News Soarin' Over California returning to EPCOT for a limited time

[vikescaper]

Maybe in an effort to make the transitions better, they could add an IP to Soarin’. I hereby propose Soarin’ Around the World/Over California with Doctor Strange. Doctor Strange could open portals to transport you to the next scene……

 

[DisneyCane]

I’ll meekly out myself as someone who likes World and actually prefers it to California.

As they say, "different strokes for different folks!"

 

[flynnibus]

People forget that the original was only known as Soarin until SATW was introduced. Then the original got rebranded to suit DCA.

No, it was always called Soarin' Over California in DCA.

 

[Piebald]

Id prefer world if it wasn't so heavy on the CGI. Also Eiffel tower lol

 

[flynnibus]

The same distortions are there in the original film; they are an unavoidable result of the screen’s curvature. You just don’t notice them as much because most of the scenes are of nature rather than architecture.

They are avoidable/minimizable with digital editing - they just choose not to. It's the reverse of animorphic lens. You also pick footage/scenes based on your camera and display format... this is why directors of photography have jobs. They chose to ignore it here and the redonkulus output we have is the result.

 

[osian]

They are avoidable/minimizable with digital editing - they just choose not to. It's the reverse of animorphic lens. You also pick footage/scenes based on your camera and display format... this is why directors of photography have jobs. They chose to ignore it here and the redonkulus output we have is the result.

You think a straight line can be "digitally edited" so that it looks straight from every seat across the whole width and height of a curved screen? What would a straight line look like after it's been digitally edited? I get what you say about anamorphic lenses on curved screens (which is actually what they do) but like the 3D chalk art on the pavements they will produce an undistorted picture from one point only.

 

[LittleBuford]

They are avoidable/minimizable with digital editing - they just choose not to.

Could you specify what techniques they could use?

 

[Drdcm]

I don’t know if this would work, never been a lens or physics guy, but what would happen if they made the screen more cylindrical instead of spherical?

Obviously they would need the screen to be larger and people closer so people’s peripheral vision doesn’t take in the screen edge… just random shower thoughts I had last night…

 

[osian]

They are avoidable/minimizable with digital editing - they just choose not to. It's the reverse of animorphic lens. You also pick footage/scenes based on your camera and display format... this is why directors of photography have jobs. They chose to ignore it here and the redonkulus output we have is the result.

Please see this article about projecting inside a dome and also this Wikipedia article about IMAX/Omnimax/Dome. I'm confident that the producers of Soarin, in all its incarnations, have done technically whatever optical and digital correction is necessary for both filmed and rendered footage, including taking into account that the projector is in a different place from the viewer (like the extreme correction that short-throw projectors have to do), to ensure as much clarity and as little distortion as possible from such a large image, as all dome projection systems have done for several decades. But there can only ever be one focal point, or as the article puts it, a sweet spot.

I don't know if Soarin is officially an Omnimax product/technique but, regardless of the product, you cannae change the laws of physics. All dome projection systems will work the same way.

However, I do agree with you that the choice of material was probably a mistake. Too many objects with recognisable, defined shapes that will look wrong when bent, even the sailing boats and those poor polar bears.

Quotes:

There is only one position for the viewer that results in a perfectly undistorted view of the scene, generally the center of the hemisphere. In this position straight lines should appear straight, in all other positions straight lines will appear to curve. It is possible to move this correct viewing position to anywhere, outside the scope of this workshop, but the technique is generally called “offaxis fisheye”.

The dome system...uses films shot with a camera equipped with a fisheye lens that squeezes a highly distorted anamorphic 180° field of view onto the 65 mm IMAX film. The lens is aligned below the center of the frame, and most of the bottom half of the circular field falls beyond the edge of the film. The part of the field that would fall below the edge of the dome is masked. When filming, the camera is aimed upward at an angle that matches the tilt of the dome. When projected through a matching fisheye lens onto a dome, the original panoramic view is recreated. Omnimax wraps 180° horizontally, 100° above the horizon and 22° below the horizon for a viewer at the center of the dome. [See also the illustarion of the shape of the image that is registered onto the film].

 

[osian]

I don’t know if this would work, never been a lens or physics guy, but what would happen if they made the screen more cylindrical instead of spherical?

Obviously they would need the screen to be larger and people closer so people’s peripheral vision doesn’t take in the screen edge… just random shower thoughts I had last night…

I think it would solve the problem in one plane. In this case if you mean like the orientation of a curved monitor or TV, then vertical lines would be OK but horizontal ones would be bent. Horizontal lines above you would be a smile and those below you would be sad...

 

[flynnibus]

You think a straight line can be "digitally edited" so that it looks straight from every seat across the whole width and height of a curved screen? What would a straight line look like after it's been digitally edited? I get what you say about anamorphic lenses on curved screens (which is actually what they do) but like the 3D chalk art on the pavements they will produce an undistorted picture from one point only.

See my post… minimized. Obviously the closer you are to the screen, looking across the screen is going to distort your view of long straight lines…. Thats just geometry.

And like i said… they knew what the presentation format was… they just didn’t account for it in their choice of photography.

 

[flynnibus]

Could you specify what techniques they could use?

Go watch the disney+ show on the mandalorian and look at the volume. It’s basically the same concept but the volume does it in real time with a changing point of perspective

 

[flynnibus]

I don’t know if this would work, never been a lens or physics guy, but what would happen if they made the screen more cylindrical instead of spherical?

They use a dome so the screen is more uniformly lit and in focus. Doing a cylinder would rerequire stitching projectors together and dealing with hot spots in overlap

 

[lazyboy97o]

They use a dome so the screen is more uniformly lit and in focus. Doing a cylinder would rerequire stitching projectors together and dealing with hot spots in overlap

I’m fairly certain the switch to digital involved multiple projectors. If not, it’s otherwise pretty much standard with other flying theaters.

 

[LittleBuford]

Go watch the disney+ show on the mandalorian and look at the volume. It’s basically the same concept but the volume does it in real time with a changing point of perspective

The point is that it’s impossible to project something on a curved screen and have it look simultaneously undistorted from all angles.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Go watch the disney+ show on the mandalorian and look at the volume. It’s basically the same concept but the volume does it in real time with a changing point of perspective

In the volume, the digital picture is altered so it always looks correct from wherever the camera is. Everywhere else, they see the distortion.

So, we could get Soarin' to look perfect, if only for one person!!

 

[flynnibus]

The point is that it’s impossible to project something on a curved screen and have it look simultaneously undistorted from all angles.

And read the message again… did i ever say it would be perfect?

The current scene sucks from all chairs and nevwr should have been in the film from the beginning

 

[flynnibus]

In the volume, the digital picture is altered so it always looks correct from wherever the camera is. Everywhere else, they see the distortion.

So, we could get Soarin' to look perfect, if only for one person!!

Yes perfection or go home. /s

Meanwhile peoole asked how its done… rather than waste my time repeating existing knowledge people can go read/watch for themselves.

Of course what we have now is horrible for all viewers… and yet… they released the product.

 

[flynnibus]

I’m fairly certain the switch to digital involved multiple projectors. If not, it’s otherwise pretty much standard with other flying theaters.

Yes didn’t say it was impossible- just introduces other challenges… and why spheres are easier than a column (the question posed)

 

[LittleBuford]

And read the message again… did i ever say it would be perfect?

You wrote, “They are avoidable/minimizable with digital editing - they just choose not to.” That just isn’t true.

The current scene sucks from all chairs and nevwr should have been in the film from the beginning

That’s an entirely different point.