5 ms·

> The most surprising twist in the evolution of V.R. may turn out to be the pace of the new medium. Quick cuts are an almost physical act of violence in V.R.; j

> The most surprising twist in the evolution of V.R. may turn out to be the pace of the new medium. Quick cuts are an almost physical act of violence in V.R.; jumping from one perspective to another can create a literal sense of nausea. But more telling, perhaps, is the fact that people don’t want to move on to another experience once they’ve put the headset on. They want to linger. “I want to just put you in a field,” Mooser told me, “and you just do what you want to do in that field.” Quick cuts were seen as violent and jarring when film was new, too. We will get used to VR cuts just as we got used to film cuts. It may take a few generations; right now VR is still a novelty.

stcredzero 10y ago
We will get used to VR cuts just as we got used to film cuts. I don't think that the "cut" automatically applies to VR. Film is fundamentally more indirectly immersive. You are looking through a window into another world, and the immersion is also largely through involvement via plot/characters/interest. VR will also (hopefully) have this, but the jump up in immediacy from film is like the one film has from books. Instead of a "cut" I think other tools and vocabulary will arise that are much more interactive. People like looking through a window into another world. I don't think slaving your POV to the level where it's strapped to your head is fundamentally viable. Looking through the magic window of cinema is an active choice to delve into that POV, moment by moment -- for you can always close your eyes or look away in an instant. With VR, it's more like you have the choice the moment you strap on the goggles, you give it up for the experience, then have the "safe word" of being able to take the goggles off. Many more people will like looking at stuff than they will like being strapped to it.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Day 1 Vive owner. It really isn't a big deal. Immersion gets overplayed a lot in the click-baity tech press. Sure it feels 'real' but about 3-4 steps removed from reality and where traditional 2D gaming is 5-6 steps away from reality. We are nowhere near anything that be can considered 0-2 steps from reality. There will always be an uncanny valley effect here and a sense of falseness. Humans aren't that easily fooled, unfortunately. My Vive had performance issues where my background environment would randomly pop-up during games. It was kinda annoying the first time, but is no big deal. Sharp cuts are pretty meaningless. This stuff isn't exactly the Matrix. You're not going to be in constant amazement or think you're in some new reality with a new body. It still a screen pasted to your face and your mind knows this the whole time.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    There's a big difference between the 3-4 steps and 5-6 steps. Just as you can't simply assume that everything in books automatically translates to film, you can't simply translate everything in film to VR. My Vive had performance issues where my background environment would randomly pop-up during games. I thought that was a feature called "Chaperone." You're not going to be in constant amazement or think you're in some new reality with a new body. It still a screen pasted to your face and your mind knows this the whole time. Who said anything about amazement? No one. What I'm referring to is precisely the fact that you know it's a screen strapped to your face. Being stuck on someone else's POV through something strapped to your face is a different experience than looking through the magic window of the cinema screen or the computer monitor. I think it makes a fundamental difference to how the "cut" works or won't work.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      Chaperone is when you get close to your room's edge. There's a bug that can make your background environment, which can be anything - mine was a spaceship, appear instantly. Its no biggie.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Darkened theaters are rather like a screen stuck to your face. After a while you really stop noticing the 'static' background and people just focus on the screen.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        This is true, but there is still a significant difference. You have to actively engage your eyes to have that immersion. This is also the case when you can explore and look around a VR environment. There is a difference in agency. Naievely use the conventions of film in VR, however, and you can lose that. Everyone wants to be able to peer into another's POV. No one wants to be strapped into it. Doing VR wrong can change VR from the former to the latter.
crooked-v 10y ago
The difference here is that quick cuts in film, generally speaking, don't literally make people physically sick.
- ryandamm 10y ago
  They used to make people sick. But we've adapted to watching screens, mostly. (First person shooters still make a lot of people ill, on regular TVs.) Plus, a grammar evolved (180 degree line of action, visual weights, etc) that allow experienced filmmakers to push the bounds of what's comfortable to watch. Regular VR devs report (and I can corroborate) that you eventually lose your ability to get sick in VR. This extends to motion sickness in the real world; when I was experiencing a lot of nauseating VR, I no longer got nauseated by reading while driving, or on boats, etc. (Unfortunately your ability to get sick 'grows back' if you stop watching VR; the brain is rather plastic.)
- Retric 10y ago
  Depends on the film, you can easily make viewers nauseous watching TV. The iMax film To Fly, had an insanely long run because it gives people a gut wrenching feeling at a few points. And 'shaky cam' footage bothers a lot of people.

stcredzero 10y ago

We will get used to VR cuts just as we got used to film cuts. I don't think that the "cut" automatically applies to VR. Film is fundamentally more indirectly immersive. You are looking through a window into another world, and the immersion is also largely through involvement via plot/characters/interest. VR will also (hopefully) have this, but the jump up in immediacy from film is like the one film has from books. Instead of a "cut" I think other tools and vocabulary will arise that are much more interactive. People like looking through a window into another world. I don't think slaving your POV to the level where it's strapped to your head is fundamentally viable. Looking through the magic window of cinema is an active choice to delve into that POV, moment by moment -- for you can always close your eyes or look away in an instant. With VR, it's more like you have the choice the moment you strap on the goggles, you give it up for the experience, then have the "safe word" of being able to take the goggles off. Many more people will like looking at stuff than they will like being strapped to it.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Day 1 Vive owner. It really isn't a big deal. Immersion gets overplayed a lot in the click-baity tech press. Sure it feels 'real' but about 3-4 steps removed from reality and where traditional 2D gaming is 5-6 steps away from reality. We are nowhere near anything that be can considered 0-2 steps from reality. There will always be an uncanny valley effect here and a sense of falseness. Humans aren't that easily fooled, unfortunately. My Vive had performance issues where my background environment would randomly pop-up during games. It was kinda annoying the first time, but is no big deal. Sharp cuts are pretty meaningless. This stuff isn't exactly the Matrix. You're not going to be in constant amazement or think you're in some new reality with a new body. It still a screen pasted to your face and your mind knows this the whole time.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  There's a big difference between the 3-4 steps and 5-6 steps. Just as you can't simply assume that everything in books automatically translates to film, you can't simply translate everything in film to VR. My Vive had performance issues where my background environment would randomly pop-up during games. I thought that was a feature called "Chaperone." You're not going to be in constant amazement or think you're in some new reality with a new body. It still a screen pasted to your face and your mind knows this the whole time. Who said anything about amazement? No one. What I'm referring to is precisely the fact that you know it's a screen strapped to your face. Being stuck on someone else's POV through something strapped to your face is a different experience than looking through the magic window of the cinema screen or the computer monitor. I think it makes a fundamental difference to how the "cut" works or won't work.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    Chaperone is when you get close to your room's edge. There's a bug that can make your background environment, which can be anything - mine was a spaceship, appear instantly. Its no biggie.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Darkened theaters are rather like a screen stuck to your face. After a while you really stop noticing the 'static' background and people just focus on the screen.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      This is true, but there is still a significant difference. You have to actively engage your eyes to have that immersion. This is also the case when you can explore and look around a VR environment. There is a difference in agency. Naievely use the conventions of film in VR, however, and you can lose that. Everyone wants to be able to peer into another's POV. No one wants to be strapped into it. Doing VR wrong can change VR from the former to the latter.

crooked-v 10y ago

The difference here is that quick cuts in film, generally speaking, don't literally make people physically sick.

ryandamm 10y ago
They used to make people sick. But we've adapted to watching screens, mostly. (First person shooters still make a lot of people ill, on regular TVs.) Plus, a grammar evolved (180 degree line of action, visual weights, etc) that allow experienced filmmakers to push the bounds of what's comfortable to watch. Regular VR devs report (and I can corroborate) that you eventually lose your ability to get sick in VR. This extends to motion sickness in the real world; when I was experiencing a lot of nauseating VR, I no longer got nauseated by reading while driving, or on boats, etc. (Unfortunately your ability to get sick 'grows back' if you stop watching VR; the brain is rather plastic.)
Retric 10y ago
Depends on the film, you can easily make viewers nauseous watching TV. The iMax film To Fly, had an insanely long run because it gives people a gut wrenching feeling at a few points. And 'shaky cam' footage bothers a lot of people.