Review of the Chicago Museum of Holography
On this latest business trip to Chicago, I made sure I made time to visit the Holography museum of Chicago. I thought I’d just post some of my impressions here – I don’t see that anyone has done so lately.
The Holography Musuem of Chicago is well described on the web at:
http://www.holographiccenter.com/museum1.htm
so I won’t bother to repeat what information is there. When you pay the moderate admission fee, you are given instructions (suitable for the novice) on how to properly view the holograms, as well as a basic description of what a hologram is.
They have about four galleries of holograms of various types. All are white light reconstruction; there were no simple transmission holograms reconstructed by monochromatic light sources. This really points out one of the problems of display holography, that the process is somewhat complicated by the need for white light reconstruction. I was hoping to discover a useable display technique for simple H1’s, but such was not evident.
The foyer area is replete with reflection holograms, from less than 4x5 to moderate (11x17?) size. Many of these are multiplexed holograms, which required some shifting of viewing angle to see all the various images. These images are among the best for clarity and subject matter. Also in the foyer is a small display case of DCG pieces which are the first examples I have seen in person; as well as some moderate sized reflective-backed rainbow holograms (I’m not sure if they were embossed foil or merely reflective backed WLT holograms). They were very bright. The foyer area includes so many holograms that it is difficult to view them all. I found most of the holograms were set for viewing by average height people – definitely less than my 6’ stature. This required quite a bit of ‘scooching down’ to get the best view of some subjects. Another difficulty in viewing is that there are occasionally multiple images due to multiple illuminating lamps lighting the same hologram. In general, however, the illumination lighting is excellent.
A second room seems to be mostly dedicated to rainbow multiplexed transmission holograms, including several cylindrical holograms mounted on rotating bases. These include the Michael Jordan hologram and others by Sharon McCormack. This gallery also includes the largest of the holograms, white light rainbow multiplexed holograms by John Perry that are about 3 x 4 feet. They are illuminated from above and behind by spots, with hanging blinds to prevent the light from hitting your eyes directly. The sheer size and brilliant brightness and color of these are stunning. The best of the John Perry group in my opinion is the T-Rex skull, which is excellently positioned to project well in front of the plane of the film. The exception to the WLT holograms in this room is clearly the reflection portrait work by Ron & Bernadette Olsen. These have to be the gold standard for technical perfection! They are exceptionally sharp, and the quality is incredible from corner to corner.
Finally in this gallery is the ‘Miner Panning for Gold’, also a white light multiplexed transmission hologram. It is exceptionally bright, and you can watch the miner searching for his gold nuggets as you walk by. Although there is a placard mentioning that this hologram was purchased by the museum with donations to the permanent acquisitions fund, there doesn’t seem to be any credit for the artist. This is one of my minor complaints about the museum, that many holograms are unattributed. I would really like to know who the artist is!
A third room is dedicated to Arthur Freund. It is rather sparse, containing his holograms as well as some of his notes on a holographic theory of neuron memory, and computer calculations and layouts used in the creations of some of the holograms on display. I’m glad to at least see this description of his setup – in general, I think the museum leans mostly towards the artistic, and not much towards the technical side of holography. This is fine, as it is important to appreciate holography as an art form, and this is the museum’s primary mission. Still, for some holographers who visit, it would be interesting to know a bit more about some of the processes used to create some of the works.
The last gallery is medical/scientific holograms and other 3D display techniques. Unless you have a medical background, this may not interest you as much as the rest of the museum.
I went to the museum, because like many beginning holographers, almost all the holograms I’ve ever seen in person are my own! This offered a valuable and rare opportunity to learn artistic techniques that have been used in holograms, as well as provide a good basis for estimating your own level of technical quality. One of the best things I did, at the last moment before leaving for this trip, was to grab one of my own holograms. By holding it up in front of others’ work in the same illumination, I was able to get myself calibrated on my own technical achievement in many areas, such as brightness, viewing angle, color, etc.
Another great benefit of viewing so many holograms by varied artists is that you can see what ‘works’ for you artistically and what doesn’t. There’s a fair amount of Star Trek originated stuff, and a lot of off-beat statements that may or may not interest you. Maybe you will see some things that you had thought of trying, or maybe something you see will spark an idea for your next project. For example, there was a technique I had not thought of, which was an unpainted reflection hologram displayed in front of a background that was particularly chosen to work with the artistic theme.
I’d highly recommend a visit to the Museum if you’re ever in Chicago. I spent about 2 hours there – although most folks breeze through in less time than that. It’s located very close to the downtown area, in a reasonable neighborhood, and you can easily catch a cab outside when you’re done!
Chicago Museum of Holography
-
Colin Kaminski
Chicago Museum of Holography
Very Nice review! I hope to get there myself one day.
-
Dinesh
Chicago Museum of Holography
Thanks for a comprehensive and well-written report.
A few observations/comments:
[quote:10a0ca37ea]I was hoping to discover a useable display technique for simple H1’s, but such was not evident. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
It's usually stated that only a laser is suitable for viewing laser transmission H1's and usually this is meant to mean a large HeNe or Argon. In fact, since dispersion is a function of distance, the nearer the hologram is to the image plane the broader the reconstruction source can be. If the object is about 2 to 3 in from the plate an LED will reconstruct it. Besides which it's relatively easy to get cheap lasers and cheap lenses to expand and collimate them. There's nothing as clear and sharp as a laser transmission and it's a pity that more of these are not on display, since it's relatively easy.
[quote:10a0ca37ea]Many of these are multiplexed holograms, which required some shifting of viewing angle to see all the various images. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
It's called "The Holographic Dance". In fact ShuMin in NY deliberately makes holograms which require this 'dance' because he says he gets a kick out of watching the public do the Holographic Dance! My main issue with multi-channel is that you don't know it's a multichannel until by chance someone sees the other channels. It's a small point and there's no way around it that I can see, but most people I've seen looking at holograms (or any other 3D medium) look directly 'at it' and are thrilled by the perception of depth. They don't seem to 'look around it' and try for parallax. In this way, they miss multi-channel parallax effects. Whenever I've made multi-channel, I usually have to specifically state that, even to holographers.
[quote:10a0ca37ea]...there doesn’t seem to be any credit for the artist. This is one of my minor complaints about the museum, that many holograms are unattributed. I would really like to know who the artist is! [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
Not just in museums and galleries! It's especially egregious in magazines. The point of the hologram is the visual effect that the publisher wants to create and yet you'll never see any mention of the holographer who's imagination created that visual effect. Also, because of this lack of author acknowledgement, many holographers claim to have done a particular piece because they've done a similar piece. This results in the real author having to defend his work, the one that actually appeared. Sometimes these holographers work for the major holocompanies which are acknowledged, but the holographer never is. In fact, whenevr Joy meets the holographer she gets him/her to sign the piece and they seem surprised at being asked!
[quote:10a0ca37ea]By holding it up in front of others’ work in the same illumination, I was able to get myself calibrated on my own technical achievement in many areas, such as brightness, viewing angle, color, etc. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
I think this is very important and has a bearing on threads recently where people have been asking why their holograms are not as bright as others'. Usually, a photograph of the hologram gives you no real sense of the brightness or clarity since that depends on the holographers ability to light and photograph the hologram. Another very minor annoyance for me is that photographs of holograms are usually just that - there's no sense of scale. Sometimes a hand is shown holding a hologram but usually just the plate is shown and you have no idea whether it's a 4x5 or 8x10. Of course, I'm just as guilty, so I shouldn't complain too much!
[quote:10a0ca37ea] Maybe you will see some things that you had thought of trying [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
Another important point, I think. Every new generation of holographers comes up with the same old ideas - tricks with parallax, tricks with mirrors, tricks with false depth cues etc. I once suggested an archive of well known 'tricks' so that the obviously bright and creative people who enter holography don't need to waste their time rehashing this stuff and can concentrate on new ideas.
A few observations/comments:
[quote:10a0ca37ea]I was hoping to discover a useable display technique for simple H1’s, but such was not evident. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
It's usually stated that only a laser is suitable for viewing laser transmission H1's and usually this is meant to mean a large HeNe or Argon. In fact, since dispersion is a function of distance, the nearer the hologram is to the image plane the broader the reconstruction source can be. If the object is about 2 to 3 in from the plate an LED will reconstruct it. Besides which it's relatively easy to get cheap lasers and cheap lenses to expand and collimate them. There's nothing as clear and sharp as a laser transmission and it's a pity that more of these are not on display, since it's relatively easy.
[quote:10a0ca37ea]Many of these are multiplexed holograms, which required some shifting of viewing angle to see all the various images. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
It's called "The Holographic Dance". In fact ShuMin in NY deliberately makes holograms which require this 'dance' because he says he gets a kick out of watching the public do the Holographic Dance! My main issue with multi-channel is that you don't know it's a multichannel until by chance someone sees the other channels. It's a small point and there's no way around it that I can see, but most people I've seen looking at holograms (or any other 3D medium) look directly 'at it' and are thrilled by the perception of depth. They don't seem to 'look around it' and try for parallax. In this way, they miss multi-channel parallax effects. Whenever I've made multi-channel, I usually have to specifically state that, even to holographers.
[quote:10a0ca37ea]...there doesn’t seem to be any credit for the artist. This is one of my minor complaints about the museum, that many holograms are unattributed. I would really like to know who the artist is! [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
Not just in museums and galleries! It's especially egregious in magazines. The point of the hologram is the visual effect that the publisher wants to create and yet you'll never see any mention of the holographer who's imagination created that visual effect. Also, because of this lack of author acknowledgement, many holographers claim to have done a particular piece because they've done a similar piece. This results in the real author having to defend his work, the one that actually appeared. Sometimes these holographers work for the major holocompanies which are acknowledged, but the holographer never is. In fact, whenevr Joy meets the holographer she gets him/her to sign the piece and they seem surprised at being asked!
[quote:10a0ca37ea]By holding it up in front of others’ work in the same illumination, I was able to get myself calibrated on my own technical achievement in many areas, such as brightness, viewing angle, color, etc. [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
I think this is very important and has a bearing on threads recently where people have been asking why their holograms are not as bright as others'. Usually, a photograph of the hologram gives you no real sense of the brightness or clarity since that depends on the holographers ability to light and photograph the hologram. Another very minor annoyance for me is that photographs of holograms are usually just that - there's no sense of scale. Sometimes a hand is shown holding a hologram but usually just the plate is shown and you have no idea whether it's a 4x5 or 8x10. Of course, I'm just as guilty, so I shouldn't complain too much!
[quote:10a0ca37ea] Maybe you will see some things that you had thought of trying [/quote:10a0ca37ea]
Another important point, I think. Every new generation of holographers comes up with the same old ideas - tricks with parallax, tricks with mirrors, tricks with false depth cues etc. I once suggested an archive of well known 'tricks' so that the obviously bright and creative people who enter holography don't need to waste their time rehashing this stuff and can concentrate on new ideas.