4 ms·

It gets even more complicated when you consider what geometric format it records in. If it records "naively" where the vertical pixel maps to the angle relativ

It gets even more complicated when you consider what geometric format it records in. If it records "naively" where the vertical pixel maps to the angle relative to the horizon, then you get the least amount of detail around the "equator", and you get the most at the "poles" above and below you. Which is not only totally imbalanced, but imbalanced in the worst possible way! Back in 2017 Google introduced a new format that YouTube VR uses: https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-front-and-center-vr-video/ https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-fr... It's called an Equi-Angular Cubemap, so each pixel represents the same amount of area in a VR projection. Unfortunately, outside of YouTube it still hasn't really taken off as far as I know, although some VR video players support it. I wonder if Blackmagic records in it? Or more generally, in what shape does the 180° image fall on the rectangular sensor -- and so how does actual resolution vary across the VR projection?

matsemann 2y ago
My Gopro MAX uses EAC for the 360 videos. But ironically I have to go through the hassle of converting it to equirectangular before uploading to Google Street View..
quitit 2y ago
This outlines how Apple approaches the immersive video format to put the most pixels on the horizon line: https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-projection/ https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Wow, that is fascinating -- I had no idea, thanks. That definitely takes the cake for most bizarrely "optimized" method. But putting the horizon at a 45° angle is certainly a creative solution. Interesting that it's such a strange transformation, even the author of that article hasn't been able to decipher it exactly. The Google EAC seems so straightforward and "neutral", I'm surprised Apple created their own format (unless Google's format requires licensing, but I don't think it does).
  - esperent 2y ago
    > I'm surprised Apple created their own format There's nothing surprising here, it's been Apple's style for the entire time I've been working in tech - 15 years or so - to create formats that they control and preferably which only work on Apple devices. It's a big part of why their walled garden is so strong. > Additionally, the format is undocumented, they haven’t responded to an open question on the Apple Discussion Forums asking for more detail, and they didn’t cover it in their WWDC23 sessions Unfortunately, this is completely normal behavior from Apple and I've run up against it far too many times. When finally forced, by regulation or industry pressure, to answer questions, open their format up, or support other open formats, they pay lip service and drag their heels in every way possible.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      I don't know why you are getting downvoted. What you say is true. They originally said facetime would be an open protocol based on jabber... didn't happen. Heck, they created their own cpu (undocumented) for some reason.
      - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
        It's a bit more complicated than that right? There is definitely a corporate component there (FaceTime is one, iMessage is another) and they have a strong tendency to attempt to .. extort? .. others to pay for their standards. But they usually use standards that are available. If they do build something on their own, they have a reason. Most often technical. E.g. lightning is strictly better than any alternative that was available when they were introducing it (and that it didn't become the USB-C form factor is partially due to them wanting high licensing revenue). And really... you don't get why they created their own CPUs? Which hands down beat anything else out there on perf/watt and allow their systems to have incredible battery runtime on really tiny batteries?
        withinboredom 2y ago
        Is it that complicated? Instead of being an industry leader, they seem to just want money and sticky users. I'm not an Apple hater by any stretch, but this seems to be a fact. In other words, they could have lead the way to better calls/sms by making facetime the standard, but instead we have green bubbles. Literally, they are the reason their own competition exists. They could have made their CPU architecture available to anyone willing to pay, but instead it is exclusive and 100% non-portable. In other words, there could be some Apple in literally every device on the planet, but they decided they didn't want that -- for some reason. That is the part I don't understand. It seems like such a short-sighted play.

matsemann 2y ago

My Gopro MAX uses EAC for the 360 videos. But ironically I have to go through the hassle of converting it to equirectangular before uploading to Google Street View..

quitit 2y ago

This outlines how Apple approaches the immersive video format to put the most pixels on the horizon line: https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-projection/ https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...

crazygringo 2y ago
Wow, that is fascinating -- I had no idea, thanks. That definitely takes the cake for most bizarrely "optimized" method. But putting the horizon at a 45° angle is certainly a creative solution. Interesting that it's such a strange transformation, even the author of that article hasn't been able to decipher it exactly. The Google EAC seems so straightforward and "neutral", I'm surprised Apple created their own format (unless Google's format requires licensing, but I don't think it does).
- esperent 2y ago
  > I'm surprised Apple created their own format There's nothing surprising here, it's been Apple's style for the entire time I've been working in tech - 15 years or so - to create formats that they control and preferably which only work on Apple devices. It's a big part of why their walled garden is so strong. > Additionally, the format is undocumented, they haven’t responded to an open question on the Apple Discussion Forums asking for more detail, and they didn’t cover it in their WWDC23 sessions Unfortunately, this is completely normal behavior from Apple and I've run up against it far too many times. When finally forced, by regulation or industry pressure, to answer questions, open their format up, or support other open formats, they pay lip service and drag their heels in every way possible.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    I don't know why you are getting downvoted. What you say is true. They originally said facetime would be an open protocol based on jabber... didn't happen. Heck, they created their own cpu (undocumented) for some reason.
    - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
      It's a bit more complicated than that right? There is definitely a corporate component there (FaceTime is one, iMessage is another) and they have a strong tendency to attempt to .. extort? .. others to pay for their standards. But they usually use standards that are available. If they do build something on their own, they have a reason. Most often technical. E.g. lightning is strictly better than any alternative that was available when they were introducing it (and that it didn't become the USB-C form factor is partially due to them wanting high licensing revenue). And really... you don't get why they created their own CPUs? Which hands down beat anything else out there on perf/watt and allow their systems to have incredible battery runtime on really tiny batteries?
      - withinboredom 2y ago
        Is it that complicated? Instead of being an industry leader, they seem to just want money and sticky users. I'm not an Apple hater by any stretch, but this seems to be a fact. In other words, they could have lead the way to better calls/sms by making facetime the standard, but instead we have green bubbles. Literally, they are the reason their own competition exists. They could have made their CPU architecture available to anyone willing to pay, but instead it is exclusive and 100% non-portable. In other words, there could be some Apple in literally every device on the planet, but they decided they didn't want that -- for some reason. That is the part I don't understand. It seems like such a short-sighted play.