Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1128Re: ...you say 'uni', i say 'omni'...

Expand Messages
  • Mark C. Petersen
    Sep 22, 2006
      At 05:31 PM 22-09-06, Erik Roberts typed:

      >Does anyone else feel the need for a subheading on the
      >Wiki ( - what a great resource it has quickly become! - )
      >to clarify the situation regarding uni and omni
      >directional theaters and shows?

      No need to clarify any "situation regarding uni and omni directional
      theaters" -- because there isn't one.

      If you're referring to seating arrays, there are basically three:

      concentric -- curved rows of seats facing center

      epicentric -- curved rows of seats facing front

      unidirectional -- straight rows of seats facing front

      There are a few weird combos and other variations, but basically you
      have those three. Front-facing seating arrays greatly outnumber
      concentric in fulldome theaters. They do in non-fulldome traditional
      planetarium theaters too.

      If a theater had seats that each spun around on their own axis like
      barstools, that might qualify as "omnidirectional", but I don't think
      you'll find many of those -- which is why nobody uses the term, other
      than for microphone pickup patterns.

      Aside -- what I want to see someday is a tilt-dome theater with
      concentric seating.

      (Pause for mental images to form....) (Ta-pum-PUM!)

      >In view of the fact that OmniMax is the opposite of
      >omni-directional, that the Hayden, Einstein and my
      >local planetarium in Brisbane are omni,

      The Albert Einstein Planetarium in Washington DC has epicentric seating.

      >but there may be untold creative applications in the
      >future which could require concentric viewing.

      Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime, you go where the market is.

      >It seems bizarre to me that the way the seats are arranged
      >dictates the way the images are composed.

      It seems perfectly logical to me. You put your imagery where the
      audiences are looking.

      >The visualisers of the future may wish to utilize the full 360-degree space

      If they want most of their audiences to actually see most of their
      work, they may not.

      >as it links us to the past and mimics our primal experience.

      I don't know about past linkages. And I can't say I've felt
      particularly primal in theaters I've been in recently. This may be a
      good thing for those sitting in my vicinity too. :-)

      "In a darkened theater of strangers, the last thing you want to have
      is a "hands-on experience".

      >I guess I'm asking - as a newbie, I hasten to add - are flat,
      >untilted omni-directional an extinct species of fulldome already
      >(BTW - thanks Ryan for explaining how to spell 'fulldome')
      >or can the industry accommodate two modes of production
      >and reception?

      Not extinct, yet, but in the minority already, and their numbers
      continue a downward trend as the majority of newer fulldome theaters
      are built with front-facing seating.

      There's no "industry accommodation" to be had between concentric and
      front-facing theaters; you can have one or the other, either/or. As
      discussed in a previous thread, shows produced for audiences the
      round differ from those produced for audiences facing the same
      way. Not everyone has the budget to render two (or more) different
      versions of their shows. That's what it would take for "accommodation".

      >> Mark

      Mark C. Petersen
      Loch Ness Productions
      ___________ GEODESIUM _____________
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic