4 ms·

Mostly presupposed hardware issues. Based on very thin assumptions, and some opinions that just seem wrong - for example, wearing a Quest 2 with the Elite strap

Mostly presupposed hardware issues. Based on very thin assumptions, and some opinions that just seem wrong - for example, wearing a Quest 2 with the Elite strap is pretty comfortable, by far the largest issue is heat buildup and pressure around the eyes. The apple headset being lighter and with the much wider band looks to me it would actually be more comfortable. The failure of 3D movies is always used as a cautionary tale, but it was a pretty unique case that came down to artistic execution. Both Avatar movies are incredible in 3D and don’t generate any kind of discomfort, but the average “3D” title from other studios was a cardboard-cutout mess, usually a worse experience than it’s 2D counterpart. Not a technology adoption problem.

agumonkey 3y ago
Avatar seen on a CRT tv was more 3d than most 3d movie in 3d theater rooms. Cameron crew was really world class.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  The problem with that 3D craze was that it was implemented entirely because James Cameron wanted it. All of the technical innovations and infrastructure costs were implemented for Avatar, and all of the subsequent movies and consumer facing products were just there to try and recoup some value from these (probably bad) investments that were made for just this one film. It lasted only as long as it took people to realise that general enthusiasm for 3D movies wasn’t very strong in the broader market of all people other than James Cameron.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    I'll die on the hill that James Camerson was also just plain wrong. Multiple scenes in Avatar are done in ways which either fail to take advantage of 3D, or are shot in a way which plays right into it's weaknesses.
    - no1groyp 3y ago
      [dead]
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > all of the subsequent movies and consumer facing products were just there to try and recoup some value from these (probably bad) investments that were made for just this one film. Interesting. First time I've heard it mentioned that way. My viewpoint at the time was that the 3d craze in tvs' was more due to manufacturers looking for the next big thing to compete with each other, and Avatar had come out recently and was doing well. Thus "let's add 3d" and every other kitchen sink / feature they could find. Thus smart tv's now, etc.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Also what I thought. After 3D it was curved TVs? Or maybe before?
      - justinclift 3y ago
        Good point, yep curved TVs was definitely in the mix. After the 3d fad died out, but I'm also not sure if it was before or after "smart" TVs.
        dwaite 3y ago
        Television manufacturers are constantly looking for a premium feature, since the profits are so slim on the lower end. 3D was one such feature, but had a benefit for non-3D movies in that it needed significantly more backlighting for active glasses to not give an overly dim experience. 3D was also odd in that normally such features get adopted first by a higher tier "early adopter" market - but because of Avatar and other family friendly 3D content, it was generally purchased by families. Perhaps its biggest early negative was expensive active glasses handed to young children. HDR was another, but is somewhat spoiled by the lack of any good certifications/branding. Anything which can _process_ a HDR signal will be sold as a HDR television. Curved was so weird to me, but that is because I always mount my televisions. Curved was a byproduct of the processes allowing for it. Since the curve has a fixed radius, it does lock you into a viewing distance 'range' that isn't always going to work for people. 4K was yet another, and partly what pushed 3D out in the US market. Active 3D also had a hard time with pixel ghosting - each frame was different from the previous. Smart TVs are a different approach - sell advertisement and premium channels, I suspect in the future even put services like Uber Eats on TVs, all for secondary revenue channels to make up for how tight the primary sales channel is.
  - brookst 3y ago
    That’s an interesting alternative history but not really connected to our world. There were 3D movies before Cameron was born. It’s been an ongoing cycle in movies, largely driven by the fact that the experience can be better, but it can also be neutral or worse, and the core of the art form is storytelling. Cameron showed how to use 3D to support storytelling rather than distract, but these was no conspiracy to “recoup investments” — there were just imitators who didn’t put the work in to get it right, and manufacturers who were selling shovels and expected a gold rush that never appeared. Our economy, and trends in the movie business are not centrally planned the way you imagine. Nobody says “AMC invested in 3D projection, so MGM should invest in 3D production, so this film that’s in development should be shot in 3D”. It doesn’t work that way.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      I’m not suggesting it was centrally planned, but you’re massively underselling James Cameron’s role in this. For starters the 3D cinematography technology created specifically for Avatar was legitimately innovative and better than anything in the past (though still a terrible experience imo). When Avatar was in production barely any cinemas had the projectors to screen it, and most of them had a big and expensive rush to upgrade for Avatar > In the UK alone, only around 320 out of 3,600 cinemas are digitally equipped, while in the US the ratio is even worse (2,500 out of 38,000). "So there is a big problem looming," admits Peter Buckingham, head of distribution and exhibition at the UK Film Council. "You are looking at about a minimum of £80,000 to get yourself into a 3D position. Even with the hike in ticket prices and the potential hike in audiences, that's quite a stretch for the smaller venues. The danger is that, in this digital switchover, a number of cinemas may well be left behind." https://theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/20/james-cameron-avatar-3d-film https://theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/20/james-cameron-avata... I vividly remember this at the time, and the huge amount of FOMO coverage of stories about whether your local cinema would be able to play 3D Avatar. Obviously none of this would have happened without the expectation that a wave of new 3D movies were about to be released. The direct results of James Cameron wanting to make cool new 3D technology for Avatar was an immediate (and permanent) increase in ticket prices at the cinema, and 10 years of awful 3D movie screenings from cinema desperately trying to claw back the money they wasted on it.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Cameron shot his movie in 3D. Most other movies tried to jump on the bandwagon of 3D after being produced as a traditional 2D movie. They were instead converted to 3D in post.
claritise 3y ago
Not to mention it has built in fans for active cooling. Apple has through it through.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  True, but the fans add weight and use energy that could be better spent in computing. I dislike the power loss failure mode - it will prevent their use in places such as factory floors where AR will be very impactful, because a suddenly blinded worker next to heavy machinery is usually a terrible idea. But I also appreciate how they solved the transparency issue of AR by instead of overlaying stuff on the real world, they just replaced it with an Apple-made one, which is insanely clever and totally Apple. I also want to know what they can do with additional sensors - extending vision into IR and UV and beyond will certainly prove interesting, as well as providing better perception at low light. The key thing is that it’s not a head set for an existing computer, but a computer with a new shape, with an OS designed for that. We shouldn’t discount the initial problems - this thing is impressive. It’s a quantitative improvement so large it will become a qualitative one.
  - dathos 3y ago
    I disagree that using a few watt for comfort is a waste of computing power
  - prawn 3y ago
    I don’t think their goal is to make something to use along with heavy machinery. I’d say they’re leaving that market for other operators. All their promos (and of almost all their hardware) pitch a pretty consistent crowd.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      What I realised is that this might be the first correct way to watch Koyaanisqatsi at home that was ever created.
- karussell 3y ago
  Is it cooling for the person or for the processors? I don't want to sweat, but whatever silent fans close to my ears would be a downgrade for me.
mhh__ 3y ago
Avatar (2) 3D looks awful compared to VR. It's better than other 3D movies but it only really works for falling down a chasm.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  I guess it depends on how you watch it? We saw it in one of the new Dolby Cinema rooms and it was mind blowing good. And I’m not sure what you mean by “compared to VR” - do you watch some kind of 3D movies in VR? These are very different experiences to me. In the theater it’s just an aid for immersion, a full 3D environment wouldn’t allow for traditional cinema direction to happen.
  - dymk 3y ago
    IMO Avatar 2 was hindered by the changing frame rate more than anything else
  - dylan604 3y ago
    >a full 3D environment wouldn’t allow for traditional cinema direction to happen. I spent a few years in the early days of the VR rebirth doing live action VR. The issue you mentioned was one of the biggest problems for me. When the camera is locked down in a stationary position, the issue is not as noticeable. You can look where ever when ever you want. Just because the other people are talking to you does not mean you have to look at them. However, no modern director wants a locked off shot, and wants the camera to move to add _________ to the shot. You've now removed that choice in the environment for the user. If the user is looking in a different direction when the camera starts moving, it is very unsettling. The user is no longer in control of this environment that is meant to give the user control.
- dwaite 3y ago
  For any significant market, I doubt we will have movies or shows go to a full 3D experience. These are storytelling, not interactive experiences. You aren't going to be able to pause and get up and see what is inside the briefcase in a 3D Pulp Fiction remake. You won't be able to watch Jaws entirely from the point of view of the shark. What is being shown in the shot is the story being told. People can and do make fully interactive experiences where you could do that. I would argue once you let the audience all walk around on the stage and asking if they can go back to the previous scene in the middle of the performance, you're no longer putting on a play. You're doing something entirely new.
Stevvo 3y ago
You're making a shaky assumption yourself that the Apple headset is lighter, despite all reports to the contrary.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Reminder: The Quest Pro is 722g.
  - clnq 3y ago
    Quest 2 is about 500g, and AVP is about 500g. Quest Pro is generally known to be a bit of a heavy one, particularly tough on the forehead.
    - canucker2016 3y ago
      Female Youtuber who tried out the AVP said that the device would be too heavy to wear for a full movie or longer. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xvxxw7SWs&t=805s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xvxxw7SWs&t=805s
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  If it is heavier and doesn't have a battery... that's quite an accomplishment.

agumonkey 3y ago

Avatar seen on a CRT tv was more 3d than most 3d movie in 3d theater rooms. Cameron crew was really world class.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
The problem with that 3D craze was that it was implemented entirely because James Cameron wanted it. All of the technical innovations and infrastructure costs were implemented for Avatar, and all of the subsequent movies and consumer facing products were just there to try and recoup some value from these (probably bad) investments that were made for just this one film. It lasted only as long as it took people to realise that general enthusiasm for 3D movies wasn’t very strong in the broader market of all people other than James Cameron.
- XorNot 3y ago
  I'll die on the hill that James Camerson was also just plain wrong. Multiple scenes in Avatar are done in ways which either fail to take advantage of 3D, or are shot in a way which plays right into it's weaknesses.
  - no1groyp 3y ago
    [dead]
- justinclift 3y ago
  > all of the subsequent movies and consumer facing products were just there to try and recoup some value from these (probably bad) investments that were made for just this one film. Interesting. First time I've heard it mentioned that way. My viewpoint at the time was that the 3d craze in tvs' was more due to manufacturers looking for the next big thing to compete with each other, and Avatar had come out recently and was doing well. Thus "let's add 3d" and every other kitchen sink / feature they could find. Thus smart tv's now, etc.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Also what I thought. After 3D it was curved TVs? Or maybe before?
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Good point, yep curved TVs was definitely in the mix. After the 3d fad died out, but I'm also not sure if it was before or after "smart" TVs.
      - dwaite 3y ago
        Television manufacturers are constantly looking for a premium feature, since the profits are so slim on the lower end. 3D was one such feature, but had a benefit for non-3D movies in that it needed significantly more backlighting for active glasses to not give an overly dim experience. 3D was also odd in that normally such features get adopted first by a higher tier "early adopter" market - but because of Avatar and other family friendly 3D content, it was generally purchased by families. Perhaps its biggest early negative was expensive active glasses handed to young children. HDR was another, but is somewhat spoiled by the lack of any good certifications/branding. Anything which can _process_ a HDR signal will be sold as a HDR television. Curved was so weird to me, but that is because I always mount my televisions. Curved was a byproduct of the processes allowing for it. Since the curve has a fixed radius, it does lock you into a viewing distance 'range' that isn't always going to work for people. 4K was yet another, and partly what pushed 3D out in the US market. Active 3D also had a hard time with pixel ghosting - each frame was different from the previous. Smart TVs are a different approach - sell advertisement and premium channels, I suspect in the future even put services like Uber Eats on TVs, all for secondary revenue channels to make up for how tight the primary sales channel is.
- brookst 3y ago
  That’s an interesting alternative history but not really connected to our world. There were 3D movies before Cameron was born. It’s been an ongoing cycle in movies, largely driven by the fact that the experience can be better, but it can also be neutral or worse, and the core of the art form is storytelling. Cameron showed how to use 3D to support storytelling rather than distract, but these was no conspiracy to “recoup investments” — there were just imitators who didn’t put the work in to get it right, and manufacturers who were selling shovels and expected a gold rush that never appeared. Our economy, and trends in the movie business are not centrally planned the way you imagine. Nobody says “AMC invested in 3D projection, so MGM should invest in 3D production, so this film that’s in development should be shot in 3D”. It doesn’t work that way.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    I’m not suggesting it was centrally planned, but you’re massively underselling James Cameron’s role in this. For starters the 3D cinematography technology created specifically for Avatar was legitimately innovative and better than anything in the past (though still a terrible experience imo). When Avatar was in production barely any cinemas had the projectors to screen it, and most of them had a big and expensive rush to upgrade for Avatar > In the UK alone, only around 320 out of 3,600 cinemas are digitally equipped, while in the US the ratio is even worse (2,500 out of 38,000). "So there is a big problem looming," admits Peter Buckingham, head of distribution and exhibition at the UK Film Council. "You are looking at about a minimum of £80,000 to get yourself into a 3D position. Even with the hike in ticket prices and the potential hike in audiences, that's quite a stretch for the smaller venues. The danger is that, in this digital switchover, a number of cinemas may well be left behind." https://theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/20/james-cameron-avatar-3d-film https://theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/20/james-cameron-avata... I vividly remember this at the time, and the huge amount of FOMO coverage of stories about whether your local cinema would be able to play 3D Avatar. Obviously none of this would have happened without the expectation that a wave of new 3D movies were about to be released. The direct results of James Cameron wanting to make cool new 3D technology for Avatar was an immediate (and permanent) increase in ticket prices at the cinema, and 10 years of awful 3D movie screenings from cinema desperately trying to claw back the money they wasted on it.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Cameron shot his movie in 3D. Most other movies tried to jump on the bandwagon of 3D after being produced as a traditional 2D movie. They were instead converted to 3D in post.

claritise 3y ago

Not to mention it has built in fans for active cooling. Apple has through it through.

rbanffy 3y ago
True, but the fans add weight and use energy that could be better spent in computing. I dislike the power loss failure mode - it will prevent their use in places such as factory floors where AR will be very impactful, because a suddenly blinded worker next to heavy machinery is usually a terrible idea. But I also appreciate how they solved the transparency issue of AR by instead of overlaying stuff on the real world, they just replaced it with an Apple-made one, which is insanely clever and totally Apple. I also want to know what they can do with additional sensors - extending vision into IR and UV and beyond will certainly prove interesting, as well as providing better perception at low light. The key thing is that it’s not a head set for an existing computer, but a computer with a new shape, with an OS designed for that. We shouldn’t discount the initial problems - this thing is impressive. It’s a quantitative improvement so large it will become a qualitative one.
- dathos 3y ago
  I disagree that using a few watt for comfort is a waste of computing power
- prawn 3y ago
  I don’t think their goal is to make something to use along with heavy machinery. I’d say they’re leaving that market for other operators. All their promos (and of almost all their hardware) pitch a pretty consistent crowd.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    What I realised is that this might be the first correct way to watch Koyaanisqatsi at home that was ever created.
karussell 3y ago
Is it cooling for the person or for the processors? I don't want to sweat, but whatever silent fans close to my ears would be a downgrade for me.

mhh__ 3y ago

Avatar (2) 3D looks awful compared to VR. It's better than other 3D movies but it only really works for falling down a chasm.

ricardobeat 3y ago
I guess it depends on how you watch it? We saw it in one of the new Dolby Cinema rooms and it was mind blowing good. And I’m not sure what you mean by “compared to VR” - do you watch some kind of 3D movies in VR? These are very different experiences to me. In the theater it’s just an aid for immersion, a full 3D environment wouldn’t allow for traditional cinema direction to happen.
- dymk 3y ago
  IMO Avatar 2 was hindered by the changing frame rate more than anything else
- dylan604 3y ago
  >a full 3D environment wouldn’t allow for traditional cinema direction to happen. I spent a few years in the early days of the VR rebirth doing live action VR. The issue you mentioned was one of the biggest problems for me. When the camera is locked down in a stationary position, the issue is not as noticeable. You can look where ever when ever you want. Just because the other people are talking to you does not mean you have to look at them. However, no modern director wants a locked off shot, and wants the camera to move to add _________ to the shot. You've now removed that choice in the environment for the user. If the user is looking in a different direction when the camera starts moving, it is very unsettling. The user is no longer in control of this environment that is meant to give the user control.
dwaite 3y ago
For any significant market, I doubt we will have movies or shows go to a full 3D experience. These are storytelling, not interactive experiences. You aren't going to be able to pause and get up and see what is inside the briefcase in a 3D Pulp Fiction remake. You won't be able to watch Jaws entirely from the point of view of the shark. What is being shown in the shot is the story being told. People can and do make fully interactive experiences where you could do that. I would argue once you let the audience all walk around on the stage and asking if they can go back to the previous scene in the middle of the performance, you're no longer putting on a play. You're doing something entirely new.

Stevvo 3y ago

You're making a shaky assumption yourself that the Apple headset is lighter, despite all reports to the contrary.

CharlesW 3y ago
Reminder: The Quest Pro is 722g.
- clnq 3y ago
  Quest 2 is about 500g, and AVP is about 500g. Quest Pro is generally known to be a bit of a heavy one, particularly tough on the forehead.
  - canucker2016 3y ago
    Female Youtuber who tried out the AVP said that the device would be too heavy to wear for a full movie or longer. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xvxxw7SWs&t=805s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xvxxw7SWs&t=805s
nickthegreek 3y ago
If it is heavier and doesn't have a battery... that's quite an accomplishment.