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

[Bocabear]

A California theme only in Soarin and Epcot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It was arguably the best version of the ride... but no reason (aside from money) they could not do a better film...or even have a "Soarin' over Florida" version... The state, while not as dramatic as the landscape of California is still pretty diverse...

 

[zombiebbq]

I wish I could take a trip just to Epcot for this! My families' favorite ride back in the day.

 

[Fox&Hound]

If you didn’t tell guests it was California I wonder how many would even notice sure there are some obvious ones like point Loma, the Golden Gate Bridge, or Disneyland but other settings are just pretty generic like orange groves or rivers or beaches that could ideally be found anywhere.

 

[flynnibus]

This is not relevant to solving Soarin's distortion issues. It already has scenes filmed or generated from a particular point of view (which I think is the technique that you're trying to describe) and the ride vehicle does not move through the auditorium which would necessitate the scene to be regenerated.

The referenced post you are referring to is to highlight simply the idea of how an image is rendered in a way to be displayed and viewed differently from its source form - not that the exact same system is used. Hence why i even pointed out how the volume was different in the same post! I wasn’t going to write a novel on geometry, optics, and the brain when people can just go watch something they themselves will find credible.

Some act like ‘nothing you can do…’ - probably the argument made by the people that shrugged and let this abomination get released. Instead of working within the constraints they had.

All of these topics must deal with pov - and each has different constraints based on the geometry of the viewer to the screen and how much distortion you can tolerate before the brain starts hitting the panic button. That doesn’t mean you just shrug.

 

[LittleBuford]

The referenced post you are referring to is to highlight simply the idea of how an image is rendered in a way to be displayed and viewed differently from its source form - not that the exact same system is used. Hence why i even pointed out how the volume was different in the same post! I wasn’t going to write a novel on geometry, optics, and the brain when people can just go watch something they themselves will find credible.

Some act like ‘nothing you can do…’ - probably the argument made by the people that shrugged and let this abomination get released. Instead of working within the constraints they had.

All of these topics must deal with pov - and each has different constraints based on the geometry of the viewer to the screen and how much distortion you can tolerate before the brain starts hitting the panic button. That doesn’t mean you just shrug.

No-one has said there’s nothing they could have done. On the contrary, we all agree they could have chosen not to film a tall vertical structure in the first place. The new film has exactly the same distortion issues as the original one; the difference in how people perceive this distortion lies in the selection of subject matter.

 

[osian]

The referenced post you are referring to is to highlight simply the idea of how an image is rendered in a way to be displayed and viewed differently from its source form - not that the exact same system is used. Hence why i even pointed out how the volume was different in the same post! I wasn’t going to write a novel on geometry, optics, and the brain when people can just go watch something they themselves will find credible.

Some act like ‘nothing you can do…’ - probably the argument made by the people that shrugged and let this abomination get released. Instead of working within the constraints they had.

All of these topics must deal with pov - and each has different constraints based on the geometry of the viewer to the screen and how much distortion you can tolerate before the brain starts hitting the panic button. That doesn’t mean you just shrug.

Look, there is nothing you can do, optically or digitally. You haven't been able to point out how the technology of being able to regenerate an image based on another point of view is going to help in any way. For example, which seat in the Soarin theatre do you propose the Soarin film is to be regenerated for, and what plans do you have for the other 86 seats? You do realise that, in the Mandalorian example, although the scene may look OK to us, the viewers, it will look distorted to all the actors on the set? How would you use the technique so that it's presentable to everyone else on the set? Tell us, then let the Disney producers know so they can use your ideas next time.

It strikes me that what you're saying, in a roundabout sort of way, is that you hate dome-based projection systems and you think they shouldn't exist. Because once you've chosen a dome to project on to, there is indeed absolutely nothing you can do to prevent distortion the vast majority of the theatre.

 

[flynnibus]

No-one has said there’s nothing they could have done. On the contrary, we all agree they could have chosen not to film a tall vertical structure in the first place. The new film has exactly the same distortion issues as the original one; the difference in how people perceive this distortion lies in the selection of subject matter.

I’ll simply refer you to my original post where i pointed out the CHOICE to create this particular scene FULLY knowing the presentation format and the limitations. And then having the audacity to release it as-is.

The film is full of these horrible choices that draw your attention to the curve. Full frame vertical lines… hard straight horizon lines… etc. the original film was crafted in ways to minimize how much the distortion is noticeable through thoughtful photography and directing. For instance in SoC they draw your attention away from the object as it gets worse by introducing something to grab your attention. In the san diego scene its the helicopter. In the yosimite scene its the hang glider. The tilting also helps mask your perception of the effect. (Remember that aspect… the hang glider effects of rolling… stalling… ?? all pretty much devoid in sotw)

over the world was a failure in the production in this regard - it was a failure of management. And yes people are basically saying nothing you can do… as they continue to minimize the decisions, like you deflecting to the original film too without looking at how the two differ in these approaches and the resulting outcome. Soc has distortion but its notable but not overwhelming. SotW is comically bad in some scenes and takes you out of the mood in others. All because they failed to MINIMIZE the effects through their product.

They should have called the new film ‘Helicopters around the world’

 

[FigmentFan82]

A California theme only in Soarin and Epcot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And yet everything was fine when that was the only film and no one complained it was in Epcot before the new film was made.

 

[MisterPenguin]

A California theme only in Soarin and Epcot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yes, but it's "for the 100th" and only temporary.

 

[flynnibus]

For example, which seat in the Soarin theatre do you propose the Soarin film is to be regenerated for, and what plans do you have for the other 86 seats?

You can minimize the effect by where the element is is in the scene and how the brain perceives it. You also don’t have to aim for a single focal point. The geometry of the pov also works to minimize distortion (ex:distance back).

I never said distortion would be eliminated entirely. Is the word ‘minimized’ filtered out somewhere?

You do realise that, in the Mandalorian example, although the scene may look OK to us, the viewers, it will look distorted to all the actors on the set?

Really? You don’t say…. I must have put this line in tbe post for some entirely different reason… i wonder what it could be…

does it in real time with a changing point of perspective

How would you use the technique so that it's presentable to everyone else on the set? Tell us, then let the Disney producers know so they can use your ideas next time.

Read the other posts highlighting how the photography and editing in SoC minimized the perception of the issue.

It strikes me that what you're saying, in a roundabout sort of way, is that you hate dome-based projection systems and you think they shouldn't exist.

No - i hate that the company made a cheap knockoff of their film, completely forgot what format it’s presented in, made a film for basically a flat screen… and when they saw how bad it was… they said SHiP IT!

 

[LittleBuford]

I’ll simply refer you to my original post where i pointed out the CHOICE to create this particular scene FULLY knowing the presentation format and the limitations. And then having the audacity to release it as-is.

Your original post, which is there for everyone to read, also criticised Disney for not digitally correcting the image. As has been pointed out multiple times now, such correction simply isn't possible.

And yes people are basically saying nothing you can do… as they continue to minimize the decisions, like you deflecting to the original film too without looking at how the two differ in these approaches and the resulting outcome.

My first post on the topic did the precise opposite of what you claim: I mentioned that the distortion is there in the original film and noted that it isn't as visible because of what they chose to film. How is that a deflection?

You're lashing out at people for no reason.

 

[flynnibus]

Your original post, which is there for everyone to read, also criticised Disney for not digitally correcting the image. As has been pointed out multiple times now, such correction simply isn't possible.

I criticized Disney for not working to minimize the effect and criticizing their lack of direction in the film making period. The later follow-up post pointing out SOME of the techniques to minimize the effect are available, and you and others harp on about how it's 'not possible' because it's not perfect and there are compromises. That's why all along I used the word MINIMIZE - a concept you seem to continue to gloss over to insist what I said was wrong... while ignoring all the techniques used in another film shown on the very same screen.

My first post on the topic did the precise opposite of what you claim: I mentioned that the distortion is there in the original film and noted that it isn't as visible because of what they chose to film. How is that a deflection?

No, your first post to me was a one liner asking what techniques they could use - https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...epcot-for-a-limited-time.981963/post-10726595

I pointed out one - and you've since hung up on trying to debunk it's use above all else, while ignoring I was only answering a generic question of how visual distortion can be addressed. Not outlining my master plan of how to fix Soarin'.

You're lashing out at people for no reason.

Frankly I tire of people not reading.

 

[Tha Realest]

The technique you've pointed to is already used in attractions such as Remy's Ratatouille Adventure, Escape from Gringotts, Forbidden Journey, Spiderman, and lots of other screen-based attractions with a moving ride vehicle. It's used to alter the perspective view in real time of a moving viewpoint as the vehicle moves across the front of the projected screen. It's seamless, you probably haven't noticed it's happening. But it's actually a fundamental principle of digital rendering, you have a virtual camera to render the scene, which generates the perspective view, the lighting, the shadows etc realistically. The clever bit here is that it regenerates in real time, as the focal point moves. As the camera in the case of fliming the Mandalorian moves around the set or as the ride vehicle moves through the auditorium in a theme park attraction.

This is not relevant to solving Soarin's distortion issues. It already has scenes filmed or generated from a particular point of view (which I think is the technique that you're trying to describe) and the ride vehicle does not move through the auditorium which would necessitate the scene to be regenerated.

I don’t know that would work with Soarin though. The perspective from the middle center row is much different than the upper or lower rows at the far ends of the theater

 

[LittleBuford]

I criticized Disney for not working to minimize the effect and criticizing their lack of direction in the film making period. The later follow-up post pointing out SOME of the techniques to minimize the effect are available, and you and others harp on about how it's 'not possible' because it's not perfect and there are compromises. That's why all along I used the word MINIMIZE - a concept you seem to continue to gloss over to insist what I said was wrong... while ignoring all the techniques used in another film shown on the very same screen.



No, your first post to me was a one liner asking what techniques they could use - https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...epcot-for-a-limited-time.981963/post-10726595

I pointed out one - and you've since hung up on trying to debunk it's use above all else, while ignoring I was only answering a generic question of how visual distortion can be addressed. Not outlining my master plan of how to fix Soarin'.

Frankly I tire of people not reading.

There's very little point in refuting all this, because it's clear you won't stop moving goalposts and misrepresenting things. Our posts are there for people to see for themselves who said what.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yeah, if satisfaction and ridership counts go back up to what they were, I think "limited" could become quite long. Too many times we've been in The Land, not during the peak part of the day and looking at 20 minute waits and still walked away because we don't want to see bendy towers and turrets.

So when the old one comes back you can go see it and then realize just how bendy that one was as well. Golden Gate bridge for one, but there were others. It's just that the Eiffel tower is a more narrow and upright thing and therefore more noticeable. It is more because of the curvature of the screen and where one is viewing it from that makes it seem bendy. Just make believe it is Peyronie's disease. That seems like a popular topic these days.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

So when the old one comes back you can go see it and then realize just how bendy that one was as well. Golden Gate bridge for one, but there were others. It's just that the Eiffel tower is a more narrow and upright thing and therefore more noticeable. It is more because of the curvature of the screen and where one is viewing it from that makes it seem bendy. Just make believe it is Peyronie's disease. That seems like a popular topic these days.

When you approach the bridge, you’re actually banking towards it so it doesn’t appear as stark as the Eiffel Tower.

You know, it’s kinda odd that I don’t recall ONE complaint about the OG version until the world version opened and people started to complain about that.

 

[JohnD]

It was arguably the best version of the ride... but no reason (aside from money) they could not do a better film...or even have a "Soarin' over Florida" version... The state, while not as dramatic as the landscape of California is still pretty diverse...

Right. Best version of the ride. Diverse landscapes. Emphasis on "land". That's what makes it the best version for The Land pavilion.

 

[ToTBellHop]

When you approach the bridge, you’re actually banking towards it so it doesn’t appear as stark as the Eiffel Tower.

You know, it’s kinda odd that I don’t recall ONE complaint about the OG version until the world version opened and people started to complain about that.

Partially it’s that people just complain a lot more since 2016.

World should have focused more on iconic landscapes and less on buildings. Iguazu Falls is breathtaking. Even if it is so powerful that it makes the camera fall out of focus for a split second…

 

[JohnD]

When you approach the bridge, you’re actually banking towards it so it doesn’t appear as stark as the Eiffel Tower.

You know, it’s kinda odd that I don’t recall ONE complaint about the OG version until the world version opened and people started to complain about that.

It goes back to the choice of material or how it was approached. You can put all the fancy technology in the video that you want but if what is shown isn't right for the experience or recorded in such a way that the final display of it will come out odd, then you haven't chosen the right material or displayed it correctly for the final product. That is what makes the original version better than SATW.

 

[doctornick]

As an aside, from my reading, it appears that they use the Tokyo Tower instead of the Eiffel Tower for the attraction in TDS. Still a tall vertical structure, but can anyone comment if the Tokyo version looks better?