Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

PanoTools NG mailing list
VR friends,
 

 I thought you might be interested in a recent article I wrote on 360° Video, or Cinematic VR.
 

 It can be found at:
 The 360° Video Conundrum - Cinematic VR Considerations http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/

 
 
 http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/ 
 
 The 360° Video Conundrum - Cinematic VR Considerations http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/ by Scott Highton ©2015 Scott Highton is a pioneering VR photographer, and author of the 2010 seminal book: Virtual Reality Photography (ISBN 978-0-615-34223-8).
 
 
 
 View on www.vrphotography.com http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/ 
 Preview by Yahoo
 
 
 

 

 Scott Higton
 Author, Virtual Reality Photography
 Web: http://www.vrphotography.com http://www.vrphotography.com
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

PanoTools NG mailing list
Thank you for a thought-provoking article, and a reminder to us that
technical excellence is pointless if content is second-rate.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the type of viewer environment
that is likely to dominate in the near future.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:45 AM, [hidden email] [PanoToolsNG] <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> VR friends,
>
>
> I thought you might be interested in a recent article I wrote on 360°
> Video, or Cinematic VR.
>
>
> It can be found at:
>
> The 360° Video Conundrum - Cinematic VR Considerations
> <http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/>
>        [image: image] <http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/>
>      The 360° Video Conundrum - Cinematic VR Considerations
> <http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/>
> by Scott Highton ©2015 Scott Highton is a pioneering VR photographer, and
> author of the 2010 seminal book: Virtual Reality Photography (ISBN
> 978-0-615-34223-8).
>       View on www.vrphotography.com
> <http://www.vrphotography.com/360videovr/>
>   Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
> Scott Higton
>
> Author, Virtual Reality Photography
>
> Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
>
>
>  
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

PanoTools NG mailing list
In reply to this post by PanoTools NG mailing list
Briar Bentley wrote:

"Thank you for a thought-provoking article, and a reminder to us that
technical excellence is pointless if content is second-rate.

"I would be interested in your thoughts on the type of viewer environment
that is likely to dominate in the near future."



Briar,

There's a lot of buzz right now in the headset arena (Samsung VR, Oculus, etc.), so I suspect we'll see a fair bit of development there in the near future.  However, I think that this will fade in the not-so-distant future, just as it has with previous iterations of headset technology.  People just don't like having to put something over their face (or eyes), which blocks out the rest of the world, for longer than just an initial (novelty) period.

Even with Google Glass, which has just been discontinued in spite of the massive Google money behind its development, people rejected it because it was uncomfortable and looked odd.  I see headset systems being rejected for the same reasons (except perhaps by gamers (and perhaps a few narrow markets)… who often embrace the idea of blocking out the rest of the world during their game play).


I think the bigger markets will be on theatrical screens (full dome, IMAX, traditional theaters, etc.) and home screens (television, desktop and laptop computers, etc.), where there's enough screen real estate available to really make VR imagery attractive to watch.  VR succeeds best when it's large enough to include the viewer's peripheral vision.  That means large screens.  People want to enjoy it in an open room with their friends – a shared experience, rather than cut off from one another by private headsets designed to minimize interaction with the "outside" environment..

While it's great to be able to move your smart phone or tablet around and have an image(s) on screen move with you, after the initial novelty of this wears off, it can become an annoyance to many.  I reiterate the premise that watching movies and television is ingrained in our psyche as a passive activity, rather than requiring continuous active participation and movement by the viewer (i.e. tilting & rotating one's head, moving a screen or mouse in your hands, etc.).  The latter just gets too tiring for most people after an initial "gee whiz" period – measured in minutes – wears off.

So I think the long term success of cinematic VR will be on larger screens, where viewers are effectively guided through the narrative of a story while sitting comfortably in their seats.  They'll get the sense of immersion, for the most part, through expanded views, sounds, etc..


I know others will disagree with this perspective, but we've sure seen a lot of once promising, but ultimately failed technology on these sorts of things previously.  Remember how only one or two years ago, 3-D was going to be the next huge thing in television and motion pictures -- in spite of it having failed repeatedly in the past?  Once again, it's now on a downward trajectory, as viewers seem to have moved beyond its novelty.



Scott Highton
Author, Virtual Reality Photography
Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

PanoTools NG mailing list
Thank you so much for a thorough analysis of the current position, and your
take on the future. This is exactly my opinion as a layperson, but an
enthusiast in panoramic imagery. I for one am going to pursue the pan video
idea with a number of Hero cameras plus a substantial drone.

I can foresee a considerable market for a product that can be shown on any
smart TV or similar device.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Scott Highton [hidden email]
[PanoToolsNG] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Briar Bentley wrote:
>
> "Thank you for a thought-provoking article, and a reminder to us that
> technical excellence is pointless if content is second-rate.
>
> "I would be interested in your thoughts on the type of viewer environment
> that is likely to dominate in the near future."
>
>
>
> Briar,
>
> There's a lot of buzz right now in the headset arena (Samsung VR, Oculus,
> etc.), so I suspect we'll see a fair bit of development there in the near
> future.  However, I think that this will fade in the not-so-distant future,
> just as it has with previous iterations of headset technology.  People just
> don't like having to put something over their face (or eyes), which blocks
> out the rest of the world, for longer than just an initial (novelty) period.
>
> Even with Google Glass, which has just been discontinued in spite of the
> massive Google money behind its development, people rejected it because it
> was uncomfortable and looked odd.  I see headset systems being rejected for
> the same reasons (except perhaps by gamers (and perhaps a few narrow
> markets)… who often embrace the idea of blocking out the rest of the world
> during their game play).
>
>
> I think the bigger markets will be on theatrical screens (full dome, IMAX,
> traditional theaters, etc.) and home screens (television, desktop and
> laptop computers, etc.), where there's enough screen real estate available
> to really make VR imagery attractive to watch.  VR succeeds best when it's
> large enough to include the viewer's peripheral vision.  That means large
> screens.  People want to enjoy it in an open room with their friends – a
> shared experience, rather than cut off from one another by private headsets
> designed to minimize interaction with the "outside" environment..
>
> While it's great to be able to move your smart phone or tablet around and
> have an image(s) on screen move with you, after the initial novelty of this
> wears off, it can become an annoyance to many.  I reiterate the premise
> that watching movies and television is ingrained in our psyche as a passive
> activity, rather than requiring continuous active participation and
> movement by the viewer (i.e. tilting & rotating one's head, moving a screen
> or mouse in your hands, etc.).  The latter just gets too tiring for most
> people after an initial "gee whiz" period – measured in minutes – wears off.
>
> So I think the long term success of cinematic VR will be on larger
> screens, where viewers are effectively guided through the narrative of a
> story while sitting comfortably in their seats.  They'll get the sense of
> immersion, for the most part, through expanded views, sounds, etc..
>
>
> I know others will disagree with this perspective, but we've sure seen a
> lot of once promising, but ultimately failed technology on these sorts of
> things previously.  Remember how only one or two years ago, 3-D was going
> to be the next huge thing in television and motion pictures -- in spite of
> it having failed repeatedly in the past?  Once again, it's now on a
> downward trajectory, as viewers seem to have moved beyond its novelty.
>
>
>
> Scott Highton
> Author, Virtual Reality Photography
> Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
>
>  
>