# Digital Scenery @ High School



## MNicolai (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm working on a high school project where they're going to cut the fly loft out of the project in favor of doing digital scenery. My current concept in the works is 3-4 13K laser projectors onto a black RP screen on the upstage side of the acting space plus a front projector and a grey sharkstooth scrim downstage that they can track out and project onto to create depth and play with different visual effects.

This school is located in a low-income area, so I have a careful balance to strike here. My eventual solution needs to be practical and cost-effective while also giving the students as much opportunity and potential to go wherever their creative hearts desire. I'm also trying to make it adequately versatile because if it sucks or isn't bright enough or it's not accessible to entry-level users then it has strong potential to become abandoned or used way too infrequently to be justify the purchase.

I want to put it this up for discussion with those of you who teach at high schools and/or do lots of video work.

What are the essentials to your workflow?
How involved are your students in the video design process?
How much of your own content do you generate?
Do you use pico projectors and scale models to mock up designs and try things out?
Do you use cameras and editing software to home-brew your own content or do you exclusively pull from the internet?
What kinds of obstacles do you run into with your process?
What do you do to prevent any given show from visually looking like every other show you put on?
Do you use a dedicated media server or use a more lightweight solution like Qlab for putting your cues and effects together?
Do you incorporate projector mapping or do you stay more toward simple 2D projection?


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 10, 2016)

Right now you are way out of balance. Since you say that this is in a low-income area, my guess is that this is not a magnet school. This means that there is likely one person in charge of the facility, maybe two. The likelihood that either of them will be versed enough to run a video program is slim to nil.

First off, I question the use of digital scenery over traditional scenery. Video is great at supplementing scenery or for very special needs. I understand the desire to go this route, but I think that you will have some very unhappy clients shortly down the road. The first instance is, as you say, keeping it looking fresh. If you want to look at a colossal failure. If you don't believe me, look at how well received The Woman in White was received on Broadway. It wasn't that the video was done bad, just that it distracted the audience from the show.

Secondly, if they are in a low-income area, are they going to be able to maintain this level of technology. I understand that you are probably suggesting the laser projectors as a selling point of low maintenance. However, with the amount of hours they are going to likely be used, they could probably go with projectors with lamps and have a service contract. If you look at some of the Panasonic projectors, they have pretty good maintenance.

The skill level required for this is probably way more than a typical high school could muster. They would be much better off with fewer high technology tools like this and having a better lighting and sound package. Spend the money on wing space so that they can have scenery wagons.

This to me sounds like when theaters wanted to get rid of all of their conventional lights for a handful of moving lights. It just doesn't work.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 10, 2016)

I share your concerns, but this is a specific request by the school district that they have asked me to assess the feasibility of. Right now I'm just fact-finding and developing a proof-of-concept. The primary headline for what that may turn into will be "Don't pursue this if there's even a chance it will not be maintained long-term, and don't put anything in stone until you have a technical supervisor on-board that can manage this type of facility and system."

Of course, they would still have the option for a static set and to do shows without video or with video just as a highlighted backdrop behind a set. They just wouldn't be putting the expense into a fly loft and all of the building and life safety codes associated with it, as well as the expense and safety concerns of a counterweight or motorized rigging system.

My position is that for this to be viable and make financial and academic sense, it would have to be approached like a Project Lead The Way STEM education program. If it's not going to be directly integrated with the curriculum by someone who is experienced in this field then it has a high potential for abandonment and disrepair within the first 5 years.

First things first, I am looking to see what others across the country are doing and how well it has worked for them.


----------



## Mike R (Nov 10, 2016)

I think there are distinct differences between Digital Scenery, Digital Backdrops, and Multi-Media Projections. The system you described above would be very effective for all three of those. The key, as you have said, is that there needs to be someone on staff who knows how to use the system effectively. 

I have seen and worked on too many professional shows who used projections that look awful. The equipment used was all top of the line, but the Professional Projection Designers provided content that was too low of a resolution, so we basically watch 8-bit video running across the set the whole show. 

To combat this issue, you could suggest that the Theater Department team up with the Art Department, which usually offers classes in Photoshop or other digital media production.


----------



## egilson1 (Nov 10, 2016)

I would tend to go with a LED wall vs Screens, as trying to light a stage with screens is a tough job. the LED wall is much brighter and you can light subjects who stand right in front of it. And the prices keep dropping. 

just my 2 cents.


----------



## np18358 (Nov 10, 2016)

_What are the essentials to your workflow?_ Qlab and a good director who is flexible. 
_How involved are your students in the video design process? _I am a student, and the design process is almost all student led, with minimal teacher input (no more than other departments). 
_How much of your own content do you generate? _We collaborate with students who do digital media to create the content in After Effects. They then will come to tech to scope out any content based issues, however we will do the actually projection and operation in QLab. All of the content is custom. I see this as the biggest issue. The time and skill required to create the content is mind blowing. I think the learning curve on any After Effects style program would be a near insurmountable obstacle in and of itself. Nothing is purchased online.
_Do you use pico projectors and scale models to mock up designs and try things out? _No. Would like to try, but usually the time line doesn't work out like this.
_Do you use cameras and editing software to home-brew your own content or do you exclusively pull from the internet? _The content is made either completely in After Effects (for fairy tale like content), or pictures are taken, then modified in Photoshop, and animated in AE. Nothing pulled except the rare still image to be incorporated if the artwork is quite complex. 
_What kinds of obstacles do you run into with your process? _Difficulty with directors not wanting to adjust blocking and having unrealistic expectations for the timeframe to make significant changes and create new content. As we work with projections rather than screens, they consistently block inches in front of the surface to be front projected on (even after discussion of how this cannot be done). Also the non-theatre students have difficulty integrating into the production process. The whole Video is sort of in Purgatory between Lighting, Scenery, sometimes Props/Effects, and often we need to work with costume and makeup to get imagery to animate. Getting everyone on the same page for this is difficult. 
_What do you do to prevent any given show from visually looking like every other show you put on? _Not too difficult for us. Haven't had an issue with this.
_Do you use a dedicated media server or use a more lightweight solution like Qlab for putting your cues and effects together? _QLab.
_Do you incorporate projector mapping or do you stay more toward simple 2D projection? _Mostly 2D, but an occasional bit of simple pixel mapping off of scenery. Nothing with projector mapping multiple walls of a set or anything like that.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 10, 2016)

What expertise does the school district base this request on? This seems like the idea of a person who has never been responsible for making performance happen.


----------



## Van (Nov 10, 2016)

Not a condemnation of anyone's work but as a TD who's worked in rural, low income and small theatres in school districts all-over, this sounds like a horrible Idea. the associated costs for producing content alone make this a no-go from the start. One person, with the knowledge of how to program and create content for a system like this, loses their job and you are into a national search to replace that person at twice to three times the cost. 
Also, as my own opinion, coming from TD's perspective, the Multi-usability you lose by simply value-engineering the fly loft out of the picture is a no-go.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 11, 2016)

I wouldn't call it value engineering at all. We're talking about redirecting several hundred thousand dollars into the performance systems that otherwise would've gone into steel beams, precast walls, fire protection systems, complying with the additional building code requirements of a theater with a fly space, and so on. If you asked most high school theater directors if they could have a fly loft or they could have $$$ to equip their facility with, I think many would accept the $$$ and not think twice about it. I've seen a lot of high school theaters that got their fly loft and their Ion but then didn't have money for enough fixtures to cover the stage in more than just a one-color wash. It may be a different variation on the art form of theater but I don't consider this approach a compromise on the integrity of the art that could be produced here.

In my experience, high schools are hard-pressed to build scenery that can be flown safely. The extent that the fly loft offers them options is that they can move their borders around, trim down the size of their acting space, and fly backdrops wherever they'd like. But backdrop rentals of any size aren't exactly cheap, and there are very real safety concerns to flown scenery.

The risks may be different but I believe they're similar in magnitude to a traditional theater. In some cases it may even lower the barrier to entry because if you have just a few highly committed individuals you can put on an interesting show. Whereas if you're dependent on building a full set and background and only have a few committed individuals, you end up with some walls quickly nailed together by however many parent volunteers you could scrap together and then a fresh coat of paint. In either case if you don't have committed faculty or students, it doesn't matter how tall your fly loft is or how tricked out your performance systems are because you'll end up with a two-color wash in front of a black curtain.

It's also not as if every performance needs to be motion video or static images. They could also go more traditional and use it as a cyc that they can apply gradients to it that would be more compelling than you could get out of a cyc only lit from the top. I would say most high schools I've encountered are only using a top-lit cyc because they either don't have the fixtures, cables, gels, and lamps for a ground row, or because a ground row would get in the way of the acting space.

I do consider the small scale light and projection lab an important part of this facility because it will be much more accessible to students of whatever interest and skill level to try things out at small scale with no risk and learn what they like and what they don't like and if this is their thing or not. If it is their thing, they'll get a better experience in this situation than most colleges can afford them in terms of hands-on experience. If it isn't their thing, they don't have to put a full show together half-butted to find out in front of 700 people a night for a week that they didn't know what their final product was going to end up looking like.

Meanwhile, if they want to put on a farce there's nothing stopping them from building a set with a bunch of doors in front of it and not incorporating video into that show. Just because they have it doesn't mean they have to use it full tilt on every event.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 11, 2016)

You did come here asking advice. We understand that this is what you thought would be good and maybe you were looking for others to agree. The reality is, this will likely not get as much use as in comparison to its cost.

From your original proposal, you state that you want a black screen with 3-4 projectors from behind. I am guessing that you plan on these being blended with short throw lenses to get the coverage. Have you ever maintained a system such as this? I am willing to bet that their theater teacher will not have even the remotest clue how to do so. 

You also are only looking at a single projector in front. I assume that you are planning on a permanent mounting system for this? I say this because with you having the concern of stagnant use, but you may be setting them up for that with your choices.

You feel that committed individuals setting up video will be easier to find than committed individuals to build a set. Plus you seem to feel that if the onus is put on the parents that it will be shoddy. Sure, it may be safer if you can find the right individuals to put together projection, but making sure that you have the talent to use it versus the ability to find someone to build a safe set may prove difficult. 

Certainly having a model to get an idea of how the projected image could be helpful. Will they be able to know it will work or not based on that model, not exactly. To find the right model might be a challenge, but that's what you get paid to do. 

What kind of infrastructure do you plan on including with this? Are you including the package to develop content? Are you building this future proof? After all, this is a rapidly changing field. A little over decade ago, we didn't have media servers like we do today. How tied down will you be making this school by the decisions you make today. That money built into the building itself will get many more years in return than a rapidly changing technology which will be near obsolete in 5-10 years. Most projectors aren't in production for more than five years (certainly there are exceptions), and manufacturers only are required to service them to five years past the end of life. This is a challenge that you are obligated to consider. Manufacturers are looking at many laser projectors as essentially disposable, in that the life of the projector is equal to the life of the solid state illumination. Granted, they will probably run into other issues before this, especially if you are looking at laser phosphor.

I agree that getting them the opportunity to work with some video technology is a wonderful thing. But we need to learn how to use it properly. As I said, take a serious look at Woman in White. Audiences will have a disconnect with the scenery differently than they do with a painted drop. Yes, it can be done right, but even Broadway is still struggling with this. But this project will likely pigeonhole this school. It is hard to say how well your concept will work fully as we have no idea about the size of the space. As the godmother of projection, Wendell Harrington has often said, she has talked herself out of work probably more times than she has done a show. Video is a new reality of the future of theater, but it should just be a part of the design, not THE design all of the time.


----------



## sk8rsdad (Nov 11, 2016)

There are many, many, alternatives between digital scenery and a fly gallery. There are precious few high schools in my province with a fly gallery and somehow they manage to stage large productions in spite of being unable to fly scenery. It's not as simple as one or the other.


----------



## EdSavoie (Nov 11, 2016)

sk8rsdad said:


> There are many, many, alternatives between digital scenery and a fly gallery. There are precious few high schools in my province with a fly gallery and somehow they manage to stage large productions in spite of being unable to fly scenery. It's not as simple as one or the other.



Ditto on that experience. While I happen to be in one that is lucky enough to have a fly system, we have done productions more most of the set pieces were waiting patiently in the wings. Something I've noticed, and been told by people who work at the NAC, is that having good sized wings is incredibly important. You could have the biggest stage, with the best fly system, but it means little if you can only have a handful of actors with props crammed in the wings. Many pieces are either too heavy for simpler fly systems, or aren't practical to fly.

I will argue the safety aspect, because so long as you respect the notion of multiple attachment points that can each take several times the load (not as hard as you'd think) it is perfectly safe. The only thing we've ever had fall off a bar was an old disco ball that didn't follow this rule, there was only one attachment point between 20 year old plastic ring, and the motor. (I was but a junior in highschool at the time, our old crew chief had little concern in the way of safety.) Luckily the bar was lowered when it happened.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 11, 2016)

A few observations.


MNicolai said:


> I think many would accept the $$$ and not think twice about it. I've seen a lot of high school theaters that got their fly loft and their Ion but then didn't have money for enough fixtures to cover the stage in more than just a one-color wash.



Yes, there are too many examples of bad planning. Usually lack of successful experience and expertise.

A manual counterweight rigging system and fly loft will probably last 25 to 50 years. I'm suspect what you're proposing will last 10 before out of date and hard or impossible to maintain. 

Ditto wing space, or what I call shove space - space to shove things and people. Even more critical without a full fly space. I've become very use to making the most of lower stages, ones that don't have the height to fly a drop or traveler, but they require more shove space. I believe getting curtains fully off the stage is critical, and that takes shove space. And that's in addition to shell tower storage, piano, show choir risers, etc. - which can't just be left in the wings.


----------



## AudJ (Nov 11, 2016)

As a school teacher and tech person, I err on the side of longevity, not knowing when the next large dollar figure might come my way. I would rather have the building structure that would essentially be there forever (if maintained), as opposed to a tech system that will be outdated shortly after installation, and be unusable at some point without supplementing new equipment. Either way, I see a tech system being easier to accumulate through small grants and if that has to be done anyway, I see a building structure that will never exist in the future if it is not built now.


----------



## TheaterEd (Nov 11, 2016)

I went from a fly loft school to a non-fly loft school and I will say that I miss my loft, and there is no such thing as enough shove space a Bill calls it (I like this term!). While I like the idea of being able to just project backdrops at will, the practicality of edge-blending and making this actually work is definitely prohibitive. I build 100% of my sets with just my students and the amount of time and energy it would save if we could just fly simple things in and out would be totally worth it. I feel like even with projections, you still need physical things for the actors and the audience, so If I'm still having to build a set anyways then what is this saving me? Now I have to also sink time into getting the projections to work because if we have the capability you know darn well the director is going to want to use it. Also, even just getting it to fade with the lighting system for blackouts is going to require someone with specialized knowledge or an extra student operator which is not easy to find sometimes.

I'm rambling, so let me answer the questions you asked based on the last couple of shows we incorporated projections with.

What are the essentials to your workflow? With the amount of other things I have to worry about being the TD and Facility Manager, the most important thing for me is ease of use and that students can do the work without my help.
How involved are your students in the video design process? 100% I haven't worked with digital media since I graduated high school in 2004. I used to love it, but theater classes in college don't really focus on projections and it just doesn't come up often enough. The learning curve is steep and the software is always changing.
How much of your own content do you generate? For the last show it was 100% generated by students, but in the past I have been asked to incorporate various videos and things into different band concerts. 
Do you use pico projectors and scale models to mock up designs and try things out? Ha! that would be neat, but not practical. Generally when we project we have to plan as much as we can and then just hope it works / work around it. For one show we needed to live feed a webcam so we just started up the feed and placed our set pieces to block as little as possible.
Do you use cameras and editing software to home-brew your own content or do you exclusively pull from the internet? For concerts I mostly have pulled from the internet (we don't charge any kind of admission and always get permission when possible), but we haven't incorporated recorded media into shows. Just still images and some aftereffects videos.
What kinds of obstacles do you run into with your process? Reliable and smooth execution. We are an all PC school so know Qlabs for us and getting our software to work is clunky sometime and works perfectly other times.
What do you do to prevent any given show from visually looking like every other show you put on? Being in a dead hung proscenium, it's hard. We generally just need to choose shows that are different enough that we can do different kinds of sets.
Do you use a dedicated media server or use a more lightweight solution like Qlab for putting your cues and effects together? Lightweight solution we use Show Cue Systems. It usually works just fine, but is really buggy when it comes to projections.
Do you incorporate projector mapping or do you stay more toward simple 2D projection? 2D

Basically my thought's are this. Finding the Unicorn that could run this make it work for the school program is going to be difficult, and replacing her when she leaves is going to be almost impossible. The person with this skill set is also probably capable of getting a much better paying job than your low-income school can afford. Ten years down the line when the projectors are outdated and the software is no longer supported by the manufacturer because three generations of newer and better software have come out you are going to have a school with a dead hung space and not even a cyc to light. Also, when one of these projectors goes out, can the low income school afford to replace it before opening night, or even this year? 

I'm definitely for innovating and coming up with creative solutions, but this just seems like a system that would be too restrictive and cost prohibitive down the road. You know as well as I do that once the referendum money is gone, they are going to be scraping the barrel to maintain the system and personnel. I currently run an auditorium that your company set up in a very well off community and I still haven't been able to get an orchestra pit monitor because the DM receiver for our camera feed is $600 which puts the total cost over $1000 if I want a decent monitor. We have the money, but for that amount we could rent two additional drops for an upcoming show, so getting anyone to sign off on it is difficult to say the least.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 11, 2016)

I'm glad two "users" of these rooms have pointed out the perhaps regrettable "now or never" fact of school facility funding. There seems to never be an annual "capital" projects fund for anything in the high school auditorium and stage, and even a ladder or extension cord, let alone a dozen new light, is not without great ad lengthy effort. Vendors sometimes are critical that we put furniture in the lighting package (storage cabinets, paper cutters for gell (well - no longer), ladders, even a table for the console) along with sundries and expendables - a spool of black tie line, lots of jumpers, spare lamps, clamps, and safety cables, etc. But this is it for most.


----------



## TheaterEd (Nov 11, 2016)

TheaterEd said:


> I currently run an auditorium that your company set up in a very well off community



Possible Correction: I see you are in Florida now and have dropped that company name from your signature. I guess I meant to say your past employer. Congrats on the move to Florida! Hope your enjoying the change of scenery.....


----------



## Footer (Nov 11, 2016)

If the building steel goes up and fly loft gets constructed that is it. You are good to go. In 50 years when the stuff wears out you can go up and bolt new stuff in place and you are done. The system you are looking at will be out of date in 5 years and need a full replacement in 10 years. ALL of that investment will be gone. After 10 years steel and rigging will still be there... and still working fine.


----------



## gafftaper (Nov 11, 2016)

I manage a high school performing arts center. I normally work a 35 hour week, but that changes depending on shows. My impression of this project is cool but insane. Is the district going to commit to a full time person to just deal with the video? Are they going to provide the long term budget for maintenance, repair, and replacement in 10+ years? If the answer is yes, then cool. But if the answer is the expected, "Well we thought we could just..." this is a huge waste of money.

There's nothing worse than theater projects that are not properly staffed, abandoned, and not maintained that become useless spaces.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 11, 2016)

A lot of good input here. Before anyone makes any voodoo dolls out of me I should say that right now I'm just playing devil's advocate and putting the concept through the ringer. Ultimately, I want to be able to afford students the best possible opportunities and video certainly has potential to open up the technical theater program to students who might otherwise quietly stick to the film and art classes. Executed successfully, it can also help elevate the arts within the school system and the community.

The life-cycle expenses 7-10 years out are my greatest concern at the moment. I can put the infrastructure in place to give them flexibility and stave off stagnation. I can make it a fairly turn-key system in terms of being able to get an image up on the screen. I can give them the tools to create and play back whichever complexity of content they're ambitious enough to develop. It's all a moot point though if they can't monetarily afford to maintain this system 10 years out. However, at that point LED walls and projectors of this caliber may be cheap enough that this will be less of an issue.

As for staffing, obviously this isn't viable in almost any form if they don't have a dedicated technical director with experience in video. If someone isn't available to guide students through this type of production process, it's all for nothing.

At this point I'm inclined to say that unless projection/production/animation design is going to be brought into the curriculum to the nut-and-bolt level of an engineering or game animation class, I don't know that this type of system would ever be fully taken advantage of unless they routinely bring in professional designers for at least a couple of their productions each year. If they do that and if they can get some students directly under a mentor, that could be a really wonderful opportunity for students that very few schools are able to compete with.

I refuse accept however that just because a solution here isn't obvious and isn't without complexity that this concept should be disqualified outright.


----------



## RonHebbard (Nov 11, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> A lot of good input here. Before anyone makes any voodoo dolls out of me


I'm afraid you're too late. Not only have several dolls already been fashioned but quite a number of pins have already been inserted at various painfully detrimental points.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## AudJ (Nov 11, 2016)

I actually like the concept, and hope to implement something similar in the near future. In an educational setting, it would be great to be training kids to be prepared for projection scenery-related jobs that are likely to be increasingly available when they graduate. Might even see some STEM money for that.

In the same breath however, I also feel it would be important to have a fly system where students can be trained with traditional scenery, painting, lighting, loading, rigging, scene change, safety, stage management, apprenticeship, etc. We know those jobs are out there, and won't be going away any time soon. Add projection to that palette, and you have an awesome over-all program.

Please keep use updated if you come up with a slick system that students can operate efficiently. Would love to dive into this.


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 11, 2016)

How exactly does one dramatically slam a projected scenery door?

See the 1965 brochure by Hub Electric Co. and James Hull Miller.


----------



## chausman (Nov 11, 2016)

derekleffew said:


> How exactly does one dramatically slam a projected scenery door?


Very quietly. 

I like the idea, and would have loved to have something like that in high school, with a fairly active group of students. But I'd expect it would end up being used so rarely, it wasn't 'worth' the expense and relatively short life, compared to a fly system.


----------



## EdSavoie (Nov 11, 2016)

Come to think of it, it would take up a massive amount of time to draw up scenery good enough for the projection to appear realistic, in comparison to building something out of real materials. Time is something which is not freely available in highschool productions!


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 11, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> At this point I'm inclined to say that unless projection/production/animation design is going to be brought into the curriculum to the nut-and-bolt level of an engineering or game animation class, I don't know that this type of system would ever be fully taken advantage of unless they routinely bring in professional designers for at least a couple of their productions each year.



This is really the crux of it. May I add that just being able to create content does not make a good live event projection. You have to be looking at two separate ideas here. You need a program that has the ability to design the content, then you need a program that understands how to present content. I agree that having the ability to have this learning opportunity is paramount. High school students need the opportunity to explore and make mistakes. 

If I were involved and the administration wanted to eliminate the fly loft (safety, money, or to spend it on other things), I would definitely go for wing space first and foremost. I would still encourage a system of motorized battens for soft goods and electrics. I would provide them with at least two additional travellers besides the main curtain. If possible, a scenery track or two so that small scenic elements can track on and off (I think Rosebrand was showing off some of this at LDI). I would make sure that all of the rest of the technology is as flexible as possible. One of the most frustrating things that I have encountered when working with high school theaters is the lack of patch points and convenient power. 

Definitely give them projection equipment. It is an important part of an educational experience. Don't make it too static of a system. When you are looking at FOH lighting positions, look at flexible positions for projectors as well. It is great to have a permanent position with a drop down screen so that presentations and movie nights are possible (which could also fit in with some front projected effects for shows), but keep in mind that one position will not work for all productions. I would look at being able to put a projector on either side of the house as well (possibly on a temporary structure as long as it didn't interfere with egress). Rear projection is such a pain due to limited space. Short throw lenses are difficult to blend for wide screen, as are mirror systems. The LED wall solution makes up for that, but when they are glitchy, it takes considerable knowledge to make it work. This doesn't rule that out, just make sure that it is from a company that will be around and support the product (especially remotely). 

What kind of lighting package are you considering? A good percentage of the video in live entertainment is controlled by the lighting desk. Not knowing what type of use this auditorium will have, this might be a consideration. The reason I mention this is that having control through the light console can sometimes simplify operation.


----------



## Footer (Nov 12, 2016)

Here is the thing though... Broadway is till trying to figure out how to use projections effectively. Vegas is also still trying to figure it out. The university systems have just begun the process of trying to lay out a path for it in their programs (and absorbing the massive costs). Regional houses are starting to dabble but its not always there or always good. There are not even close to enough people out there who can do this well to go to a high school and do it. Sure, you can get plenty of people who can setup a system and run it but the skills that it takes to design projections are so outside the wheelhouse of 95% of theatrically trained designers. You won't be able to attract someone with these skills and pay them 30k a year. If you just want a glorified powerpoint presentation go nuts, but thats not really teaching anything.


----------



## gafftaper (Nov 12, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> As for staffing, obviously this isn't viable in almost any form if they don't have a dedicated technical director with experience in video. If someone isn't available to guide students through this type of production process, it's all for nothing.



Mike I didn't make an important point earlier. I work a 35-40 hour week and I barely have enough time for booking rentals, building sets, and doing maintenance as it is. I've considered installing a rear projection system and at the top of my concerns is I would need that system to be REALLY easy to operate. I would need to be able to tell people bring in photos of a specific resolution and quickly plug them into my software for playback. My rental clients would love it, but most of them struggle to afford more than about 5 hours of rehearsal AND show. As for our own school productions I would love to work with our art and photography teachers to have kids create backgrounds. But again it's got to be really quick and easy to setup and use.


----------



## themuzicman (Nov 12, 2016)

Footer said:


> There are not even close to enough people out there who can do this well to go to a high school and do it. Sure, you can get plenty of people who can setup a system and run it but the skills that it takes to design projections are so outside the wheelhouse of 95% of theatrically trained designers. You won't be able to attract someone with these skills and pay them 30k a year. If you just want a glorified powerpoint presentation go nuts, but thats not really teaching anything.



This hits the nail on the head. I have done a handful of large off-Broadway productions with video in the last few years. A typical video team is 1. Video Designer 2. Video Associate Designer 3. Video Programmer 4. Illustrator 5. Animator 6. Projectionist/Systems Technician. If you thought Sound people had dedicated positions for tiny things, video blows this out of the water. Every single person has their place in the grand scheme, and on a lot of shows if you are down more than two or three of these positions you compromise everything. You can lose the associate at a smaller level, and if you are sure the system is rock solid then maybe the projectionist, but the rest are really what you need if you plan on having moving digital imagery.


----------



## Morte615 (Nov 12, 2016)

Just for some input, a video team at a large amusement park (scale down as needed to work) on the convention side, so not a daily operations show, would have anywhere from 2 to 10 (and sometimes more for bigger shows) techs working an event.

A little background, this is a venue that has infrastructure already installed, including venue wide switching and routing, 5 playback machines (both Mac and PC) with routing for up to 15, Fiber and SDI backbone run throughout venue (we still had to do the "last mile" connections, to steal a term from the telco.)

Depending on the complexity of the event it could be run with one engineer and one tech (if it's just put a logo up on an existing screen and don't change it then just a single person) but those were mostly just power points or similar. For most events that was switching, video playback, and maybe live camera that would go up to 4 or 5 (not including camera operators or their support people (shader, grip, ect.) That's an engineer (who may also switch, if not then an extra switcher) one or two graphics/playback people, and one or two projectionist/general techs for install/strike.

For larger events with lots more equipment, remote booths, and lots of content the number of techs on the video crew could shoot way higher. Oh and we also didn't make any content in house, it was all provided by clients. There is an editing bay but that's mostly just to configure logo's and videos to work with the system. Hard fast rules that not allowed to change modify content beyond that without client approval, in writing.

Now to loop this around a bit to a smaller community theater that I worked with recently. Their video team consisted of 3 people. 1 Engineer who did most of the work of creating the content, deciding what needed to go where, and programming it. Then 2 techs who kinda knew the rig who could assist with install and strike as well as operating. But it leaned really heavy on the engineer who did all the work. I hate situations with a single point of failure like that but as has been stated above people with those skills are few and far between and most won't put in the amount of hours needed for the small pay that most theaters can come up with.


----------



## gafftaper (Nov 12, 2016)

At my friend's high school PAC he's got a full fly system. They added a 30' screen with a single front and rear projector. They use it for showing a movie, video backgrounds for music groups, and projected backgrounds occasionally. But the majority of the time they still use traditional sets and drops. My feeling is, that's the way to go.


----------



## RickR (Nov 12, 2016)

A concept is forming in my mind of a place this might work. 

Several schools in my area have black box (sadly mostly used as drama class rooms, desks and all,) and TV studio spaces in addition to a proscenium theater. If a school were to create an animation/video curriculum then a performance venue for some of that work would be nice. It would also merge in with the green screen video applications. Adding some screen/projector capability to the black box would bring all these curriculum together, cross pollinating the learning and the separate student groups. 

Hmm, maybe needs more of a community college level program.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 12, 2016)

ruinexplorer said:


> What kind of lighting package are you considering? A good percentage of the video in live entertainment is controlled by the lighting desk. Not knowing what type of use this auditorium will have, this might be a consideration. The reason I mention this is that having control through the light console can sometimes simplify operation.



Supposedly Ion/Neo is what the district has been asking for in previous projects. Not necessarily what this project will use but is what the district is accustomed to. From what I've heard so far the district wants all LED, but if projection is involved my recommendation would be more ellipsoidals and fewer wash fixtures to avoid issues with spill -- or wash fixtures with a healthy stock of louvres, barn doors, and top hats. If they deployed the downstage scrim often, that would put more pressure on the side lighting requirements.

Where it becomes tricky is that some times the RP would be used for video, and other times for lighting-by-video. I don't see this type of application calling for full-powered media server -- and I think going that route would make building the simulation lab more costly and difficult -- but they do need to be able to use the RP screen as a cyc without having to first set up all kinds of gradients up in Photoshop first and then dropping them into a Qlab stack.


gafftaper said:


> Mike I didn't make an important point earlier. I work a 35-40 hour week and I barely have enough time for booking rentals, building sets, and doing maintenance as it is. I've considered installing a rear projection system and at the top of my concerns is I would need that system to be REALLY easy to operate. I would need to be able to tell people bring in photos of a specific resolution and quickly plug them into my software for playback. My rental clients would love it, but most of them struggle to afford more than about 5 hours of rehearsal AND show. As for our own school productions I would love to work with our art and photography teachers to have kids create backgrounds. But again it's got to be really quick and easy to setup and use.



This functionality would be part of the presentation system using the front projector and a motorized screen. Unless they swap lenses to do a full proscenium width image this part of the system would be fairly static so if the principal comes in and needs to do a presentation it doesn't get in the way of the show and vise versa.

However, if they wanted to show a large movie on the RP then I would want a functionality of being able to spit a single HDMI connection into the system and use a preset to define the image scaling and position on the surface so that everyone in the theater had an unobstructed view of the image in a presentation/film scenario. Whereas in a scenery application the farthest left/right seats would have partially obstructed views of the image just as you would see with a backdrop.

I would want to see infrastructure throughout the theater for being able to deploy projectors elsewhere. This puts more pressure on the TD though because in the rigging frames these things would weigh 200lbs/ea and every time the rear projectors get used somewhere else they would have be reinstalled, aligned, and blended when they got put back. Obviously something this person would have to be familiar with regardless but it's time suck whenever it has to be done.

This school does have a built in CCTV studio and media center. That could help provide additional support to this type of program or it could end up being a bunch of students recording infomercials and poorly cut together newscasts.


----------



## Footer (Nov 12, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> This functionality would be part of the presentation system using the front projector and a motorized screen. Unless they swap lenses to do a full proscenium width image this part of the system would be fairly static so if the principal comes in and needs to do a presentation it doesn't get in the way of the show and vise versa.
> 
> However, if they wanted to show a large movie on the RP then I would want a functionality of being able to spit a single HDMI connection into the system and use a preset to define the image scaling and position on the surface so that everyone in the theater had an unobstructed view of the image in a presentation/film scenario. Whereas in a scenery application the farthest left/right seats would have partially obstructed views of the image just as you would see with a backdrop.
> 
> I would want to see infrastructure throughout the theater for being able to deploy projectors elsewhere. *This puts more pressure on the TD though because in the rigging frames these things would weigh 200lbs/ea and every time the rear projectors get used somewhere else they would have be reinstalled, aligned, and blended when they got put back. Obviously something this person would have to be familiar with regardless but it's time suck whenever it has to be done.*



Oh man. I hate this even more right now. You are asking a kid out of college who built scenery in a converted gym to come in a deal with this kind of system is rather insane. Let alone someone with a theatre ed degree. 

I remember my days teaching at a VERY well funded performing arts magnet school. You barely had time to make sure the kids were doing stuff and you had enough lesson plans together to keep moving. With that too the idea of teaching someone who knows nothing about scenic design how to design only digitally is insane. Scenic design is a lot more then just pictures. We gave up drop and leg design years ago for a reason. I remember my kids getting getting hung up on moving lights. We taught the technology but they got overwhelmed with it because they didn't know the basics yet.... so it was used just to be used. I'm not against projected scenery but it is rather varsity level stuff. Its great to have the capability but it should not be the only way forward.


----------



## Rose Steele (Feb 27, 2017)

Thanks for all who contributed to this thread; I'm on a design team debating the same decision and this is great information, particularly the fact that this discussion is out there and so many of you working in relevant facilities have contributed.


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 27, 2017)

Hi Rose,

Just as a quick update on where my project is that was being discussed here. We did a demo with the Panasonic 13K 3-chip DLP lasers. Everyone was thrilled and thought it looked great and in the 2x2 configuration we were looking at, if we were going to do projection, that would be a good way to go. It was at that point everyone was ready for the hard conversation about the long-term viability, maintenance, and system life-cycle costs in the 6-figures.

We eventually landed on a catwalk system with removable floor sections that allowed the single projector used as part of the presentation system to be readily deployed on-stage with an ultra short throw lens, versus at the back of the theater with a long throw lens for presentations where it would live most of the time.

Project is still in the design phase and likely to change. Possibility we'll resurrect the 2x2 13K projector concept for one of the next schools. Sounding like one of the next ones in the pipeline may be specifically a performing arts school with curriculum and facilities tailored to heavier, more in-depth use with the staffing and student commitment to take advantage of this caliber of opportunity. On the other hand, if that much money is available I can think of a dozen other ways to provide a diverse, well-rounded opportunity for the students than spending $250K on a projection system only a handful of students will be able to become familiar with to any depth over the course of a school year.


----------



## Rose Steele (Feb 28, 2017)

Thanks Mike, this is all great info. So you decided on catwalks over the stage in lieu of fly tower, or do you mean one of the FOH catwalks? And you also have a back of the stage location? A "garage" in the rear wall, or.....? We did the garage concept once but it needed ventilation, as it was an enclosed box, essentially


----------



## icewolf08 (Feb 28, 2017)

Some other things to think about. If you present a "digital scenery" option as a way to counter the cost of a fly loft, what else does the client hear? Well, it sounds like we also don't need a big scene shop, if we are going to project scenery, we don't need power tools and shop space, so we save more money on space and on liability.

Just like that, in one swoop, you have inadvertently eliminated all the stagecraft opportunity from the curriculum. Then, 5-10 years down the road, when the projection system is in disrepair and someone wants to build a real set, they will be fighting for closet space and a table saw. You brush off future serviceability of your proposal ans not a great concern, or not you problem now, but how many theatres have you walked into and wished that the designer had thought about the long term applications of the design? You can't design for today and hope that everything will be peachy tomorrow. You need to design for tomorrow.

Consider also that no matter what height you build the loft, you need either a fly system, or manual or automated winches. Dead-hung drapes of any kind are the bane of any theatre. You need to be able to trim softgoods, you need to be able to store your projection surface in a way that doesn't damage it, and you need to be able to manipulate placement of goods. You also need a way to move electrics. By lowering the ceiling height, all you are really doing is bringing your problems closer to the floor.

Another thought on digital scenery.... There are far more people in the world who can help and teach children to design and construct traditional scenery. Not to mention that traditional stagecraft teaches useful life skills.

I am not against teaching and using digital scenery in general, but I don't think it is something that many high schools have the infrastructure to support. It isnt even something you see offered at all of the top college level theatre programs because it is not an easy program to support. Don't forget that most high schools don't even have people who understand how a lighting console works beyond pushing up the fader that turns the lights on for the band concert. It seems like a long stretch to hope that a digital projection system is going to be something that could be understood and used on a regular basis.


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 28, 2017)

Probably will end up with catwalks and something that feels more like a black box with a lecture hall finish than a true proscenium theater. Needed to shave 8 figures off of the campus cost and downsizing the campus and the scaling back the theater was the only way to make it so they could have a theater at all. We can justify projection that's based off of the presentation projector they'll have in place no matter what, with a little extra support infrastructure. Cannot justify a speciality projection system.

Haven't begun massing the revised concept for the theater yet but the plan is to give them a large scene shop. Next school/theater going up in the district that goes into design as soon as this one's slab is poured will likely be performing arts school and would be built under a "school-supported roadhouse" model. If this first school has shows that exceed the size of their stage, they'll have the scene shop space to build their show at their own school and transport it over to the performing arts school for performances.

Before we went through VE, I concluded the Panasonics with the ultra short throw lenses were the only viable, albeit expensive, solution that would not leave an absurd amount of dead space upstage of the cyc that would cut into possible crossover and shop space. Because these lenses illuminate a rear surface unevenly, they would have to be front projected in something that would look like this:




In this scenario, what would otherwise have been dead space behind the cyc becomes dead space in front of it, that for non-projection events could be trapped-over and used for extra floor space. I would refer to this as the "if you were going to do it, this would be the most efficient use of floor space" option, which has obvious shortcomings in usability. As opposed to doing conventional rear projection, this option avoided some 21' of dead-space between the cyc and the upstage wall if rear projection with standard short throw lenses was done. Saving all of 6' of throw distance with mirror structures and rear projection would've been like $115K in and of itself and was not viable.

Obviously, not a completed nor is it an elegant solution. For the time being though, I'm not exploring a specialty digital backdrop system any further.


----------



## ALT2870 (Mar 8, 2017)

As mentioned, digital media in theatre is still in it's infancy. We decided to try it out this year and we learned a few things.

1.) It is a complement to scenery on stage, not the other way around. Having a stage with just a projection looks boring and empty. (Okay, we knew that, but I want to throw that out there.)

2.) While we used professional projections, at least for the school I work at, those can be done in house. It's a great chance for other parts of the school to get involved and we plan on doing this next year if we move forward with the idea.

3.) If you have the budget, get a projector that can throw enough lumens out. We could only afford a 7k one, and that was pushing it. Many lights push out 12k to 20k, but projectors that can match that are prohibitively expensive.

Overall we felt that is was a good investment for the show. The only thing that we truly didn't buy was the system that translated between the light board and the projector. It is called an ImageCue and that is very new technology that we were not sure of. However based on feedback from cast, crew, and audience, we feel that it it could be a very worthwhile investment in the future. Here is a link so you can get an idea of what things look like: https://www.facebook.com/GSHSTheatreProgram/posts/583095248562502

I should mention for our space we DO NOT have a fly system. Rather set pieces are stored in the wings and rolled on and off.

This technology has a long ways to go but I do feel that it will be the next big thing. It is cool to be part of something new. But, the flip side is that you know if you invest in it now, it will be outdated with a matter of years.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Mar 8, 2017)

On lumens: Don't forget that 2 and 3 projector convergence racks still exist.

In fact, I'd bet the people who aren't using slide projectors anymore be *happy* to sell you theirs, *really cheap*.


----------



## RonHebbard (Mar 8, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> On lumens: Don't forget that 2 and 3 projector convergence racks still exist.
> 
> In fact, I'd bet the people who aren't using slide projectors anymore be *happy* to sell you theirs, *really cheap*.


Are you suggesting there are traitorous individuals among us who've moved away from their trusty Kodak's?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard
(Who still has a collection of 10 AF2's and B2's in his wife's basement right next to a pair of AVL Coyotes and a stack of three Doves.)


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Mar 8, 2017)

Heathen!


----------

