Oculus Is Awesome for Games, But It’s the Future of Movies
wired.com
wired.com
When it comes to movies I don't believe it will have the same effect. Movie directors want to frame a scene and direct your eye and the Oculus Rift provides the exact opposite. I think there will be new movie experiences for the rift but I don't believe they will change the existing art.
But I think you are spot on in suggesting that sports would be a much better sector than movies.
Sports leagues also assumed that more live TV coverage would decrease ticket sales, but in reality TV became the promotional vehicle that grew their audience and increased demand for tickets. Nowadays most leagues could care less about ticket sales, as long as the seats appear occupied on television, they'll sell tickets at prices that match the demand, but otherwise make room in the game for commercial breaks because the TV audience matters more.
Sports leagues will adapt, especially if they can sell VR seats for player POV, à la Motorball (http://battleangel.wikia.com/wiki/Motorball#Spectator_partic...)
VIRTUAL REALITY USING THE CONCENTRIC MOSAIC: CONSTRUCTION, RENDERING AND DATA COMPRESSION. Shum, Ng, Chan, 2000. http://charlesneedham.com/pubs/68824/virtual_reality_concent...
Rendering with Concentric Mosaics. Shum, He. 1999. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/68819/rendering_concentri...
Not sure if it's possible to make a stereoscopic reflection based camera either. The distortion would make it worthless and the 3D effectively would be minimal.
Has anyone tried to make a globe like camera sensor? Everything I've seen it impossible or not actually suitable for VR.
[1] http://www.redbullusa.com/cs/Satellite/en_US/Article/Crazy-m...
As a filmmaker, I'm extremely interested by the Rift, not least because it appears to partially offset the "uncanny valley", at least from early tests. Old games with dodgy character models (Half-Life 2) are much more immersive and compelling in a VR setting.
However, the challenge of telling a story without the ability to frame action, cut, or generally use any of the filmmaker's toolkit that has been in place since the popularisation of the medium in the early 1900s is going to be a hell of a challenge.
What we're actually looking at here is less like filmmaking, and more like theater in the round. It'll be interesting to see how it can be made to work - but I'm under no illusion that it'll be an easy transition.
as someone who will be attending Sleep No More (http://sleepnomorenyc.com/) for the third time next month i am deeply intrigued by more options for immersive theatre.
Part of this stems from the choices made in Sleep No More, such as the general lack of dialog, the size of the venue, etc.
The other part of it is the fundamental difficulty in creating a narrative when your audience is liable to walk off and explore empty rooms. The game "Gone Home" succeeds at this, creating a linear story via voiceover and restricting access. Yet, it feels a bit too limiting and stilted for it to be a primary medium for drama.
but this is kind of my point and i think we are saying the same thing. with enough going on in a virtual environment, you make your own story. that is the experience i'd look for in true VR. if that is exploring empty rooms so be it. this differs from film where there is strict direction.
there is room for something in the middle, like "Gone Home", but that experience is not the future of film, nor does it exploit the best aspects of VR/Rift.
the obtuse point from the article is right: Rift, VR, (and i'll extend it to AR) is cool for games, but what's cooler are the new types of art they will enable.
I can't believe it's 2014 and a media writer...someone who, of all people, should understand the bespoke nature of content, is thinking along these lines. The same prediction was made back when DVDs came out, that the massive increase in storage allowed filmmakers freedom to show viewers alternate scenes and endings, to the point where the viewer could choose their own adventure.
Aside from DVD extras, which are often rough and unfinished, that new kind of moviemaking hasn't happened yet, and not because of the limitation of the tech. First of all, DVD extras are often rough because it takes time and money to make them as excellent as the finished film. And even unreleased produced footage isn't always a winner, as there was often a reason for that footage to be cut in the first place.
We don't have user-interaction in movies because movies are a medium in which the creators have a distinct vision. Even if it were possible to design and produce a movie world in which users had the freedom to do what they want, it necessarily waters down the director/producer's vision...
Hell, books have had the technology for "choose your own adventure" for a very long time (they're called, "Choose Your Own Adventure" series"...but such books have not become true classics. Would "Romeo and Juliet" be as fine a classic if readers/theatergoers were given the ability to choose a happier, non-tragic ending?
Oculus Rift is an awesome technology and will open frontiers that we don't yet know exist...but it's not going to fundamentally change the bespoke (and somewhat rigid) art of movies and literature, unless movies and literature themselves undergo a radical rethinking...but that kind of revolution is not waiting on technology.
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-...
Also, has no one considered the fact that part of what makes movies "work" is that people watch them TOGETHER, IN GROUPS?
Seriously, people/wired. I think what Wired was really thinking when they said this is "I would like to watch a movie made for Occulus Rift," however, since their job is to create sensationalist headlines, they translate the original thought into, "Occulus Rift is the future."
If you've ever worn an Occulus you'll know that at the moment its resolution is too low to read small text, but that won't be long. You'll also know that the space around you is immensely larger than any set of monitors could offer you. Think how your development environment is now, two small full 1920x1200 24" monitors likely, sitting about a meter from you.
When the Occulus sports 2 QHD screens, you will have that same DPI, but for your entire field of vision. And because of the sensors you can move your head around, meaning there can be windows, data, tools, information everywhere around you, literally just a glance away.
And then the icing of the cake: The Occulus lets you relax your eyes! No more eyestrain, I am not 100% certain but this might allow you to someday look 8 hours at a screen, and feel like it's been a day in the park for your eyes.
I have tried an Oculus and think it is awesome for gaming, and probably some special work environments, e.g. car designers. But as a general purpose workplace or for programming, I don't think it fits.
Anyway, parent doesn't have much of a point. What's wrong with taking your goggles off to have a chat with someone? It makes no sense to disqualify the rift over the fact that while you're using it you're pretty isolated.
I mean is it that important to take it off? I could see it increasing communication within a company. Instead of walking to a persons desk you could just have an in-person chat with them without moving (a much better experience than say, skype).
It really is one of those things that you kind of have to experience to understand it in your gut, but think about what makes it fun to watch movies on an IMAX screen: it's that the movie theater screen fills so much of your field of view. In contrast a living room TV fills up a much smaller fraction of your field of view.
So you can think of the Oculus as a bigger than IMAX screen that fills your entire view besides some narrow vertical bands along your peripherals. It's a much more immersive viewing experience for 2D movies than any non-HMD experience. It's like you have a movie theater screen strapped to your face.
With each new peice of news, I am increasingly convinced that Oculus is the next big platform.
I imagine that not only the film studios, but NFL and NBA are looking at this as a potential game changer for home entertainment.
Would folks pay five bucks to sit at the 50 yard line to watch the Superbowl live on their Oculus? I think I might, and I don't even care about football.
What would it be worth to have experienced some of the great plays in NFL history from this perspective?
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catch_%28American_football%...
I have no doubt they will grab the Oculus Rift and release a couple of movies in no time what it launches.
Seems to me it is the future of regular movies for the Audiophile type guy that want to enjoy the very best experience even if alone.
One hopes. ;)
I don't doubt that one or two very cool tech demo "movies" will appear for OR, but there is _no way_ this will be the future of film for more than a tiny minority. It obliterates director control of camera angle, and requires a set that fully surrounds the camera position (you don't want to turn your head and see the crew ruining illusion for you).
It's also currently rather low-resolution, but that will improve.
What you might get are things like travelogues; the ability to virtually tour the digitised landmarks of the world from your chair, walking (or flying!) around at your own pace.
The scenery 'behind the camera' could be composited in.
And other tools might work well to focus the viewer's attention in new ways. Like lighting the important actions and bits of dialogue with brighter lighting than the rest of the view, or a slightly different color.
Imagine an episode of Sherlock that had the world slow down and such a lighting effect that acts as the 'light of Sherlock's attention' floating/darting around a scene and other characters. Giving the viewer a chance to think and try to deduce at his speed, so to speak.
One could also use a lower/higher resolution in areas of the view to suggest where a viewer should look or to communicate the confusion of a main character about what is going on behind them.
Oculus may be really cool to use, but I'm not convinced it will ever work its way out of a very small market segment that is willing to strap a viewing device onto their faces.
That's not to say there's not potential here, but I don't think the world is ready yet.
The manufacturers got together and decided that we were all going to like it, and then it turned out that we did not.
The issue lies in that the vocal people here are a minority, just like before. If there's no mainstream adoption, then there's not much point in creating content. Without content, there's no chance of mainstream adoption. It's a catch-22.
Here's my list of favorite videos so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXaxVLNMIxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zaYrd0LvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eByvt8he58U&t=1m10s
http://vimeo.com/64769947 NSFW
I have viewed 360 vids on the Rift. It's true they are not stereo, but they are still very effective. Simply being able to turn your head an look around is a significant aspect of presence. These two vids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7HtvXc-Bo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4iltd0wMlU played through http://vrplayer.codeplex.com/ are great examples.
Non-360 but wide-angle videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgox84KE7iY (spy-movie violence) still work pretty well (you can look around, just don't bother turning 360 degrees) and could be stereo.
One idea I'd always had is make a game that plays out like a 'scene'. Let it be something non-mundane, but also not 'epic'. I typically use acting as a bodyguard that is protecting their client. The scene occurs and depending on player's actions, client lives/dies or any number of consequences (give it a Hitman feel with 'multiple' solutions). 'Slice of Life' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slice_of_life) plays and realism were the style in the 1800s, it could be possible to see this style emerge again through immersion.
The other idea is turn Oculus development more commercial-grade, training simulations because the real life material cost is too high. Instead of a cadaver, simulate the body for autopsy. It might even help ease some mind's transitioning to a real body.
I think the article used the Oculus to really talk about immersion technology as a whole. I'm still not fully convinced the Oculus isn't the Virtual Boy of this generation; however, I do know we are getting better at immersing tech and whether Oculus succeeds or flops, it will still open great doors for other things.
It bothers me on a pretty much daily basis that I see the world mostly through a 23” rectangular tube and feel at it with just my fingertips. That and the stories about the Oculus Rift consumer-grade VR goggles have got me thinking a lot about healthful life experiences in the digital age. What will prevent people from “going to Paris” in their Rifts and thinking they’ve got that checkbox filled? The Grand Canyon, Machu Pichu, what have you.
On the other hand, what’s the difference? Such a person who would accept the simulation in place of the real experience might not have the means or capacity to appreciate the real thing, and more significantly would have never bothered going there in the first place. Maybe exposure on even that small of a scale—though not as valuable as the real thing—comes at so much less of a cost that the net result is positive: a greater awareness of and sensitivity to the wild expanse of the world.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/avegantglyph/a-mobile-p...
I don't really understand how the 'virtual retinal display' will affect the viewing experience, but there are only 2 million pixels total, split between two eyes.
The consumer rift will be at least 1080p split between eyes, which is 960x1080 per eye — slightly more pixels per eye than the Glyph.
Oculus is going to exist on it's own accord. A new breed of content producers is going to come in and capitalize on this new media and entertainment platform just like people always have. Movie theaters may go away, we may turn to instant film distribution via online platforms, but we will never simply REPLACE filmmaking by this new medium. They both will exist in their own accord. "360degree choose-your-own-adventure" storytelling will emerge as it's own thing - as will "360degree sporting and live spectacle events".
For video, as opposed to immersive gaming, you want an Avegant Glyph. Still in Kickstarter and projected to about $3M in pledges. No screen door and no visible pixels. It uses projection onto the retina from a micro-mirror array to give apparent resolution much higher than 720p over its 45 degree FOV. Reviewers can't say enough good things about the movie experience.
On the whole, I'm less excited by the Rift, as a developer, than I thought I would be; I'm just not seeing all that much in the way of use cases for it. (As a gamer, though, I'm over the moon, especially since Star Citizen will probably support the Rift.)
As a developer, I'm more interested in new input methods, such as the programming-by-voice scheme Tavis Rudd demoed at Pycon 2013; my wrists aren't as young as they used to be, and given that programming is my hobby as well as my profession, anything that takes some of the load off them will be welcome. (I just wish he'd release his damn code already! I've made a halfway decent start from scratch, in that I've got basic dictation working, but not having to reinvent all the glue from first principles would make life a lot easier…)
The interesting take away for me was the notion of "presence", which is something that "must be experienced" in order to understand it, and only comes when certain technical criteria are met.
I'd get one now if you're wanting to develop for it, but if you're just wanting to experience it, you might as well hold off. The second DK will probably be significantly better than the first, and there'll be more cool stuff to try by then too.
More over, I think games are the future of movies. Tied in with Oculus and Omni, you're now in an interactive VR movie where you can choose the ending.
For a recent example of the state of the art in interactive movies, let's look at "Beyond: Two Souls", a PS3 game released last year by Quantic Dream, a studio lately specializing in the format; their 2010 release, "Heavy Rain", was fairly well received. "Beyond: Two Souls" makes a halfway watchable B-movie (think "Hit Girl" meets "Enemy of the State" with a double shot of Evil Movie CIA), but as a game it is God-awful. This is because the need to maintain coherency, in a heavily pre-planned movie-style narrative, militates strongly against giving the player any kind of freedom to play the game; the result is a farrago of quick-time events ("press X to not die"), "find the blue dot" puzzles in which the game tries and fails to give an illusion of involvement by requiring the player to pixel-hunt in order to advance the narrative, and branch points at which the player gets to choose the next cutscene from a small collection of very similar alternatives. One need not be a "hard-core gamer", whatever that is, to find this a combination which utterly fails to satisfy; then again, even today's theater tickets don't cost anywhere near $60 a pop, a high price even for a good movie -- which "Beyond: Two Souls" manifestly is not.
On the whole, this bodes ill for the future of "interactive movies"; a game and a movie are clear different things, and so far no one has come up with a means of reliably bridging the gap between them. Perhaps that will change as new technology such as the Oculus Rift offers new possibilities both to game developers and to filmmakers, but I tend to doubt it; what seems more likely to me is the genesis of an entirely new genre, possibly synthesizing traits from both movies and games, but fundamentally not the same as either.
Not unlike the way film itself started ~1895 as a cheap emulation of stage plays, relying on familiar theatrical devices while exploring and developing its own core of language, conventions, and techniques. By 1915 it had come into its own and we called it cinema.