And this is why I end up downloading or streaming films - physical media DRM is now so hostile to the user it actively impedes the licensee from using the media in predictable and normal scenarios. I spent Christmas repeatedly explaining DRM to my mother who didn't understand why half her content wouldn't work with her new TV & Blu-Ray - I had chipped her old one so she could use discs from multiple regions as she lives on a boat.
On another note - VR has ruined 3D films for me - the scale is all wrong - watching Rogue One recently, my VR-adjusted brain struggled with the toy-scale spaceships. You get used to scale being correct quickly, and it being wrong is jarring - never mind being stuck to a single vantage point. I now prefer 2D films and my 3D really 3D.
I haven't messed with the retail Rift or the Vive but on my Rift dev unit, I enjoyed watching 3D movies in one of the "fake theater" environments. It simulated a giant movie screen and could interlace a side-by-side 3D movie file to generate an effect similar to what you'd see at the movies. I found it actually better in some ways, mainly because you could adjust the amount of "depth" separation if the default seemed off. At the real theater, it ought to be correct as shot but if you want to tweak it, you're obviously out of luck.
That said, I still don't watch many movies in 3D. I think the best one I watched with a VR headset was "Gravity" (in terms of the overall impressiveness of the 3D effect and the immersion).
The problem is that binocular vision in the real world is only really useful for about 10 feet in front of you, and is completely useless after about 50 feet. Everything you think you see in 3D past that point is your brain's postprocessing.
Therefore, for a 3D film to "look" 3D, rather than being a texture projected onto a skybox, everything has to visually take place within that range. If that means a Star Destroyer or the Death Star itself is actually hovering 30 feet in front of you and about 6 feet wide, well, the 3D demands it. Perhaps someday we'll have the confidence in 3D to let 3D only affect the near field and let big space engagements take place entirely in the far field, but we don't seem to be anywhere near that right now.
I lived a large portion of my life with my eyes being just blurry enough that my brain still developed binocular vision (unlike some people with worse vision), but I never really got to use it very well. Consequently when I finally got glasses, the entire world for a bit looked to me like a 3D movie does now until my brain settled down about the new data feed. It was a strange perception of the world.
> VR has ruined 3D films for me (...) I now prefer 2d films
I don't think you need much VR experience for this. One of the absolutely worst things about 3D in cinemas is stereoscopic pull - when the binocular focus changes for dramatic effect. If your brain tries to change faster, you get this jarring removal of immersion that ruins the experience. I've always preferred 2D films in cinemas.
One of the main reasons I got the GearVR was to watch movies in VR, but once I watched a couple I completely stopped. While the movies looked great in VR, almost as good as watching them on an IMAX screen in a real theater, the headset was just too bulky and uncomfortable to bother with.
I haven't tried the Vive or the Rift, but I expect them to be not that much better as far as comfort goes, and comfort is really the main thing that will determine whether it's worth the bother to wear a VR headset for hours on end, over and over again, once the novelty wears off.
14 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.6 ms ] threadOn another note - VR has ruined 3D films for me - the scale is all wrong - watching Rogue One recently, my VR-adjusted brain struggled with the toy-scale spaceships. You get used to scale being correct quickly, and it being wrong is jarring - never mind being stuck to a single vantage point. I now prefer 2D films and my 3D really 3D.
And where were you for the last 15 years?
That said, I still don't watch many movies in 3D. I think the best one I watched with a VR headset was "Gravity" (in terms of the overall impressiveness of the 3D effect and the immersion).
http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/15/12200134/ghostbusters-3d
Therefore, for a 3D film to "look" 3D, rather than being a texture projected onto a skybox, everything has to visually take place within that range. If that means a Star Destroyer or the Death Star itself is actually hovering 30 feet in front of you and about 6 feet wide, well, the 3D demands it. Perhaps someday we'll have the confidence in 3D to let 3D only affect the near field and let big space engagements take place entirely in the far field, but we don't seem to be anywhere near that right now.
I lived a large portion of my life with my eyes being just blurry enough that my brain still developed binocular vision (unlike some people with worse vision), but I never really got to use it very well. Consequently when I finally got glasses, the entire world for a bit looked to me like a 3D movie does now until my brain settled down about the new data feed. It was a strange perception of the world.
I don't think you need much VR experience for this. One of the absolutely worst things about 3D in cinemas is stereoscopic pull - when the binocular focus changes for dramatic effect. If your brain tries to change faster, you get this jarring removal of immersion that ruins the experience. I've always preferred 2D films in cinemas.
I haven't tried the Vive or the Rift, but I expect them to be not that much better as far as comfort goes, and comfort is really the main thing that will determine whether it's worth the bother to wear a VR headset for hours on end, over and over again, once the novelty wears off.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13578012/google-daydream-...
Seems like a much improved design.