It seems odd that the Las Vegas sphere hasn't dipped
into the programming that's accumulated for planetariums.

A lot of the original planetariums have fallen into
disrepair - education not being a big source of income.

I wonder what would be involved in translating the format?

RL

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:37:47 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>It seems odd that the Las Vegas sphere hasn't dipped
>into the programming that's accumulated for planetariums.
>
>A lot of the original planetariums have fallen into
>disrepair - education not being a big source of income.
>
>I wonder what would be involved in translating the format?
>
>RL

$2.3 billion. I doubt it will ever make a profit.

Sounds uncomfortable, watching a spherical screen.

On 1/17/2024 8:37 AM, legg wrote:
> It seems odd that the Las Vegas sphere hasn't dipped
> into the programming that's accumulated for planetariums.

It's Vegas. You were expecting something OTHER than entertainment?

> A lot of the original planetariums have fallen into
> disrepair - education not being a big source of income.
>
> I wonder what would be involved in translating the format?

My understanding is that planetariums use projectors
to cast the imagery onto their "screens". Presumably,
that imagery is (now) in a digital form so it would just
be a numerical processing task to make the conversion.

But, the medium suggests there should be far better
(more expressive) uses that wouldn't really have been
practical in the planetarium venue (think: moving pictures)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:03:43 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 8:37 AM, legg wrote:
>> It seems odd that the Las Vegas sphere hasn't dipped
>> into the programming that's accumulated for planetariums.
>
>It's Vegas. You were expecting something OTHER than entertainment?
>
>> A lot of the original planetariums have fallen into
>> disrepair - education not being a big source of income.
>>
>> I wonder what would be involved in translating the format?
>
>My understanding is that planetariums use projectors
>to cast the imagery onto their "screens". Presumably,
>that imagery is (now) in a digital form so it would just
>be a numerical processing task to make the conversion.
>
>But, the medium suggests there should be far better
>(more expressive) uses that wouldn't really have been
>practical in the planetarium venue (think: moving pictures)
>

I figured the conversion wouldn't be impossible. Any 'film
stock' or image can be digitized with the same spatial
coordination.

Planetarium displays I've seen are often limited to a half
hemisphere, doubled.

'expressive'?

I can't see it's use in making films - green screens don't
cost $2B.

RL

On 1/18/2024 5:31 AM, legg wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:03:43 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2024 8:37 AM, legg wrote:
>>> It seems odd that the Las Vegas sphere hasn't dipped
>>> into the programming that's accumulated for planetariums.
>>
>> It's Vegas. You were expecting something OTHER than entertainment?
>>
>>> A lot of the original planetariums have fallen into
>>> disrepair - education not being a big source of income.
>>>
>>> I wonder what would be involved in translating the format?
>>
>> My understanding is that planetariums use projectors
>> to cast the imagery onto their "screens". Presumably,
>> that imagery is (now) in a digital form so it would just
>> be a numerical processing task to make the conversion.
>>
>> But, the medium suggests there should be far better
>> (more expressive) uses that wouldn't really have been
>> practical in the planetarium venue (think: moving pictures)
>
> I figured the conversion wouldn't be impossible. Any 'film
> stock' or image can be digitized with the same spatial
> coordination.

Yes, but the types of "content" that planetariums have
typically presented are pretty lackluster compared to what an
electronic medium could present.

> Planetarium displays I've seen are often limited to a half
> hemisphere, doubled.

They also tend to be governed by mechanisms and the physical limits
imposed on them.

> 'expressive'?

Ever been in a 360 degree presentation? Or, a flight simulator?
Imagine sitting *amid* an ongoing battle of spacecraft or
other "immersive" experience. Manipulating someone's visual field
can be very convincing to a casual participant.

> I can't see it's use in making films - green screens don't
> cost $2B.

You can't sit *in* a green screen. Even imax is a scenario where
you are "outside" the experience, regardless of how "big" the
presentation.

Vegas is all about The Draw... how do we get folks (and, more importantly,
their MONEY) to come to see *us*. And, once we've accomplished that,
there's a good chance that their money will stay behind after they've
moved on!

Why a big pyramid? Or, animated fountains? Or a car museum? Or...

Look at Disney{Land,World}... all that hassle and expense for a handful
of "rides" in a full day? (When I was last there, E tickets still
existed. Now, it's probably a day's pay for admission!)