Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Finally Delivers On the VRML Dream With Immersive Star Wars Video

Posted by timothy on from the deep-inside-jabba-the-hutt dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has launched its 360-degree video feature, with an eye to virtual reality and next year's release of the Oculus Rift. Among the showcase videos is a specially rendered 'fly-through' of a scene from new Star Wars movie 'The Force Awakens', allowing the viewer to pan laterally and horizontally as the movie progresses. This kind of immersive video was made possible with Apple's QuickTime VR in the 1990s, but was hampered by the same technological bottlenecks of the period as VRML.

40 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Bring on the cat videos ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I know we've all been waiting with bated breath to have cat videos rendered in immersive VR.

    No, wait, the other one ... so, I can what, scroll around in the movie? I'm afraid I'm not getting the point of this. This sounds like one of those technologies which people want to create but nobody knows why they'd need it.

    Maybe I don't watch enough cat videos.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Bring on the cat videos ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you really want to restrict the choice of camera angles to a decision made by a highly experienced professional artist? Surely I should be given the freedom to accidentally be looking the wrong way as a major plot point unfolds, because then I get an individualised experience of "what the hell is happening here?!?"

      Captcha: record.
      Which raises an interesting question -- if I'm out when the 360-degree film is broadcast, am I going to have to set the viewing angles for the DVR to avoid unnecessary hard-drive usage...?

    2. Re:Bring on the cat videos ... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to restrict the choice of camera angles to a decision made by a highly experienced professional artist? Surely I should be given the freedom to accidentally be looking the wrong way as a major plot point unfolds, because then I get an individualised experience of "what the hell is happening here?!?"

      That would actually increase rewatchability for movies. Watch it once to get the story line, then rewatch it and look around scenes to see what you missed. Imagine doing this with a war movie or a space exploration movie. A good example would be Saving Private Ryan. Imagine watching the D-Day scene from the beach like normal, then watching it again from the vantage point of a German bunker. Hell, even deep sea or animal documentaries would be awesome with this type of technology. Of course, production costs would be a lot higher and would force an even heavier reliance on CG than movies do now, which could be a slight drawback.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Bring on the cat videos ... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      I watched a demo, using a Rift dev kit, where you have a virtual front row seat at a concert. It was amazing.

    4. Re:Bring on the cat videos ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well, I know we've all been waiting with bated breath to have cat videos rendered in immersive VR.

      No, wait, the other one ... so, I can what, scroll around in the movie? I'm afraid I'm not getting the point of this. This sounds like one of those technologies which people want to create but nobody knows why they'd need it.

      Maybe I don't watch enough cat videos.

      At the risk of stating the obvious, this will surely become popular if it makes porn better.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Flash player required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about you fuck off?

    1. Re:Flash player required by afranke · · Score: 1

      I haven't had Flash installed for years and this video played just fine. How about you fuck off?

  3. the real VRML dream: see rule 34 by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    the real VRML dream: see rule 34

    1. Re:the real VRML dream: see rule 34 by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You mean we can finally look around at the living rooms of the houses they rent to film porn?

      I've always thought those were beautiful houses, and wish I could see more of the decor.

      Oh, baby, look at those curtains!! And that decorative urn!

      I'll be in my bunk!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:the real VRML dream: see rule 34 by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No it means we can turn our head when the director decides the focus is on the man's ugly face 5 seconds before the money shot.

      err I mean I don't know anything about it. Porn is shot in houses? Really? Wouldn't know.

  4. Hello, 1993... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    Welcome back!

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Hello, 1993... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Doesn't look very 360 to me. The player seems to have a bit of control over the view, but Wikipedia lists it as a rail shooter.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. Not hampered by technology by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not a technological problem. The real issues with this kind of technology is that it removes direction from the movie. Directors use different angles, aspect ratios, focal lenghts, etc to direct and control the viewer's attention. How do that do that if the viewer is in control of the camera.

    They may partially try to do that and then you end up with the stupid situation like that scene in Avatar where the main character wakes from cryo. It was a classic change of focus from a water droplet to the main character, but in 3D it was distracting as heck as I was trying to focus on the water droplet but couldn't. This would not be helped if I could move the camera to not even look at the character in the first place.

    1. Re:Not hampered by technology by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      but in 3D it was distracting as heck

      I have seen a 3D film exactly twice ... both of them Avatar.

      Both times I left with a massive headache which lasted several hours, and sore eyes which lasted a day or so.

      Just not interested.

      I know this is for things like VR goggles, but I'm suddenly thinking of the multi-angle feature of DVDs pretty much nobody ever used except porn.

      And on the few occasions I ever saw porn with multi angle in it (purely for scientific purposes I assure you), it seemed like an utterly pointless feature.

      I can see this having value for games and other forms of visualization. But for movies? I'm assuming they did this with Star Wars to get clicks, not because it would ever enhance a movie ... though, being able to stare at Padma instead of looking at Jar Jar would have been a huge improvement.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Not hampered by technology by dj245 · · Score: 1

      It's not a technological problem. The real issues with this kind of technology is that it removes direction from the movie. Directors use different angles, aspect ratios, focal lenghts, etc to direct and control the viewer's attention. How do that do that if the viewer is in control of the camera.

      They may partially try to do that and then you end up with the stupid situation like that scene in Avatar where the main character wakes from cryo. It was a classic change of focus from a water droplet to the main character, but in 3D it was distracting as heck as I was trying to focus on the water droplet but couldn't. This would not be helped if I could move the camera to not even look at the character in the first place.

      Not just direction, but camerawork and editing skills also. In some movies, the camera is "handheld" (or at least edited later to have a "handheld" motion) and this motion is sometimes exploited to show different things in the scene. I noticed this in Blue is the Warmest Color, especially in many of the dialogue scenes. The camera will pan just a very small amount, seemingly randomly, as if it were handheld. But often there is something that was just out of view that is relevant to the current Dialogue.

      For the sake of argument, this could have been done intentionally by writing it into the script, done impromptu by a skilled camera operator, requested by the director, or even added in editing. These small elements are the "polish" on a film and give it a unique character if done well. A format without a way to add these small elements is a big step backwards in storytelling.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    3. Re:Not hampered by technology by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The focus issue has little to do with VR; it's something inherent to 3D (and hard to solve)

      VR won't remove direction from the movie; the director will still have to take decisions about camera setup and directing the viewer's attention, but he'll have to go about it differently. For instance the director will have to make decisions about where the action takes place. In front of the viewer is a safe default; you end up with a regular movie in which you can look around to ejoy the scenery. But the director can also make the action happen to the side of or even behind the viewer, in which case he will want to use an audible cue to direct the viewer's gaze there (great for horror movies). And what to do with camera setup? Tracking a moving object with the camera might be disorienting in a VR environment; you may want to go with a fixed camera position but again you'll have to direct the viewer's gaze to the right point of interest. Jump cuts from wide scenery shots to close ups of actors might prove to be too jarring an experience; how to handle that? Making a movie for VR will be a rather different affair.

      Speaking of Avatar, I'd think that Cameron would be the one director able to pull this off and create a great VR movie, just as he proved with Avatar that 3D can work wonders for immersion.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Not hampered by technology by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      just as he proved with Avatar that 3D can work wonders for immersion

      Well, he may have proved it to you.

      What he proved to me is I can't stand movies in 3D, and will never see another again. I'm not paying extra for something which gives me a headache.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Not hampered by technology by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      >Both times I left with a massive headache which lasted several hours, and sore eyes which lasted a day or so.

      That has to do with your head, not Avatar, where the 3D was done very well. 3D is not for everyone.

    6. Re:Not hampered by technology by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Not everyone gets headaches from 3D, but it's a good point actually... 3D movies still "work" in 2D, but is that the case for VR movies with the 3D removed as well? What does non-stereoscopic VR look like?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Not hampered by technology by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I assume you can't have that ... me, I leave the VR to anybody who actually cares.

      I strongly suspect immersive VR would make me vomit. I just don't see myself ever caring enough to find out.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Not hampered by technology by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Jeff is right, i watched Avatar in 3D twice (once myself, once with someone else because they wanted someone to see it with) and both times were great with no issues.
      I also watched probably 4-5 other movies in the new 3D glasses, with the same outcome. It might have to do with eyesight or perception.
      Either way, it's not the tech that is an issue, it's how humans aren't the same.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    9. Re:Not hampered by technology by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The focus issue has little to do with VR; it's something inherent to 3D (and hard to solve)

      I know. I used it as an example where a change of technology has resulted in a very VERY jarring effect that completely destroyed the scene due to the way the director applied some classic techniques. VR applies in the same way. The more control you give the user to immerse themselves in the scene the harder it is to control their eyes, a skill that directors have been perfecting since the days of black and white silent films.

      Avatar was a technical marvel and looked incredible. But it doesn't get a free pass and there are things that could have been improved. While some 3D scenes were great, others were a horrible example of how the technology was at odds with cinematography.

    10. Re:Not hampered by technology by macs4all · · Score: 1

      VR won't remove direction from the movie; the director will still have to take decisions about camera setup and directing the viewer's attention, but he'll have to go about it differently.

      True enough.

      For example, in a stage play, the Director can't force the audience to place their attention to a certain part of the (usually pretty large) stage; but he can use visual and audible cues, motion and lighting to essentially lead the audience around by the nose.

      And anyone who has seen a well-done stage production will likely attest to the effectiveness of these techniques.

  6. Not really VR by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Sure, you can look around all you want but you can't move anywhere you want.

    1. Re:Not really VR by idji · · Score: 1

      that's ok. Myst was a great game in the 1990's where you couldn't move around in a 360 degree view. Today's games render from any location. In another 20 years we will have real time rendering from any location. What we have now with this movie is the personal VR experience of being on that ship flying across the desert.

  7. Re:Awesome! by thaylin · · Score: 1

    I think you are talking about the terrible Bush recession.Things look pretty nice now.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  8. Laterally AND horizontally, you say? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    llowing the viewer to pan laterally and horizontally

    And there's me thinking they were the same thing.

    For even greater pedantry, "panning" in photography usually only refers to horizontal* rotation. The vertical version is "tilt".

    *by which I mean rotation about a vertical axis, just in case anyone even more pedantic than me wanted to pipe up.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Laterally AND horizontally, you say? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      llowing the viewer to pan laterally and horizontally

      And there's me thinking they were the same thing.

      I thought you only got both with the deluxe version.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Laterally AND horizontally, you say? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And there's me thinking they were the same thing.

      Think of it like a first person shooter ... there's pivoting so you're actually turning the camera lens ... there's also the one in which the lens points in the same direction but the whole camera moves side to side.

      So, I suspect there is the ability to spin around a point, or move the lens left and right without changing the direction the lens points.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Laterally AND horizontally, you say? by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      I think they mean that when viewers ultimately review the movie negatively (ie, 'pan' it), those viewers will be able to do so from either a recumbant or standing position.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  9. Facebook delivers? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    YouTube's been doing this for a while now... example

    1. Re:Facebook delivers? by dmomo · · Score: 1

      Nobody said "delivers first".

  10. Re:This has nothing to to with VRML? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Exactly right. NOTHING to do with VRML, only that it was "was hampered by the same technological bottlenecks of the period as VRML." So was voice recognition.

  11. Myst IV had it by omnichad · · Score: 1

    A free-roaming viewport with live action video overlaid on rendered 3D.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  12. No it doesn't by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    The "dream" of VRML was to have a standard file format for virtual rendered environments. A 360 video does not deliver that at all.

  13. I remember this... by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

    ...from about 1995. I thought it was going to be the coolest thing ever. Fast forward 20 years, and I hear about it for the second time. Sounds like progress!

    1. Re:I remember this... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Now they can actually implement it in the real world instead of in studio environments.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  14. SecondLife = VRML? by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Wasn't SecondLife based on VRML? I remember reading about the promise of VRML; virtual shopping malls, real estate, massive multiplayer games, etc... I never played around in SL but I thought that it was all VRML.

  15. SCTV did it first: by macs4all · · Score: 1

    Tip O'Neil's 3D House of Representatives, FTW!

    Oh, how I miss that show.

  16. Will ./ Ever Deliver On the Accurate Summary Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No need to click, it's not VRML. It's just a pannable animation in Javascript. You can't move around or interact with anything.

    From the equally awful article:

    [VRML was] ultimately superseded by WebGL.

    No. VRML (and its XML variant, X3D) is a scene description language. It's not procedural but (scriptable) markup, like HTML. WebGL is a procedural low-level 3D API for Javascript. Not comparable at all. You can do X3D on top of WebGL: X3DOM