Will 4K ever be obsolete? Is 8K the next big thing?
- Thread starter Oller Visuals
- Start date
filmguy123
Veteran
Little bit of a tangent but lots of hate for VR in here. Sorry but I think this is a medium with absolutely massive potential and will not be going anywhere soon. I have a solid VR rig at home (GTX 1080 TI and Rift) and some of the experiences on it are mesmerizing. If you don’t believe in VR, in my opinion, you simply haven’t experienced it in the right context.
And what is coming down the pipeline (wireless, smaller, lower weight, higher res, full body tracking, finger and gesture tracking, facial expression tracking, more robust interactive voice recognition AI, etc.)... sure, current 360 video is underwhelming but that is NOT what VR is all about.
And what is coming down the pipeline (wireless, smaller, lower weight, higher res, full body tracking, finger and gesture tracking, facial expression tracking, more robust interactive voice recognition AI, etc.)... sure, current 360 video is underwhelming but that is NOT what VR is all about.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Having shot, stitched and edited 360 video, produced two AR pieces and a VR piece for Fox, I stand by my assertion. For filmed entertainment, it seems like a gimmicky fad, just like 3D. Not saying it's useless for everything, it has some cool applications, for virtual surgery, engineering, tourism, museums, special applications and obviously gaming, it's already established. But for things that are not filmed entertainment. For filmed entertainment as the "next big thing", it seems to be a bust.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yeah, I took the plunge over the holidays and have been duly converted about its potential. Most of the 360 video out there looks like VHS quality at this point. I was somewhat impressed by viewing sports on the NEXTVR platform, especially the NBA games. But even their stuff looks at best like SD quality when viewed in VR. I can only imagine what VR will be like when it is higher resolution, with a full field of vision. But it's true their isn't much future for traditional cameramen and cinematography in VR. Cameras are mostly locked down, as the viewer decides where to look, so a hands on operator isn't needed. And eventually, for live and performance oriented stuff, the technology will probably progress to some kind of volumetric capture, where most of the artistic choices will be done in post...At the same time, while I think this will erode the audience for traditional filmed entertainment, I don't think it will supplant it. Most people aren't going to want to come home from a ten hour job to do VR. VR can be physically taxing, especially for gaming, and people will still want various forms of passive entertainment to unwind.
filmguy123
Veteran
I don't disagree here, but I don't think anyone who pioneered VR thought of it's purpose being that. That's an offshoot of people jumping on board to try things out. However, I do think VR will play a big roll in the merging of filmed + 3D rendered entertainment (it's closer than we think). Sure, we didn't like CGI Tarkin (Rogue One), but a future quasi-animated, quasi-filmed VR merger of entertainment is closer than we think. Things like the Blade Runner 2049 experience, infantile as they are right now, hint at the potential within 20 years (if not much sooner).
This is true today, but if you've studied what's coming, big changes are afoot. They have optical technology that is over my pay grade, ircc referred to as optical mapping, that is said to create actual physical depth cues for the eye. Which means a big part of what makes VR taxing will, along with other advances, begin to subside. (And this is just one example of promising tech that is being developed even in the near term to address some of the issues with long duration VR use).
I'm not saying traditional 2D cinema is doomed by any stretch. But I think the future clearly has a very large place for truly 3D interactive visual experiences. Once you've experienced what VR can be, even today, and read up a bit on the longterm roadmaps, a world where we plunk on a $200 pair of wireless sunglasses + 5.1 headphones to become truly immerse in a sometimes interactive, sometimes passive, photo realisitc 3D scanned story space, it becomes clear VR is not a fad.
But you're right, if you just think of the tech as it is today, and especially as it is today for 360 video content, yeah, it's DOA. But that's never been what VR is about, and unlike 3D, this is only the most infantile expression of the technology and the roadmap to progress will be very rapid (depending on your perspective). Today a GTX 1080i is $800. In a few years, a GPU with 3x its power will be <$400. The GTX 2080 is already said to be on the way for 2018 and rumors are, it's set to impress.
(and as a bit of a tangent, 360 video itself, while I think far less compelling than VR's true potential, will surely see substantial gains in IQ and technique in the coming years).
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yes, but even having to actively engage by standing around and looking, or even being seated, creates a level of interactivity that is more taxing then passively watching a movie. I think most people will want a purely passive experience, or a fully interactive one. In the middle of that is a zone that doesn't fully satisfy either desire, which is why most 360 filmed entertainment is not that compelling for people. I also feel that traditional cinema can more efficiently deliver narrative information to an audience because of one tool VR lacks, editing. In VR it's up to the viewer to edit and frame their experience. With cinema techniques, you can cut from a wide, to a close up, to another location, back to a closeup, all in a very compressed time frame, and through that juxtaposition elicit thought or emotion. You can't really do that in VR. VR is more like live theater in that regard, and more limited in technique. Its best uses are probably going to be for live events.
filmguy123
Veteran
Maybe having played a lot of video games, I disagree with the fact that you can't edit in VR. You can guide the viewer through similar edited experiences in 3D space, locked head rotations, etc. And, you can be seated for VR - in a swivel office chair, for entirely passive experiences (with or without 3D head movement; with or without chair swivel; with or without simple finger gestures (future) to guide and point. Even eye tracking is coming - look where you want to go to select, if interactive at all.
But, I am not saying there isn't a huge market for passive 2D cinema. I am just saying, if you think of VR experiences only as passive entertainment, it misses the point. Virtual hospitality destination tours. Architecture layout tools. Educational and experiential story exhibits. Active entertainment. Etc. I think viewing VR as "replacement for 2D or fail" is the wrong way to look at it. Movies and documentaries exist side by side with podcasts and books and digital print website. It's a both and, but... while no one knows the future, and who knows what happens next... for my money, VR does not equal 3D. VR, I believe, will be one of the most prominent future vehicles of media delivery. But it won't look like 360 video.
But, I am not saying there isn't a huge market for passive 2D cinema. I am just saying, if you think of VR experiences only as passive entertainment, it misses the point. Virtual hospitality destination tours. Architecture layout tools. Educational and experiential story exhibits. Active entertainment. Etc. I think viewing VR as "replacement for 2D or fail" is the wrong way to look at it. Movies and documentaries exist side by side with podcasts and books and digital print website. It's a both and, but... while no one knows the future, and who knows what happens next... for my money, VR does not equal 3D. VR, I believe, will be one of the most prominent future vehicles of media delivery. But it won't look like 360 video.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Oh, I never said that. My argument is more why one won't supplant the other. They fulfill fundamentally different roles for people as entertainment. VR is as different from cinema as cinema was from theater. People still go to the theater. People will still watch movies, even when VR is firmly entrenched. It will carve out a piece of the entertainment pie, but it's not going to make off with the whole tin.
filmguy123
Veteran
agreed!
Or framing... in cinema the camera provides a perspective, in VR there's no control of the frame. It prevents the filmmakers from controlling the pace of the narrative.
Personally, outside of experience "films" like livestreaming sporting events, I think VR's primary niche is interactive, because cinematic VR isn't cinematic, in that it doesn't serve the storytelling.
Interactive VR however, meaning games and that sort of thing, are an entirely different beast, and IMO VR will dominate there once the technology is mature enough.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You're probably right. I am 54, and in my lifetime, I don't care to see such a wholesale change in audience dynamics and how the audience relates to filmed or interactive entertainment. But just because I find it a gimmick doesn't mean the market will too. I guess as we move into higher and higher technology, none of it matters that much to me anymore because none of it has anything to do with storytelling, this is all just tools. 2K, 4K, 8K, HDR? 3D? VR? AR? But I think Batutta nails it about passive versus interactive experiences and the live theater analogy is a good one. I love live theater. Once a month. But it's not something I would ever want to experience on a daily basis. For me, being a film person, storytelling is mostly about our craft, and directing the viewer toward your story points using visual and audio cues, cutting style and speed, wide, medium, CU, ECU, reaction, reverse, etc. That's what I really dislike about VR, all of this goes out the window, which for me, personally, makes for a much less satisfying viewing experience. It's like comparing a good novel to Microsoft Word with a story template. I don't want to fill in all of the words, I want the writer to. But perhaps I am being too closed minded. Maybe someone will come along who becomes the genius auteur of VR experiences and then we will see something. But so far, there are no Georg Pabst, D.W. Griffith, Chaplin, Keaton or Lloyds of the VR world. Maybe there will be and I will gladly eat my words. But so far, we are looking at trains startling us in the Nickelodean with VR IMHO. The same gimmick for a new generation.