Please Put Epcot Out Of Its Misery!

[blainekyle]

- Soarin' is still good, but it's a shell of what it was. A grainy film on a dirty screen does not compel me to stand in line for an hour. In this age of HD and digital, there's no excuse why this film has to look like garbage

Soarin' was shot and is presented on IMAX 70MM film, at a framerate of 48fps, which is double that of a standard film--yes, even digital.

I know that a lot of people don't know what this means, but fortunately I have the expertise to elaborate. First, some background. Before the advent of HD and digital presentation, the standard format for shooting and presenting films (the ones you see at a regular movie theater) was 35MM film. That is half the physical size of IMAX film, and it is shot at half as many frames per second (24fps). That format, of standard 35MM film, is a superior format in image quality to HD video. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Full HD is defined as an image measuring 1920 pixels in width, and a maximum of 1080 pixels vertically. That looks impressive compared to the old SD standard of 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels tall, which is what your old "tube" television presented, but it is a major downgrade from the resolution of 35MM film. And the really sad thing is that movie studios have actually started presenting movies in theaters under the "digital" moniker at this lower resolution, having the gall to advertise it as a superior cinematic experience. They have really sold the public on that notion, so I can't blame you for thinking that "HD" and "digital" means "better than film." If you doubt this, just go sit in the very front row the next time you go to the movies, and then just look at a corner of the screen rather than taking in the whole picture. Look for the pixels. You'll realize that they are there, and they might even be as big as the extra large Coca-Cola you're holding.

Now, stepping back, the IMAX that Soarin' uses presents DOUBLE the resolution AND framerate of 35MM film, which is itself already superior to any digital presentation available anywhere. There really is no comparison.

I will admit one caveat: Film, including IMAX film, does require maintenance and cleaning. Even then, you will occasionally see some dirt. The type of IMAX projector they use for Soarin' happens to be the same kind that I have worked with, which uses an air compressor to blow such dirt out before it can be seen, but some will still slip through. BUT, would you rather the occasional fleck of dirt, or pixels all over? If you will recall how close Soarin' puts you to the screen, you'll know that pixel visibility would be disastrous.

With all that said, I haven't been to the park in almost two years, and I'm not even sure I got the chance to ride Soarin' on that trip. If in fact the film print(s) has been allowed to degrade due to improper care, or is just being presented dirty due to lack of proper cleaning, then that is truly sad. But, there is no viable digital alternative, unless Disney wants to invent a new camera and projector system just for that ride. That includes IMAX digital, by the way, which is only IMAX in name, and does not represent anywhere near the same quality, using two "2K" projectors for an effective resolution of 4000 pixels horizontally.

 

[maxiesmom]

Why go back to Disney World if you find so many things wrong with it? The reason why they don't update more is because people will probably complain and throw tantrums when they do update stuff.

That is very true. People are constantly complaining about the state of the parks, how Disney needs to spend money freshening up the parks. And when they do, all you see is complaining about it being done during "my" trip. How dare they close Big Thunder Mountain/Test Track/Snow White? How dare they paint and put up tarps over the building fronts? Don't they know they are ruining "my" vacation pictures?

Disney is darned if they do, darned if they don't.

 

[ZehnJahren]

And, THAT's why Disney is not too worried about making any
"updates/changes/imprpvements" to Soarin'

It is staggeringly popular, just as it sits.

I myself wonder if Soarin and Test Track would be as popular if there were other big E-ticket rides in Epcot. Even one more could possibly drop the lines significantly for those two by spreading out some of the people in the park. I guess we'll see more of that when the summer comes - but how could we ever see if the ride is popular or a case of "well, ya gotta ride SOMETHIN'"?

Guess Disney's doing the math.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

Soarin' was shot and is presented on IMAX 70MM film, at a framerate of 48fps, which is double that of a standard film--yes, even digital.

I know that a lot of people don't know what this means, but fortunately I have the expertise to elaborate. First, some background. Before the advent of HD and digital presentation, the standard format for shooting and presenting films (the ones you see at a regular movie theater) was 35MM film. That is half the physical size of IMAX film, and it is shot at half as many frames per second (24fps). That format, of standard 35MM film, is a superior format in image quality to HD video. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Full HD is defined as an image measuring 1920 pixels in width, and a maximum of 1080 pixels vertically. That looks impressive compared to the old SD standard of 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels tall, which is what your old "tube" television presented, but it is a major downgrade from the resolution of 35MM film. And the really sad thing is that movie studios have actually started presenting movies in theaters under the "digital" moniker at this lower resolution, having the gall to advertise it as a superior cinematic experience. They have really sold the public on that notion, so I can't blame you for thinking that "HD" and "digital" means "better than film." If you doubt this, just go sit in the very front row the next time you go to the movies, and then just look at a corner of the screen rather than taking in the whole picture. Look for the pixels. You'll realize that they are there, and they might even be as big as the extra large Coca-Cola you're holding.

Now, stepping back, the IMAX that Soarin' uses presents DOUBLE the resolution AND framerate of 35MM film, which is itself already superior to any digital presentation available anywhere. There really is no comparison.

I will admit one caveat: Film, including IMAX film, does require maintenance and cleaning. Even then, you will occasionally see some dirt. The type of IMAX projector they use for Soarin' happens to be the same kind that I have worked with, which uses an air compressor to blow such dirt out before it can be seen, but some will still slip through. BUT, would you rather the occasional fleck of dirt, or pixels all over? If you will recall how close Soarin' puts you to the screen, you'll know that pixel visibility would be disastrous.

With all that said, I haven't been to the park in almost two years, and I'm not even sure I got the chance to ride Soarin' on that trip. If in fact the film print(s) has been allowed to degrade due to improper care, or is just being presented dirty due to lack of proper cleaning, then that is truly sad. But, there is no viable digital alternative, unless Disney wants to invent a new camera and projector system just for that ride. That includes IMAX digital, by the way, which is only IMAX in name, and does not represent anywhere near the same quality, using two "2K" projectors for an effective resolution of 4000 pixels horizontally.

Excellent post! Really enjoy the details of this.

Sadly, it is as you surmise: the film is dirty or has been allowed to degrade. Lots of flecks of dirt. And not only that, the physical screen itself appears dirty...at least to me...so that even when it's totally white with no film on it it looks dirty.

You would think they could just paint it?

And how would they go about restoring the film so it isn't dirty? Is there a master copy somewhere? i.e. what do you do when the IMAX film degrades?

 

[disneydee6]

I am in agreement with what a lot of people are saying here. WS is great, and another countries addition would be nice, but is good for now. Future world really could use some re-invention. I love that they brought Nemo into the Living Seas, and I like that they are spicing up TT. Of course, once we hear of an overhaul in Future World, the disboards will blow up (I love epcot the way it is!! Why are they doing this during my trip?!?! ). But I would like to see them continue to change the rides. Bring Wall-e to Epcot, get rid of a few dated rides (Captain eo is fun and but I'd like to see it retired and get a new 3d experience, and I don't mean bring back HISTO lol) Perhaps a thrill ride might be in order? I think a few modern changes would make a big difference.

 

[CentralFloridian99]

Cranium Command would be more entertaining (and appropriate?) in Imagination than Captain EO.

Agreed, except you would have to change CC up quite a bit. Instead of the whole normal life, make it focused on the brain's imagination.

 

[CentralFloridian99]

It is staggeringly popular, just as it sits.

I just caculated how many riders an hour Soarin' gets, and appearently it only gets about 1000 RPH if one theater is running.

 

[hookedonears]

That is very true. People are constantly complaining about the state of the parks, how Disney needs to spend money freshening up the parks. And when they do, all you see is complaining about it being done during "my" trip. How dare they close Big Thunder Mountain/Test Track/Snow White? How dare they paint and put up tarps over the building fronts? Don't they know they are ruining "my" vacation pictures?

Disney is darned if they do, darned if they don't.

I agree with you 100% here. Maybe Disney could however, do a better job of giving people more advanced notice as to when attractions will be going down and maybe they could do a better job of expediting the refurbs and reduce the down times. It's all about money and budgets.

 

[Kate and Family]

One common thread in many of the posts is the difficulty in keeping up with the future as a theme since technology is changing at such a rapid rate. (I agree)

That got me thinking. If you knew then (1980's) what you know now - what would you have named the park other than "Future World".

 

[blainekyle]

Excellent post! Really enjoy the details of this.

Sadly, it is as you surmise: the film is dirty or has been allowed to degrade. Lots of flecks of dirt. And not only that, the physical screen itself appears dirty...at least to me...so that even when it's totally white with no film on it it looks dirty.

You would think they could just paint it?

And how would they go about restoring the film so it isn't dirty? Is there a master copy somewhere? i.e. what do you do when the IMAX film degrades?

Actually, with regard to the screen, cleaning it is an interesting process. Soarin' uses an IMAX Dome (sometimes referred to as Omnimax), which I happen to have firsthand experience with. Unlike traditional movie screens, which are made of a flexible fabric, dome screens are built out of rigid, curved pieces, which fit together in a grid pattern. The cleaning process is actually done from the reverse, by way of vacuum suction. The pieces are perforated to allow this.

The screen cleaning process requires an expert to actually climb over the convex back of the screen structure with a backpack mounted vacuum. There are only two or three firms in the country that perform this service, and it is very costly.

IMAX recommends that dome screens be cleaned, I believe, every two years, but then most IMAX dome screens don't have thousands of feet dangled over them each day while artificial wind blows around the room. My guess would be that they are running a standard cleaning schedule without accounting for the unique circumstances of Soarin'.

They could not paint the screen, though, because they would close up the perforations and prevent future cleaning. I doubt there is anything wrong with the screen that could not be fixed with more frequent cleanings.

As for the film, if it is just dirty, there are cleaning pads that can be used to clean it. For a scenario like this, where the same print is being shown continuously, I would always run the film with the cleaning pads. This is something that is done as the film runs through the projector.

Also, a lot of the dirt that occurs in these cases actually comes from the projector. With the very high workload that Soarin' experiences, the projector should be thoroughly cleaned, I would say, at least four times per day. That is once either before opening or after closing (no need for both, since there are no showings in between), and three times spaced evenly throughout the day. They may not be doing this, as it would mean three 1/2 hour periods of downtime for the attraction each day. In any case, though, the projector should ideally be getting at least a quick wipe-down between showings, and there should be plenty of time for that during the loading/unloading time, even accounting for the time it takes to thread the projector for the show.

But, that just addresses dirty film. If the film is damaged, I would hope that they have a master copy. It may be in California, since they run the same show there. I would also think that they probably have multiple prints in Orlando. That would be necessary both to reduce wear and to have a backup in case one print is seriously damaged, because accidents DO happen. IMAX equipment is much more complex than standard film equipment, and simple mistakes can cause film to be ripped apart (the projector itself can actually "eat" the film in a way horrifyingly reminiscent the common VCR incident), and even for entire film prints to be thrown to the floor in a depressing pile, which takes HOURS to pick up, and leaves the film very dirty and in need of a series of cleanings.

And God forbid their projection booth should not be kept at the right temperature and humidity levels. This can actually result in a warping of the film, not in a way that skew the picture, but in a way that would cause the film to not stay flush with the projection rotor, thus causing some blur on the left and right sides of the picture. If that is happening, they need to have their entire booth modified to create the correct atmosphere, and then to replace all of their film prints. That would be a VERY costly endeavor.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

One common thread in many of the posts is the difficulty in keeping up with the future as a theme since technology is changing at such a rapid rate. (I agree)

That got me thinking. If you knew then (1980's) what you know now - what would you have named the park other than "Future World".

It's a good an interesting question - but almost impossible to answer.

Epcot has come so far from what it was originally intended to be...you know Walt's whole vision for the "community of tomorrow".

Now FW is what it is...a weird hodge podge of stuff that loosely follows some sort of technological theme and with retro-futuristic architecture. Kind of like Tomorrowland, but bigger and with fountains.

I really don't think anyone would even concieve of the idea of building FW let alone naming it...it just sort of happened based on continuing one man's idea after that man died....

 

[mcd2745]

One common thread in many of the posts is the difficulty in keeping up with the future as a theme since technology is changing at such a rapid rate. (I agree)

That got me thinking. If you knew then (1980's) what you know now - what would you have named the park other than "Future World".

Not sure what I would have named it then, but since so many can agree that today, "Future World" really isn't a great or accurate name for that half of epcot...who would have a problem with Disney re-naming that area?

 

[perdidochas]

Nope, just the fact that Epcot is falling behind everything else. Epcot used to be a highlight. Now we blow through it on our way to World Showcase. We too, love Maelstrom and can waste hours at WS and still not see everything. It just seems like other parks, both in and out of WDW, are progressing and Epcot is still stuck in the 80's wearing its leg warmers listening to Duran Duran

Innoventions now has "Sum of All Thrills" where you create your own simulator ride.

 

[disnut8]

I guess I just don't get the whole "Test Track is going to be down for MONTHS!" thing. When did anyone expect the darn attraction to get refurbed? Did everyone want to take the ride over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? It's the same thing each time! Nothing changes.

Disney is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are damned if they keep Test Track doing the same thing every single year and they are damned if they refurb and try to make it better. What do you people want?

So, Test Track is down, big deal. It's not the end of Future World by any stretch of the imagination (pun intended).

 

[I Love Pluto]

Hey - I really LIKE Bill Nye the Science Guy!!!

Yes - the front of Epcot needs help. The "future" or "tomorrow" is NOT there!!!!! Perish the thought!!!!!


But - we love the World Showcase!

 

[Schmoodle]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread right now. I am sure it's a back and forth of people disagreeing and saying if you don't like it, lump it.

I will say, Epcot is my favorite WDW park. My whole family adores it and always spend at least two of our days there. BUT, I think you have some very valid points, OP. It could be so much more...

 

[catne]

we love Epcot.

If Disney decides to update it, fine with us.

But also fine to leave it the way it is...the rides become nostalgic fun at some point (like Tomorrowland in MK)

And World Showcase is wonderful...

 

[larryz]

What I find extremely laughable is the fact that someone said Mission Space was better in the 80's!! When it first opened in 2003 LOL!! And no one else seemed to notice that!!

Perhaps OP was mixing it up with Mission to Mars? I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I LIKE M:S -- it's the closest most people will ever come to anything like astronaut training.

Never thrown up once yet. But there's still time...

 

[MolonLabe]

[QUOTE="Cinder" Ella's Mom;44615923]I agree with much of this, but Mission Space just opened in 2003. Not sure how it was cool in the 80's. Confused...[/QUOTE]

lol, sorry, tablets can be a pain sometimes. I jumped while typing and thought I deleted it befor retyping it again further down.

 

[Eeyore98]

Ok, I'm done listening to Wikipedia articles about Disney parks.

The Wiki article isn't the problem, just your perception of it, apparently. It notes that there was a sign posted outside the "Making of Me" theater noting that the film discusses the medical facts of conception and birth. Wiki also quotes the ride creators as saying they think the film will elict some controversy (being essentially a "birds and bees" discussion at Disney), but that "our intent was not to walk into the teeth of that issue".

How in the world you read that and concluded

The Making of Me led to abortions

completely baffles me. Or that when someone corrects you, that it's Wikipedia that was the problem?

Universal isn't putting money into any other part of IOA right now, and is building one new ride (Despicable Me) at US. They've closed Jaws (thank you!) and haven't announced anything there yet. Nevermind that Jurassic Park, Seuss Island, Superhero Island, Barney-land (really ... Barney? Is he even on TV any more?), Feivel's Playland (do kids know who HE is?) and several other areas are in sore need of something new.

OMG, Fievel! I'm sure kids don't know who he is anymore, but now I totally want to go check out Fievel's Playland! I loved the American Tail movies as a kid!