then it was 'yeah its sold out but its clearly only a small amount' now its 'yeah well 140,000 is not enough and 'where are all the games? oh there are too many games that is the problem yeah thats the ticket!
where is the AAA games? oh they are coming? well why arent they here now? its all a doom
lol
Except that 140,000 is not enough, its unlikely to improve by much either. When it comes to games platforms, if the XB1 had only sold 140,000 units, it would have been considered an abject failure, and without some very hefty financial inducements, its unlikely any dev team would consider even porting a game to it, never mind creating a game specifically for it, and thats what you have to consider, already the PSVR has by all accounts outsold the Vive, probably even the Vive and the OR combined. Sony has even stated they have 50 games that are heading to the PSVR, hopefully they are actual games and not the limited tech demo's that form the bulk of the 'apps' available on either the Vive or the OR. If HTC or OR had any sense they would be looking to make a lightweight headgear similar to the PSVR, before they get so far left behind they cease to be credible contenders, which at the moment, they pretty much are.
I dont know if 140,000 is enough or not HOWEVER, that doesnt even matter.
statement 1: only a handful where sold its clear that is the case because of the sell out statement
Statement 2: 140,000 is not a handful it might not be 'enough' but its not a handful and its clearly a LOT more then people who thought the 'sell out' was a PR stunt was
that is a painfuly obvious attempt at moving the bar which is something I predicted people would do a very long time ago (although didnt state it here)
Get real
The last thing that 140,000 number is... is *encouraging*
I very much doubt HTC is happy with those numbers.
If the Vive is showing similar sales numbers a year from now... it's current iteration is doomed.
its 20,000 a month which I am very positive is FAR more then people who said 'the sell out is clearly because they had low supply' thought originally.
this is clearly and obviously moving the bar.
dont forget they also said 50,000 was because that is all the early adopters and the numbers would not move much beyond that...yet they did
140,00 being 'significate' or not isnt even the point here
I could give a crap what people say
Do you have any idea of the cost to tool up for a production line for something like that?
Those numbers need to grow and they need to grow substantially.
you and I are talking about two COMPLETELY different things.
I dont give a rats fucking ass if the number of 140,000 is 'significant' or not. that is not what I am talking about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
it's exactly like that. It's really interesting how you do this on youtube and facebook, essentially the videos all require proper metadata tags so that the service knows what player to utilize. It comes out like this.
I feel just the opposite and not saying it just to say it but I very honestly think AR outside of application uses is a bit bullshity
Cant agree at all. More people will like to see their surroundings, not in some world. I ve asked many people about the differences and what they would like and AR is way way ahead.
I feel just the opposite and not saying it just to say it but I very honestly think AR outside of application uses is a bit bullshity
Cant agree at all. More people will like to see their surroundings, not in some world. I ve asked many people about the differences and what they would like and AR is way way ahead.
I doubt it will stick. At least you understand why I hold my view.
Then again, I could clearly be wrong, American Idol was very popular, I and what the masses like are not always the same but regardless to me the world of possibility is MUCH larger with VR.
we shall see in due time I suppose
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
it's exactly like that. It's really interesting how you do this on youtube and facebook, essentially the videos all require proper metadata tags so that the service knows what player to utilize. It comes out like this.
Awesome, loved it
Man those guys make it look so easy. Unbelievable how close they fly from one another at those kinds of speeds.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
All true, but 360 content is not VR. You can't move within that space. You can't step forward and look at an object from the other side. We have 360 cameras and 360 recording, both are interesting and useful. We don't have a recording format for VR generation.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
All true, but 360 content is not VR. You can't move within that space. You can't step forward and look at an object from the other side. We have 360 cameras and 360 recording, both are interesting and useful. We don't have a recording format for VR generation.
This is kind of true, but not entirely. There are ways to create multicamera videos and program positioning, obviously, but it's much tougher to do this with a video than with a static image.
Think of a smoothly stitched version of google street view. You can move around and see objects from several sides. This is one of the most used uses for 360 cameras in real estate.
As for real time VR recording, this is also a possibility but in a much smaller scale, and in very specific purposes, such as holoportation with hololens:
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
All true, but 360 content is not VR. You can't move within that space. You can't step forward and look at an object from the other side. We have 360 cameras and 360 recording, both are interesting and useful. We don't have a recording format for VR generation.
This is kind of true, but not entirely. There are ways to create multicamera videos and program positioning, obviously, but it's much tougher to do this with a video than with a static image.
Think of a smoothly stitched version of google street view. You can move around and see objects from several sides. This is one of the most used uses for 360 cameras in real estate.
As for real time VR recording, this is also a possibility but in a much smaller scale, and in very specific purposes, such as holoportation with hololens:
That is exciting!
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
Only 140 000 units sold. That's really bad result when games need to be customized for the hardware. No-one is going to make AAA quality games when potential audience is that small.
That's 140k out of a few large producers and the most expensive to boot. Not bad for what everyone acknowledges is a 'niche' market currently. Considering it's an emergent field, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Except its going to be compared to PSVR's sales, which could mean that developers are encouraged to create games for that platform, whether or not that 140,000 units is enough to persuade them to also port a game to the Vive is highly questionable and would entirely depend on how much it costs to do so. The downside of emergent fields could well be the Vive's future, and that is that because its an emergent field, there will be casualties, the Vive through its hefty requirements and its huge price tag, could well be the first casualty. O.o
Emergent fields are always a risk. In this case, I think the content developers will remain interested for a while. While it's not spectacular atm, there is plenty of buzz in the media about how it's gonna be the future. (Not just fringe media either). While it's all pie in the sky, buzz like this will be some impetus for developers to 'be there' so that they don't miss out when it does take off (at least the calculation that it will take off).
However, nobody knows 100% whether VR will be the one to rule them all (git it). My guess is that, while the buzz remains, there will be plenty of companies willing to risk some ducats to get their toes wet.
As a 360 degree content creator myself, our company did take on a risk that is indirectly associated with VR.
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
All true, but 360 content is not VR. You can't move within that space. You can't step forward and look at an object from the other side. We have 360 cameras and 360 recording, both are interesting and useful. We don't have a recording format for VR generation.
This is kind of true, but not entirely. There are ways to create multicamera videos and program positioning, obviously, but it's much tougher to do this with a video than with a static image.
Think of a smoothly stitched version of google street view. You can move around and see objects from several sides. This is one of the most used uses for 360 cameras in real estate.
As for real time VR recording, this is also a possibility but in a much smaller scale, and in very specific purposes, such as holoportation with hololens:
That is exciting!
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
According to the video it was live for the holographic portions they show in the corner. I think similar functions could be done with a few wireless kinect cameras, which are fairly robust. It is microsoft afterall.. I don't doubt that the technology used in kinect went to total waste.
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
thing is with the same resolution (aka processing power) you can do the same thing with VR but make the background anything you want with about the same amount of processing or less.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
thing is with the same resolution (aka processing power) you can do the same thing with VR but make the background anything you want with about the same amount of processing or less.
This falls into the logic of 'only 1 can be big' This is a fallicy. There is plenty of space for both of these. While they are both in the altered reality sphere, they perform distinctly different functions. For now, price will limit the number of people who want both. But as prices come down, this will change. In addition, there are 100s of millions of potential consumers. More than wnough to support both.
This falls into the logic of 'only 1 can be big' This is a fallicy. There is plenty of space for both of these. While they are both in the altered reality sphere, they perform distinctly different functions. For now, price will limit the number of people who want both. But as prices come down, this will change. In addition, there are 100s of millions of potential consumers. More than wnough to support both.
While kind of true, it isn't entirely true. MR could potentially do VR, and vice versa, but each have their own pitfalls to maneuver through. It also depends on which MR device you're speaking about.
In general most of the VR devices are the same. They do require you to be closed off from the world. To utilize a pass through camera for MR isn't an ideal situation. SEAN always talks about how you can do the same thing in VR when speaking to someone, but that isn't the case. For example, the tech utilized in the video had people walking around an open space with no wires to trip over or roomscale needed. VR will always completely block your vision and pass through cameras will always have a delay between regenerating the entire view area as well as any fabricated real time people. The processing power would be twice as much as you'd have to pixelate every item.
A good indicator of what you could expect is to walk around with your camera app open on your phone and look at nothing but the view in the camera app. If you'd trust yourself to do that walking around your entire house, and at the end of it, your phone isn't blazing hot, then you can start to imagine the differences between having an open view for MR and using VR to do the same thing.
MR on the other hand would have its own issues recreating VR. It isn't that the sets wouldn't be powerful enough, on the contrary, it would be quite simple to play quite a few VR games, but you'd have to find a way to block off the light behind you, and expand the viewing range. (currently Hololens has a very narrow view range for holograms, and magic leap is still a bit away from any sort of "consumer" set)
As for what will become more usable, there are several dozen big companies that are currently using hololens for business, and if you saw the patents that magic leap has and what they're currently working on, you'd realize how much of a game changer MR is over VR.
For example, in the near future, with magic leap, they believe you'll never have to own a computer for productivity in the office again. The clarity on the magic leap holograms is much stronger than hololens currently is, and this is one of the reasons google has backed them with such a large investment.
Here's a post I made a while back when the patents were released, it includes some of my favorite ideas and another link to all of magic leaps current MR patents. This is stuff they are currently working on and some of it has been shown in their demo videos.
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
thing is with the same resolution (aka processing power) you can do the same thing with VR but make the background anything you want with about the same amount of processing or less.
Only if you computer generate the background.
The problem is natural light.
Its easier to push a VR image over an entire viewing space if its in blackness then it is to project some images into a real enviroment when there is natural light.
Its the same reason you flash light works better at night then in the daylight outside and its why companies sell 'true black' TVs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
thing is with the same resolution (aka processing power) you can do the same thing with VR but make the background anything you want with about the same amount of processing or less.
Only if you computer generate the background.
The problem is natural light.
Its easier to push a VR image over an entire viewing space if its in blackness then it is to project some images into a real enviroment when there is natural light.
Its the same reason you flash light works better at night then in the daylight outside and its why companies sell 'true black' TVs
This is incorrect. You're not projecting images on natural light, you're projecting them through a filtered viewframe, directly in front of your eyes.
this is why Hololens has such a small view frame for holographic images. You aren't projecting them in the environment. They aren't there for all to see, they are projected within the screen in front of your eyes. This would make sense that you couldn't view them as clearly if, say, you were staring at the sun, but that will likely never be the case.
see above, if you look closely there are 2 sets of glasses for the hololens. The second set (the smaller of the two) is where the holographic images are created. the larger set assists in filtering the light that you see.
An other interesting thing about the hololens in comparison to the VR sets is that you don't wear it like goggles, you wear it like a crown. There are no "nose guards" like the VR sets that dig into your nose and make you sniffle and feel uncomfortable after a bit of wear.
This makes the hololens essentially tougher to initially setup on ones head (not any less tough than say, putting together several wires and setting up several PC programs) but once setup it's said to be quite comfortable.
Comments
I dont give a rats fucking ass if the number of 140,000 is 'significant' or not. that is not what I am talking about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
360 degree videos are neat, but not conducive to telling a great story, which makes our videos kind of a strange encounter.
What makes them bearable though is that, while the experience makes more sense on VR, it isn't necessary to use VR. For example if headsets never existed, you could still watch our videos on Youtube, and pan the camera whichever direction to view the different angles.
What this means is, the content is scalable to all devices. This is where VR runs into it's major flaw. Too many proprietary devices and software. Too many constraints.
This Generation VR devices could potentially die tomorrow but the 360 content still makes sense as all you require to watch it is a computer, cell phone, tablet, anything really. That isn't the same with games, and makes much less sense when you're tethered to a computer to do anything.
Is this type of thing similar?
http://www.flightdecksolutions.com/pcupload/B737-FBPT-v2.swf
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Cant agree at all. More people will like to see their surroundings, not in some world. I ve asked many people about the differences and what they would like and AR is way way ahead.
Then again, I could clearly be wrong, American Idol was very popular, I and what the masses like are not always the same but regardless to me the world of possibility is MUCH larger with VR.
we shall see in due time I suppose
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Man those guys make it look so easy. Unbelievable how close they fly from one another at those kinds of speeds.
Fighter Sim is what sells VR the most for me
Thanks
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Think of a smoothly stitched version of google street view. You can move around and see objects from several sides. This is one of the most used uses for 360 cameras in real estate.
As for real time VR recording, this is also a possibility but in a much smaller scale, and in very specific purposes, such as holoportation with hololens:
But that was what? Eight stereoscopic cameras in a restricted space. Plus another eight at the remote end. Sounds like a lot of processing power went into that presentation. But it is a beginning.
PS was it actually live or post composited?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I self identify as a monkey.
In general most of the VR devices are the same. They do require you to be closed off from the world. To utilize a pass through camera for MR isn't an ideal situation. SEAN always talks about how you can do the same thing in VR when speaking to someone, but that isn't the case. For example, the tech utilized in the video had people walking around an open space with no wires to trip over or roomscale needed. VR will always completely block your vision and pass through cameras will always have a delay between regenerating the entire view area as well as any fabricated real time people. The processing power would be twice as much as you'd have to pixelate every item.
A good indicator of what you could expect is to walk around with your camera app open on your phone and look at nothing but the view in the camera app. If you'd trust yourself to do that walking around your entire house, and at the end of it, your phone isn't blazing hot, then you can start to imagine the differences between having an open view for MR and using VR to do the same thing.
MR on the other hand would have its own issues recreating VR. It isn't that the sets wouldn't be powerful enough, on the contrary, it would be quite simple to play quite a few VR games, but you'd have to find a way to block off the light behind you, and expand the viewing range. (currently Hololens has a very narrow view range for holograms, and magic leap is still a bit away from any sort of "consumer" set)
As for what will become more usable, there are several dozen big companies that are currently using hololens for business, and if you saw the patents that magic leap has and what they're currently working on, you'd realize how much of a game changer MR is over VR.
For example, in the near future, with magic leap, they believe you'll never have to own a computer for productivity in the office again. The clarity on the magic leap holograms is much stronger than hololens currently is, and this is one of the reasons google has backed them with such a large investment.
Here's a post I made a while back when the patents were released, it includes some of my favorite ideas and another link to all of magic leaps current MR patents. This is stuff they are currently working on and some of it has been shown in their demo videos.
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/456099/ar-as-the-future-of-everything
I self identify as a monkey.
Its easier to push a VR image over an entire viewing space if its in blackness then it is to project some images into a real enviroment when there is natural light.
Its the same reason you flash light works better at night then in the daylight outside and its why companies sell 'true black' TVs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
this is why Hololens has such a small view frame for holographic images. You aren't projecting them in the environment. They aren't there for all to see, they are projected within the screen in front of your eyes. This would make sense that you couldn't view them as clearly if, say, you were staring at the sun, but that will likely never be the case.
see above, if you look closely there are 2 sets of glasses for the hololens. The second set (the smaller of the two) is where the holographic images are created. the larger set assists in filtering the light that you see.
An other interesting thing about the hololens in comparison to the VR sets is that you don't wear it like goggles, you wear it like a crown. There are no "nose guards" like the VR sets that dig into your nose and make you sniffle and feel uncomfortable after a bit of wear.
This makes the hololens essentially tougher to initially setup on ones head (not any less tough than say, putting together several wires and setting up several PC programs) but once setup it's said to be quite comfortable.