Bona fides: Commodore 128DCR on my desk with a second 1571, Ultimate II+-L and a ZoomFloppy, three SX-64s I use for various projects, heaps of spare 128DCRs, breadbox 64s, 16s, Plus/4s and VIC-20s on standby, multiple Commodore collectables (blue-label PET 2001, C64GS, 116, TV Games, 1551, 1570), a couple A500s, an A3000 and a AmigaOS 3.9 QuikPak A4000T with '060 CPU, Picasso IV RTG card and Ethernet. I wrote for COMPUTE!'s Gazette (during the General Media years) and Loadstar. Here's me with Jack Tramiel and his son Leonard from a Computer History Museum event in 2007. It's on my wall. Retro Recipes video (not affiliated) stating that, in answer to a request for a very broad license to distribute under the Commodore name, Commodore Corporation BV instead simply proposed he buy them out, which would obviously transfer the trademark to him outright. Amiga News has a very nice summary. There was a time when Commodore intellectual property and the Commodore brand had substantial value, and that time probably ended around the mid-2000s. Prior to that point after Commodore went bankrupt in 1994, a lot of residual affection for the Amiga and the 64/128 still circulated, the AmigaOS still had viability for some applications and there might have been something to learn from the hardware, particularly the odder corners like the PA-RISC Hombre. That's why there was so much turmoil over the corpse, from Escom's abortive buyout to the split of the assets. Today the Commodore name (after many shifts and purchases and reorgs) is presently held by Commodore Corporation BV, a Netherlands company, who licenses it out. Pretty much the rest of it is split into the hardware patents (now with Acer after their buyout of Gateway 2000) and the remaining IP (Amiga Corporation, effectively Cloanto). The Commodore brand after the company's demise has had an exceptionally poor track record in the market. Many of us remember the 1999 Commodore 64 Web.it, licensed by Escom, which was a disastrously bad set-top 486 PC sold as an "Internet computer" whose only link to CBM was the Commodore name and a built-in 64 emulator. Reviewers savaged it and they've become collectors' items purely for the lulz. In 2007, Tulip licensee Commodore Gaming tried again with PC gaming rigs sold as the Commodore XX, GS, GX and G (are these computers or MPAA ratings?) and special wraps called C=kins (say it "skins"). I went to the launch party in L.A. — 8-Bit Weapon was there, hi Seth and Michelle! — and I even have one of their T-shirts around someplace. The company subsequently ran out of money and their most consequential legacy was the huge and heavily branded case. More recently, in 2010, another American company called itself Commodore USA LLC and tried developing new keyboard computers, most notably the (first) Commodore 64x. These were otherwise underpowered PCs using mini-ATX motherboards in breadboard-like cases where cooling was an obvious issue. They also tried selling "VICs" (which didn't look like VIC-20s) and "Amigas" (which were Intel i7 systems), and introduced their own Linux-based Commodore OS. Opinions were harsh and the company went under after its CEO died in 2012. Dishonourable mentions include Tulip-Yeahronimo's 2004 MP3 player line, sold as the (inexplicably) e-VIC, m-PET and f-PET, and the PET smartphone, a 2015 otherwise unremarkable Android device with its own collection of on-board emulators. No points for guessing how much of an impact those made. And none of this is really specific to Commodore, either: look at the shambling corpse of Atari SA, made to dance on decaying strings by the former Infogrames' principals. I mean, cryptocurrency and hotels straight out of Blade Runner — really? The exception to the rule was the 2004 C64DTV, a Tulip-licensed all-in-one direct-to-TV console containing a miniaturized and enhanced Commodore 64 designed by Jeri Ellsworth in a Competition Pro-style joystick. It played many built-in games from flash storage but more importantly could be easily modded into a distinct Commodore computer of its own, complete with keyboard and IEC serial ports, and VICE even emulates it. It sold well enough to go through two additional hardware revisions and the system turned up in other contemporary DTVs (like the DTV3 in the Hummer DTV game). There are also the 2019 "TheC64" machines, in both mini and full-size varieties (not affiliated), which are pretty much modern direct-to-TV systems in breadbin cases that run built-in games under emulation. The inclusion of USB "Comp Pro" styled joysticks is an obvious secondary homage to the C64DTV. Notably, Retro Games Ltd licensed the Commodore 64 ROMs from Cloanto but didn't license the Commodore trademark, so the name Commodore never appears anywhere on the box or the machine (though you decide if the trade dress is infringing). The remnant of the 64x was its case moulds, which were bought by My Retro Computer Ltd in the UK after Commodore USA LLC went under and that's where this story picks up, selling an officially licened new version of the 64x (also not affiliated) after Commodore Corporation BV granted permission in 2022. This new 64x comes in three pre-built configurations or as a bare case. By buying out the Commodore name they would get to sell these without the (frankly exorbitant) fees CC BV was charging and extend the brand to other existing Commodore re-creations like the Mega 65, but the video also has more nebulous aims, such as other retro Commodore products (Jeri Ellsworth herself appears in this video) or something I didn't quite follow about a Commodore charity arcade for children's hospitals, or other very enthusiastically expressed yet moderately unclear goals. I've been careful not to say there's no point in buying the Commodore trademark — I said there's not much. There is clearly a market for reimplementing classic Commodore hardware; Ellsworth herself proved it with the C64DTV, and current devices like the (also not affiliated with any) Mega 65, Ultimate64 and Kawari VIC-II still sell. But outside of the retro niche, Commodore as a brand name is pretty damn dead. Retro items sell only small numbers in boutique markets. Commodore PCs and Commodore smartphones don't sell because the Commodore name adds nothing now to a PC or handset, and the way we work with modern machines — for better or worse — is worlds different than how we worked with a 1982 home computer. No one expects to interact with, say, a Web page or a smartphone app in the same way we used a BASIC program or a 5.25" floppy. Maybe we should, but we don't. Furthermore, there's also the very pertinent question of how to steward such a community resource. The effort is clearly earnest, genuine and heartfelt, but that's not enough without governance. Letting these obviously hobbyist projects become full-fledged members of the extended Commodore family seems reasonable and even appropriate, but then there's the issue of preventing the Shenzhen back alley cloners from ripping them (and you) off. Plus, even these small products do make some money. What's FRAND in a situation like this? How would you enforce it? Should you enforce it? Does everyone who chips in get some fraction of a vote or some piece of the action? If the idea is only to allow the Commodore name to be applied to projects of sufficient quality and/or community benefit, who decides? Better to let it rest in peace and stop encouraging these bloodsuckers to drain what life and goodwill remain in the Commodore name. The crap products that came before only benefited the licensor and just make the brand more tawdry. CC BV only gets to do what it does because it's allowed to. TheC64 systems sold without the Commodore trademark because it was obvious what they were and what they do; Mega 65s and Ultimate64s are in the same boat. Commodore enthusiasts like me know what these systems are. We'll buy them on their merits, or not, whether the Commodore name is on the label, or not (and they will likely be cheaper if they don't). CC BV reportedly has been trying to sell off the trademark for awhile, which seems to hint that they too recognize the futility. Don't fall into their trap.

In a previous life, I worked for a location-based entertainment company, part of a huge team of people developing a location for Las Vegas, Nevada. It was COVID, a rough time for location-based anything, and things were delayed more than usual. Coworkers paid a lot of attention to another upcoming Las Vegas attraction, one with a vastly larger budget but still struggling to make schedule: the MSG (Madison Square Garden) Sphere. I will set aside jokes about it being a square sphere, but they were perhaps one of the reasons that it underwent a pre-launch rebranding to merely the Sphere. If you are not familiar, the Sphere is a theater and venue in Las Vegas. While it's know mostly for the video display on the outside, that's just marketing for the inside: a digital dome theater, with seating at a roughly 45 degree stadium layout facing a near hemisphere of video displays. It is a "near" hemisphere because the lower section is truncated to allow a flat floor, which serves as a stage for events but is also a practical architectural decision to avoid completely unsalable front rows. It might seem a little bit deceptive that an attraction called the Sphere does not quite pull off even a hemisphere of "payload," but the same compromise has been reached by most dome theaters. While the use of digital display technology is flashy, especially on the exterior, the Sphere is not quite the innovation that it presents itself as. It is just a continuation of a long tradition of dome theaters. Only time will tell, but the financial difficulties of the Sphere suggest that follows the tradition faithfully: towards commercial failure. You could make an argument that the dome theater is hundreds of years old, but I will omit it. Things really started developing, at least in our modern tradition of domes, with the 1923 introduction of the Zeiss planetarium projector. Zeiss projectors and their siblings used a complex optical and mechanical design to project accurate representations of the night sky. Many auxiliary projectors, incorporated into the chassis and giving these projectors famously eccentric shapes, rendered planets and other celestial bodies. Rather than digital light modulators, the images from these projectors were formed by purely optical means: perforated metal plates, glass plates with etched metalized layers, and fiber optics. The large, precisely manufactured image elements and specialized optics created breathtaking images. While these projectors had considerable entertainment value, especially in the mid-century when they represented some of the most sophisticated projection technology yet developed, their greatest potential was obviously in education. Planetarium projectors were fantastically expensive (being hand-built in Germany with incredible component counts) [1], they were widely installed in science museums around the world. Most of us probably remember a dogbone-shaped Zeiss, or one of their later competitors like Spitz or Minolta, from our youths. Unfortunately, these marvels of artistic engineering were mostly retired as digital projection of near comparable quality became similarly priced in the 2000s. But we aren't talking about projectors, we're talking about theaters. Planetarium projectors were highly specialized to rendering the night sky, and everything about them was intrinsically spherical. For both a reasonable viewing experience, and for the projector to produce a geometrically correct image, the screen had to be a spherical section. Thus the planetarium itself: in its most traditional form, rings of heavily reclined seats below a hemispherical dome. The dome was rarely a full hemisphere, but was usually truncated at the horizon. This was mostly a practical decision but integrated well into the planetarium experience, given that sky viewing is usually poor near the horizon anyway. Many planetaria painted a city skyline or forest silhouette around the lower edge to make the transition from screen to wall more natural. Later, theatrical lighting often replaced the silhouette, reproducing twilight or the haze of city lights. Unsurprisingly, the application-specific design of these theaters also limits their potential. Despite many attempts, the collective science museum industry has struggled to find entertainment programming for planetaria much beyond Pink Floyd laser shows [1]. There just aren't that many things that you look up at. Over time, planetarium shows moved in more narrative directions. Film projection promised new flexibility---many planetaria with optical star projectors were also equipped with film projectors, which gave show producers exciting new options. Documentary video of space launches and animations of physical principles became natural parts of most science museum programs, but were a bit awkward on the traditional dome. You might project four copies of the image just above the horizon in the four cardinal directions, for example. It was very much a compromise. With time, the theater adapted to the projection once again: the domes began to tilt. By shifting the dome in one direction, and orienting the seating towards that direction, you could create a sort of compromise point between the traditional dome and traditional movie theater. The lower central area of the screen was a reasonable place to show conventional film, while the full size of the dome allowed the starfield to almost fill the audience's vision. The experience of the tilted dome is compared to "floating in space," as opposed to looking up at the sky. In true Cold War fashion, it was a pair of weapons engineers (one nuclear weapons, the other missiles) who designed the first tilted planetarium. In 1973, the planetarium of what is now called the Fleet Science Center in San Diego, California opened to the public. Its dome was tilted 25 degrees to the horizon, with the seating installed on a similar plane and facing in one direction. It featured a novel type of planetarium projector developed by Spitz and called the Space Transit Simulator. The STS was not the first, but still an early mechanical projector to be controlled by a computer---a computer that also had simultaneous control of other projectors and lighting in the theater, what we now call a show control system. Even better, the STS's innovative optical design allowed it to warp or bend the starfield to simulate its appearance from locations other than earth. This was the "transit" feature: with a joystick connected to the control computer, the planetarium presenter could "fly" the theater through space in real time. The STS was installed in a well in the center of the seating area, and its compact chassis kept it low in the seating area, preserving the spherical geometry (with the projector at the center of the sphere) without blocking the view of audience members sitting behind it and facing forward. And yet my main reason for discussing the Fleet planetarium is not the the planetarium projector at all. It is a second projector, an "auxiliary" one, installed in a second well behind the STS. The designers of the planetarium intended to show film as part of their presentations, but they were not content with a small image at the center viewpoint. The planetarium commissioned a few of the industry's leading film projection experts to design a film projection system that could fill the entire dome, just as the planetarium projector did. They knew that such a large dome would require an exceptionally sharp image. Planetarium projectors, with their large lithographed slides, offered excellent spatial resolution. They made stars appear as point sources, the same as in the night sky. 35mm film, spread across such a large screen, would be obviously blurred in comparison. They would need a very large film format. Fortuitously, almost simultaneously the Multiscreen Corporation was developing a "sideways" 70mm format. This 15-perf format used 70mm film but fed it through the projector sideways, making each frame much larger than typical 70mm film. In its debut, at a temporary installation in the 1970 Expo Osaka, it was dubbed IMAX. IMAX made an obvious basis for a high-resolution projection system, and so the then-named IMAX Corporation was added to the planetarium project. The Fleet's film projector ultimately consisted of an IMAX film transport with a custom-built compact, liquid-cooled lamphouse and spherical fisheye lens system. The large size of the projector, the complex IMAX framing system and cooling equipment, made it difficult to conceal in the theater's projector well. Threading film into IMAX projectors is quite complex, with several checks the projectionist must make during a pre-show inspection. The projectionist needed room to handle the large film, and to route it to and from the enormous reels. The projector's position in the middle of the seating area left no room for any of this. We can speculate that it was, perhaps, one of the designer's missile experience that lead to the solution: the projector was serviced in a large projection room beneath the theater's seating. Once it was prepared for each show, it rose on near-vertical rails until just the top emerged in the theater. Rollers guided the film as it ran from a platter, up the shaft to the projector, and back down to another platter. Cables and hoses hung below the projector, following it up and down like the traveling cable of an elevator. To advertise this system, probably the greatest advance in film projection since the IMAX format itself, the planetarium coined the term Omnimax. Omnimax was not an easy or economical format. Ideally, footage had to be taken in the same format, using a 70mm camera with a spherical lens system. These cameras were exceptionally large and heavy, and the huge film format limited cinematographers to short takes. The practical problems with Omnimax filming were big enough that the first Omnimax films faked it, projecting to the larger spherical format from much smaller conventional negatives. This was the case for "Voyage to the Outer Planets" and "Garden Isle," the premier films at the Fleet planetarium. The history of both is somewhat obscure, the latter especially. "Voyage to the Outer Planets" was executive-produced by Preston Fleet, a founder of the Fleet center (which was ultimately named for his father, a WWII aviator). We have Fleet's sense of showmanship to thank for the invention of Omnimax: He was an accomplished business executive, particularly in the photography industry, and an aviation enthusiast who had his hands in more than one museum. Most tellingly, though, he had an eccentric hobby. He was a theater organist. I can't help but think that his passion for the theater organ, an instrument almost defined by the combination of many gizmos under electromechanical control, inspired "Voyage." The film, often called a "multimedia experience," used multiple projectors throughout the planetarium to depict a far-future journey of exploration. The Omnimax film depicted travel through space, with slide projectors filling in artist's renderings of the many wonders of space. The ten-minute Omnimax film was produced by Graphic Films Corporation, a brand that would become closely associated with Omnimax in the following decades. Graphic was founded in the midst of the Second World War by Lester Novros, a former Disney animator who found a niche creating training films for the military. Novros's fascination with motion and expertise in presenting complicated 3D scenes drew him to aerospace, and after the war he found much of his business in the newly formed Air Force and NASA. He was also an enthusiast of niche film formats, and Omnimax was not his first dome. For the 1964 New York World's Fair, Novros and Graphic Films had produced "To the Moon and Beyond," a speculative science film with thematic similarities to "Voyage" and more than just a little mechanical similarity. It was presented in Cinerama 360, a semi-spherical, dome-theater 70mm format presented in a special theater called the Moon Dome. "To the Moon and Beyond" was influential in many ways, leading to Graphic Films' involvement in "2001: A Space Odyssey" and its enduring expertise in domes. The Fleet planetarium would not remain the only Omnimax for long. In 1975, the city of Spokane, Washington struggled to find a new application for the pavilion built for Expo '74 [3]. A top contender: an Omnimax theater, in some ways a replacement for the temporary IMAX theater that had been constructed for the actual Expo. Alas, this project was not to be, but others came along: in 1978, the Detroit Science Center opened the second Omnimax theater ("the machine itself looks like and is the size of a front loader," the Detroit Free Press wrote). The Science Museum of Minnesota, in St. Paul, followed shortly after. The Carnegie Science Center, in Pittsburgh, rounded out the year's new launches. Omnimax hit prime time the next year, with the 1979 announcement of an Omnimax theater at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. Unlike the previous installations, this 380-seat theater was purely commercial. It opened with the 1976 IMAX film "To Fly!," which had been optically modified to fit the Omnimax format. This choice of first film is illuminating. "To Fly!" is a 27 minute documentary on the history of aviation in the United States, originally produced for the IMAX theater at the National Air and Space Museum [4]. It doesn't exactly seem like casino fare. The IMAX format, the flat-screen one, was born of world's fairs. It premiered at an Expo, reappeared a couple of years later at another one, and for the first years of the format most of the IMAX theaters built were associated with either a major festival or an educational institution. This noncommercial history is a bit hard to square with the modern IMAX brand, closely associated with major theater chains and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Well, IMAX took off, and in many ways it sold out. Over the decades since the 1970 Expo, IMAX has met widespread success with commercial films and theater owners. Simultaneously, the definition or criteria for IMAX theaters have relaxed, with smaller screens made permissible until, ultimately, the transition to digital projection eliminated the 70mm film and more or less reduce IMAX to just another ticket surcharge brand. It competes directly with Cinemark xD, for example. To the theater enthusiast, this is a pretty sad turn of events, a Westinghouse-esque zombification of a brand that once heralded the field's most impressive technical achievements. The same never happened to Omnimax. The Caesar's Omnimax theater was an odd exception; the vast majority of Omnimax theaters were built by science museums and the vast majority of Omnimax films were science documentaries. Quite a few of those films had been specifically commissioned by science museums, often on the occasion of their Omnimax theater opening. The Omnimax community was fairly tight, and so the same names recur. The Graphic Films Corporation, which had been around since the beginning, remained so closely tied to the IMAX brand that they practically shared identities. Most Omnimax theaters, and some IMAX theaters, used to open with a vanity card often known as "the wormhole." It might be hard to describe beyond "if you know you know," it certainly made an impression on everyone I know that grew up near a theater that used it. There are some videos, although unfortunately none of them are very good. I have spent more hours of my life than I am proud to admit trying to untangle the history of this clip. Over time, it has appeared in many theaters with many different logos at the end, and several variations of the audio track. This is in part informed speculation, but here is what I believe to be true: the "wormhole" was originally created by Graphic Films for the Fleet planetarium specifically, and ran before "Voyage to the Outer Planets" and its double-feature companion "Garden Isle," both of which Graphic Films had worked on. This original version ended with the name Graphic Films, accompanied by an odd sketchy drawing that was also used as an early logo of the IMAX Corporation. Later, the same animation was re-edited to end with an IMAX logo. This version ran in both Omnimax and conventional IMAX theaters, probably as a result of the extensive "cross-pollination" of films between the two formats. Many Omnimax films through the life of the format had actually been filmed for IMAX, with conventional lenses, and then optically modified to fit the Omnimax dome after the fact. You could usually tell: the reprojection process created an unusual warp in the image, and more tellingly, these pseudo-Omnimax films almost always centered the action at the middle of the IMAX frame, which was too high to be quite comfortable in an Omnimax theater (where the "frame center" was well above the "front center" point of the theater). Graphic Films had been involved in a lot of these as well, perhaps explaining the animation reuse, but it's just as likely that they had sold it outright to the IMAX corporation which used it as they pleased. For some reason, this version also received new audio that is mostly the same but slightly different. I don't have a definitive explanation, but I think there may have been an audio format change between the very early Omnimax theaters and later IMAX/Omnimax systems, which might have required remastering. Later, as Omnimax domes proliferated at science museums, the IMAX Corporation (which very actively promoted Omnimax to education) gave many of these theaters custom versions of the vanity card that ended with the science museum's own logo. I have personally seen two of these, so I feel pretty confident that they exist and weren't all that rare (basically 2 out of 2 Omnimax theaters I've visited used one), but I cannot find any preserved copies. Another recurring name in the world of IMAX and Omnimax is MacGillivray Freeman Films. MacGillivray and Freeman were a pair of teenage friends from Laguna Beach who dropped out of school in the '60s to make skateboard and surf films. This is, of course, a rather cliché start for documentary filmmakers but we must allow that it was the '60s and they were pretty much the ones creating the cliché. Their early films are hard to find in anything better than VHS rip quality, but worth watching: Wikipedia notes their significance in pioneering "action cameras," mounting 16mm cinema cameras to skateboards and surfboards, but I would say that their cinematography was innovative in more ways than just one. The 1970 "Catch the Joy," about sandrails, has some incredible shots that I struggle to explain. There's at least one where they definitely cut the shot just a couple of frames before a drifting sandrail flung their camera all the way down the dune. For some reason, I would speculate due to their reputation for exciting cinematography, the National Air and Space Museum chose MacGillivray and Freeman for "To Fly!". While not the first science museum IMAX documentary by any means (that was, presumably, "Voyage to the Outer Planets" given the different subject matter of the various Expo films), "To Fly!" might be called the first modern one. It set the pattern that decades of science museum films followed: a film initially written by science educators, punched up by producers, and filmed with the very best technology of the time. Fearing that the film's history content would be dry, they pivoted more towards entertainment, adding jokes and action sequences. "To Fly!" was a hit, running in just about every science museum with an IMAX theater, including Omnimax. Sadly, Jim Freeman died in a helicopter crash shortly after production. Nonetheless, MacGillivray Freeman Films went on. Over the following decades, few IMAX science documentaries were made that didn't involve them somehow. Besides the films they produced, the company consulted on action sequences in most of the format's popular features. I had hoped to present here a thorough history of the films were actually produced in the Omnimax format. Unfortunately, this has proven very difficult: the fact that most of them were distributed only to science museums means that they are very spottily remembered, and besides, so many of the films that ran in Omnimax theaters were converted from IMAX presentations that it's hard to tell the two apart. I'm disappointed that this part of cinema history isn't better recorded, and I'll continue to put time into the effort. Science museum documentaries don't get a lot of attention, but many of the have involved formidable technical efforts. Consider, for example, the cameras: befitting the large film, IMAX cameras themselves are very large. When filming "To Fly!", MacGillivray and Freeman complained that the technically very basic 80 pound cameras required a lot of maintenance, were complex to operate, and wouldn't fit into the "action cam" mounting positions they were used to. The cameras were so expensive, and so rare, that they had to be far more conservative than their usual approach out of fear of damaging a camera they would not be able to replace. It turns out that they had it easy. Later IMAX science documentaries would be filmed in space ("The Dream is Alive" among others) and deep underwater ("Deep Sea 3D" among others). These IMAX cameras, modified for simpler operation and housed for such difficult environments, weighed over 1,000 pounds. Astronauts had to be trained to operate the cameras; mission specialists on Hubble service missions had wrangling a 70-pound handheld IMAX camera around the cabin and developing its film in a darkroom bag among their duties. There was a lot of film to handle: as a rule of thumb, one mile of IMAX film is good for eight and a half minutes. I grew up in Portland, Oregon, and so we will make things a bit more approachable by focusing on one example: The Omnimax theater of the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, which opened as part of the museum's new waterfront location in 1992. This 330-seat boasted a 10,000 sq ft dome and 15 kW of sound. The premier feature was "Ring of Fire," a volcano documentary originally commissioned by the Fleet, the Fort Worth Museum of Science and Industry, and the Science Museum of Minnesota. By the 1990s, the later era of Omnimax, the dome format was all but abandoned as a commercial concept. There were, an announcement article notes, around 90 total IMAX theaters (including Omnimax) and 80 Omnimax films (including those converted from IMAX) in '92. Considering the heavy bias towards science museums among these theaters, it was very common for the films to be funded by consortia of those museums. Considering the high cost of filming in IMAX, a lot of the documentaries had a sort of "mashup" feel. They would combine footage taken in different times and places, often originally for other projects, into a new narrative. "Ring of Fire" was no exception, consisting of a series of sections that were sometimes more loosely connected to the theme. The 1982 Loma Prieta earthquake was a focus, and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and lava flows in Hawaii. Perhaps one of the reasons it's hard to catalog IMAX films is this mashup quality, many of the titles carried at science museums were something along the lines of "another ocean one." I don't mean this as a criticism, many of the IMAX documentaries were excellent, but they were necessarily composed from painstakingly gathered fragments and had to cover wide topics. Given that I have an announcement feature piece in front of me, let's also use the example of OMSI to discuss the technical aspects. OMSI's projector cost about $2 million and weighted about two tons. To avoid dust damaging the expensive prints, the "projection room" under the seating was a positive-pressure cleanroom. This was especially important since the paucity of Omnimax content meant that many films ran regularly for years. The 15 kW water-cooled lamp required replacement at 800 to 1,000 hours, but unfortunately, the price is not noted. By the 1990s, Omnimax had become a rare enough system that the projection technology was a major part of the appeal. OMSI's installation, like most later Omnimax theaters, had the audience queue below the seating, separated from the projection room by a glass wall. The high cost of these theaters meant that they operated on high turnovers, so patrons would wait in line to enter immediately after the previous showing had exited. While they waited, they could watch the projectionist prepare the next show while a museum docent explained the equipment. I have written before about multi-channel audio formats, and Omnimax gives us some more to consider. The conventional audio format for much of Omnimax's life was six-channel: left rear, left screen, center screen, right screen, right rear, and top. Each channel had an independent bass cabinet (in one theater, a "caravan-sized" enclosure with eight JBL 2245H 46cm woofers), and a crossover network fed the lowest end of all six channels to a "sub-bass" array at screen bottom. The original Fleet installation also had sub-bass speakers located beneath the audience seating, although that doesn't seem to have become common. IMAX titles of the '70s and '80s delivered audio on eight-track magnetic tape, with the additional tracks used for synchronization to the film. By the '90s, IMAX had switched to distributing digital audio on three CDs (one for each two channels). OMSI's theater was equipped for both, and the announcement amusingly notes the availability of cassette decks. A semi-custom audio processor made for IMAX, the Sonics TAC-86, managed synchronization with film playback and applied equalization curves individually calibrated to the theater. IMAX domes used perforated aluminum screens (also the norm in later planetaria), so the speakers were placed behind the screen in the scaffold-like superstructure that supported it. When I was young, OMSI used to start presentations with a demo program that explained the large size of IMAX film before illuminating work lights behind the screen to make the speakers visible. Much of this was the work of the surprisingly sophisticated show control system employed by Omnimax theaters, a descendent of the PDP-15 originally installed in the Fleet. Despite Omnimax's almost complete consignment to science museums, there were some efforts it bringing commercial films. Titles like Disney's "Fantasia" and "Star Wars: Episode III" were distributed to Omnimax theaters via optical reprojection, sometimes even from 35mm originals. Unfortunately, the quality of these adaptations was rarely satisfactory, and the short runtimes (and marketing and exclusivity deals) typical of major commercial releases did not always work well with science museum schedules. Still, the cost of converting an existing film to dome format is pretty low, so the practice continues today. "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," for example, ran on at least one science museum dome. This trickle of blockbusters was not enough to make commercial Omnimax theaters viable. Caesars Palace closed, and then demolished, their Omnimax theater in 2000. The turn of the 21st century was very much the beginning of the end for the dome theater. IMAX was moving away from their film system and towards digital projection, but digital projection systems suitable for large domes were still a nascent technology and extremely expensive. The end of aggressive support from IMAX meant that filming costs became impractical for documentaries, so while some significant IMAX science museum films were made in the 2000s, the volume definitely began to lull and the overall industry moved away from IMAX in general and Omnimax especially. It's surprising how unforeseen this was, at least to some. A ten-screen commercial theater in Duluth opened an Omnimax theater in 1996! Perhaps due to the sunk cost, it ran until 2010, not a bad closing date for an Omnimax theater. Science museums, with their relatively tight budgets and less competitive nature, did tend to hold over existing Omnimax installations well past their prime. Unfortunately, many didn't: OMSI, for example, closed its Omnimax theater in 2013 for replacement with a conventional digital theater that has a large screen but is not IMAX branded. Fortunately, some operators hung onto their increasingly costly Omnimax domes long enough for modernization to become practical. The IMAX Corporation abandoned the Omnimax name as more of the theaters closed, but continued to support "IMAX Dome" with the introduction of a digital laser projector with spherical optics. There are only ten examples of this system. Others, including Omnimax's flagship at the Fleet Science Center, have been replaced by custom dome projection systems built by competitors like Sony. Few Omnimax projectors remain. The Fleet, to their credit, installed the modern laser projectors in front of the projector well so that the original film projector could remain in place. It's still functional and used for reprisals of Omnimax-era documentaries. IMAX projectors in general are a dying breed, a number of them have been preserved but their complex, specialized design and the end of vendor support means that it may become infeasible to keep them operating. We are, of course, well into the digital era. While far from inexpensive, digital projection systems are now able to match the quality of Omnimax projection. The newest dome theaters, like the Sphere, dispense with projection entirely. Instead, they use LED display panels capable of far brighter and more vivid images than projection, and with none of the complexity of water-cooled arc lamps. Still, something has been lost. There was once a parallel theater industry, a world with none of the glamor of Hollywood but for whom James Cameron hauled a camera to the depths of the ocean and Leonardo DiCaprio narrated repairs to the Hubble. In a good few dozen science museums, two-ton behemoths rose from beneath the seats, the zenith of film projection technology. After decades of documentaries, I think people forgot how remarkable these theaters were. Science museums stopped promoting them as aggressively, and much of the showmanship faded away. Sometime in the 2000s, OMSI stopped running the pre-show demonstration, instead starting the film directly. They stopped explaining the projectionist's work in preparing the show, and as they shifted their schedule towards direct repetition of one feature, there was less for the projectionist to do anyway. It became just another museum theater, so it's no wonder that they replaced it with just another museum theater: a generic big-screen setup with the exceptionally dull name of "Empirical Theater." From time to time, there have been whispers of a resurgence of 70mm film. Oppenheimer, for example, was distributed to a small number of theaters in this giant of film formats: 53 reels, 11 miles, 600 pounds of film. Even conventional IMAX is too costly for the modern theater industry, though. Omnimax has fallen completely by the wayside, with the few remaining dome operators doomed to recycling the same films with a sprinkling of newer reformatted features. It is hard to imagine a collective of science museums sending another film camera to space. Omnimax poses a preservation challenge in more ways than one. Besides the lack of documentation on Omnimax theaters and films, there are precious few photographs of Omnimax theaters and even fewer videos of their presentations. Of course, the historian suffers where Madison Square Garden hopes to succeed: the dome theater is perhaps the ultimate in location-based entertainment. Photos and videos, represented on a flat screen, cannot reproduce the experience of the Omnimax theater. The 180 horizontal degrees of screen, the sound that was always a little too loud, in no small part to mask the sound of the projector that made its own racket in the middle of the seating. You had to be there. IMAGES: Omnimax projection room at OMSI, Flickr user truk. Omnimax dome with work lights on at MSI Chicago, Wikimedia Commons user GualdimG. Omnimax projector at St. Louis Science Center, Flickr user pasa47. [1] I don't have extensive information on pricing, but I know that in the 1960s an "economy" Spitz came in over $30,000 (~10x that much today). [2] Pink Floyd's landmark album Dark Side of The Moon debuted in a release event held at the London Planetarium. This connection between Pink Floyd and planetaria, apparently much disliked by the band itself, has persisted to the present day. Several generations of Pink Floyd laser shows have been licensed by science museums around the world, and must represent by far the largest success of fixed-installation laser projection. [3] Are you starting to detect a theme with these Expos? the World's Fairs, including in their various forms as Expos, were long one of the main markets for niche film formats. Any given weird projection format you run into, there's a decent chance that it was originally developed for some short film for an Expo. Keep in mind that it's the nature of niche projection formats that they cannot easily be shown in conventional theaters, so they end up coupled to these crowd events where a custom venue can be built. [4] The Smithsonian Institution started looking for an exciting new theater in 1970. As an example of the various niche film formats at the time, the Smithsonian considered a dome (presumably Omnimax), Cinerama (a three-projector ultrawide system), and Circle-Vision 360 (known mostly for the few surviving Expo films at Disney World's EPCOT) before settling on IMAX. The Smithsonian theater, first planned for the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History before being integrated into the new National Air and Space Museum, was tremendously influential on the broader world of science museum films. That is perhaps an understatement, it is sometimes credited with popularizing IMAX in general, and the newspaper coverage the new theater received throughout North America lends credence to the idea. It is interesting, then, to imagine how different our world would be if they had chosen Circle-Vision. "Captain America: Brave New World" in Cinemark 360.

As posted by his family (Facebook link), Bill Atkinson passed away on June 5 from pancreatic cancer at the age of 74. The Macintosh would not have been the same without him (QuickDraw, MacPaint, HyperCard, and so much more). Rest in peace.

If you like to listen to those “deep focus” soundtracks that are all ambient and relaxing, then you’ve heard a tongue drum in action. A tongue drum, or tank drum, is a unique percussion instrument traditionally made from an empty propane cylinder — though purpose-built models are now common. Several tongues are cut into one […] The post This robotic tongue drummer bangs out all the ambient hits appeared first on Arduino Blog.

My evenings of absent-minded local auction site scrolling1 paid off: I now own a Lenovo ThinkCentre M900 Tiny. It’s relatively old, being manufactured in 20162, but it’s tiny and has a lot of useful life left in it. It’s also featured in the TinyMiniMicro series by ServeTheHome. I managed to get it for 60 EUR plus about 4 EUR shipping, and it comes with solid specifications: CPU: Intel i5-6500T RAM: 16GB DDR4 Storage: 256GB SSD Power adapter included The price is good compared to similar auctions, but was it worth it? Yes, yes it was. I have been running a ThinkPad T430 as a server for a while now, since October 2024. It served me well in that role and would’ve served me for even longer if I wanted to, but I had an itch for a project that didn’t involve renovating an apartment.3 Power usage One of my main curiosities was around the power usage. Will this machine beat the laptop in terms of efficiency while idling and running normal home server workloads? Yes, yes it does. While booting into Windows 11 and calming down a bit, the lowest idle power numbers I saw were around 8 W. This concludes the testing on Windows. On Linux (Fedora Server 42), the idle power usage was around 6.5 W to 7 W. After running powertop --auto-tune, I ended up getting that down to 6.1 W - 6.5 W. This is much lower compared to the numbers that ServeTheHome got, which were around 11-13 W (120V circuit). My measurements are made in Europe, Estonia, where we have 240V circuits. You may be able to find machines where the power usage is even lower. Louwrentius mada an idle power comparison on an HP EliteDesk Mini G3 800 where they measured it at 4 W. That might also be due to other factors in play, or differences in measurement tooling. During normal home server operation with 5 SATA SSD-s connected (4 of them with USB-SATA adapters), I have observed power consumption being around 11-15 W, with peaks around 40 W. On a pure CPU load with stress -c 8, I saw power consumption being around 32 W. Formatting the internal SATA SSD added 5 W to that figure. USB storage, are you crazy? Yes. But hear me out. Back in 2021, I wrote about USB storage being a very bad idea, especially on BTRFS. I’ve learned a lot over the years, and BTRFS has received continuous improvements as well. In my ThinkPad T430 home server setup, I had two USB-connected SSD-s running in RAID0 for over half a year, and it was completely fine unless you accidentally bumped into the SSD-s. USB-connected storage is fine under the right circumstances: the cables are not damaged the cables are not at a weird angle or twisted I actually had issues with this point, my very cool and nice cable management resulted in one disk having connectivity issues, which I fixed by relieving stress on the cables and routing them differently the connected PC does not have chronic overheating issues the whole setup is out of the reach of cats, dogs, children and clumsy sysadmin cosplayers the USB-SATA adapters pass through the device ID and S.M.A.R.T information to the host the device ID part especially is key to avoiding issues with various filesystems (especially ZFS) and storage pool setups the ICY BOX IB-223U3a-B is a good option that I have personally been very happy with, and it’s what I’m using in this server build a lot of adapters (mine included) don’t support running SSD TRIM commands to the drives, which might be a concern has not been an issue for over half a year with those ICY BOX adapters, but it’s something to keep in mind you are not using an SBC as the home server even a Raspberry Pi 4 can barely handle one USB-powered SSD not an issue if you use an externally powered drive, or an USB DAS After a full BTRFS scrub and a few days of running, it seems fine. Plus it looks sick as hell with the identical drives stacked on top. All that’s missing are labels specifying which drive is which, but I’m sure that I’ll get to that someday, hopefully before a drive failure happens. In a way, this type of setup best represents what a novice home server enthusiast may end up with: a tiny, power-efficient PC with a bunch of affordable drives connected. Less insane storage ideas for a tiny PC There are alternative options for handling storage on a tiny 1 liter PC, but they have some downsides that I don’t want to be dealing with right now. An USB DAS allows you to handle many drives with ease, but they are also damn expensive. If you pick wrong, you might also end up with one where the USB-SATA chip craps out under high load, which will momentarily drop all the drives, leaving you with a massive headache to deal with. Cheaper USB-SATA docks are more prone to this, but I cannot confirm or deny if more expensive options have the same issue. Running individual drives sidesteps this issue and moves any potential issues to the host USB controller level. There is also a distinct lack of solutions that are designed around 2.5" drives only. Most of them are designed around massive and power-hungry 3.5" drives. I just want to run my 4 existing SATA SSD-s until they crap out completely. An additional box that does stuff generally adds to the overall power consumption of the setup as well, which I am not a big fan of. Lowering the power consumption of the setup was the whole point! I can’t rule out testing USB DAS solutions in the future as they do seem handy for adding storage to tiny PC-s and laptops with ease, but for now I prefer going the individually connected drives route, especially because I don’t feel like replacing my existing drives, they still have about 94% SSD health in them after 3-4 years of use, and new drives are expensive. Or you could go full jank and use that one free NVMe slot in the tiny PC to add more SATA ports or break out to other devices, such as a PCIe HBA, and introduce a lot of clutter to the setup with an additional power supply, cables and drives. Or use 3.5" external hard drives with separate power adapters. It’s what I actually tried out back in 2021, but I had some major annoyances with the noise. Miscellaneous notes Here are some notes on everything else that I’ve noticed about this machine. The PC is quite efficient as demonstrated by the power consumption numbers, and as a result it runs very cool, idling around 30-35 °C in a ~22-24 °C environment. Under a heavy load, the CPU temperatures creep up to 65-70 °C, which is perfectly acceptable. The fan does come on at higher load and it’s definitely audible, but in my case it runs in a ventilated closet, so I don’t worry about that at all. The CPU (Intel i5-6500T) is plenty fast for all sorts of home server workloads with its 4 CPU cores and clock speeds of 2.7-2.8 GHz under load. The UEFI settings offered a few interesting options that I decided to change, the rest are set to default. There is an option to enable an additional C-state for even better power savings. For home server workloads, it was nice to see the setting to allow you to boot the PC without a keyboard being attached, found under “Keyboardless operation” setting. I guess that in some corporate environments disconnected keyboards are such a common helpdesk issue that it necessitates having this option around. Closing thoughts I just like these tiny PC boxes a lot. They are tiny, fast and have a very solid construction, which makes them feel very premium in your hands. They are also perfectly usable, extensible and can be an absolute bargain at the right price. With solid power consumption figures that are only a few watts off of a Raspberry Pi 5, it might make more sense to get a TinyMiniMicro machine for your next home server. I’m definitely very happy with mine. well, at least it beats doom-scrolling social media. ↩︎ yeah, I don’t like being reminded of being old, too. ↩︎ there are a lot of similarities between construction/renovation work and software development, but that’s a story for another time. ↩︎