|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Roof Top Drive-In 1955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-13-2017 12:47 AM
Reading one of the descriptions of the demise of the Dover rooftop DI, let me really surprised --you would think Walter Reade tech people would have done much better advance work on the site, BEFORE setting up a whole projection system, booth and screen AND opening for business. You would think they would have brought a transmitter rig out to the site to test out coverage and transmission patterns and strength, etc., which they certainly didn't if they what the poster said is correct, that they got this big surprise that their signal was not strong enough.
Then there's the 100ft screen, you KNOW from the get-go it was going to be under-lit unless they were running 70, which I am sure the description would have mentioned -- so 35mm on a 100ft screen, you know what a stretch that is right out of the gate, and then for Walter Reade techs, who know (or certainly SHOULD know) about screens and ambient light, to not have tested to see what the ambient light levels were on that roof BEFORE-hand, just seems too sloppy for words. It's only on opening night that someone notices that there's red neon lights blast the screen from surrounding businesses?
The thing that is sad about it is, with a properly designed system, you could easily make something like that work. The beauty being the DI then doesn't need to be relegated to only serving folks way out in the country -- there are PLENTY of roof tops in the big cities. Plus, the nice thing about the cities is, once you overcome the ambient light (how about a smaller screen, guys?...and high gain), there are much fewer bugs, which is nice for an outdoor venue.
Oh yah, ambient light is one thing, but can anyone say FCC? In the city you might have to deal with the pesky FCC kvetching about your FM signal a lot more than they might care about a rural DI miles from anyone -- I am guessing, the FCC will probably monitor that kind of thing a lot more in the city than they do way out on Bear Crick Road. Still, regulatory agencies are pretty much just shells now in this political climate, they might not bother DI transmitting at all as long as he's not stepping all over a dozen other stations.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 09-26-2017 10:41 AM
For Adam,
Farmingdale and Belmar border Wall Township here in New Jersey. I suspect all 3 actually refer to the same fly-in theatre.
For Mark,
> No drive-in's in Columbus on mall rooftops.
In the mid 1970's, I took a course that was held by NATO at Ohio State, on the motion picture theatre business. They took us on a field trip to the Three-C's Drive-in, in Columbus. Years later, I heard, but did not verify, that it was demolished to make way for a shopping mall with a drive-in on the roof. I guess the drive-in never happened.
Unrelated,
Low power FM for drive-in's was not authorized by the FCC until the late 1980's. Before that, only carrier current AM was legal, and there were regulations regarding how far off of your property the signal could go.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 09-26-2017 03:34 PM
quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Low power FM for drive-in's was not authorized by the FCC until the late 1980's. Before that, only carrier current AM was legal, and there were regulations regarding how far off of your property the signal could go.
I've worked within the FCC regulatory environment, relative to AM and FM broadcasting, for over 45 years. In that time, I don't recall having ever seen reference in the rules, specific to drive-in theatres and FM. The carrier current, "leaky coax" and "Cine-Fi" brand concepts, commonly used until the late '70s or so, were only for AM radio, and were designed for "Part 15" compliance.
As for drive-ins and FM, the FCC's silence on the matter has led to a number of interesting assumptions over the years, mostly wrong, so if anyone here can put a finger on what rule actually deals with the subject, I'd very much like to know about it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic