The one-stop shopping page for panoramic cameras, both research and commercial, is here: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~kostas/omni.html

Thanks for the updated data of research for immersive cinema and the additional to both Scott and Michael--it's pretty enjoyable mapping the subtle variety of all those models.

Now we have panorama(as did people dacades ago), and the issue however is: aside from "more" realness we get, what else is it offering? Traditional cinema values Cutting and POV vitally. People developed "inner montage" even for Mise en Scene to make use of the power of cinematic constitute of time+space (except those not so succesful experimental works like Russia Ark). These creates not only new visual+aural complex for auteurs to play with but also the powerful device for them to narrate. In the sense of aesthetics, storytelling only hangs far behind--it's hard to imagine how Eisenstein(Bronenosets Potyomkin), Truffaut（Quatre cents coups, Les）, Godard（À bout de souffle）, Resnais（Année dernière à Marienbad, L', Hiroshima Mon Amour etc）etc could construct those gorgeous cinematic time without Cutting, nor could Welles(Citizon Kane, which totally exempted the moss-grown, conservative Close-up, the notional leftovers of the days of silent picture), Kurosawa(Rashomon, Ran), Antonioni(Al di là delle nuvole) and Fillini(8½, psychological space) do their spacial creation for the "2nd reality" without POV(DOV+FOV).

By far we see almost all the panorama footages are "wild view", and it's really weird for people to imagine a panoramic close-up and panoramic medium. Also, being frame-free, how to conduct POV? While panorama is expanding the FOV at the cost of traditional POV, panorama makers must envisage the possible substituend--otherwise eventually the panoramic storytelling would easily and ashamedly drop back to the mere live theatric performance.

This was an interesting presesntation. I was pretty impressed with the content that they shot for their demo movies. The idea of the AI, for example, was pretty convincing, especially considering the panoramic camera had this kind of security-camera-ish feel. Although the whole thing feels gimicky right now, I have to believe that there could be a place for panoramic cinema in the future. I'm especially interested to see things like the inside of a volcano, or maybe deep sea diving. It seems to be a little less intense than IMAX and OMNIMAX, at least. Maybe full features would work, although I wonder if they'll be able to keep the audience's attention focused on the subject for long enough to maintain a traditional narrative, without causing them to go into overload.

On the other hand, I also wonder how interactivity will fit into this model. Allowing the user to scroll through a panorama reminds me very much of controlling the camera in a video game. If that's the case, this would probably exacerbate the issue of holding the audiences attention, since there wouldn't be peripheral vision to clue people in to where their attention belongs. Also, how would a whole family watch a movie at once? If they're all watching the same screen, how would they share control?

If these issues can be resolved, then I'm interested to see what panoramic movies have to offer cinema.

One of the things I found interesting were the paralells between traditional cinema and the panoramic. While there is no "border", a lot of elements are still shared. Editing-that is, cutting from one location to another-still seems to work within the panoramic work. Cutting to the same location would be jarring, to be sure, but this really seems to be an extension of jump cutting and the 180 degree rule.

That said, I really liked the zoetrope work, mingling supposedly different films into a single, one-take work. The way the view system works strongly implies viewing a given piece more than once, as your view is only a fraction of the potential action at any given time. Putting the viewer into a confusing (but rather humorous) setting played well to the camera's design and strengths.

Umm, I agree, at least, overdoing is always negative. But, it's not true audience would get to the middle of infomation tando viewing average panoramic footage. Because that conflics the experiments on non-voluntary/spontaneous attention that show average Hollywood blockbaster holds audience's non-voluntary attention of purpose only at the turn of the plot, which usually takes only 1/5 of the feature length, and submits the rest to their voluntary attention at will (Hollywood studios are but good at doing the rest 4/5, which is one of the key factors of its commercial triumphe over the world).

As for immersive panorama without the traditional "guide" viz. functional form, I wonder if any non-voluntary attention　wonder be conducted as expected as their eyes are so free--even without traditional 4 frames--that they either choose to focus or, mostly, just look planlessly.

Umm, I agree, at least, overdoing is always negative. But, it's not true audience would get to the middle of infomation tando viewing average panoramic footage. Because that conflics the experiments on non-voluntary/spontaneous attention that show average Hollywood blockbaster holds audience's non-voluntary attention of purpose only at the turn of the plot, which usually takes only 1/5 of the feature length, and submits the rest to their voluntary attention at will (Hollywood studios are but good at doing the rest 4/5, which is one of the key factors of its commercial triumphe over the world).

As for immersive panorama without the traditional "guide" viz. functional form, I wonder if any non-voluntary attention　wonder be conducted as expected as their eyes are so free--even without traditional 4 frames--that they either choose to focus or, mostly, just look planlessly.

I wonder about the possibilities of this medium for narrative content. I can't help feeling that, unless I was to watch it many times, exploring wherever I wanted would make me apprehensive that I was missing something important where I wasn't looking. And watching it many times might be fine, but then I wouldn't want the piece to be that long. Also, what about sound? One thing that bothered me about "Timecode" was that, sure, you COULD look wherever you wanted, but the sound directed your eyes subconsciously. I think there are a lot of sensory cues like that which could direct your viewers even when you don't mean to.

I love the idea of Escher in 360 degrees. It would be like the ending of "Labyrinth" times 10!

I thought Doox's comment about using this camera to record an orchestra concert and thus allowing the user to focus on particular musicians and instruments was really interesting. In terms of recording sports and entertainment events, it seems like the audience for such things would be family members and avid fans - these would be the people who would pay more to have the ability to focus on their grandson or their favorite player.

Yes. Maybe that partly explain why most immersive panoramic pieces are always short.

And sound, I'd like to leave music out temporarily, not because it has little to do with vision(It actually does, experimentally, physiologically and psychologically. For instance, a sudden loud sound widens pupils thus 1. allows more lights casting onto the retina, which makes people feel brighter, and 2. "brightens" the dark area of the display, and 3. invites the eye-brain to catch the most apparent visual arrangement, natural or designed.), but because by nature it doesn't necessarily belong to cinema. So that I believe for panorama, the sound part would need to be much more emphasized than ever thus to make up the balance.

I enjoyed the talk, but wish we could've seen some actual demos of the panoramic pieces. It's really hard to get a clear sense of whether it works or not (as a narrative--I'm sure the tech works as expected).

I vaguely remember the Morning Musume "game" and...I wish I could rid it from my memory. (Except Ayaka. She's cool. Especially with her English lessons.)

Actually, the orchestra comment from Doox briefly reminded me of one of my pipe-dream projects: an educational product which would teach conductors how to conduct an orchestra. One thing led to another, and now I'm kicking myself for not asking if there was any thought in using sensors along the edge of an installed room to detect where eyeballs were roughly focused (Hey there, Michael) and afford...something. Some sort of interactivity based on what more people notice or focus on? (Did people turn around to see who entered the door or did they focus on the dialog infront of them?)

And now I'm thinking of comapnies using this as some crazy focus testing scheme...

And back to this: I found the zoetrope sequence very interesting. It was quite beautiful to look at. Within the space of this expanded but still very distinct frame there is this ambiguity of scene presented to us that is very effective. Very beautiful.

The panoramic camera is an exciting new way of presenting images for new kinds of experiences. I'd really like to experience the panoramic display for myself. Rick's idea of prototyping for this kind of experience on the computer in 3D seems like an good step forward. The panoramic camera has a different kind of visual language than the boxes we're used to seeing out images in and its cool to explore what kind of images and experiences are best suited to it.

The idea I have in my head of what it'd be like in the middle of one of these panoramic displays makes me think of aquariums for some reason. Actually, sometimes the setup in the ZML makes me think of aquariums too. Maybe aquariums have just been engrained in my mind as a primitive of immersive experience. Especially when dark rooms are involved.

I would have to second Jess's apprehensions about using this medium for narrative content. It seems like its main strengths seem to be verisimilitude and the possiblities for exploring a space, but I cannot help feeling like what is filmed by this camera is still "dumb" content, ie. content that doesn't know what it is. Using it with the boom with it would be fun, but I agree with Rick that 3-D might still lend itself better to the creation of explorable worlds.

I do think that museum experiences could benefit from this technology, as could events where a large number of people are watching, ie. sports, music or public events like riots, speeches, conventions, and the like.

It looks like a very unweildy technology, which makes it hard to give action and movement to a shot - the movement is better suited to user control. Thus placing the camera within a space that you want to give a ractor control over and then setting them free within it would be the best bet, i feel. Note that I say "space," and not "world." These spaces could possibly be linked together to provide a Myst-like experience, but I feel like we left those behind in about 1994...

...and this definitely needs 3-D sound!!!

I agree that this technology is probably best used for travelogues or exploring some natural phenomenon. However, I’m intrigued with the possibilities of trying to find the right kind of narrative that could effectively be used with this technology. One possibility would be a script that would incorporate the film crew into the story. A film that comes to mind is "Living in Oblivion" (1995) that starred Steve Buschemi as a director trying to manage an unwieldy set of actors and crew members. I think that that script has the seeds of possibility for a narrative using panoramic cinema.

Panoramic devices seem to have similar issues with 3D game camera movement. We are given a certain degree of freedom to navigate inside a world but it also makes it difficult to use various filmic camera language. I think if we want to make a good use of this device, we need to find its own language rather than sticking to typical filmic language. The panoramic film I saw at the seminar was quite unique. I've never saw such a film before. Maybe "timecode" would be the closest thing to that in terms of the way multiple stories going on at the same time and also affecting each other. In these days of multi-tasking everywhere(not to mention the windows system), that kind of storytelling felt like surprisingly familiar. That also reminds me of a game in which players has to deal with 4 different mini-games at the same time. Panoramic devices seem like really proper for watching performances in which people have their own point of interest to see various part of them. But after watching the film at the seminar, I got to be perticularly interested in such multi-tasking narrative possibility of the device.

I liked the rather surreal play that this team taped, but the problem of telling a story with such a system still seems pretty unsolved. I think animation and directional sound would help with the problem of directing people's attention to certain key moments, as well as editing and disabling interactivity at times (although I'd be careful using the dreaded cut-scene). Putting overlayed graphics and sound that stays centered on the screen as you move the camera would also help.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: