(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)
It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.
I'm not sure how much I agree with that... I'd much rather have headphones listening to music on a plane/train/bus than trying to listen to something in the open... likewise for watching video... watching on my phone isn't too bad, but being able to get a "big screen" view with a similar experience to headphones for your eyes, I'm happy to see it.
To me, it doesn't need to be so "VR" but that could lead to some cool UI/UX for interaction. I think that this could be something that takes off first for heavy commuters, and second for gamers... It will just come down to marketing this appropriately. If they can get a version for iOS and advertise in the airline magazines, for example, I think it could sell very well.
I'm not saying movies in VR is a bad idea. There's a lot of good optical reasons for that. I'm saying simulating a living room, but on a computer!, is silly. Just watch the movie.
Might be nice to watch a movie in a comfy room if you are stuck on a long flight. I think headsets out to at least ship with a noise cancelling headphone option built in. Plus, the room scene is easily interchangeable. With a decent room scanner it could be your own home, or a Hollywood screening room, or the Acropolis.
Yeah, I would think a big screen kind of floating in space, or perhaps simulating the backdrop glow that some higher end tv's have against a simple wall... Sorry, I thought you were calling out the whole thing, not just the implementation details.
Not to mention that this has to be one of the corniest things I've seen since the 90s. From a tech side it's interesting, but from an end user side it's something I would make fun of with my friends. I wonder how much of that is some kind of uncanny valley esque problem. I laughed out loud with I saw the screen shot.
Have you actually tried a VR theater application yet? Even on my DK1 over a year ago, the experience[1] was pretty compelling. Add in resolution improvements and the fact that you can render stereo 3D with perfect fidelity (no hacky glasses in the equation) and it gets even better.
People don't quite get it until they've tried it. The most surprising thing is the way that the 3D stereoscopy of the environment combined with the head tracking in VR conveys scale. The movie theater actually looks AS BIG AS A MOVIE THEATER SCREEN. It's not "strap this thing on your face and get kind of an illusion of a 3D movie floating in front of you", it's "Strap this thing on your face and see a massive screen in front of you that couldn't physically fit in the room you're currently sitting in". Not to mention that you'll ideally get virtual theater surround through headphones that is fixed in space, such that turning your head keeps the sounds coming from their respective speaker positions relative to your head rather than staying the same.
As for 3D stereoscopy in movies; that's an inherently limited format (it's limited because of the fixed viewer viewpoint and the edges of the screen). 3D stereo and VR are not comparable by any means. About the only thing that they have in common is that you use two eyes to view them. Here though, the VR cinema adds an advantage - 3D stereoscopic content can be shown perfectly without any cross-talk between images, which helps with the integrity of the effect. Note effect. IMHO 3D on a fixed movie screen is strictly a special effect. When used in such a way, it's great. When overused or used improperly, it sucks.
TL;DR: '3D movies' and VR shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence.
Very true. The key word is "compelling". Once you try a few VR devices, even low end ones like a decent phone and a Google cardboard, you can definitely sense the possible seed of something game changing here. Maybe VR will work out, maybe it won't - but that alone I think makes it worth exploring.
One can get a preview of the 3D without 3D glasses or a VR headset by zooming out and looking through the screen like it's a random dot stereogram (or "magic eye" picture).
I'm glad I was not the only one wondering at the value of this. It struck me as a lot of very impressive technical effort to achieve something nearly as good as I can achieve by propping a $200 Android tablet on my knee. And well under what I get with the projector on my coffee table.
And I think "novelty" is the magic word here. Stereoscopic 3D has had several waves of popular enthusiasm, including 1850s stereoscopes, the ViewMaster in the 1940s, 3D movies in the 1950s, VR in the 1990s, and 3D movies again recently. Every time it has been an amazing thing that will change the world right up until the time the bubble pops and it is recognized as a cute novelty.
It'll be very interesting to see if this wave makes it past the novelty stage. But so far I've seen nothing to make me think it will.
Right now, I prefer movies on GearVR to a home-theater system with full HD on a fairly close and large TV. For 2D content, the resolution isn't great (a little over 720p effective), and there is a very apparent "screen door" effect.
In terms of 3D, I watch people's minds get blown by simple apps, when much better stuff is in development. When my Mom asks, did I bring that funny headset so that she can see Paris again? this is something different.
This will be really great with 4K displays and improved content.
It could all work out, but my contention is that the "mind blown" feeling is exactly what drove the waves of 3D we've seen for the last 150 years. Novelty is fun and exciting, but it wears off with exposure. Only then do we find out whether something has lasting value.
On one hand I want it to succeed because it seems kinda cool, on the other hand it could be another Google Glass. At least you tend not to wear these in public, so it's got that advantage.
Am I the only one who wants to use a VR headset for watching videos while lying on the bed?
I've always dreamed of having a ceiling mounted TV for this purpose, but VR headsets can accomplish the same goal with much less hassle and have other uses.
Years ago I did exactly this. Had the then-excellent (but under-supported) Virtual iGlasses; lacking other apps to apply, I ended up ditching my TV monitor and watching videos with the head-mounted display while lying down.
Is there any practical use for this? My understanding is that movie theaters are preferred to home theaters because the distance from your eyes to the screen is far enough that you can focus to infinity, which is easier on the eyes. Could a vr environment make viewing Netflix 'easier' on the eyes? Anyone have an opinion or link?
This is along the lines of why I'm interested in it. I actually want a mock environment (e.g. a living room) in the virtual environment that I can watch tv on OR code on.
I'm extremely nearsighted – age and my already excessive use of computers are exacerbating this. Because of the design of the VR Gear, I can almost see clearly at the highest correction level (similar to what I would see if I wore my 2-4 year old glasses).
Since the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that looking at 'near' things (e.g. computer screen, books, tv across a small room) exacerbates myopia, I'm hoping that doing my normal activities on (a) a screen with infinite distance and (b) a device which allows me to change the correction of the lenses, means I might be able to reverse some of my myopia. I don't think it will cure my myopia, but if I could stagnate or reverse the loss I've had over the last few years (or dare I hope, decades), it would be a blinkin', technological miracle! ;-)
You are still focused on a nearby screen. It just looks like a large screen at a distance due to the stereoscopic effect. The Oculus' lenses simulate a focal distance of 1.3 meters, which is not much better than a tablet in your lap. Another problem is that Oculus' focal distance is fixed, so you are not exercising your eye's ability to change focus. This isn't directly a problem that you wish to address in your comment above, but you may want to consider it. A technology that will better address these issues is the light field display. See: https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field...
My understanding is that the optics are designed to actually be at an infinite focus.
---
Short question:
> Now I read about this HMD Oculus Rift, which claims that you are always focused on the "distance" which I assume is the same as infinity focus in photography.
The short answer:
> In the same way as a telescope eyepiece, they create a virtual image at infinity.
> In the HUD the objective lens focus the image from a display (on the left in the diagram) and the lens at the front of the HUD reimages it at infinity.
But the key for me is someone who isn't myopic noticing that ...
> I've been able to see far away objects much sharper than I was able before, as if my sight was getting trained at infinity focus (which makes sense, I guess).
Thank you, colordrops! I looked for official, or at least more definitive, information on the focal distance to no avail. This definitely qualifies!
That said, it is of the DK2, which is clearly different than the DK1. Which leads me to wonder what the focal distance is for the Gear VR (Note4) and the new Gear VR.
Sadly, I'm so nearsighted at this point, that I have a hard time reading anything more than ≈4 inches away (things are out of focus at ≈2 inches away, but it's good enough and there are typically enough clues in the 2~4 inch range that I can still read normal text). In other words, if I'm only training my eyes at a distance of 30.5 inches for the next half decade, I suspect it will still be enough to lead to an improvement, and there will be even more improvements in tech (both in the VR & optometry) during that time frame.
It's more about establishing a relationship with Netflix than to create a theater experience. There are already cameras and video formats that support stereoscopic free-viewing in 360 degrees. Once Netflix starts posting these videos Oculus will already be poised to support them.
Contrast watching Netflix by holding a tablet in front of your face for 2 hours. Tends to get awkward, tedious, even painful, and limited to wherever you can prop it up sort of comfortably.
Having tried it, nicer to have the screen attached to your head. At least until the doorbell rings.
Seems a little too anthropomorphic. Like the Virtual Reading SNL fake ad from 20 years ago. "It's like reading a book in your living room - only better!"
http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916
(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)
It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.