PanoTools NG:
Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR
Scott Highton scott@... 2015-Jan-21 00:55:28
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