5 ms·

Yes using it regularly multiple times a week. I watch tons of media on it. My background was in film production and I firmly believe this is the best current w

by dagmx 2y ago

Yes using it regularly multiple times a week. I watch tons of media on it. My background was in film production and I firmly believe this is the best current way to watch films at home , as long as you don’t mind doing so alone. The only better experience visually is a laser projector with active shutter glasses. I literally exclaimed out loud when I saw some of my shots on here for the first time. Depth for stereo movies adds so much, but you lose so much vibrancy and light with passive glasses. This solves both issues. I get why James Cameron said it was a religious experience. For fellow film makers, this is the highest quality way that I’ve experienced my own work. It also is probably the only place at home to experience these movies at that quality. Nobody else has 4k 3D HDR with HFR. Nobody. So as a previous film buff, it’s worth it alone for me for that. However I also use it for work regularly. I join industry meetings with it, I multitask regularly. I spend more time on the couch working off my laptop with this as my screen now. The passthrough and eyesight features have been surprisingly great for being with my family. While people think it’s sad that I’m doing my own thing in the headset, the reality is that we all do our own hobbies in the evening after work. I can now spend that time with my partner and interact with them while they do their thing. I think it’ll take a while for Apple and the app developers to really get into the swing of things, but it’s been a huge, positive change for me.

wysewun 2y ago
That’s a great insight. I have the Vision Pro and do like the quality and sound from my Sony a90j and Sonos system a bit more, but the size of the screen in the Vision Pro is amazing
jiggawatts 2y ago
> Nobody else has 4k 3D HDR with HFR Sadly that content basically doesn't exist outside of computer games. I got myself a 240 Hz OLED HDR monitor and I wanted to see Gemini Man in 120 fps, but it turns out that this is unobtainable by the public. The only other HFR movie I'm aware of is the Hobbit series, but they're only 48 fps. It's a bit weird to me that I have an ordinary consumer camera that can capture 120 fps or 8K at 60 fps, but that content fidelity exists only in YouTube or Vimeo.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Well that’s just down to a difference in definition and need for high frame rates. The content is there. But the definition doesn’t match your own. Much like how many film and game results don’t match each other as well outside of just HFR . Anything above 24/30 fps is high frame rate for film. Frame rate for film is an aesthetic choice, and a business choice. Unlike gaming, which only conceptually uses a pinhole camera model, frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed, the quality of motion blur and the emotional response.
  - eslaught 2y ago
    > frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed Can you explain this? Each frame is a effectively a still taken at some shutter speed. Suppose you shoot at 1/1000 shutter speed and you're comparing 60 vs 120 FPS. In theory you get twice as many frames at 120 FPS, but every other frame should be identical to what you'd capture at 60 FPS (in a hypothetical world where you can position two cameras simultaneously in the same physical space). I just don't get how changing FPS influences lighting unless you're making an assumption that FPS and shutter speed are entangled somehow. But I don't see how that fundamentally needs to be true except at the very slow end of shutter speeds.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Frame rate and shutter speed are entangled fundamentally. Frame rates put a cap on shutter speeds. At 24 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/24s. At 120 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/120s. Start first with the aesthetic aspect of motion blur. Most film is shot relative to a rotary shutter [1], with a 180 shutter being the norm, which is effectively half the frame rate. This is essential to the look of cinema today. Anything longer feels streaky and prone to feeling a bit drunk (see open shutter films by Dante Spinotti etc) and anything shorter feels like it becomes too sharp and soap opera like (see the first hobbit). The second hobbit film went to great lengths to make the motion blur feel more like 24fps motion blur. At 48fps you have to shoot open shutter (1/48s) to match 24fps style motion blur. Any higher than 48fps and you cannot match the 24fps look. Now this is a purely subjective choice, as is 24fps today ,given we don’t rely on optical audio track,, but it’s ingrained in people for the past 100 years. It’s the cinematic look. Then there’s the practical aspects. Firstly is lighting. Increasing frame rate puts a cap on shutter open time. That’s significantly more light that’s needed for every shot. This greatly increases the complexity of films where we’re already using massively high power lights. That means a ton more heat and expenditure. Then there’s the heat of the cameras. Filming is brutal on cameras. As you increase frame rate, you increase the load significantly, leading to potentially much shorter shooting times. Beyond that, there’s the expenditure of more frames in general. Doubling frame rates also doubles cost for storage, and the cost of post effects. And for what benefit really? As much as I like some aspects of 48fps, audiences have pretty universally panned any shifts away from 24fps as unnatural. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter
amerkhalid 2y ago
I have old Oculus Quest 2, and yes even with lower resolution, it is far superior experience than watching movies on the TV. I can only imagine what it is like with Vision Pro. I think it’s not just about picture quality but also about its ability to isolate you from your surroundings, can’t take a quick peek at your phone during boring scenes, screen appears huge, etc

by dagmx 2y ago

wysewun 2y ago

That’s a great insight. I have the Vision Pro and do like the quality and sound from my Sony a90j and Sonos system a bit more, but the size of the screen in the Vision Pro is amazing

jiggawatts 2y ago

> Nobody else has 4k 3D HDR with HFR Sadly that content basically doesn't exist outside of computer games. I got myself a 240 Hz OLED HDR monitor and I wanted to see Gemini Man in 120 fps, but it turns out that this is unobtainable by the public. The only other HFR movie I'm aware of is the Hobbit series, but they're only 48 fps. It's a bit weird to me that I have an ordinary consumer camera that can capture 120 fps or 8K at 60 fps, but that content fidelity exists only in YouTube or Vimeo.

dagmx 2y ago
Well that’s just down to a difference in definition and need for high frame rates. The content is there. But the definition doesn’t match your own. Much like how many film and game results don’t match each other as well outside of just HFR . Anything above 24/30 fps is high frame rate for film. Frame rate for film is an aesthetic choice, and a business choice. Unlike gaming, which only conceptually uses a pinhole camera model, frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed, the quality of motion blur and the emotional response.
- eslaught 2y ago
  > frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed Can you explain this? Each frame is a effectively a still taken at some shutter speed. Suppose you shoot at 1/1000 shutter speed and you're comparing 60 vs 120 FPS. In theory you get twice as many frames at 120 FPS, but every other frame should be identical to what you'd capture at 60 FPS (in a hypothetical world where you can position two cameras simultaneously in the same physical space). I just don't get how changing FPS influences lighting unless you're making an assumption that FPS and shutter speed are entangled somehow. But I don't see how that fundamentally needs to be true except at the very slow end of shutter speeds.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Frame rate and shutter speed are entangled fundamentally. Frame rates put a cap on shutter speeds. At 24 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/24s. At 120 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/120s. Start first with the aesthetic aspect of motion blur. Most film is shot relative to a rotary shutter [1], with a 180 shutter being the norm, which is effectively half the frame rate. This is essential to the look of cinema today. Anything longer feels streaky and prone to feeling a bit drunk (see open shutter films by Dante Spinotti etc) and anything shorter feels like it becomes too sharp and soap opera like (see the first hobbit). The second hobbit film went to great lengths to make the motion blur feel more like 24fps motion blur. At 48fps you have to shoot open shutter (1/48s) to match 24fps style motion blur. Any higher than 48fps and you cannot match the 24fps look. Now this is a purely subjective choice, as is 24fps today ,given we don’t rely on optical audio track,, but it’s ingrained in people for the past 100 years. It’s the cinematic look. Then there’s the practical aspects. Firstly is lighting. Increasing frame rate puts a cap on shutter open time. That’s significantly more light that’s needed for every shot. This greatly increases the complexity of films where we’re already using massively high power lights. That means a ton more heat and expenditure. Then there’s the heat of the cameras. Filming is brutal on cameras. As you increase frame rate, you increase the load significantly, leading to potentially much shorter shooting times. Beyond that, there’s the expenditure of more frames in general. Doubling frame rates also doubles cost for storage, and the cost of post effects. And for what benefit really? As much as I like some aspects of 48fps, audiences have pretty universally panned any shifts away from 24fps as unnatural. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

amerkhalid 2y ago

I have old Oculus Quest 2, and yes even with lower resolution, it is far superior experience than watching movies on the TV. I can only imagine what it is like with Vision Pro. I think it’s not just about picture quality but also about its ability to isolate you from your surroundings, can’t take a quick peek at your phone during boring scenes, screen appears huge, etc