screen that comes out of the back of the choir loft and rises some 30-35 feet above the top of the baptistry. The first time you see it, it's breath taking.

Anyway, at one time we had two "Proxima" LCD projectors that were stacked one on top of the other. We projected a "grid pattern" to the screen and then tweaked the projectors until the patterns from both projectors lined up perfectly. The only draw back was if someone in the sound booth accidently bumped the projection rack, the projected image looked alot like a really bad 3D movie without the glasses. When everything worked, the image was stunning. Our current system uses the same screen, but we have a new projector that has a footprint of about 18" x 36". It's physically much bigger than the first projectors, but it has almost twice the light output. I still haven't got used to "Christian Karaoke" in a Southern Baptist Church though!!

Dave, the Bumper's people mentioned something called "Light Valve Projection" if I remember correctly. I haven't heard anymore about the Bumper's project in several months.

------------------
Barry Floyd
Floyd Entertainment Group
Nashville, Tennessee
(Drive-In Theatre - Start-Up)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-28-2001, 09:35 AM:

"Light valve" is just a big CRT. It's a 1970s-era technology, although the new ones are probably pretty decent (but not for a drive-in size screen).

I'm guessing that there would be some major lawsuits if film distributors suddenly refused product to drive-in theatres on film before the electronic projection equipment had advanced to the point where a drive-in screen could be adequately illuminated.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-28-2001, 09:45 AM:

At those distances and screen sizes, the pixels would look like a herd of multicolored blimps flying by.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-28-2001, 10:11 AM:

IMHO I think it will be more than ten years before you see every theater outthere with the capability of running digital movies on all of the screens.

I get that feeling just based on words thru the grapevine. Right now there are still to many unanswered questions for anyone to really want to take hold of this technology.

Those out there testing this know the system is not ready for a major invasion. Think of it this way. When cd's came out records were still on the shelves for a few years and tapes were abundent. Now you have a lot of cd's you can still find tapes and you can special order vinal records for certain titles and artists.

Not everyone out there is going to be able to afford this technology so other forms of media will still have to be available for some time to come.

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 03-28-2001, 10:37 AM:

What really concerns me is that a total switch to digital projection while at the same time doing away with striking film prints, even though the technology isn't perfected to allow for digital projection in outdoor exhibition venues, would literally close down well over 700 drive-in screens in the U.S. alone. Not to mention the outdoor screens in Canada, Australia and a number of other countries that have drive-ins. In other words, this could kill hundreds of small businesses in the interest of trying to reduce product distribution costs.

Tack on the number of indie indoor theatres that would close because the owners can't afford to put in the new technology and a lot more screen revenue has been lost for both exhibition and distribution.

In a lot of rural areas and small towns across the country, the drive-in theatre is where a lot of America still goes to the movies. Especially during the spring and summer. In some cases indoor theatres are not close enough to be convenient so people just don't go to them. Add on the family scenerio where mom and dad don't feel that they can take the small kids to the indoor (or the indoor has a policy forbidding small kids except for certain shows), and more potential movie ticket buyers have just been convinced to wait for the film to come out on video or to not see the movie at all. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-28-2001, 04:32 PM:

I think that with the new plexes with these wall to wall 50 foot screens, they're going to have to make these things capable of a great picture for at least this size. Many drive-ins seem to be in the 50-60 foot range (up here anyway). Then the answer is what it should have been anyway - more screens serving smaller fields. This is a niche market that won't go away. Sure there's not 4,000 theatres now, but visit a theatre like Oakville Ontario's "5" Drive-In, now adding a 3rd screen in what's gotta be the most urban setting in the world for a DI now. They've been offered tons for it I'm told, but are completely renovating, adding a diner because a DI can be profitable too. They now hold captive the Toronto market. The place competes with a Famous plex across the road and got a fresh painting of EVERYTHING, it looks like a million bucks. They claim to fill the place every night in summer. But I'm getting off topic, upkeep, more screens and new builds where profitable conditions exist is the way to go. Build that theatre Barry, to specs that will accomodate operating with 1 DLP only per screen!!! I don't know if there's pictures of the reno, but it's a great website at www.5drivein.com .

Posted by Tim Sherman (Member # 569) on 03-29-2001, 01:10 AM:

So far you have been talking about small screens. What about us drive-ins with monster screens?(Yeah Randy, D and I) my
screen is 118' x 50' with a throw of 513'. If they can come out with a DLP that can do that and still keep it bright i would be very impressed. for some reason i don't think they can. But if one of the DLP manufacturers thinks that they can get it as bright and as good looking as film on my screen,they are more then welcome to come out and try. (i don't think i'll have any takers though)

------------------
"Come on out to the drive-in and spend a night out with the stars"
ME!!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 09:20 AM:

Tim:

For a 118 x 50 foot matte white gain=1 drive-in screen (5900 square feet), you would need about 30,000 watts to light it to 16 footlamberts --- even a 70mm print might have difficulty with that!

I suspect you are getting only about 4 footlamberts with 35mm film, assuming a large lamp operating somewhere near 7000 watts. Still, that is much more light (over 20,000 lumens) than any digital projector that I know of can provide.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-29-2001, 10:07 AM:

Just curious, I know it was done with 3-D, but has anyone ever ganged two projectors with identical prints to double the light output? Going from 4 to 8 fl would be a huge improvement.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 03-29-2001, 10:58 AM:

I've never heard of that being done. you would have to use selsyn motors and makeup the prints exactly alike(splice on the exact identical frames). But dirt would be half as visible

Did I mention a five deck platter?

Josh

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-29-2001, 11:22 AM:

I would think that dirt would be twice as visable since dirt from both prints would be projected.

A properly aluminated screen should project a light output of at least 16fl in center to 12fl sides plus or minus 4fl. Drive-ins can have trouble reaching this do to the size of screen and the distance to screen.

The drive-in I used to work had used glass reflectors in the lamphouse. On occasion I would have to remove the reflector to clean the back side in order to allow the ultraviolet light to pass thru. The light output was greatly improved by doing this.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-29-2001, 12:01 PM:

Modern 3d systems interlock useing stepper motors rather than selsyns. (In fact Kinton has that as a feature)
Dirt is less visable due to the masking effect of the other print
I remember there used to be a self adehsive material called protolite that claimed increased drivein screen light levels

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-29-2001, 12:03 PM:

Dirt would show up half as much, but there would be twice the amount, unless you used twice the amount of film-guard.

I see some interesting possibilities. If the shutters were timed so that only one image was on-screen at a time, then the 48 hz flicker could be eliminated, although the 24 Hz movement might be accentuated. This might have a more "digital" look.

By doubling the number of projectors, apparent grain would be reduced - I think -. The possibility of additive grain on grain might do odd things.

If everything was exactly the same and alignment was precise, then the perceived sharpness might be slightly increased by focusing one lens on one dye layer and the other on another.

Anyone with duplicate trailers and a selsyn booth want to do some tests and report back?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-29-2001, 01:53 PM:

Haveing done more twin machine 3d than I care to think about there are two points I wish to bring up
The shutters must be synced togather or extreme eyestrain will result. Imax gets away with alternating images only because they use a higher synce rate on the flicker shutter
Keystoneing is a reel nightmare and offset lens mounts are manditory for good 3d effects with out eyestrain

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 02:02 PM:

The technology for using more film "real estate" to get more light on big screens already exists -- it's called 70mm.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-29-2001, 02:05 PM:

Gordon, Remember that this isn't a case of one eye seeing one image, and the other seeing a different image. The eyestrain problem should be minimal.

I watch field sequential 3-D video at home. I understand what you mean about it being tiring, although I haven't noticed serious eyestrain on properly converged images. I suspect a lot of the eyestrain you may have experienced was from improper convergence of the images on the film itself. You can set up a film according to the spec sheet, but if the shots are screwed, you'll still get eyestrain and headaches.

John, For drive-ins where 70mm prints of "Cheerleader Girls from Rochester Get Eaten By Godzilla" might not be available, double prints might offer a solution to low light levels. I saw a rerun of Star Wars on a big DI screen, but it was horribly dark. If it had been brighter, it would have been a great experience.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 02:12 PM:

Gordon is very correct that the syncronization of the two shutters must be perfect, or flicker and eyestrain will result. To perfectly align the images, you would likely need to use mirrors to allow a common optical axis to avoid any keystoning. Alignment would be more challenging than 2-strip 3D, since the two images are not going to separate eyes, and the brain will not be able to correct any misregistration as it can when the left eye and right eye get separate images.

As I said, 70mm already lets you put much more light on the screen, without the hassles of 2-strips. Inventing a cumbersome new system isn't the answer to the lack of 70mm prints --- convincing distributors that 70mm prints are still needed for huge screens is!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-29-2001, 02:18 PM:

70mm is the best solution for all of the industries woes
John maybe Kodak should offer a speceial on 70mm print stock in time for the summer releases

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 02:27 PM:

Gordon:

70mm Kodak VISION Color Print Film is nominally twice the price of 35mm print stock (about 18 vs. 9 cents per foot in the USA). The cost of making a 65mm duplicate negative, the need to make a special DTS sound negative, the need for two separate passes through the printer for picture and sound, the slower printing and processing speeds, etc. are what increase the cost of 70mm prints.

Price negotiations are at a level well above mine. But I suspect that a distributor wanting to make a few hundred 70mm prints would get support and encouragement.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-29-2001, 02:42 PM:

Ok, I have been reading the last few posts. Two prints to make up and put on platter, Two Lenses to focus, Two bottles film guard to clean dirt, Two Shutter to time and put in sync. Then maybe you will double your light out put.

I think it would be easier for you to buy two tickets, buy two buckets of popcorn and two sodas. Go in the auditorium and sit beside yourself. Then let me know if it was worth it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-29-2001, 03:31 PM:

John,

Of course this will never happen, but how about raising the price of 35mm film stock by 125% and dropping the price of 70mm appropriately? Studios need encouragement to use 70mm!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 04:13 PM:

As I noted, most of the increased cost for 70mm prints is not due to the raw stock cost, but rather to the extra effort and costs in the labs.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-29-2001, 08:45 PM:

Okay, let's go WAAAAAAy out into left field...

Two identical prints on the same platter deck: Wind them both concentrically and pay them out through the brain separate them at the top of the tree and send to the projectors. Rejoin them at the take up control and wind them up again.

See! I told you it was out there!

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-30-2001, 02:36 AM:

70MM projection is such an excellent solution for drive-ins and larger screens in general that I'm surprised that anyone would have contemplated using 35MM at a drive-in to begin with.

Perhaps the solution for this chicken-and-egg problem would be for the studios/distributors to get the ball rolling by striking several 70MM DTS prints of certain major releases (read: Pearl Harbor) in much the same way that a certain number of 16MM prints are also struck for many releases. These could be offered to drive-ins and major locations. More 70MM prints could be struck for any theatre if requisitioned - this would have to happen well in advance, of course, but with a release like Pearl Harbor there is plenty of lead time anyway. Perhaps some financial model might arise to help offset the extra cost, but as John said, if it became popular and hundreds were required, then the cost is more negotiable. With a distribution/exhibition infrastructure in place, filmmakers may be encouraged to consider 70MM as an option.

I find the 'we want to save money' excuse of the filmmaking/distribution sector a little hard to swallow. Kenneth Branaugh made 'Hamlet' - 4 hours long in 70MM - with a budget of $US18 million! Whatever filmmakers are buying for their $US100M budgets, it isn't film stock or lab costs. (Can anyone honestly tell me that if Episode Two was filmed in 70MM that the budget would have blown out? That it wouldn't look better? Yet 'saving money' is the excuse given...)

The same applies to marketing/distribution. A fortune is spent on all kinds of things as well as release prints. Spend a little more on film - the difference would me minimal or dare I suggest non-existent in the overall scheme of things - and then theatres can offer an experience that no other environment possibly can, thereby making the films themselves more profitable.

If they want to bring more people into theatres, 70MM can do it, because it offers an experience that can't be obtained at home. Digital projection, which is 'not quite' 35MM, is lowering the bar for theatrical presentation quality and this will only encourage people to stay at home.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 04-01-2001, 07:34 AM:

At a recent test of a Barco DLP machine on an indoor screen, it required a 7,000 watt xenon to provide the same 16fl of light that the 3,000 watt xenon in the 35mm Vic 5.

We use 5,000 watt xenons at the drive-in for 5 fl, think what we'd need for DLP!!!

David

Posted by John T. Mellor (Member # 468) on 04-01-2001, 11:04 PM:

First thanks Randy for posting this one . John when we were at Showeast we talked about Digital projection at the drive in . Just think if they could get a decent picture at the drive in what would the indoor look like. As far as light in a diferent post you showed a picture of a real projector with in my estimation the best lamp for projection. It was a Norelco AA-2 with a Perless model15 Hycandescent.I used the lamps at a few drive ins years ago 13.6mmpositive and 1/2 in negative carbons 65v at 210 amps do the math they really cooked the film if you weren't carefull. Maybe they should try the perless on the back of the digital . All that said I think we all would like to see if the digital guys will even try to do a drive in.

If they do I really would like to be there .
John

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 04-02-2001, 09:47 AM:

I agree John. I'd love to see a digital projection demo at a drive-in theatre. If the digital guys could perfect the technology to handle an outdoor venue like a drive-in, imagine the other outdoor applications that it could be used for. Theme parks come first to mind.

Anybody in digital projection development wanna try the challenge? I'm sure through the United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association we can come up with drive-in owners who'd be more than happy to let you use their theatres for the demo. In fact, UDITOA member Tim Sherman offered the use of his theatre earlier in this discussion.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-02-2001, 01:38 PM:

Ok, I know it isn't quite digital cinema or digital Imax but we have run video outdoors on a big screen. Last year, at the Telluride Film Festival, we ran a documentary about Shackelton's famously failed expedition to the South Pole on video at the outdoor theatre. We used a Digital Projection 8SX with a Sony Betacam SP as a source. In short, it looked fabulous! It was just like the Discovery Channel on the best, biggest TV you ever saw.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-02-2001, 03:25 PM:

Ian:

That looks like about 12 x 30 foot screen. Any idea of the screen luminance (footlamberts) you achieved? What aspect ratio was the video material?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-02-2001, 06:27 PM:

Since the material was shot for eventual presentation on television, the ratio was 4x3.

John, we don't have any of those fancy luminance-measuring devices out in the real world. But using my highly trained, calibrated eyeball, I'd say that the image was damn bright. That screen uses 3,000 watt Christie lamps in Strong lamphouses. The image looked as bright as the 1.85 image I have seen there. Those Digital Projection machines have the muscle to do the job.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-02-2001, 08:12 PM:

Under ideal conditions, the Digital Projection 8SX Power projector has a nominal output of 8000 ANSI lumens. Probably looked pretty bright on your screen, but many drive-in screens are about ten times the area!