PanoTools mailing list archive

Mailinglist:PanoTools NG
Sender:Briar Bentley briarbentley5@...
Date/Time:2015-Jan-21 02:33:09
Subject:Re: Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR

Thread:


PanoTools NG: Re: Re: Recent article - 360° / Cinematic VR Briar Bentley briarbentley5@... 2015-Jan-21 02:33:09
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 #removed#
[PanoToolsNG] <#removed#> 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
>
>  
>

Next thread:

Previous thread:

back to search page