Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Drive in Theatres with Anamorphic Lens On Digital

   
Author Topic: Drive in Theatres with Anamorphic Lens On Digital
David J Hilsgen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 192
From: SAUK RAPIDS,MN . USA
Registered: Aug 2004


 - posted 12-27-2014 09:07 PM      Profile for David J Hilsgen   Email David J Hilsgen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have 1 on my nec 2500s at the long drive in, long prairie,mn .it works great, you can get more light, cause you are using the full chip. i have a 36' by 85' screen. how many more other d.i have one out there.

 |  IP: Logged

Chase Taylor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 175
From: Troy, Alabama, USA
Registered: Mar 2001


 - posted 12-28-2014 04:23 PM      Profile for Chase Taylor   Author's Homepage   Email Chase Taylor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I use them at my 4 screen DI on all 4 screens.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-02-2015 08:19 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I donno... The cost of an anamorphic and then it's mount vs buying an NC-3240 4K projector.... Not sure the anamorphic makes sense unless you're buying a used projector. The price difference going from the NC-3200 to the 3240 is not much more than the complete anamorphic setup. I have 3240's running in D.I's on up to 100' wide screens and the light level is tremendous.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-02-2015 09:50 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No matter how you cut it...with an anamorphic, you are going to be 23% brighter...regardless of the projector behind it. Nobody...not even NEC will boast incredible light from an NEC. It is what it is...the least efficient projector of the DLPs. When one is doing Drive-Ins...light gets expensive as one moves into the 4500-7000 watt range...the cost of operation goes up geometrically since the lamps cost much more and last a lot less and consume more energy.

Depending on your price for the anamorphic and mount, I ran the numbers once...as you into the 4500-watt mark, anamorphics makes sense (financially) over the life of the projector. If you are running 6K and up...the anamorphic pays for itself in VERY short order. The payback on a drive in will be longer since they don't have as many operating hours in a day (that damn sun!) However, if you are using one of those extra long lenses designed for A/V rather than DCinema (most drive ins)...the anamorphic also means you need not zoom/refocus the prime lens between formats.

Note Moving Image Technologies makes an anamorphic mount for their XL mover so you can add it to any DLP brand projector.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-02-2015 10:04 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Then again, DI operations are very different that hardtop multiplexes. One show a night, not 4 or 5 shows a day that would need attention. If the cost of the moving device is a deal breaker, a DI operator could certainly opt to manually move the anamorphic once a night if there are different formats for the double feature, but many times there wouldn't even be that if both features are the same format.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-02-2015 12:57 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The moving device isn't the deal breaker...it is the lens itself. Depending on where you source it...they are typically in the $10,000 range. Though I suspect if they were a bit more popular, the price would come down as they could be made in quantity.

I believe all of the OEMs have stopped making their own anamorphic mount. Barco and Christie definitely have (Barco never made them for series 2 projectors though Kinoton did and if you use Communicator in "demo" mode and set it to a Kinoton model, you'll see the anamorphic option. MIT has set up their control system such that you can trigger it by most any means convenient. I would think that the GPIO of all projectors would make the most sense though. I suspect, with a little studying, one could fool a Christie into thinking it is a MALM and use its dedicated buttons/commands for it but you are doing the same thing as a GPIO in that each channel has to be set to have the anamorphic in or out.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-04-2015 08:02 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have measured typically 16% more light from a 4k vs. an equivalent 2K model. IMHO having the extra resolution on a large DI screen beats the pants out of any light gain from the anamorphic on a 2K projector. I have one NC-3240 running on a 115' wide screen and it easily meets specs with a 6kw lamp. This DI is open perhaps four months out of the year and based on old film running hours the 6kw lamp will last them three summers.

And then there are no doubt some larger screens that will need both the 4K and an anamorphic to get a bright enough image...

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-05-2015 06:31 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In theory, the light from a 4K projector should be greater than the light from the same 2K projector due to the larger aperture of the 4K projector (1.38" versus 1.2"). There are mitigating circumstances that keeps one from making a direct correlation though. Just because the imager is larger does not mean that the efficiencies of the optics are equivalent on both. And continuing in that line, the lens. Most zoom lenses are more efficient towards the shorter end of the range so if the same lens is used for 2K and 4K, it is likely to be a little more efficient for the 2K. However, if you are kicked into another lens size then all bets are off. I have theatres where the "same" projector is used on two auditoriums have the same size screen but due to the throw, the lenses are different...the resulting light on the screen varied rather greatly. I've found that the lenses in the middle of the lens line tend to be more efficient than those on the opposite extremes. The 1.2-1.8 lenses, for instance are typically not as efficient as a 1.4-2.05 lens in any particular manufacturer. The 2.4-3.9 also can be a light hog.

However, with an anamorphic, you can bank on the 23% light gain for scope.

In a Drive-In, one is normally so far back from the screen and the screen "quality" (they are normally quite nasty looking up close), that 4K is probably lost in such an application.

I'm curious to see your numbers on the 16% light improvement...to really claim it, you'd need to shoot the same size screen/throw (use the same lens) to really measure the light improvement. The screen reflectivity would need to be measured too to eliminate its contribution. With an anamorphic, it is much easier to quantify...you use the same equipment and merely measure with and without the anamorphic (presuming the prime lens can zoom to both extremes).

As for costs, another brand of DLP projector plus the anamorphic would be 35% more efficient than the 2K NEC on Scope. They would have more light with a 4000-4500 watt lamp than your 4K NEC with a 6K lamp. It would be less expensive to buy and less expensive to operate every day of its existence.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-05-2015 09:07 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have measured typically 16% more light from a 4k vs. an equivalent 2K model.
That may be (or not so much, considering Steve's points), BUT, practically speaking, that works only when considering coverting from film and making decisions about which way to go with a digital install; for the guys who already purchased their 2K equipment, it's very unlikely that they are going to switch out to 4K anytime soon. And given the economics of DIs, especially those not runing 365, if they didn't go the anamorphic route from day one, they probably are going to live with what they've got, knowing the cost of those lenses.

I take it "prime" lenses are not manufactured in incrimental steps like film lenses, yes? So it's not like a prime lens can be selected which is the most efficient optical "sweet" spot for a given throw, and then use an anamorphic adapter for scope. With those typically very long DI throws, they would still be using a zoom lens set at an extreme point that may not be the most efficient. Which again points to the fact that NOT requiring fixed prime lenses and anamorphics was a compromise that shouldn't have been DCI approved. ESPECIALLY since everyone should have learned by now the cropping/extra magnification mistake that was made with the 1.85 film format.

Back then, instead going with two different prime lens and one anamorphic, it could easily have gone with a single prime lenses and two different anamporhics and a full frame height for both, ala, Glenn Berggren's proposal (at Schneider? I think). If they had gone that route, no doubt in short order lens manufactures would have been able to greatly improve the variable anamorphic to be very efficient, which would allow motorizing them for automation and then they wouldn't have even needed two different anamorphics in a turret.

Compromise, compromise...all is compromise.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-08-2015 01:12 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Frank, That is very true... Once equipment is installed it is not going to get changed. But in today's pricing the NC-3240 is the least expensive route to 4K. The difference in price between the NC-3200 (2K) and the NC-3240 (4K) is about the cost of an anamorphic and lens changer. If one has a largish screen the 4K is always the better route to go. An anamorphic can then still be added to the 4K projector at any time if desired and that is way more likely to happen than say converting an NC-3200 to a NC-3240 which is also very expensive to do.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.