DomeFest 2005 Special Session
FULLDOME STANDARDS DISCUSSION
Updated: 30 August 2004
Updated: 30 August 2004
I am appending some of the notes I took at the DomeFest 2005 Sunday-afternoon session, which began as a discussion of the state of the medium before getting into standards. I’m not the greatest typist in the world, nor did I try to capture every idea that came up. Please interpret the notes accordingly. (Thanks to Steve Savage for loaning me a computer on which to type the notes — and to Kevin Beaulieu, for nearly loaning me a a computer on which to type the notes.)
One of the main points that came out of the meeting was a need for sharing “best practices,” especially in terms of production process, workflow, and budgets. A long list of participants also signed up as volunteers to help corral this kind of information (as well as address the more technical aspects of standards development).
I hope the notes convey some sense of the interesting conversation that took place. As Ed has previously announced, we will have time at the Western Alliance Meeting in Denver, Colorado, and the Immersive Cinema Workshop in Espinho, Portugal, to continue the discussion. I may also conduct a less formal session at the ASTC conference in Richmond, Virginia: let me know if you’d be interested in such a thing.
Again, what follows represents only a part of the discussion at DomeFest; it doesn’t include the tech talk that followed.
Enjoy!
Ryan, a.k.a.
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
Ian McLennan:
Planetarium started as an accident: twist-of-fate, emphasis on the technical, on the machinery. Currently, the planetarium field seems to be going through a renaissance. A major challenge lies in the skewed relationship between capital investment and investment in content—particularly people and production resources.
Ed Lantz:
Attended two conferences in 1990: SIGGRAPH versus SEPA. Struck by difference in cultures.
Ryan Wyatt:
What are the things preventing us from creating good content?
Alex Barnett:
Money.
Derrick Pitts:
Relationship we have with our institutions: need to educate about potential for the theaters.
Kevin Beaulieu Willingness to experiment.
Alex Barnett:
Feels a need to invest significant money in a way that doesn’t align completely with educational mission of Chabot. Bringing together key people who can help advance the medium doesn’t fit the goals of educating schoolchildren and so forth. Perhaps it requires a spin-off non-profit to do research and bring people together? The community as a whole needs to develop the structure to nurture the field.
Dan Neafus:
The model adopted in Denver currently accesses out-of-house talent to support a small in-house staff. As a whole, we need to scrutinize the business model. What are the successful precedents?
Ed Lantz:
How can we start pooling our knowledge? The IPS fulldome committee is a first step. Maybe that includes coming up with a recommended budget for fulldome production. Work flow, management are also issues.
Jennie Zeiher:
Used Australian A-to-Z budget (for film and video) when first getting into production.
Alex Barnett:
Similar to way things developed at the NCSSC (with an entirely in-house team): used team’s experience in film and video to develop budgets.
Ed Lantz:
Standards guidelines and best practices. Where’s the book on fulldome production?
Alex Barnett:
Professional development: can read until you’re blue in the face, but it requires field experience.
Hue Walker:
Put up some primers on fulldome.org.
David Beining:
Not everyone should be making fulldome: we need producers and users. Content is king. A particular challenge to producers is the planetarium culture of producing one’s own material. Now we need to work toward a model that allows producers to get some return.
Kevin Beaulieu:
At Barnes & Noble, came a across a guide to design costs, specifying how much each step of a process would cost: we’re not even close to that kind of thing.
Chris Harvey:
Fulldome production has a lot of overlap with other media. What aspects of our process are truly unique? Can we catalog these in a useful manner?
Theo Artz:
What about IMAX models?
John Weiley:
“Completely stuffed.” Only one production currently underway. Enlarging 35-mm film has turned IMAX into ancillary market of Hollywood, making it difficult to advance the content of IMAX films. Can’t get slots at theaters any more, because of competition with Hollywood films: fortunately, domes are too difficult for repurposing. Three minutes of IMAX costs $6,000 to create. Within the planetarium business, there’s a tradition of making programs for nothing, which becomes a race to the bottom.
Theo Artz:
In graphic arts community, one doesn’t go below the guide price, which allows for stability in the profession. Perhaps fulldome creators need to organize a guild?
Kevin Beaulieu:
The medium faces losing a lot of people because content producers are not getting reasonable financial support.
Alex Barnett:
Majority of domes are small and can’t afford to pay much for shows. Larger institutions should support content development for smaller ones.
Ed Lantz:
Trickle-down.
Alex Barnett:
Need to develop a model that includes distribution to smaller facilities.
Ed Lantz:
Loch Ness model of charging by linear pixel is one approach.
Chris Harvey:
Challenge of creating new tools to address technical problems—e.g., the fisheye renderer developed for “Molecularium.” Open question: is it possible or desirable to make these tools widely available?
Jennie Zeiher:
Lot of fisheye renderers: Brazil and Final Render, for example.
Ed Lantz:
Coming back to the IMAX thing. There’s particular angst in IMAX Dome (formerly Omnimax) because of lack of content.
John Weiley:
Domes are practically discouraged by IMAX.
Ed Lantz:
Could planetariums potentially merge with domed film theaters?
Alex Barnett:
No content for Chabot large-format domed theater. Typically, $12,500 for print, same up front, plus gateshare.
John Weiley:
The revolution is underway: the main thing stopping conversion is image quality. An annual IMAX maintenance contract is about $150,000.
Ed Lantz:
IMAX dictatorship led to its downfall, but it did help in terms of standards. We need the benefits of standardization in the fulldome community.
Alex Barnett:
We also need to collect budgets, create documents on budgeting and on production strategies.
Ed Lantz:
We need people to step forward and see certain ideas through. Pass around the sign-up sheet.
Steve Savage:
IMAX models threatens half or three-quarters of the community. We need to discuss the needs of these users, which means we need to address issues with real-time systems.
Ian McLennan:
Two important words: production and presentation.
Alex Barnett:
The community needs to develop its collective presentation skills. At Chabot, live sky shows may soon be accompanied by live tours of the universe. Certain presenters have developed followings for live shows. Furthermore, the topics available expand beyond just astronomy.
Steve Savage:
Should mentor planetarians to use the tools.
Dan Neafus:
This also involves real-time models and technical exchange. Comes back to domes doing their own thing.
Steve Savage:
Management doesn’t feel comfortable with a live presentation: not as predictable, hard to market.
Ed Lantz:
Real-time issues are important, but standardization may lie further in the future. The dome master is the low-hanging fruit.
Ryan Wyatt:
Promote the idea of an “Open-Source Universe” in which models and flight paths can be exchanged as easily as possible. It may be a ways off, but it’s worth keeping in mind. We need to consider structures for exchanging this information—both in terms of technical issues and economic concerns.
Ed Lantz:
Technically, what’s required is something like a skeleton upon which datasets are hung.
Steve Savage:
The discussion of presentation issues also brings to mind the planetarium community’s inability to get professional development.
Ian McLennan:
Talked to many people about the professional development issues. Perhaps we even get federal funding for presentation skills—for planetarians, instructors, park service employees, etc.
Alex Barnett:
Trains people with skills learned from BBC Radio. Without the visual cues, presenters need to communicate well with their voices; they need a good set of voice training techniques.
Ryan Wyatt:
At the Hayden, we’ve also used actors, namely the “Starball” cast, to do training—improvisation, saying “yes” to the audience, and creating a successful live performance.
Andrew DeSalvo:
U.S. has model for presentations under a dome—specifically under the U.S. Capitol.
Ed Lantz:
Research into what the theaters accomplish.
Alex Barnett:
Chabot has federal funding to do evaluation of the recent installation.
Ryan Wyatt:
AMNH has done evaluation of its programs: pre- and post-visit looking at a) whether people understood the show and learned anything and b) how the experience affected their attitudes toward the topic and toward astronomy in general. May be able to make some of this available. The current show will have significant formative and summative evaluation.
Dan Neafus:
Current show’s evaluation: pre- looks at topics; limited formative.
Ka-Chun Yu:
Need to get information out so that others can use it constructively.