3 ms·
I agree with you on websites. But I'm skeptical of this: > The actual potential "killer app" is something like a holodeck: a movie that it puts you inside of s
by wpietri 3y ago
I agree with you on websites. But I'm skeptical of this:
> The actual potential "killer app" is something like a holodeck: a movie that it puts you inside of so there isn't any screen at all.
We'll see how this turns out, as Hollywood is doing a lot of VR experimentation. But most modern movies will not translate at all to VR, because they control attention and aesthetic experience very precisely, all based on the constraint of the viewing frame.
I think the experiences compatible with a user looking around as a facehugger display allows will have to be much more like dioramas. They may be very interesting, but they won't be movies.
- simondotau 3y agoWe've seen this with 3D films where many subtle aspects of cinematography (e.g. depth of field) don't directly translate over. But I think it'll be infinitely worse for "VR" films. Even setting aside basic stuff like what should the viewer be looking at, some of the most basic tool of film-making — cutting from one scene to the next scene — could be jarring in a way that it isn't for a rectangular porthole.
- wpietri 3y agoFor sure. One of the big questions for me is "what does the viewer understand?" So much of modern film is very quick. There's low redundancy. So if you miss a look or a motion, you're lost. If you can't be sure where the viewer was looking, you create a lot of uncertainty about what they know. So look-anywhere entertainment will have to have a much lower information rate, much higher redundancy, or allow the viewer to control the pacing. That sounds a lot more like Myst than John Wick.