
Oculus Is Awesome for Games, But It’s the Future of Movies - JunkDNA
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2014/01/oculus-movies/
======
mentos
Oculus Rift owner here. I would absolutely love to watch my next hockey game
from behind the glass at center ice via my Oculus Rift. This will be
technologically feasible in the next 2-3 years and I think it will make for an
incredibly compelling experience. But I imagine that sports leagues may not be
in a rush to virtualize their stadium seating and cannibalize their
ticket/food/beverage sales. But they could always price this in to the cost in
which case I'd be more than happy to pay that premium!

When it comes to movies I don't believe it will have the same effect. Movie
directors want to frame a scene and direct your eye and the Oculus Rift
provides the exact opposite. I think there will be new movie experiences for
the rift but I don't believe they will change the existing art.

~~~
polshaw
I think on the contrary, sports leagues would delight at the possibility of
re-selling their premium 'seats' over and over. And I don't think it would
prevent people visiting physically, doing so provides a social and physical
experience that many value.

But I think you are spot on in suggesting that sports would be a much better
sector than movies.

------
modeless
Not sure about this. You can't film a 360 degree video in stereo, because the
proper camera positions depend on the user's head rotation, which can't be
known in advance. You also can't respect translation of the user's head. For
these reasons 360 degree video will always be inferior to virtual environments
for VR.

~~~
GrantS
The solution is to use a multi-camera array (not just stereo) to capture as
much of the light field as possible and then re-synthesize stereoscopic video
from the user's viewpoint by grabbing pixels located along the appropriate
rays. Then you can have free head movement within the volume of space from
which you captured data. Doing this for video is obviously more challenging
than for a static scene, but here are the research papers from 15 years ago at
Microsoft Research on doing this entire pipeline for static scenes (both
PDFs).

VIRTUAL REALITY USING THE CONCENTRIC MOSAIC: CONSTRUCTION, RENDERING AND DATA
COMPRESSION. Shum, Ng, Chan, 2000.
[http://charlesneedham.com/pubs/68824/virtual_reality_concent...](http://charlesneedham.com/pubs/68824/virtual_reality_concentric_mosaic.pdf)

Rendering with Concentric Mosaics. Shum, He. 1999.
[http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/68819/rendering_concentri...](http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/68819/rendering_concentric_mosaics.pdf)

~~~
modeless
You're right, I guess "always" is an overstatement. A light field 360 degree
video camera would do the job, but the technology is a _long_ way off, much
farther than good VR and probably farther than good augmented reality too. The
amount of data you'd need to capture and store for such a video would be
staggering.

~~~
goatforce5
These guys are doing it:

[http://biglook360.com/](http://biglook360.com/)

~~~
modeless
360 degree video cameras exist. 360 degree _light field_ video cameras with a
capture range big enough to support stereo rendering do not exist (yet). The
two are not comparable at all.

~~~
tdpqfkhg
From what I've seen. Stereoscopic 3D 360 degree camera's are pretty much
impossible to do. At least not without a gigantic compound eye like camera.
Even then the problem of rendering in real time is even harder. So streaming
with that kind of Camera will never work.

Not sure if it's possible to make a stereoscopic reflection based camera
either. The distortion would make it worthless and the 3D effectively would be
minimal.

Has anyone tried to make a globe like camera sensor? Everything I've seen it
impossible or not actually suitable for VR.

------
thenomad
Maybe.

As a filmmaker, I'm extremely interested by the Rift, not least because it
appears to partially offset the "uncanny valley", at least from early tests.
Old games with dodgy character models (Half-Life 2) are much more immersive
and compelling in a VR setting.

However, the challenge of telling a story without the ability to frame action,
cut, or generally use any of the filmmaker's toolkit that has been in place
since the popularisation of the medium in the early 1900s is going to be a
hell of a challenge.

What we're actually looking at here is less like filmmaking, and more like
theater in the round. It'll be interesting to see how it can be made to work -
but I'm under no illusion that it'll be an easy transition.

~~~
catshirt
as a film watcher i came to post similar thoughts. Gravity was the first 3d
film that didn't make me hate 3d so there is time for my tastes to evolve, but
i can't imagine getting down with a Rift movie. one of the most important
story telling tools is lost.

as someone who will be attending Sleep No More
([http://sleepnomorenyc.com/](http://sleepnomorenyc.com/)) for the third time
next month i am deeply intrigued by more options for immersive theatre.

~~~
antiterra
I have been to Sleep No More three times myself. While I enjoy it a great
deal, I think it also lacks a strong storytelling component.

Part of this stems from the choices made in Sleep No More, such as the general
lack of dialog, the size of the venue, etc.

The other part of it is the fundamental difficulty in creating a narrative
when your audience is liable to walk off and explore empty rooms. The game
"Gone Home" succeeds at this, creating a linear story via voiceover and
restricting access. Yet, it feels a bit too limiting and stilted for it to be
a primary medium for drama.

~~~
catshirt
i'll agree. but when you are that immersed in a story it almost doesn't matter
what the story is. i guess it depends what you're looking to get out of it. i
feel like immersion and direction are mutually exclusive and you give up one
for the benefit of the other. sleep no more went pretty hard on the immersion
front.

but this is kind of my point and i think we are saying the same thing. with
enough going on in a virtual environment, you make your own story. that is the
experience i'd look for in true VR. if that is exploring empty rooms so be it.
this differs from film where there is strict direction.

there is room for something in the middle, like "Gone Home", but that
experience is not the future of film, nor does it exploit the best aspects of
VR/Rift.

the obtuse point from the article is right: Rift, VR, (and i'll extend it to
AR) is cool for games, but what's cooler are the new types of art they will
enable.

------
danso
> _But in reality, no one — not even Oculus — knows what filmmakers will do
> with so powerful a tool. “Rule Number One: There are no rules yet,” Chen
> says. What is known is that the ways that perspectives can change thanks to
> virtual reality are remarkable. Movies, as Roger Ebert said, are “like a
> machine that generates empathy.” If a person in a VR headset can experience
> a protagonist’s or antihero’s life first-hand, then the Rift actually
> becomes that machine. (The possibilities for documentaries seems
> particularly appealing; Oculus Rift is already being used by artists to
> “gender swap.”)_

I can't believe it's 2014 and a media writer...someone who, of all people,
should understand the bespoke nature of content, is thinking along these
lines. The same prediction was made back when DVDs came out, that the massive
increase in storage allowed filmmakers freedom to show viewers alternate
scenes and endings, to the point where the viewer could choose their own
adventure.

Aside from DVD extras, which are often rough and unfinished, that new kind of
moviemaking hasn't happened yet, and not because of the limitation of the
tech. First of all, DVD extras are often rough because it takes time and money
to make them as excellent as the finished film. And even unreleased produced
footage isn't always a winner, as there was often a reason for that footage to
be cut in the first place.

We don't have user-interaction in movies because movies are a medium in which
the creators have a distinct vision. Even if it were possible to design and
produce a movie world in which users had the freedom to do what they want, it
necessarily waters down the director/producer's vision...

Hell, _books_ have had the technology for "choose your own adventure" for a
very long time (they're called, "Choose Your Own Adventure" series"...but such
books have not become true classics. Would "Romeo and Juliet" be as fine a
classic if readers/theatergoers were given the ability to choose a happier,
non-tragic ending?

Oculus Rift is an awesome technology and will open frontiers that we don't yet
know exist...but it's not going to fundamentally change the bespoke (and
somewhat rigid) art of movies and literature, unless movies and literature
themselves undergo a radical rethinking...but that kind of revolution is not
waiting on technology.

~~~
diydsp
Yes, along with that Ebert quote, I'll add this link:

[http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-
work-...](http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-
never-will-case-closed)

Also, has no one considered the fact that part of what makes movies "work" is
that people watch them TOGETHER, IN GROUPS?

Seriously, people/wired. I think what Wired was really thinking when they said
this is "I would like to watch a movie made for Occulus Rift," however, since
their job is to create sensationalist headlines, they translate the original
thought into, "Occulus Rift is the future."

------
tinco
The future of the Occulus Rift for me is going to be programming environments,
and I think workspace environments for many more professions.

If you've ever worn an Occulus you'll know that at the moment its resolution
is too low to read small text, but that won't be long. You'll also know that
the space around you is immensely larger than any set of monitors could offer
you. Think how your development environment is now, two small full 1920x1200
24" monitors likely, sitting about a meter from you.

When the Occulus sports 2 QHD screens, you will have that same DPI, but for
your _entire_ field of vision. And because of the sensors you can move your
head around, meaning there can be windows, data, tools, information everywhere
around you, literally just a glance away.

And then the icing of the cake: The Occulus lets you relax your eyes! No more
eyestrain, I am not 100% certain but this might allow you to someday look 8
hours at a screen, and feel like it's been a day in the park for your eyes.

~~~
henningb
I don't think so. For me, workplace is a lot about face to face communication.
Oculus with its big black helmet does not exactly foster that. I hope we don't
in the future sit all at home in our Oculus VR.

I have tried an Oculus and think it is awesome for gaming, and probably some
special work environments, e.g. car designers. But as a general purpose
workplace or for programming, I don't think it fits.

~~~
nightski
Why would the Oculus VR prevent face to face communication? If anything, it
could enhance it. I believe it has serious potential.

~~~
tinco
That makes no sense, the idea that you can't see your surroundings, and thus
neither any faces, is a core property of the rift.

Anyway, parent doesn't have much of a point. What's wrong with taking your
goggles off to have a chat with someone? It makes no sense to disqualify the
rift over the fact that while you're using it you're pretty isolated.

~~~
nightski
I guess that is my point, why does it need to be isolated. Why couldn't you
have video conversations while wearing the Occulus as if the person was right
there. Hell even with life like avatars when half way across the country?
collaborating on code or whichever subject in a virtual space?

I mean is it that important to take it off? I could see it increasing
communication within a company. Instead of walking to a persons desk you could
just have an in-person chat with them without moving (a much better experience
than say, skype).

------
istorical
Even just using the VR Cinema demo on the Dev Kit 1 (which projects your
chosen video file onto a movie theater sized screen in front of you), I'd
rather watch flat videos in a higher resolution VR HMD than in the 'real
world'.

It really is one of those things that you kind of have to experience to
understand it in your gut, but think about what makes it fun to watch movies
on an IMAX screen: it's that the movie theater screen fills so much of your
field of view. In contrast a living room TV fills up a much smaller fraction
of your field of view.

So you can think of the Oculus as a bigger than IMAX screen that fills your
entire view besides some narrow vertical bands along your peripherals. It's a
much more immersive viewing experience for 2D movies than any non-HMD
experience. It's like you have a movie theater screen strapped to your face.

~~~
83457
Yep, I have watched most of Hugo in RiftMax theater. The resolution is of
course low but the 3d effect I get in the Rift is much better than I have ever
felt in a real theater.

------
bparsons
These guys are doing it right.

With each new peice of news, I am increasingly convinced that Oculus is the
next big platform.

I imagine that not only the film studios, but NFL and NBA are looking at this
as a potential game changer for home entertainment.

Would folks pay five bucks to sit at the 50 yard line to watch the Superbowl
live on their Oculus? I think I might, and I don't even care about football.

~~~
adventured
How about watching the play from the helmet of Manning or Adrian Peterson?

What would it be worth to have experienced some of the great plays in NFL
history from this perspective?

eg
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catch_%28American_football%...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catch_%28American_football%29)

------
Vaskivo
I don't know about the "normal" movie industry, but there is someone who
usually follow these trends and isn't afraid of trying new technology - The
Porn Industry.

I have no doubt they will grab the Oculus Rift and release a couple of movies
in no time what it launches.

~~~
gutnor
Porn industry is a better use case. Unlike regular movies you do not watch
porn with friends and family.

Seems to me it is the future of regular movies for the Audiophile type guy
that want to enjoy the very best experience even if alone.

~~~
al2o3cr
"Unlike regular movies you do not watch porn with friends and family."

One hopes. ;)

------
pjc50
Meanwhile, 3D TV is fading in popularity.

I don't doubt that one or two very cool tech demo "movies" will appear for OR,
but there is _no way_ this will be the future of film for more than a tiny
minority. It obliterates director control of camera angle, and requires a set
that fully surrounds the camera position (you don't want to turn your head and
see the crew ruining illusion for you).

It's also currently rather low-resolution, but that will improve.

What you might get are things like travelogues; the ability to virtually tour
the digitised landmarks of the world from your chair, walking (or flying!)
around at your own pace.

~~~
nooneelse
> ... requires a set that fully surrounds the camera position ...

The scenery 'behind the camera' could be composited in.

And other tools might work well to focus the viewer's attention in new ways.
Like lighting the important actions and bits of dialogue with brighter
lighting than the rest of the view, or a slightly different color.

Imagine an episode of Sherlock that had the world slow down and such a
lighting effect that acts as the 'light of Sherlock's attention'
floating/darting around a scene and other characters. Giving the viewer a
chance to think and try to deduce at his speed, so to speak.

One could also use a lower/higher resolution in areas of the view to suggest
where a viewer should look or to communicate the confusion of a main character
about what is going on behind them.

------
JonSkeptic
I'm just not sure about the Oculus. People don't generally like having things
strapped to their head (and especially their face) unless absolutely necessary
i.e. glasses, goggles, helmets.

Oculus may be really cool to use, but I'm not convinced it will ever work its
way out of a very small market segment that is willing to strap a viewing
device onto their faces.

~~~
jhvh1134
I've demo'ed mine for numerous people of varying ages and backgrounds. I've
heard one or two comments about the mask being heavy/uncomfortable, but it was
never a deal breaker. The most telling thing for me is that everyone who tries
the Oculus leaves impressed with it.

~~~
JonSkeptic
So they all own one now...?

------
scrabble
3D TV did not catch on at home. I'm not sure the mainstream market is ready
for this. Personally, when I'm watching a movie I don't want to be wearing a
headset the whole time. It also feels like it would serve to make me feel more
isolated.

That's not to say there's not potential here, but I don't think the world is
ready yet.

~~~
bparsons
No one was ever really impressed with 3D TV though. It was a broad standard
adopted by the industry, rather than some new innovation that people were
genuinely interested in.

The manufacturers got together and decided that we were all going to like it,
and then it turned out that we did not.

~~~
scrabble
That is a very broad statement. At the time there seemed like lots of people
were very interested in 3D TV. I still know people who are interested in it.

The issue lies in that the vocal people here are a minority, just like before.
If there's no mainstream adoption, then there's not much point in creating
content. Without content, there's no chance of mainstream adoption. It's a
catch-22.

------
corysama
A nice surprise for me was the effectiveness of 1st-person, live-action, 3D
recordings viewed through the Rift. With the Rift and decent headphones, it's
truly a _Being John Malkovich_ / _Strange Days_ experience. VR goggles can
convey that experience much better than a TV/movie screen ever could. Ex:
Avatars in the Rift have personal space. If you get too close to someone in
VR, it's uncomfortable just like going nose-to-nose in real space. No movie
screen has ever made me feel like that.

Here's my list of favorite videos so far:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXaxVLNMIxU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXaxVLNMIxU)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zaYrd0LvI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zaYrd0LvI)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eByvt8he58U&t=1m10s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eByvt8he58U&t=1m10s)

[http://vimeo.com/64769947](http://vimeo.com/64769947) NSFW

I have viewed 360 vids on the Rift. It's true they are not stereo, but they
are still very effective. Simply being able to turn your head an look around
is a significant aspect of presence. These two vids
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7HtvXc-
Bo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7HtvXc-Bo) and
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4iltd0wMlU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4iltd0wMlU)
played through [http://vrplayer.codeplex.com/](http://vrplayer.codeplex.com/)
are great examples.

Non-360 but wide-angle videos like
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgox84KE7iY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgox84KE7iY)
(spy-movie violence) still work pretty well (you can look around, just don't
bother turning 360 degrees) and could be stereo.

------
tsumnia
I don't see the Oculus performing better in either industry; if anything I
think it would be the amazing bridge between the two. Like someone else has
said, I doubt games or movies will vanish, just like books never really
vanished. If anything this will expand into its own new industry.

One idea I'd always had is make a game that plays out like a 'scene'. Let it
be something non-mundane, but also not 'epic'. I typically use acting as a
bodyguard that is protecting their client. The scene occurs and depending on
player's actions, client lives/dies or any number of consequences (give it a
Hitman feel with 'multiple' solutions). 'Slice of Life'
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slice_of_life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slice_of_life))
plays and realism were the style in the 1800s, it could be possible to see
this style emerge again through immersion.

The other idea is turn Oculus development more commercial-grade, training
simulations because the real life material cost is too high. Instead of a
cadaver, simulate the body for autopsy. It might even help ease some mind's
transitioning to a real body.

I think the article used the Oculus to really talk about immersion technology
as a whole. I'm still not fully convinced the Oculus isn't the Virtual Boy of
this generation; however, I do know we are getting better at immersing tech
and whether Oculus succeeds or flops, it will still open great doors for other
things.

------
moron4hire
Going to excerpt myself ([http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/66095932519/more-
questions...](http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/66095932519/more-questions-
than-answers)):

It bothers me on a pretty much daily basis that I see the world mostly through
a 23” rectangular tube and feel at it with just my fingertips. That and the
stories about the Oculus Rift consumer-grade VR goggles have got me thinking a
lot about healthful life experiences in the digital age. What will prevent
people from “going to Paris” in their Rifts and thinking they’ve got that
checkbox filled? The Grand Canyon, Machu Pichu, what have you.

On the other hand, what’s the difference? Such a person who would accept the
simulation in place of the real experience might not have the means or
capacity to appreciate the real thing, and more significantly would have never
bothered going there in the first place. Maybe exposure on even that small of
a scale—though not as valuable as the real thing—comes at so much less of a
cost that the net result is positive: a greater awareness of and sensitivity
to the wild expanse of the world.

------
uptown
Glyph, currently fundraising on Kickstarter, seems like they're taking a swing
at the theatre-replacement headset. Instead of an immersive 3D virtual
environment, their focus is high-resolution displays.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/avegantglyph/a-mobile-p...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/avegantglyph/a-mobile-
personal-theater-with-built-in-premium-au)

~~~
harpastum
The Glyph looks interesting, but it only shows 1280x720 per eye.

I don't really understand how the 'virtual retinal display' will affect the
viewing experience, but there are only 2 million pixels total, split between
two eyes.

The consumer rift will be at least 1080p split between eyes, which is 960x1080
per eye — slightly _more_ pixels per eye than the Glyph.

------
jesbickhart
Speaking as a filmmaker and entrepreneur here. Oculus is NOT the future of
anything. It isn't going to replace movies or gaming or take the place of any
already existing models of entertainment that we have in place. The
opportunity always exists for new media and entertainment consumption (look no
further than short form video content ala youtube...). We all said it wasn't
going to go anywhere. We all said it would replace the way we watch movies.

Oculus is going to exist on it's own accord. A new breed of content producers
is going to come in and capitalize on this new media and entertainment
platform just like people always have. Movie theaters may go away, we may turn
to instant film distribution via online platforms, but we will never simply
REPLACE filmmaking by this new medium. They both will exist in their own
accord. "360degree choose-your-own-adventure" storytelling will emerge as it's
own thing - as will "360degree sporting and live spectacle events".

------
DonGateley
The author has very, very low standards for video quality. Rift resolution
over an equivalent area is far, far less than a standard tv. 1080p is not
going to be an improvement worth even noting because it is spread over a huge
field of view. It needs 4k to be viable for video consumption.

For video, as opposed to immersive gaming, you want an Avegant Glyph. Still in
Kickstarter and projected to about $3M in pledges. No screen door and no
visible pixels. It uses projection onto the retina from a micro-mirror array
to give apparent resolution much higher than 720p over its 45 degree FOV.
Reviewers can't say enough good things about the movie experience.

------
platz
I'd like to program in vim with an oculus

~~~
reustle
I thought about that the other day (development in general) but I couldn't
think of any actual use cases. I always want to keep my head straight when I'm
coding, but maybe you can use head movements as commands? Eg, tilting your
head down slightly scrolls down, up, etc.

~~~
platz
How about having tag lists, function documentation, analysis in peripheral
views, you turn to look at them, but your code is always straight ahead?

~~~
Alphasite_
Yep, it would be excellent for virtualising an infinite/larger display.

------
simpsond
If you are interested in the VR tech, I recommend checking the slides from
Abrash's dev days talk:
[http://media.steampowered.com/apps/abrashblog/Abrash%20Dev%2...](http://media.steampowered.com/apps/abrashblog/Abrash%20Dev%20Days%202014.pdfNPdNOFR9tx84A&sig2=oHIIykXOQci9GEVwQWEANA&bvm=bv.60157871,d.aWc&cad=rjt)

The interesting take away for me was the notion of "presence", which is
something that "must be experienced" in order to understand it, and only comes
when certain technical criteria are met.

------
polskibus
Sounds like a proof of concept of an implant that William Gibson described in
Mona Lisa Overdrive. Good job guys, keep up the good work.

------
mmanfrin
I've been wanting to get an Oculus for a while now -- but I've held off
because I have had the suspicion that a new model might be around the corner
-- is this the case, or should I just put in a request for a dev kit?

~~~
thenomad
The second dev kit isn't coming out for a little while yet, from all reports.

I'd get one now if you're wanting to develop for it, but if you're just
wanting to experience it, you might as well hold off. The second DK will
probably be significantly better than the first, and there'll be more cool
stuff to try by then too.

------
jalmeida
I've been waiting for someone to write about this I first saw the demo.

More over, I think games are the future of movies. Tied in with Oculus and
Omni, you're now in an interactive VR movie where you can choose the ending.

------
antino
The future of movies is games.

~~~
aaronem
If so, then one or the other has a long, long way to go. We've seen attempts
to translate the movie experience into a videogame format, and they've failed
abjectly every single time; there is a reason for this.

For a recent example of the state of the art in interactive movies, let's look
at "Beyond: Two Souls", a PS3 game released last year by Quantic Dream, a
studio lately specializing in the format; their 2010 release, "Heavy Rain",
was fairly well received. "Beyond: Two Souls" makes a halfway watchable
B-movie (think "Hit Girl" meets "Enemy of the State" with a double shot of
Evil Movie CIA), but as a game it is God-awful. This is because the need to
maintain coherency, in a heavily pre-planned movie-style narrative, militates
strongly against giving the player any kind of freedom to _play the game_ ;
the result is a farrago of quick-time events ("press X to not die"), "find the
blue dot" puzzles in which the game tries and fails to give an illusion of
involvement by requiring the player to pixel-hunt in order to advance the
narrative, and branch points at which the player gets to choose the next
cutscene from a small collection of very similar alternatives. One need not be
a "hard-core gamer", whatever that is, to find this a combination which
utterly fails to satisfy; then again, even today's theater tickets don't cost
anywhere near $60 a pop, a high price even for a _good_ movie -- which
"Beyond: Two Souls" manifestly is not.

On the whole, this bodes ill for the future of "interactive movies"; a game
and a movie are clear different things, and so far no one has come up with a
means of reliably bridging the gap between them. Perhaps that will change as
new technology such as the Oculus Rift offers new possibilities both to game
developers and to filmmakers, but I tend to doubt it; what seems more likely
to me is the genesis of an entirely new genre, possibly synthesizing traits
from both movies and games, but fundamentally not the same as either.

~~~
alexqgb
"What seems more likely to me is the genesis of an entirely new genre,
possibly synthesizing traits from both movies and games, but fundamentally not
the same as either."

Not unlike the way film itself started ~1895 as a cheap emulation of stage
plays, relying on familiar theatrical devices while exploring and developing
its own core of language, conventions, and techniques. By 1915 it had come
into its own and we called it cinema.

