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

Re: Wide screen cinema vs fulldome

Expand Messages
  • aaronbradbury
    ... A film shot in stereo should be shown so as to reproduce for the audience as well as possible the camera field of view. Trying to force a conventionally
    Message 1 of 10 , May 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In fulldome@yahoogroups.com, "dd4skyart" wrote:

      A film shot in stereo should be shown so as to reproduce for the
      audience as well as possible the camera field of view. Trying to 'force'
      a conventionally filmed scene to fill too much of the dome is a mistake.
      Unless it such a scene is projected to imitate a conventional theater it
      will be terribly distorted, and how well a limited FOV projection would
      compare with a conventional projection setup is open to question.

      In general I don't like what fulldome 3D imposes on the choices of
      scenes we might want to use in shows. There seems to be an 'obligation'
      to have a foreground object or some other thing that shows the depth,
      partly to justify the use of the format.

      In my experience this generally meant having a spacecraft always in
      the foreground, with the target planet, background stars, etc. all being
      at 'infinity', defined by the dome radius and viewer position.

      Rendering the foreground twice was done with twin cameras
      perpendicularly aligned to the subject of interest. The stereo breaks
      down at and beyond 45 degrees from your camera pointing direction, but
      is maintained along the forward vertical axis to and beyond the zenith
      as far as one can tilt ones view upwards. This means limiting any
      foreground spacecraft, including their long antennas, booms etc to that
      'zone'. Camera moves were designed accordingly.

      Depth perception in digitally modeled planetary landscapes that I
      moved the camera across looked better all around than I expected based
      on the above considerations. But there is no stereo information near
      each cameras view of the other camera, 90 degrees left and right.
      > The content was produced to align its horizon with the true horizon
      when projected in a 22.5 degree tilted dome. I think tilted domes are
      where stereo should be considered, where the audience is looking more or
      less toward the same center of attention.

      The initial 3D movie wave of the 50s fumbled with cheap 'look, I'm in
      3D' gimmickry with few notable works left behind. Now we are in a robust
      revival of cinematic 3D, with varying results. Clever use of depth
      perception can do amazing things and it will be intriguing to see what
      emerges as more try their hands at it on the dome.

      I can see especially great potential in 3D for teaching concepts
      using diagrammatic stereo computer simulations, even of a vector graphic
      nature, of dynamic processes like convection, air movements, galaxy
      evolution and such, shown as bright centrally placed content in
      otherwise black backgrounds.

      Don Davis

      ===

      Regarding wide-screen to fulldome conversion:
      I agree that conversions of giant screen 3D footage to fulldome 3D is
      problematic.
      4) Guidelines. What are comfortable guidelines for 3D
      flat-to-fulldomeconversion that producers and distributors can "blindly"
      follow and beassured of good results for most any 3D film? Or is a 3D
      flatscreen filmbest left for the flat screen? (Ed Lantz)
      Fulldome 3D is a big leap from flat-screen 3D, and having worked in both
      formats I would probably not enjoy the task of trying to make flatscreen
      work in fulldome. I would also say that it's not out of the question,
      maybe the tools to make this possible just haven't been developed yet. I
      haven't seen Space Junk, so I can't comment from personal experience,
      but it sounds like Paul had a pretty bad experience, and where diverging
      eyes are concerned, this doesn't have to be to extreme to give people
      headaches. I guess we're stuck in that awkward place at the moment where
      people are trying to push the boundaries and figure out the ways to make
      it work and the results are having a negative impact, thus hindering
      progression. It's a bit of a catch-22, but it may only takes a few
      really good moments and clever ideas to really get the ball rolling.
      Regarding general fulldome 3D:
      >In general I don't like what fulldome 3D imposes on the choices of
      scenes wemight want to use in shows. There seems to be an 'obligation'
      to have aforeground object or some other thing that shows the depth,
      partly to justifythe use of the format. (Don Davis)
      Fulldome 3D is definitely a different process to fulldome 2D. There are
      many other forces at work and many other options available. I prefer to
      think of these as exciting challenges rather than imposed obstructions.
      At NSC Creative, we pick our moments for 3D, so I wouldn't say that we
      are pushing the stereoscopic effects in every shot. I think it helps to
      have a mixture of wide open shots and some of the more intimate 3D
      moments. There is even a time and a place for the poking-the-audience
      effect if the motivation is right.
      Interestingly, we find that a lot of our ideas for 3D compositions are
      actually similar to that of those which aren't in 3D. When producing We
      Are Aliens in 3D, we thought about it stereoscopically right from the
      script through to the lighting and post effects. Considering this, we
      still needed to be sure we were making the best possible show for a 2D
      audience (the majority), but we made very few compromises between the
      two.
      >And still, there no real library 3-D fulldome content to show.
      Untilthere are more 3-D (stereo) fulldome theaters, the content is
      simplytoo expensive to produce. Supporters of 3-D Fulldome point out
      thatthe same was true for the first few fulldome theaters. However, the
      cost/benefit ratio is a much steeper climb for 3-D fulldome. 3-D
      sounds great as a PR device, but, in reality, I fear it is an
      expensive dead-end.(Philip Groce)
      I describe my first experience of fulldome 3D at IPS in Chicago as a
      spiritual one. It has been a driving force behind my own personal work
      and the 3D work we do at NSC Creative. We've spent a huge amount of time
      and money on figuring it all out, working with people from all over the
      world. It's is a big mountain to climb in terms of challenges, but the
      pay-off for me is worth the sweat.
      Clever use of depth perception can doamazing things and it will be
      intriguing to see what emerges as more try theirhands at it on the dome.
      (Don Davis)
      I am very excited about this. With more 3D domes popping up and more
      shows being created in 3D, fulldome 3D will hopefully continue to
      develop beyond it's infancy into something very special.
      Regards,
      Aaron Bradbury

      CG Supervisor - NSC creative
      National Space Centre, Exploration Drive, Leicester, LE4 5NS, UK
      Tel: +44 (0) 116 2582151
      http://www.NSCcreative.com/ <http://www.nsccreative.com/>
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.