Announcement

Collapse

MiceChat Rules

A list of MiceChat's rules can be found at the top of the Disneyland forum.
See more
See less

Star Tours II

Collapse

Header Ad

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Star Tours II

    Originally posted by BoogaFrito View Post
    It works great on the Spiderman ride at Islands of Adventure in Orlando. You get jostled around as much as Indy, and the 3D effect has never been ruined by it.
    But aren't the screens separate from the vehicles in that case? People naturally tend to hold their heads mostly upright (unless they're REALLY being thrown around, which would be dangerous), so the illusion is never broken. The potential problem is that they'll do the same in Star Tours, but the screen is attached to the vehicle. It may not be a problem in the end as most of the movements, especially the more extreme ones, tend to be on the other two axes anyway. I just thought I'd bring it up as a matter of interest, but you never know what could happen.

    Originally posted by BoogaFrito View Post
    There is no reason LCD side "windows" would have to be 3D. They would simply enhance the periphery of your view, like the 2D side screens on Mickey's Philharmagic. Most guests will be focusing on the screen in front of them, where the action is. This LCD effect is used well on Tokyo Disney's Stormrider attraction; while not 3D, it greatly improves the feeling you aren't just watching events unfold on a flat screen in front of you.
    I actually had fairly large windows--as large as could be accommodated--in mind, implying that people might sometimes follow some of the action away from front screen, which would look weird if the imagery (of, say, another spaceship) suddenly lost its depth. Such a setup might work for some people, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work for me as long as the front screen is 3D (if that's what it turns out to be).

    Originally posted by Giraffe Lounge View Post
    It's a good point but this problem has already been solved-- The "Real D" 3D system uses circular polarization. I'm pretty sure UP was presented this way on most screens.
    Oh, that's certainly good news for Star Tours if it's really going to be 3D as rumored. :thumbup: I'm familiar with circular polarization, but assumed that it didn't work well for 3D because no system had used it before--I guess that it must work fine now if it's been used in theaters (I don't keep up much with 3D because it doesn't work well for me--it hurts my eyes after a few minutes ).

    Originally posted by Matterhorn Boy View Post
    I'm still not quite understanding why an attraction that involves things relatively far away from you needs to be in 3D. If anything, it will take away from the overall realism because it will likely gratuitously add dimensionality to objects that shouldn't have any.
    I'm hoping that it will be done realistically and not exaggerated in any way. In the real world, I notice a huge difference between having both eyes open and only one, even for objects at some distance away (and of course some objects will get pretty close in the ride). Nothing should project into the StarSpeeder unless it is actually inside. Like I said, I'm not crazy about 3D myself, but the reason I think it would be good for this ride is that the current image just looks SO flat. Maybe a big improvement in picture quality would suffice, but then again, 3D could add to the realism if done properly. If they deliberately screw it up and make it gimmicky, then shame on them, but they don't have to.

    Originally posted by Matterhorn Boy View Post
    Also, few people seem to realize that going from 70mm film to "High Definition" DLP resolution is a significant downgrade. Film might have it's drawbacks as a long term format, but a clean 70mm print still outclasses all forms of digital projection.
    True, but in this type of application, digital media won't suffer the gradual degradation in quality over time, as well as the accumulation of visible damage and dirt that immediately reminds people that they're watching a recorded image. A "high-definition" DLP projector should have sufficient resolution for this size screen. Film is still a superior medium in many respects, but one should use whatever technology works best overall in every case.

    Originally posted by pianoman13 View Post
    This might be a really dumb question, but... how? Does 70mm film have a higher resolution than a DLP format?
    70mm film potentially has much higher resolution than current digital movie formats. But resolution is not the same as sharpness, noise level, and other aspects of picture quality--at best, either medium will only show what is recorded. Right now, the picture quality isn't great, and it's certainly not because 70mm lacks resolution. Digital formats should be more ideal for a ride like this because the source material originates in digital form and should remain pristine indefinitely. Of course, digital media and equipment can fail (e.g. the hard drives holding the data can crash), but it can be restored easily enough and the image will never develop scratches or get dirty.

    Believe me, I'm no technophile who loves throwing around the word "digital" as a buzzword. In fact, I consider the rampant technological snobbery even average people exhibit these days a form of ignorance. But in this application, a DLP movie projector would work better overall (I wouldn't necessarily say the same for Soarin' Over California, for example).

    Originally posted by Jetlife View Post
    You know what, I originally said 70mm, but I may be wrong, It might be 35mm?
    I saw it once but it was a long time ago. :shy:
    Well, it certainly doesn't showcase the quality of 70mm film, I'll tell you that. It looks more like an 8mm film.

    Originally posted by Matterhorn Boy View Post
    Whatever grain is there is because of age and wear, not because of the original film format.
    It may have enough accumulated dirt by now to actually look "grainy."

    Originally posted by Matterhorn Boy View Post
    I know "high definition" sounds neat and fancy, but the technology that Star Tours used is like "super ultra high definition" in comparison. There will probably be a digital equivalent some day, but it hasn't happened yet.
    Understood, but even a common cinema DLP projector would suffice on a screen of this size as long as the image is clean and stable.

    Originally posted by rajbonham View Post
    Great post, a lot of people just don't understand that film is WAY higher resolution than any HD digital stuff. That's why all the digital people are attempting to introduce 2K, 4K, etc... Those formats are an attempt to match film format resolutions. Current 35mm film resolutions are anywhere from 2485x2970 to 1420x3390
    How much resolution is needed depends on how large the screen is and how far away the audience is. Resolution is also often overrated because its utilization depends on the other limitations of the source material, such as focus and sharpness (take 12 megapixel compact cameras, for example ).

    Originally posted by rajbonham View Post
    I'd be willing to bet the new movie is being shot in a format similar to 4K, if it is being shot digitally.
    For better or worse, Lucas prefers to shoot live-action in digital, so you're probably correct.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Star Tours II

      Originally posted by HighLeveller View Post
      Those figures for 35mm sound about right; I've compared scanned 35mm photos to digicam pictures and saw similar results.
      Keep in mind, though, that 35mm film runs horizontally in still cameras and vertically in motion picture cameras. The frame size of the former is a lot larger than that of the latter--twice as large in area, actually (8 perforations versus 4). In fact, when you run 35mm film horizontally in a motion picture camera, you get the basis of old high-resolution formats such as VistaVision (used on movies such as The Ten Commandments) and Technirama (used on Disney's own Sleeping Beauty).

      Originally posted by HighLeveller View Post
      Another plus for film is a richer color gamut compared to your typical RGB display. (I think so at least. A display with six or more colors would be an improvement for sure.)
      Six or more colors? :blink: That's how some printers improve their gamuts, but I think that using three colors at different primary wavelengths and with greater bit-depth would suffice (that's what HDMI's "Deep Color" is supposed to be about, but always turn it off in your video equipment because it only really works when this system is used by the source, which is never true).

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Star Tours II

        Originally posted by Robert Cook View Post
        But aren't the screens separate from the vehicles in that case? People naturally tend to hold their heads mostly upright (unless they're REALLY being thrown around, which would be dangerous), so the illusion is never broken.
        Hmm, that's a good point.

        I actually had fairly large windows--as large as could be accommodated--in mind, implying that people might sometimes follow some of the action away from front screen, which would look weird if the imagery (of, say, another spaceship) suddenly lost its depth. Such a setup might work for some people, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work for me as long as the front screen is 3D (if that's what it turns out to be).
        Another factor would be how compact the Star Tours vehicles are. If there were LCD screens on the doors, they would be right next to the guests on the ends of the rows. Those guests would be most affected by the lack of depth, and might find it pretty distracting on top of that. Possibly this could be eliminated by distortion glass of some sort (or pull-down shades? :lol, but that sounds like it might be more trouble than its worth...
        .

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Star Tours II

          Originally posted by Robert Cook View Post
          Six or more colors? :blink: That's how some printers improve their gamuts, but I think that using three colors at different primary wavelengths and with greater bit-depth would suffice (that's what HDMI's "Deep Color" is supposed to be about, but always turn it off in your video equipment because it only really works when this system is used by the source, which is never true).
          DORK ALERT....

          It's very easy to see color gamut on the CIE Color Space, just plot out your source colors and the range between them is your gamut. Six colors would offer radically increased color possibilities. This is a comparison of a 3 and 7 color system:


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Star Tours II

            Originally posted by Giraffe Lounge View Post
            DORK ALERT....

            It's very easy to see color gamut on the CIE Color Space, just plot out your source colors and the range between them is your gamut. Six colors would offer radically increased color possibilities. This is a comparison of a 3 and 7 color system:


            Someday it may be possible to use lasers to stretch the gamut even further using just three primaries--the key is developing primaries that reach further into the corners of the color space. Each primary having an extremely narrow spectral bandwidth would help, as the purer the primary colors, generally the larger the gamut.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Star Tours II

              Originally posted by Robert Cook View Post
              70mm film potentially has much higher resolution than current digital movie formats. But resolution is not the same as sharpness, noise level, and other aspects of picture quality--at best, either medium will only show what is recorded. Right now, the picture quality isn't great, and it's certainly not because 70mm lacks resolution. Digital formats should be more ideal for a ride like this because the source material originates in digital form and should remain pristine indefinitely. Of course, digital media and equipment can fail (e.g. the hard drives holding the data can crash), but it can be restored easily enough and the image will never develop scratches or get dirty.
              Yeah, It's sort of like how a sony digital camera with tons of megapixels isn't necessarily better than the Canon with a little bit less(I'm a canon fan, sorry). Digital would look more perfect, and if they're doing the things I've heard they want to do with the movie(three different parts of the movie each time randomly selected), they should use a digital projection.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Star Tours II

                Originally posted by pianoman13 View Post
                Yeah, It's sort of like how a sony digital camera with tons of megapixels isn't necessarily better than the Canon with a little bit less(I'm a canon fan, sorry).
                Canon plays the same marketing game--most of their new compacts have 12 megapixels, too, but none of these puny cameras is going to give you nearly that much resolution even under ideal circumstances. Even DSLRs from the major manufacturers will give you maybe half the resolution they advertise due to the way in which their sensors work (Bayer filtering). An old Nikon D40 DSLR blows away any modern compact in picture quality, and does so with 3 real megapixels at best (in its highest resolution 6 megapixel mode).

                Originally posted by pianoman13 View Post
                Digital would look more perfect, and if they're doing the things I've heard they want to do with the movie(three different parts of the movie each time randomly selected), they should use a digital projection.
                That's a good point--a hard drive array would be a lot quicker at switching between scenes, not to mention much more practical to manage in a physical sense.
                Last edited by Robert Cook; 07-04-2009, 07:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Star Tours II

                  well what ever we get for star tours II here in disneyland.. it looks like we get it and florida is s.o.l apparently it was to much they were willing to spend...so.....looks like we have another upgrade that WDW will not
                  "Alright you primative screwheads listen up.."BRUCE CAMPBELL

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Star Tours II

                    Originally posted by sunrider View Post
                    well what ever we get for star tours II here in disneyland.. it looks like we get it and florida is s.o.l apparently it was to much they were willing to spend...so.....looks like we have another upgrade that WDW will not
                    Considering that Star Wars weekends is
                    immensely popular, it's astonishing that
                    Team Disney Orlando would not commit
                    to the overhaul project.

                    The Star Wars community has to be
                    completely enrage about this decision.

                    Once can only imagine the backlash
                    that may come from this.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Star Tours II

                      well judgeing from what i have seen as a few shots ..looks like fett will get some screen time on stII
                      "Alright you primative screwheads listen up.."BRUCE CAMPBELL

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Star Tours II

                        Originally posted by 1313Imagination View Post
                        Also since it is the whole tour concept (Adressing Jetlife) I don't think weapons would be on the ship.
                        The StarSpeeder 3000 is equipped with at least 2 laser canon, mounted one on each side of the craft near the front and low.

                        During the pre-show, R2D2 accidentally powers them up during the preflight testing on the speeder in the queue area. C3P0: "Shut them down!"

                        They are used during the sequence over the Death Star to destroy a TIE fighter (at least once, but possibly more).

                        Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. mycroft16 on Twitter

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Star Tours II

                          Considering that Star Wars weekends is
                          immensely popular, it's astonishing that
                          Team Disney Orlando would not commit
                          to the overhaul project.

                          The Star Wars community has to be
                          completely enrage about this decision.

                          Once can only imagine the backlash
                          that may come from this.
                          all i know is dlr is getting the redo..maybe star wars weekends will move here exclusivly after that
                          "Alright you primative screwheads listen up.."BRUCE CAMPBELL

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Star Tours II

                            Originally posted by mycroft16 View Post
                            The StarSpeeder 3000 is equipped with at least 2 laser canon, mounted one on each side of the craft near the front and low.

                            During the pre-show, R2D2 accidentally powers them up during the preflight testing on the speeder in the queue area. C3P0: "Shut them down!"

                            They are used during the sequence over the Death Star to destroy a TIE fighter (at least once, but possibly more).
                            the star speeder 3000 needs to be replaced it looks like something out of star trek instead of star wars.... maybe add some wings to it..or make it look a kin to a lamda class shuttle or something anything but a box...
                            "Alright you primative screwheads listen up.."BRUCE CAMPBELL

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Star Tours II

                              Originally posted by sunrider View Post
                              all i know is dlr is getting the redo..maybe star wars weekends will move here exclusivly after that
                              Doubt it.
                              It's immensely popular over
                              at Walt Disney World.

                              However, there has been some
                              talk about doing some events similar
                              to Star Wars Weekends at the
                              Disneyland Resort.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Star Tours II

                                Originally posted by Matterhorn Boy View Post
                                I'm still not quite understanding why an attraction that involves things relatively far away from you needs to be in 3D. If anything, it will take away from the overall realism because it will likely gratuitously add dimensionality to objects that shouldn't have any.

                                Also, few people seem to realize that going from 70mm film to "High Definition" DLP resolution is a significant downgrade. Film might have it's drawbacks as a long term format, but a clean 70mm print still outclasses all forms of digital projection.
                                Good points.

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X