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

Which is it?

Expand Messages
  • Mark C. Petersen
    Curious -- what is (shall be) the preferred term: 1) full dome video 2) all dome video 3) whole dome video 4) the hyphenated variant of one of the above? 5)
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 5, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Curious -- what is (shall be) the preferred term:

      1) full dome video

      2) all dome video

      3) whole dome video

      4) the hyphenated variant of one of the above?

      5) something else

      6) call it anything except a planetarium... ;-)

      Inquiring minds want to know...

      Well, back to rendering for our full/all/whole dome demos for IPS. If all
      goes well, not only will our vendor demo be done in SkyVision, we intend to
      premiere Sky Quest at the SkyVision film fest....

      Thanks for the feedback!

      >> Mark
      ______________________________________________
      Mark C. Petersen mark@...
      Loch Ness Productions http://www.lochness.com
      __________________________ GEODESIUM _________
    • Ryan Wyatt
      ... And then listed several options for how to refer to fulldome video. :) As the title of the list (and the preceding sentence) suggests, I m all for the
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 8, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Petersen asked:
        >Curious -- what is (shall be) the preferred term:

        And then listed several options for how to refer to fulldome video. :)

        As the title of the list (and the preceding sentence) suggests, I'm
        all for the phrase "fulldome," and following WiReD's egrammar
        arrogance, I choose to omit the hyphen. (Following AP Style or the
        Chicago Manual of Style, or for that matter, Strunk and White, one
        should hyphenate two conjoined words that are then used as an
        adjective. For example, "the cutting-edge technology" or "a
        messed-up video signal.")

        Thus, my personal preferences, in order: "fulldome," "full-dome,"
        "alldome," or "all-dome." I can't say why I prefer "full" to "all,"
        except that "full" suggests *filling* the dome, which appeals to me.
        "Wholedome" doesn't sound right to my ears.

        Nice to know that grammar discussions aren't limited to DOME-L.

        Mark also wrote:
        >If all goes well, not only will our vendor demo be done in
        >SkyVision, we intend to premiere Sky Quest at the SkyVision film
        >fest....

        Excellent news! Looks like there will be a lot to see at the
        SkyVision festival!


        Ryan Wyatt, Science Visualizer
        Rose Center for Earth & Space
        American Museum of Natural History
        79th Street & Central Park West
        New York, NY 10024
        212.313.7903 vox
        212.313.7868 fax
      • Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC
        Mark, Hi, I opt for Full Dome Video System. I don t have one - yet - but that terminology seems adequate. It also implies that more than one projector is
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 8, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark,
          Hi,
          I opt for Full Dome Video System. I don't have one - yet - but that terminology seems adequate. It also implies that more than one projector is provding the image. All though the 6 projector slide systems many of us have are simply refered to as the "all sky" or at least ours is. Maybe we should have called it an "all sky slide system"? Should we classify systems by amount of dome covered and the format used? That way the name describes the format, the amount of dome covered and single or multiple projectors in use.

          See you in Wichita.

          Mickey

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mark C. Petersen [mailto:mark@...]
          Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:45 AM
          To: fulldome@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [fulldome] Which is it?


          Curious -- what is (shall be) the preferred term:

          1) full dome video

          2) all dome video

          3) whole dome video

          4) the hyphenated variant of one of the above?

          5) something else

          6) call it anything except a planetarium... ;-)

          Inquiring minds want to know...

          Well, back to rendering for our full/all/whole dome demos for IPS. If all
          goes well, not only will our vendor demo be done in SkyVision, we intend to
          premiere Sky Quest at the SkyVision film fest....

          Thanks for the feedback!

          >> Mark
          ______________________________________________
          Mark C. Petersen mark@...
          Loch Ness Productions http://www.lochness.com
          __________________________ GEODESIUM _________
        • Christine
          ... Like many others, I m waiting hopefully for the day (year) when fulldome on a large dome can be achieved with a single projector, so I don t think the
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 8, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > I opt for Full Dome Video System. I don't have one - yet - but that
            > terminology seems adequate. It also implies that more than one
            > projector is provding the image. All though the 6 projector slide
            > systems many of us have are simply refered to as the "all sky" or
            > at least ours is. Maybe we should have called it an "all sky slide
            > system"? Should we classify systems by amount of dome covered
            > and the format used? That way the name describes the format,
            > the amount of dome covered and single or multiple projectors
            > in use.

            Like many others, I'm waiting hopefully for the day (year) when fulldome
            on a large dome can be achieved with a single projector, so I don't think
            the number of projectors should be relevant. But Mikey brings up an
            excellent point. Perhaps the term "fulldome" will reduce the confusion
            with "allskies"; I have discussed planetarium technology with a few
            people who have confused the two.

            Christine Shupla
            Planetarium Director
            Arizona Science Center
            (602) 716-2078
            shuplac@...
          • ryan_j_wyatt
            Alex Barnett (alexb@spacecentre.co.uk) has had some trouble ... I ll note briefly that I thought about this when I created this list. My prejudice for fulldome
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 8, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Alex Barnett (alexb@...) has had some trouble
              posting messages, but she passed this on to me to post:

              > And for those of us that are partial domes.......?
              > Can we think of a more inclusive term cause some of us
              > are really sick of being thought of as second class citizens
              > because we don't have the capital funds and technicians
              > to maintain a boatload of video projectors.....<big grin>

              I'll note briefly that I thought about this when I created this list.
              My prejudice for fulldome video is well-documented, so I won't
              make myself out to be totally egalitarian, but I honestly did want
              to be inclusive. I wasn't creative enough to come up with
              a snappy name, however.

              "Immersive video" seems to me the simplest means of
              referring to the larger set of systems that cover significant
              proportions of the audience's field of view. "Fulldome video"
              would then be a subset of the "immersive video" family.


              Ryan Wyatt, Science Visualizer
              Rose Center for Earth & Space
              American Museum of Natural History
              79th Street & Central Park West
              New York, NY 10024
              212.313.7903 vox
              212.313.7868 fax
            • Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC
              Well now, we have different parameters. I thought only about full dome earlier but we can and should be more inclusive. It seems to me Spitz has a several
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 9, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Well now, we have different parameters. I thought only about full dome
                earlier but we can and should be more inclusive. It seems to me Spitz
                has a several sky coverage systems ranging from horizon to their
                Electric Sky.

                So we have a whole class of digital projection systems. To be all
                inclusive it suppose it would include simple (relative term in this context)
                such as those capable of mono-chrome, wire frame drawings (vector
                graphics) i.e.Digistar and also include the more impressive raster
                systems.

                The smallest projection system would be a single or several
                stand-alone projectors at the rear of the theater producing as large
                an image as possible ranging from a horizon system or video pan
                system to something like an Ominmax type coverage (about 60%
                of the dome) to full dome 100% of the dome. Are there hyperdome
                systems?

                Inclusion of all these users would allow for topics of discussion by all,
                those wishing to reach every market with their products could design
                their products to be sectioned out for each of the various formats.
                If that is the case, then I think it becomes important that an industry
                standard is achieved. My understanding is that Spitz, Sky Skan, and
                Evans & Sutherland have some compatability. I understand that SGI
                systems (in the Rose Center and soon to be in Denver) are not
                compatible with the aforementioned products. I cannot speak to
                Minolta, Goto or other systems at this time.

                As a group we should express the need for system standards and
                publish a list or an article describing how close the various
                manufactures are to some sort of universal standard? Or at least
                how much image rectification must be dome to move between the
                various systems.

                That would be a start.

                Mickey
              • Ryan Wyatt
                Mickey correctly identified the need for standards. In the process ... First off, we don t have an SGI system per se. In addition, I d say the Rose Center
                Message 7 of 7 , Jul 9, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mickey correctly identified the need for standards. In the process
                  of describing the need for such standards, he wrote:

                  >My understanding is that Spitz, Sky Skan, and Evans & Sutherland
                  >have some compatability. I understand that SGI systems (in the Rose
                  >Center and soon to be in Denver) are not compatible with the
                  >aforementioned products.

                  First off, we don't have an "SGI system" per se. In addition, I'd
                  say the Rose Center has managed a fair degree of compatibility with
                  other systems so far.

                  To the first point... We have an SGI Onyx that is used as one source
                  (among many) feeding an array of seven SeOS projectors with geometric
                  correction and edge-blending done in real time. The integration work
                  was not done by SGI, to the best of my knowledge; instead, much of
                  the effort that went into creating a coherent system has been done
                  in-house and by the folks at Trimension. Also, the SGI is not used
                  to run shows. It *is* used for astronomical research, for content
                  creation, and as a real-time feed running software created by NCSA
                  and other collaborators.

                  The fulldome system (software plus hardware) we have in place here is
                  as unique as the Rose Center. I can't speak to Denver's situation,
                  but I know that their approach differs from ours not insignificantly.

                  Secondly -- and more importantly -- the system here is "compatible"
                  with others' insofar as we could easily take an
                  appropriately-formatted playback program created for Sky-Skan's or
                  Spitz's or E&S's system and convert it to run on ours. We haven't
                  done this explicitly, but we have done effectively the same thing,
                  using "dome masters" to create a program that runs in our theater.
                  We have obviously done the reverse, taking portions of "Passport to
                  the Universe" and "The Search for Life" and adapting them to run on
                  Sky-Skan's SkyVision system in Albuquerque (see my posting from 20
                  June, "Fulldome at the American Astronomical Society Meeting").

                  So to what degree is that "not compatible"? Not significantly, in
                  the quotidian sense. Unless you want to do flexible, real-time
                  activities with software based on NCSA's CAVE libraries... Then you
                  need an SGI or something similar. :)

                  Anyway, dome masters are the closest thing to a standard we have at
                  this point. A dome master is simply a circular fisheye-ish view of
                  the entire dome. I think Spitz, Sky-Skan, and E&S can all deal with
                  dome masters; I know we can.

                  >I cannot speak to Minolta, Goto or other systems at this time.

                  Minolta's system is theoretically compatible with the others
                  mentioned so far -- the MediaGlobe should be able to take dome
                  masters and create a program that will run on the system. At this
                  juncture, however, we should discuss theory versus practice!

                  In mid-June, Minolta kindly set up a MediaGlobe on the sixth floor of
                  the Rose Center, and we used the opportunity to try creating a few
                  movies for the MediaGlobe to play. With a brief period of
                  experimentation, we weren't able to create appropriately-formatted
                  files to run on the MediaGlobe. More time would have helped, and we
                  hope to try something out soon. The folks at STScI have created
                  sequences that run just dandy on the MediaGlobe, so I don't think
                  this is a serious problem -- just a snag.

                  In our experiments with SkyVision, we've had a few problems with file
                  formats for the dome masters: currently, each image requires an
                  additional conversion step before it can be read by the SkyVision
                  software.

                  So, what works fine in theory always requires practice to work out the bugs...

                  >Or at least how much image rectification must be dome to move
                  >between the various systems.

                  Here are some of the challenges, off the top of my head...

                  + recommended resolutions
                  + compression codecs
                  + color preservation
                  + gamma tests / black levels
                  + frame rate
                  + file format for dome masters

                  I'm sure there are many more! And Mickey's absolutely correct in
                  saying that we need to start discussing standards with some
                  seriousness.

                  Thanks for reading!


                  Ryan Wyatt, Science Visualizer
                  Rose Center for Earth & Space
                  American Museum of Natural History
                  79th Street & Central Park West
                  New York, NY 10024
                  212.313.7903 vox
                  212.313.7868 fax
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.