PLANETARIUMS
THE NEXT
DIMENSIONS
3D and 4D are on the horizon for planetariums and domed theatres, but it could be some time before the technology goes mainstream. Andrea Jezovit investigates
T
hanks to the Oscar-winning fi lm Avatar, 3D may have taken over cinemas, but the 3D planetarium is
still in its infancy. There are only a hand- ful of digital 3D planetariums and domed theatres in the world today, showing 3D content in a fulldome environment rather than simply on a fl at screen. Loch Ness Productions, which publishes data on domed theatres worldwide, puts the list at fi ve – The Hamburg Planetarium, the Macao Science Center Planetarium, the Miraikan Planetarium in Tokyo, the Imiloa Planetarium in Hawaii and Tholos, a domed theatre in Athens. Operators looking for fulldome 3D
currently have two options in terms of tech- nology, both already in use in traditional cinemas – Active 3D and Infi tec. Active 3D uses glasses developed by XpanD, which creates 3D (stereo) visuals
4D PROJECTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST, INDIA AND ASIA
by turning each eye on and off alternately, to coordinate with pictures on the screen, which also alternate between images for the left and right eye. Infi tec uses glasses that divide the light spectrum into upper and lower frequencies to produce 3D. Infi tec uses glasses that break apart the light spectrum to produce 3D.
PAYING THE COST
For domed theatres, both systems have their pros and cons. Active 3D requires only one projector, meaning costs can be kept down. Michael Daut, director of show production and marketing at Evans & Sutherland, which has used the technology in its system for the Hamburg Planetarium, estimates an active 3D system cost of 25 per cent to 50 per cent higher than a regu- lar system. However, costs rise depending on the brightness needed, and the projec- tor technology is still in its infancy. Infi tec, used by Sky-Skan at its Macao
and Hawaii planetariums, and by Evans & Sutherland at Tokyo’s Miraikan, is more proven, but also more costly. “It looks really good,” says Daut. “The challenge is mainly price, because unlike [active 3D], you have to double your projectors for the system, in this case four projectors instead of only two to cover the entire dome – you need one projector for the left eye image with its own fi lter, and another for the right eye image. So you’re looking at double a typical system cost.”
Cosmonova, left, is a 3D theatre at The Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm
30
Read Attractions Management online
attractionsmanagement.com/digital
Another issue is that both active 3D and Infi tec glasses dim the screen for viewers
– robbing 60 to 70 per cent of brightness, according to Sky-Skan CEO Steve Savage. “Getting the picture satisfyingly bright is
probably the biggest challenge right now. You have to compensate by buying more expensive projectors and lamps,” he says. Savage believes the price barrier shouldn’t be a deterrent, however. “It requires a little larger an investment, but in a new theatre project it’s not a signifi cant amount of money compared to the overall project cost of the building and equipping the building, therefore it’s not a price bar- rier to new projects.”
GROWING THE MARKET
Planetarium suppliers are working in dif- ferent ways to encourage the spread of 3D. Evans & Sutherland is looking at perfecting active 3D technology as a way of encour- aging more operators to opt in. “We’re hoping that will bring the cost down and make it more reasonable for people to get into stereo, but right now it’s so new that we’re still experimenting with the 120 hertz projectors that are just coming online,” Daut says. These new projectors should offer a completely fl icker-free expe- rience compared with the current 60 hertz projectors, and Daut predicts they will be available in the next quarter or so. Evans & Sutherland has also partnered
with Micoy on technology to help fi lmmak- ers optimise their 3D content for a fulldome environment. When traditional 3D content is projected on the dome it only works in the very front of the dome within about 100 degree viewing angle. The image fl at- tens to 2D at the sides and inverts behind
AM 2 2010 ©cybertrek 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86