Tarantino makes entertaining films but I don't think his choice of film stock has anything to do with it. Hateful Eight did not need to be shot on 70mm. It took place almost entirely in a single interior location which does not take advantage of the format.
I believe in order to be eligible for academy awards you have to have your film screened in X number of theaters for Y days. I have a feeling this is Netflix's primary drive for releasing anything theatrically.
Why do you assume VR companies think they aren't selling well? People are buying VR headsets.... Oculus lowered the price because their product isn't selling well enough relative to the competition.
What do you spend your money on for entertainment? Personally, I don't think VR is all that expensive even at the original $800 when you think about is in terms of entertainment per hour. I bet it is significantly cheaper per hour than other forms of entertainment that you'd have no problem spending money on.
Just being able to replace your desktop monitor with effectively unlimited screens that can be organized in any arrangement seems pretty darn useful to me. Unfortunately this generation of hardware is a bit too low resolution to pull it off.
You can simulate a big screen movie theater which works decently but again technical limitations and ergonomics prevent it from replacing your home theater.
If you do any drawing or modeling you can find some pretty cool applications. Google Earth VR is incredible. VR Chat/social applications are pretty interesting.
It's very much like early smartphone days where the applications are endless
I would argue that the newer a medium is the less limits there are. The artist can make anything they want and are under no obligation to the user to follow established rules or standard practices because they don't exist yet. I think the limitations you predict for VR are just extensions of existing medium's established rules that may or may not actually apply.
VR offers a very unique experience you can really find anywhere else. That's always valuable. So why assume people aren't willing to pay a premium for that? Also, generally the people who can afford an expensive purchase typically don't have lots of time of free time so the lack of quality software doesn't really affect them so much.
Having tried the HTC Vive, and owning some older VR equipment (Vuzix stuff), it's pretty clear to me that the Rift is the best VR equipment I've used. It's more responsive, and looks better (higher res screens). Other stuff I've tried tends to be kind of laggy with respect to head tracking and motion controllers, but not the Rift.
The Vive and Rift use exactly the same resolution displays. The Rift does have a slightly smaller field of view than the Vive which means the pixels per degree is actually higher but that's pretty negligible.
I don't know what "more responsive" means but again both run assuming you're talking frame rate. Both (Rift and Vive) have 90hz display so one shouldn't be more responsive than the other. If you can't maintain 90fps Rift does have AWS but Valve has their own reprojection algorithms as well.
Vive+Touch (and 3rd/4th camera) is pretty comparable to HTC Vive. Touch admittedly has some features the Vive Wands don't have but the new Knuckles controllers Valve is soon to release will leap frog past Touch.
I'd say the only clear victory the Rift has over Vive is price as everything else is pretty close...
Tim Sweeney (of Epic Games) stated (before the price reduction) Vive is outselling Rift 2:1. Since UE4 is used in many VR games he would have access various data like royalty figures to make a pretty educated guess.
There are independent firms also tracking sales that seem to agree with these figures. Palmer disputes them he doesn't really give any specific evidence.
Early computers didn't have much use to the average person. It took time to develop a good OS, UI, and software that the average person found useful.
VR is very much like early computers. The potential is there and it's only a matter of time before the hardware and software has value to a wider audience.
Oculus works in SteamVR and Valve recently released a linux port. Unity and UE4 are the two most popular engines both also have linux support so you might be able to find some decent games.
Gave Newell of Valve recently stated that wireless VR is a solved problem.
TPCast is already available in some countries that allows the HTC Vive to cut the cord. There are multiple wireless solutions being released soon as well.
Vive has space for glasses. You can also purchase prescription lens to put in the HMD so you don't have to wear glasses at all.
The bulky HMDs aren't going to be a problem much longer as we'll no doubt move to using light fields instead of lens+screen solutions. Here is a prototype from 2013 that is already quite small in size compared to our current HMDs. LThey also have many other benefits like allowing you eye to focus at various depths which can't be achieved with a single lens+screen.
VR offers a completely new medium where 3D TV does not. A better analogy would be: VR is to 2D computing as video is to radio. Yes, you can tell a story on the radio but there are obvious limitations compared to video. Video offers a higher bandwidth than radio and VR offers higher bandwidth than 2D computing.
Screenwriters aren't doing anything drastically different when they write a script for a 3D experience. In fact I seriously doubt there are more than a handful of films that are written with 3D in mind at the screenplay level. The vast majority of 3D content is shot in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. 3D content offers any real value over it's 2D counterpart because it is being developed using the same methods as it's 2D counter part.
VR offers plenty of value over traditional 2D computing and we are just starting to develop the input devices and user interfaces o do it effectively. Sure, we can port 2D software into VR but it's not a simple process. There are things that work on a traditional 2D computer screen don't work in VR. People literally get sick when you try to use some of these methods that work on 2D screens. Software being written for VR requires you to have VR in mind from the start.
The reason they elected to not include the basic functionality to backup your own saved game files is because it's a huge security risk. A very common exploit to root a console is to use a modified saved game file to inject your own code. Nintendo probably weighed the pro and cons and decided the risk was too high. I'm sure they'll implement cloud storage if the backlash is great enough since it's not exactly cheap to do.
I haven't used the PSVR but from what I've heard despite being lower resolution it doesn't have the noticeable screen door effect that the Rift/Vive does. I believe it's because the display panel using a RGB layout instead of a Pentile one for the subpixel arrangement. The aliasing absolutely is a resolution issue but supersampling really helps reduce it. Rumor has it that LG is developing a VR specific display for their upcoming headset that will significantly reduce these issues.
The Vive strap isn't the most ideal way to distribute it's weight across your face and head. There are a decent number of reports where in the middle of longer sessions (hour+) people find it gets quite uncomfortable. I've never experienced that much discomfort but I did replace the strap as it had a tendency to allow the headset to slip a bit. However, after replacing it with the welding mask mod ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) I realized just how much more comfortable it can be with a better strap. The PSVR is probably the most comfortable HMD right now with Rift coming in a close second.
DK2? I never tried one so I don't know how different they are to the consumer versions but...
The resolution on the DK2 is 960 x 1080 per eye where the CV1 (Rift you buy at the store) is 1080 x 1200 as is the Vive. There is definitely room to improve on the optics but if you look with your head instead of your eyes you generally stay in the sweet spot and won't have distortion issues.
Aliasing issues from low resolution can be mitigated quite a bit by supersampling too.
LG demoed their HMD at GDC and they are upping the resolution another small jump over the Rift/Vive. They didn't announce final specs though just that the prototype they had there was 1440x1280 per eye. It sounds like they're developing a screen specifically for their HMD so it's not a repurposed from a phone and will be two distinct panels instead of one shared by both eyes. In Gabe Newell's latest interviews he mentioned how this is a big step because there are lots of sacrifices made by being forced to use existing phone displays to keep costs down.
Slashdot Mirror
Tarantino makes entertaining films but I don't think his choice of film stock has anything to do with it. Hateful Eight did not need to be shot on 70mm. It took place almost entirely in a single interior location which does not take advantage of the format.
I believe in order to be eligible for academy awards you have to have your film screened in X number of theaters for Y days. I have a feeling this is Netflix's primary drive for releasing anything theatrically.
Why do you assume VR companies think they aren't selling well? People are buying VR headsets.... Oculus lowered the price because their product isn't selling well enough relative to the competition.
What do you spend your money on for entertainment? Personally, I don't think VR is all that expensive even at the original $800 when you think about is in terms of entertainment per hour. I bet it is significantly cheaper per hour than other forms of entertainment that you'd have no problem spending money on.
#1 is GearVR by a huge margin. Talking millions of units ahead of the competition.
Just being able to replace your desktop monitor with effectively unlimited screens that can be organized in any arrangement seems pretty darn useful to me. Unfortunately this generation of hardware is a bit too low resolution to pull it off.
You can simulate a big screen movie theater which works decently but again technical limitations and ergonomics prevent it from replacing your home theater.
If you do any drawing or modeling you can find some pretty cool applications. Google Earth VR is incredible. VR Chat/social applications are pretty interesting.
It's very much like early smartphone days where the applications are endless
There is some data from a few credible sources to suggest that but don't know for sure as HTC/Oculus hasn't released any data.
I would argue that the newer a medium is the less limits there are. The artist can make anything they want and are under no obligation to the user to follow established rules or standard practices because they don't exist yet. I think the limitations you predict for VR are just extensions of existing medium's established rules that may or may not actually apply.
VR offers a very unique experience you can really find anywhere else. That's always valuable. So why assume people aren't willing to pay a premium for that? Also, generally the people who can afford an expensive purchase typically don't have lots of time of free time so the lack of quality software doesn't really affect them so much.
Having tried the HTC Vive, and owning some older VR equipment (Vuzix stuff), it's pretty clear to me that the Rift is the best VR equipment I've used. It's more responsive, and looks better (higher res screens). Other stuff I've tried tends to be kind of laggy with respect to head tracking and motion controllers, but not the Rift.
The Vive and Rift use exactly the same resolution displays. The Rift does have a slightly smaller field of view than the Vive which means the pixels per degree is actually higher but that's pretty negligible.
I don't know what "more responsive" means but again both run assuming you're talking frame rate. Both (Rift and Vive) have 90hz display so one shouldn't be more responsive than the other. If you can't maintain 90fps Rift does have AWS but Valve has their own reprojection algorithms as well.
Vive+Touch (and 3rd/4th camera) is pretty comparable to HTC Vive. Touch admittedly has some features the Vive Wands don't have but the new Knuckles controllers Valve is soon to release will leap frog past Touch.
I'd say the only clear victory the Rift has over Vive is price as everything else is pretty close...
SteamVR now has (beta) Mac support
Tim Sweeney (of Epic Games) stated (before the price reduction) Vive is outselling Rift 2:1. Since UE4 is used in many VR games he would have access various data like royalty figures to make a pretty educated guess.
Valve's hardware survey results also reflect similar trend.
There are independent firms also tracking sales that seem to agree with these figures. Palmer disputes them he doesn't really give any specific evidence.
I don't ever want to watch a film I can experience a good story by listening to the radio.
All new technology is a toy at first.
Early computers didn't have much use to the average person. It took time to develop a good OS, UI, and software that the average person found useful.
VR is very much like early computers. The potential is there and it's only a matter of time before the hardware and software has value to a wider audience.
Light fields displays can address those issues.
Light fields displays are coming soon enough and will address most of those issues.
Oculus works in SteamVR and Valve recently released a linux port. Unity and UE4 are the two most popular engines both also have linux support so you might be able to find some decent games.
Gave Newell of Valve recently stated that wireless VR is a solved problem.
TPCast is already available in some countries that allows the HTC Vive to cut the cord. There are multiple wireless solutions being released soon as well.
Vive has space for glasses. You can also purchase prescription lens to put in the HMD so you don't have to wear glasses at all.
The bulky HMDs aren't going to be a problem much longer as we'll no doubt move to using light fields instead of lens+screen solutions. Here is a prototype from 2013 that is already quite small in size compared to our current HMDs. LThey also have many other benefits like allowing you eye to focus at various depths which can't be achieved with a single lens+screen.
The 3D TV analogy is a poor one.
VR offers a completely new medium where 3D TV does not. A better analogy would be: VR is to 2D computing as video is to radio. Yes, you can tell a story on the radio but there are obvious limitations compared to video. Video offers a higher bandwidth than radio and VR offers higher bandwidth than 2D computing.
Screenwriters aren't doing anything drastically different when they write a script for a 3D experience. In fact I seriously doubt there are more than a handful of films that are written with 3D in mind at the screenplay level. The vast majority of 3D content is shot in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. 3D content offers any real value over it's 2D counterpart because it is being developed using the same methods as it's 2D counter part.
VR offers plenty of value over traditional 2D computing and we are just starting to develop the input devices and user interfaces o do it effectively. Sure, we can port 2D software into VR but it's not a simple process. There are things that work on a traditional 2D computer screen don't work in VR. People literally get sick when you try to use some of these methods that work on 2D screens. Software being written for VR requires you to have VR in mind from the start.
It's uses the RED Brick for one week of continuous use and six months talk time.
The reason they elected to not include the basic functionality to backup your own saved game files is because it's a huge security risk. A very common exploit to root a console is to use a modified saved game file to inject your own code. Nintendo probably weighed the pro and cons and decided the risk was too high. I'm sure they'll implement cloud storage if the backlash is great enough since it's not exactly cheap to do.
I haven't used the PSVR but from what I've heard despite being lower resolution it doesn't have the noticeable screen door effect that the Rift/Vive does. I believe it's because the display panel using a RGB layout instead of a Pentile one for the subpixel arrangement. The aliasing absolutely is a resolution issue but supersampling really helps reduce it. Rumor has it that LG is developing a VR specific display for their upcoming headset that will significantly reduce these issues.
The Vive strap isn't the most ideal way to distribute it's weight across your face and head. There are a decent number of reports where in the middle of longer sessions (hour+) people find it gets quite uncomfortable. I've never experienced that much discomfort but I did replace the strap as it had a tendency to allow the headset to slip a bit. However, after replacing it with the welding mask mod ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) I realized just how much more comfortable it can be with a better strap. The PSVR is probably the most comfortable HMD right now with Rift coming in a close second.
DK2? I never tried one so I don't know how different they are to the consumer versions but...
The resolution on the DK2 is 960 x 1080 per eye where the CV1 (Rift you buy at the store) is 1080 x 1200 as is the Vive. There is definitely room to improve on the optics but if you look with your head instead of your eyes you generally stay in the sweet spot and won't have distortion issues.
Aliasing issues from low resolution can be mitigated quite a bit by supersampling too.
LG demoed their HMD at GDC and they are upping the resolution another small jump over the Rift/Vive. They didn't announce final specs though just that the prototype they had there was 1440x1280 per eye. It sounds like they're developing a screen specifically for their HMD so it's not a repurposed from a phone and will be two distinct panels instead of one shared by both eyes. In Gabe Newell's latest interviews he mentioned how this is a big step because there are lots of sacrifices made by being forced to use existing phone displays to keep costs down.
This won't explain why he thought Vive was better but as this is Slashdot here is a pretty in depth comparison of optics and displays.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculu...