John Carmack on Developing the Netflix App for Oculus(techblog.netflix.com)
techblog.netflix.com
John Carmack on Developing the Netflix App for Oculus
http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/09/john-carmack-on-developing-netflix-app.html
167 comments
Why do you say that Carmack is in management? I don't get the impression that he's a people manager. A CTO does not necessarily have people reporting to them in a people management sense. From what I've read, I would assume he does not. (I could be wrong - I don't really know.)
High judgment individual contributors often take on responsibilities that can be considered management, like deciding business and technical strategy, designing products, prioritizing roadmaps, etc., but while these are management functions, taking on these responsibilities does not mean that one is in management.
From the blog post, it sounds like Carmack is a highly productive, high judgment individual contributor with the responsibilities you'd expect of a CTO (technical strategy). I would say that someone is "in management" when their chief function is managing other people. From this post, Carmack seems to be delivering work as an individual contributor and (very senior) technical lead.
Along the same lines, I recommend we discourage phrasing like "move up to management". Management is a different job, not a better or superior one. In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels, such that one does not need to become a manager to "move up", even to CTO level.
High judgment individual contributors often take on responsibilities that can be considered management, like deciding business and technical strategy, designing products, prioritizing roadmaps, etc., but while these are management functions, taking on these responsibilities does not mean that one is in management.
From the blog post, it sounds like Carmack is a highly productive, high judgment individual contributor with the responsibilities you'd expect of a CTO (technical strategy). I would say that someone is "in management" when their chief function is managing other people. From this post, Carmack seems to be delivering work as an individual contributor and (very senior) technical lead.
Along the same lines, I recommend we discourage phrasing like "move up to management". Management is a different job, not a better or superior one. In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels, such that one does not need to become a manager to "move up", even to CTO level.
In some of his recent keynotes (especially the later quakecon ones) he focuses a lot on how he's changed his mind and that he now believes that software development has a lot of "social science" aspects to it. I think he's given a lot of consideration to how one manages a software team, and even though he sometimes disappears into his office to write something like this Netflix app, he still does manage people.
In theory a CTO should only have employees that self manage.
Management is a different job, not a better or superior one.
Oh please. Until management is no longer a more profitable career track than staying in engineering, could we stop lying to the younger folks that might believe the nonsense they read on HN?
In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels
Non-management contributors with C-suite pay (and occasionally titles), are still rare enough to be noteworthy. Unless they're on par in compensation and control of the company, pretending traditional corporate management doesn't consider themselves their superiors is just ego-stroking the engineers too dumb to be insulted.
Oh please. Until management is no longer a more profitable career track than staying in engineering, could we stop lying to the younger folks that might believe the nonsense they read on HN?
In well-run technical companies there are managers and individual contributors at all seniority levels
Non-management contributors with C-suite pay (and occasionally titles), are still rare enough to be noteworthy. Unless they're on par in compensation and control of the company, pretending traditional corporate management doesn't consider themselves their superiors is just ego-stroking the engineers too dumb to be insulted.
>I recommend we discourage phrasing like "move up to management".
Word. At Etsy, we'd occasionally call out people (in a friendly way) for saying "I got a promotion to manager!" Someone (usually a more senior manager who used to be an IC) would say "not a promotion, lateral move." Drove the point home, at least at an IC level, that management is not a move up.
Word. At Etsy, we'd occasionally call out people (in a friendly way) for saying "I got a promotion to manager!" Someone (usually a more senior manager who used to be an IC) would say "not a promotion, lateral move." Drove the point home, at least at an IC level, that management is not a move up.
Very well said, wish everyone could read this comment.
The problem is that most techies who move up to management don't have Carmack's brain. This guy is a machine! For a normal person, it is almost impossible to get a workload done that's comparable to Carmack's.
Especially combined with management tasks; I find coding and management hard to combine. At least in my brain they feel very different and as a CTO I feel I must do both. I do not want to end up like a CTO that is out of touch or has his current tech knowledge from buzz words in management magazines like so many tech management people I know who are my age.
I wonder if part of it is that some techies who aspire to management do so because they don't actually like developing software.
As an individual contributor I can't imagine giving up my day-to-day coding for a management position. Management responsibilities, sure. I'd wager that most software developers who are given enough autonomy are doing a lot of micro-project management anyway.
Giving up on researching new technology and playing around with stuff? Not a chance.
As an individual contributor I can't imagine giving up my day-to-day coding for a management position. Management responsibilities, sure. I'd wager that most software developers who are given enough autonomy are doing a lot of micro-project management anyway.
Giving up on researching new technology and playing around with stuff? Not a chance.
I'm in this boat at the moment (one man band contractor of many years finally starting to take on employees). I'm finding that as I delegate more of the routine day-to-day work away, I'm actually finding myself with more time to play around with new stuff. Trouble is, in my line of work (corporate .NET stuff) customers aren't interested in anything new and exciting - they just want Windows applications and ASP.NET forms connected to SQL Server databases.
Of course, if you're lucky enough to be in a job (I'm thinking frontend web) where playing with exciting new tech is part of the job, I can absolutely see how the move to management and the loss of overall hands-on time with the code can be a bad thing. Thankfully for me it's been somewhat liberating.
Of course, if you're lucky enough to be in a job (I'm thinking frontend web) where playing with exciting new tech is part of the job, I can absolutely see how the move to management and the loss of overall hands-on time with the code can be a bad thing. Thankfully for me it's been somewhat liberating.
I can imagine. I think you can do both by focusing on one for awhile and then moving back to the other role. In the short term it is a set back but long term you can develop both skills. Meanwhile you can share management responsibilities with others and find out who makes the team gel the most and who are the great coders. Eventually if you can retain all this trained talent I believe you'll have a really strong team. Of course this happens naturally as people are promoted and moved around but I think if we could admit to ourselves that a manager once does not need to be a manager always, we'd all be so much better off.
In the Netherlands, where I am from, at least (I think it is less so in the US?), you are a complete failure/loser if you are a coder > 35 y/o (I am 40). You are supposed to be a manager then. My path was different than that but I cannot help thinking this attitude which is pushed in university and by (a lot of) parents influenced some decisions I made. Coders over 45 are considered sad and when you meet them in companies they are usually in the basement and treated like idiots. We were hired to give this mobile app development course to a large company in the Netherlands; it turned out this was just to fill out the training responsibilities the company had with their employees. All of the trainees were over 45, most over 50 and the company didn't care what we did and they would never use it there but apparently their employees expressed interest to learn about app development. Sad.
Yikes that is sad. Hopefully things like open source and github will allow aging developers to show their value. If a business sidelines an employee based on their age then that's the company's loss right? And hopefully the employee can find a smarter employer.
I struggle with this every day. The amount of juggling priorities and helping a dozen different people that a technical manager has to do is completely at odds with the focus required to write non-trivial code.
I wonder what Carmack's managerial responsibilities are like. I imagine if he's developing/designing for most of the week, how much time does he really devote to being a CTO/manager?
I imagine his managerial style is leading by example.
More of a "Hey guys, we're going in this direction, follow me!" over a "Hey, we're going this way, off you go!"
More of a "Hey guys, we're going in this direction, follow me!" over a "Hey, we're going this way, off you go!"
I would be interested in examples of people (besides Carmack) who are able to handle day to day management responsibilities and stay technically sharp in new technologies coming out. There's only so much time in a week, and your performance drops as you exceed 40-50 hrs/week.
I'd rather hire someone with management skill who knows how to delegate to those who have the required technical skills, rather than spin constantly trying to be the master of everything and failing at it.
I'd rather hire someone with management skill who knows how to delegate to those who have the required technical skills, rather than spin constantly trying to be the master of everything and failing at it.
Technology has a lot of churn, but arguably we haven't seen much that is actually new since 1980: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-in...
[deleted]
Oculus: "Hey Netflix, how about we work together on getting your service on our platform?"
Netflix: "Gee, we're pretty busy, maybe next year..."
Oculus: "We would have John Carmack work on it..."
Netflix: "YES! Yes, yes, yes. Okay, now is good. Can we have him write a guest post on our tech blog when it launches?"
Netflix: "Gee, we're pretty busy, maybe next year..."
Oculus: "We would have John Carmack work on it..."
Netflix: "YES! Yes, yes, yes. Okay, now is good. Can we have him write a guest post on our tech blog when it launches?"
That first gee from Netflix made me read the rest as mortys voice.
Gee rick!, were pretty busy here ya know? I mean like uhm maybe next year?
Gee rick!, were pretty busy here ya know? I mean like uhm maybe next year?
It's a real shame that DRM once again stifles progress and limits the video resolution to 480p in this VR app.
Yeah the moment I read about casting lighting based on screen contents, I was thinking "things you can't do with 'secure' output". Sad.
This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.
This partially remains why other players are better than Netflix. If I ever need to really modify playback, I'm all set, no problem.
[deleted](3)
The depth of thought that Carmack is able to apply to every detail of a problem is astounding. Granted, he's been working on VR for years now and pioneering realtime graphics before that, but his perception about what the end user wants out of a product is second-to-none.
It's your living room, but on a computer!
http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916
(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)
It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.
http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2916
(Expect to see the Virtual World idea that prompted that post pop up again for VR, too. Expect it not to work any better this time.)
It's cute but it's just demoware. Once the novelty wears off, the usual thing to do will be the "void theater". That's our subjective perception of a good movie anyhow, that the entire rest of the room is gone.
I'm not sure how much I agree with that... I'd much rather have headphones listening to music on a plane/train/bus than trying to listen to something in the open... likewise for watching video... watching on my phone isn't too bad, but being able to get a "big screen" view with a similar experience to headphones for your eyes, I'm happy to see it.
To me, it doesn't need to be so "VR" but that could lead to some cool UI/UX for interaction. I think that this could be something that takes off first for heavy commuters, and second for gamers... It will just come down to marketing this appropriately. If they can get a version for iOS and advertise in the airline magazines, for example, I think it could sell very well.
To me, it doesn't need to be so "VR" but that could lead to some cool UI/UX for interaction. I think that this could be something that takes off first for heavy commuters, and second for gamers... It will just come down to marketing this appropriately. If they can get a version for iOS and advertise in the airline magazines, for example, I think it could sell very well.
I'm not saying movies in VR is a bad idea. There's a lot of good optical reasons for that. I'm saying simulating a living room, but on a computer!, is silly. Just watch the movie.
Yeah, I would think a big screen kind of floating in space, or perhaps simulating the backdrop glow that some higher end tv's have against a simple wall... Sorry, I thought you were calling out the whole thing, not just the implementation details.
Might be nice to watch a movie in a comfy room if you are stuck on a long flight. I think headsets out to at least ship with a noise cancelling headphone option built in. Plus, the room scene is easily interchangeable. With a decent room scanner it could be your own home, or a Hollywood screening room, or the Acropolis.
If your brain is capable of being confused into thinking that it's in a comfy living room on a flight just by some projected VR images, I envy you.
No sarcasm, really. I would envy you.
No sarcasm, really. I would envy you.
I agree in the sense that the living projection is unnecessary (I use Void theater.)
I do have to mention that VR + headphones will definitely take my mind out of the flight in a way that a screen held in front of my face doesn't.
I do have to mention that VR + headphones will definitely take my mind out of the flight in a way that a screen held in front of my face doesn't.
It's like the Microsoft Bob of the VR world!
Not to mention that this has to be one of the corniest things I've seen since the 90s. From a tech side it's interesting, but from an end user side it's something I would make fun of with my friends. I wonder how much of that is some kind of uncanny valley esque problem. I laughed out loud with I saw the screen shot.
Have you actually tried a VR theater application yet? Even on my DK1 over a year ago, the experience[1] was pretty compelling. Add in resolution improvements and the fact that you can render stereo 3D with perfect fidelity (no hacky glasses in the equation) and it gets even better.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhdSozujoRc (video not mine)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhdSozujoRc (video not mine)
People don't quite get it until they've tried it. The most surprising thing is the way that the 3D stereoscopy of the environment combined with the head tracking in VR conveys scale. The movie theater actually looks AS BIG AS A MOVIE THEATER SCREEN. It's not "strap this thing on your face and get kind of an illusion of a 3D movie floating in front of you", it's "Strap this thing on your face and see a massive screen in front of you that couldn't physically fit in the room you're currently sitting in". Not to mention that you'll ideally get virtual theater surround through headphones that is fixed in space, such that turning your head keeps the sounds coming from their respective speaker positions relative to your head rather than staying the same.
As for 3D stereoscopy in movies; that's an inherently limited format (it's limited because of the fixed viewer viewpoint and the edges of the screen). 3D stereo and VR are not comparable by any means. About the only thing that they have in common is that you use two eyes to view them. Here though, the VR cinema adds an advantage - 3D stereoscopic content can be shown perfectly without any cross-talk between images, which helps with the integrity of the effect. Note effect. IMHO 3D on a fixed movie screen is strictly a special effect. When used in such a way, it's great. When overused or used improperly, it sucks.
TL;DR: '3D movies' and VR shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence.
As for 3D stereoscopy in movies; that's an inherently limited format (it's limited because of the fixed viewer viewpoint and the edges of the screen). 3D stereo and VR are not comparable by any means. About the only thing that they have in common is that you use two eyes to view them. Here though, the VR cinema adds an advantage - 3D stereoscopic content can be shown perfectly without any cross-talk between images, which helps with the integrity of the effect. Note effect. IMHO 3D on a fixed movie screen is strictly a special effect. When used in such a way, it's great. When overused or used improperly, it sucks.
TL;DR: '3D movies' and VR shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence.
Very true. The key word is "compelling". Once you try a few VR devices, even low end ones like a decent phone and a Google cardboard, you can definitely sense the possible seed of something game changing here. Maybe VR will work out, maybe it won't - but that alone I think makes it worth exploring.
One can get a preview of the 3D without 3D glasses or a VR headset by zooming out and looking through the screen like it's a random dot stereogram (or "magic eye" picture).
I'm glad I was not the only one wondering at the value of this. It struck me as a lot of very impressive technical effort to achieve something nearly as good as I can achieve by propping a $200 Android tablet on my knee. And well under what I get with the projector on my coffee table.
And I think "novelty" is the magic word here. Stereoscopic 3D has had several waves of popular enthusiasm, including 1850s stereoscopes, the ViewMaster in the 1940s, 3D movies in the 1950s, VR in the 1990s, and 3D movies again recently. Every time it has been an amazing thing that will change the world right up until the time the bubble pops and it is recognized as a cute novelty.
It'll be very interesting to see if this wave makes it past the novelty stage. But so far I've seen nothing to make me think it will.
And I think "novelty" is the magic word here. Stereoscopic 3D has had several waves of popular enthusiasm, including 1850s stereoscopes, the ViewMaster in the 1940s, 3D movies in the 1950s, VR in the 1990s, and 3D movies again recently. Every time it has been an amazing thing that will change the world right up until the time the bubble pops and it is recognized as a cute novelty.
It'll be very interesting to see if this wave makes it past the novelty stage. But so far I've seen nothing to make me think it will.
Right now, I prefer movies on GearVR to a home-theater system with full HD on a fairly close and large TV. For 2D content, the resolution isn't great (a little over 720p effective), and there is a very apparent "screen door" effect.
In terms of 3D, I watch people's minds get blown by simple apps, when much better stuff is in development. When my Mom asks, did I bring that funny headset so that she can see Paris again? this is something different.
This will be really great with 4K displays and improved content.
In terms of 3D, I watch people's minds get blown by simple apps, when much better stuff is in development. When my Mom asks, did I bring that funny headset so that she can see Paris again? this is something different.
This will be really great with 4K displays and improved content.
It could all work out, but my contention is that the "mind blown" feeling is exactly what drove the waves of 3D we've seen for the last 150 years. Novelty is fun and exciting, but it wears off with exposure. Only then do we find out whether something has lasting value.
On one hand I want it to succeed because it seems kinda cool, on the other hand it could be another Google Glass. At least you tend not to wear these in public, so it's got that advantage.
Am I the only one who wants to use a VR headset for watching videos while lying on the bed?
I've always dreamed of having a ceiling mounted TV for this purpose, but VR headsets can accomplish the same goal with much less hassle and have other uses.
I've always dreamed of having a ceiling mounted TV for this purpose, but VR headsets can accomplish the same goal with much less hassle and have other uses.
Years ago I did exactly this. Had the then-excellent (but under-supported) Virtual iGlasses; lacking other apps to apply, I ended up ditching my TV monitor and watching videos with the head-mounted display while lying down.
Re:the novelty
Is there any practical use for this? My understanding is that movie theaters are preferred to home theaters because the distance from your eyes to the screen is far enough that you can focus to infinity, which is easier on the eyes. Could a vr environment make viewing Netflix 'easier' on the eyes? Anyone have an opinion or link?
Is there any practical use for this? My understanding is that movie theaters are preferred to home theaters because the distance from your eyes to the screen is far enough that you can focus to infinity, which is easier on the eyes. Could a vr environment make viewing Netflix 'easier' on the eyes? Anyone have an opinion or link?
This is along the lines of why I'm interested in it. I actually want a mock environment (e.g. a living room) in the virtual environment that I can watch tv on OR code on.
I'm extremely nearsighted – age and my already excessive use of computers are exacerbating this. Because of the design of the VR Gear, I can almost see clearly at the highest correction level (similar to what I would see if I wore my 2-4 year old glasses).
Since the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that looking at 'near' things (e.g. computer screen, books, tv across a small room) exacerbates myopia, I'm hoping that doing my normal activities on (a) a screen with infinite distance and (b) a device which allows me to change the correction of the lenses, means I might be able to reverse some of my myopia. I don't think it will cure my myopia, but if I could stagnate or reverse the loss I've had over the last few years (or dare I hope, decades), it would be a blinkin', technological miracle! ;-)
I'm extremely nearsighted – age and my already excessive use of computers are exacerbating this. Because of the design of the VR Gear, I can almost see clearly at the highest correction level (similar to what I would see if I wore my 2-4 year old glasses).
Since the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that looking at 'near' things (e.g. computer screen, books, tv across a small room) exacerbates myopia, I'm hoping that doing my normal activities on (a) a screen with infinite distance and (b) a device which allows me to change the correction of the lenses, means I might be able to reverse some of my myopia. I don't think it will cure my myopia, but if I could stagnate or reverse the loss I've had over the last few years (or dare I hope, decades), it would be a blinkin', technological miracle! ;-)
You are still focused on a nearby screen. It just looks like a large screen at a distance due to the stereoscopic effect. The Oculus' lenses simulate a focal distance of 1.3 meters, which is not much better than a tablet in your lap. Another problem is that Oculus' focal distance is fixed, so you are not exercising your eye's ability to change focus. This isn't directly a problem that you wish to address in your comment above, but you may want to consider it. A technology that will better address these issues is the light field display. See: https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field...
My understanding is that the optics are designed to actually be at an infinite focus.
---
Short question:
> Now I read about this HMD Oculus Rift, which claims that you are always focused on the "distance" which I assume is the same as infinity focus in photography.
The short answer:
> In the same way as a telescope eyepiece, they create a virtual image at infinity.
> In the HUD the objective lens focus the image from a display (on the left in the diagram) and the lens at the front of the HUD reimages it at infinity.
The full answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47390/how-do-head...
---
Which may cause other eye muscle problems... https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2hxfku/eye_muscle_f... (which does mention that the LFD is a better option)
---
But the key for me is someone who isn't myopic noticing that ...
> I've been able to see far away objects much sharper than I was able before, as if my sight was getting trained at infinity focus (which makes sense, I guess).
- https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=2833
---
Short question:
> Now I read about this HMD Oculus Rift, which claims that you are always focused on the "distance" which I assume is the same as infinity focus in photography.
The short answer:
> In the same way as a telescope eyepiece, they create a virtual image at infinity.
> In the HUD the objective lens focus the image from a display (on the left in the diagram) and the lens at the front of the HUD reimages it at infinity.
The full answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47390/how-do-head...
---
Which may cause other eye muscle problems... https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2hxfku/eye_muscle_f... (which does mention that the LFD is a better option)
---
But the key for me is someone who isn't myopic noticing that ...
> I've been able to see far away objects much sharper than I was able before, as if my sight was getting trained at infinity focus (which makes sense, I guess).
- https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=2833
Check this thread, which has a video of a guy actually using a camera to measure the focal distance, and finds it around 1m:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2wpccf/measuring_th...
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2wpccf/measuring_th...
Thank you, colordrops! I looked for official, or at least more definitive, information on the focal distance to no avail. This definitely qualifies!
That said, it is of the DK2, which is clearly different than the DK1. Which leads me to wonder what the focal distance is for the Gear VR (Note4) and the new Gear VR.
Sadly, I'm so nearsighted at this point, that I have a hard time reading anything more than ≈4 inches away (things are out of focus at ≈2 inches away, but it's good enough and there are typically enough clues in the 2~4 inch range that I can still read normal text). In other words, if I'm only training my eyes at a distance of 30.5 inches for the next half decade, I suspect it will still be enough to lead to an improvement, and there will be even more improvements in tech (both in the VR & optometry) during that time frame.
That said, it is of the DK2, which is clearly different than the DK1. Which leads me to wonder what the focal distance is for the Gear VR (Note4) and the new Gear VR.
Sadly, I'm so nearsighted at this point, that I have a hard time reading anything more than ≈4 inches away (things are out of focus at ≈2 inches away, but it's good enough and there are typically enough clues in the 2~4 inch range that I can still read normal text). In other words, if I'm only training my eyes at a distance of 30.5 inches for the next half decade, I suspect it will still be enough to lead to an improvement, and there will be even more improvements in tech (both in the VR & optometry) during that time frame.
It's more about establishing a relationship with Netflix than to create a theater experience. There are already cameras and video formats that support stereoscopic free-viewing in 360 degrees. Once Netflix starts posting these videos Oculus will already be poised to support them.
Contrast watching Netflix by holding a tablet in front of your face for 2 hours. Tends to get awkward, tedious, even painful, and limited to wherever you can prop it up sort of comfortably.
Having tried it, nicer to have the screen attached to your head. At least until the doorbell rings.
Having tried it, nicer to have the screen attached to your head. At least until the doorbell rings.
[deleted]
Seems a little too anthropomorphic. Like the Virtual Reading SNL fake ad from 20 years ago. "It's like reading a book in your living room - only better!"
Can't find a video, but: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/94/94dbooks.phtml
Can't find a video, but: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/94/94dbooks.phtml
Fuck that shit, man, I want to be in the truck when the T-Rex peers in and roars.
> This gives the somewhat surprising result that subtitles cause a noticeable increase in power consumption.
These are the Carmack gems I was looking for.
These are the Carmack gems I was looking for.
It's not actually all that surprising for people that use styled subtitles with antialiased edges. In extreme cases (lots of glyphs on the screen) you can end up with a noticeable framerate reduction.
It shouldn't need to hurt your framerate too much, considering that the font rendering only needs to happen once every few seconds. A new subtitle can be rendered, kept in memory as a texture, and then just blended by the GPU as pixels. The titles are also known ahead of time, so it's possible to set up a pipeline with no sudden increases in processing load.
Which is why you bake the subtitles into the video! Subtitles for everyone, blurry subtitles for everyone!
The context of that is that the Netflix GUI and the video are being composited together before 3D rendering happens. That's a surprising place to find subtitles, to me. Why are you putting them on the virtual screen? Why not let them float in space in front of your eye? They should be where the sound is, not where the picture is.
I agree conceptually, but our eyes can't focus on 2 things at once when they're at different distances (or appear to be). By putting the 2D screen at the same place in 3D as the subtitles, it'll be less tiring on the eyes.
I think subtitles are supposed to be placed at particular places on the screen.
That's making the assumption that we only have a static screen to place them into. In VR, we have the entire environment around the screen and potential for a HUD locked to the user's eyes in space. It would be cool to try different implementations and see which experience is best.
Anime sometimes have unorthodox subtitle placements, it can be nice and also annoying.
Maybe it is a getting used to it thing, but it can be overwhelming.
Maybe it is a getting used to it thing, but it can be overwhelming.
If you want to recode all captions... Captions are coded to be rendered in particular places on the screen. It's a lot of work.
Why on earth simulate a living room with a TV on the wall? Why not simulate being in the best seat in a concert-hall sized movie theater with a massive screen? How about a little old fashioned movie theater, or a 50s drive-in?
I'm sure all these kinds of things can come later, it just seems odd to me that simulating being on a couch is the first take...
I'm sure all these kinds of things can come later, it just seems odd to me that simulating being on a couch is the first take...
The skeuomorphic living room design immediately reminded me of the Packard Bell Navigator: http://toastytech.com/guis/pbnav35.html
Came here to say this! First thought was "Why god why return to this interface??"
Simplicity? People are used to watching netflix on a couch with a TV in front of them.
Maybe they had a virtual living room ready to go too.
Maybe they had a virtual living room ready to go too.
Reading John Carmack's thought processes to approaching, addressing, and moving on from individual challenges is so fun and refreshing to me. Granted, the matter-of-fact tone is inherently humble, but it does seem like a tone of making the complex sound simple, intrinsically for the audience's benefit. Just a line like "unfortunate waste of memory...but it gives me the timing control I need" is a succinct demonstration of trade-offs and explanation without, well, seeming to have many outside constraints - well, I mean there's the pursuit of the functioning program, sure, but I get the sense freedom in this environment is used studiously.
This is an interesting proof of concept, and it's cool to know that you can carry a "pocket living room" around with you.
That said, shouldn't virtual reality free us to do more than replicate real life environments? It looks like VR will have its own period of skeuomorphism until better UI is invented. I'd love to be a designer at Facebook right now.
That said, shouldn't virtual reality free us to do more than replicate real life environments? It looks like VR will have its own period of skeuomorphism until better UI is invented. I'd love to be a designer at Facebook right now.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think there's necessarily a concept of skeuomorphism in VR.
Skeuomorphism is a mapping of real world 3D physical objects to a more constrained space, like a 2D phone screen, ostensibly to aid usability in an otherwise unfamiliar space by invoking recognition and instinct.
In theory at least no mapping like this is necessary at all for VR, things just look and act however they do, in a recreated 3D space. Of course there will be 'skeuomorphism' insofar as objects from the real world will be copied 1:1 into the VR environment, but it's kind of a redundant term at that point.
It's indeed an interesting question if we'll discover better 'UX' for virtual 3D environments than the physical ones we've built for ourselves in the real world. I'd venture yes, including but not limited to discovering tweaks that break the laws of Physics to allow greater convenience. Like wormholes that act as hyperlinks for 3D space, or something.
It'll be fascinating to see if things like this are experimented with and accepted from the get-go, or if there will be a 'skeuomorphism-like' era of VR where we play it safe and just copy our existing world for a while, until we collectively 'find our feet' in VR and learn to make tweaks that expand the possibilities. I'd hope and actually somewhat expect the former.
Skeuomorphism is a mapping of real world 3D physical objects to a more constrained space, like a 2D phone screen, ostensibly to aid usability in an otherwise unfamiliar space by invoking recognition and instinct.
In theory at least no mapping like this is necessary at all for VR, things just look and act however they do, in a recreated 3D space. Of course there will be 'skeuomorphism' insofar as objects from the real world will be copied 1:1 into the VR environment, but it's kind of a redundant term at that point.
It's indeed an interesting question if we'll discover better 'UX' for virtual 3D environments than the physical ones we've built for ourselves in the real world. I'd venture yes, including but not limited to discovering tweaks that break the laws of Physics to allow greater convenience. Like wormholes that act as hyperlinks for 3D space, or something.
It'll be fascinating to see if things like this are experimented with and accepted from the get-go, or if there will be a 'skeuomorphism-like' era of VR where we play it safe and just copy our existing world for a while, until we collectively 'find our feet' in VR and learn to make tweaks that expand the possibilities. I'd hope and actually somewhat expect the former.
Of course there's a concept of skeuomorphism. Everyone expects their POV about 2m off the "ground". Objects are of a common range of sizes, 3D space is even & regular in each direction, etc. "Floating" is kinda nifty but likewise just an extension of our real-world 3D experience.
People in general aren't ready for scaleable space (sizes changing orders of magnitude instantly), varying measurements (say: X is normal, Y is logarithmic, Z is sinusoidal), warping space (various Einstein's Dreams scenarios here like consequences of "speed of light is 15 MPH", or Interstellar scenarios), varying or nonexistent notions of "up" (see Ender's Game arena), absence of normal gravitational phenomena, etc.
Early on in the 3D game realm, game writers explored lots of variations on non-skeuomorphic scenarios (Descent II comes to mind, a 3D flying maze game devoid of any sense of "down"). Many years later, with endless technology & imagination available, 3D games are dominated by soldiers running around battlefields little different from reality.
People will have enough trouble with entering/exiting VR. Having seen other technologies bloom, I assure you it will be years before advancing beyond paradigms based in the real world.
People in general aren't ready for scaleable space (sizes changing orders of magnitude instantly), varying measurements (say: X is normal, Y is logarithmic, Z is sinusoidal), warping space (various Einstein's Dreams scenarios here like consequences of "speed of light is 15 MPH", or Interstellar scenarios), varying or nonexistent notions of "up" (see Ender's Game arena), absence of normal gravitational phenomena, etc.
Early on in the 3D game realm, game writers explored lots of variations on non-skeuomorphic scenarios (Descent II comes to mind, a 3D flying maze game devoid of any sense of "down"). Many years later, with endless technology & imagination available, 3D games are dominated by soldiers running around battlefields little different from reality.
People will have enough trouble with entering/exiting VR. Having seen other technologies bloom, I assure you it will be years before advancing beyond paradigms based in the real world.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I do wonder what the point is of spending lots of energy making alternate universes if we end up replicating thing we’re doing now. In a world where we can only walk, we'd like to be able to fly. In a world where we can only fly, we'd like to teleport. But then we’d probably make the environment bigger to ‘keep it fun’ so what’s the point? Do we all just want to be floating points of light?
Maybe the only real benefit of VR is having the undo button.
All in all, maybe it's not so bad that we haven't had much choice in the design of our species and world so far. Super tangentially related: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34151049
I do wonder what the point is of spending lots of energy making alternate universes if we end up replicating thing we’re doing now. In a world where we can only walk, we'd like to be able to fly. In a world where we can only fly, we'd like to teleport. But then we’d probably make the environment bigger to ‘keep it fun’ so what’s the point? Do we all just want to be floating points of light?
Maybe the only real benefit of VR is having the undo button.
All in all, maybe it's not so bad that we haven't had much choice in the design of our species and world so far. Super tangentially related: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34151049
I think the VR paradigm will evolve as a social signal of detachment from availability for interaction. Like being on the phone. It's like closing the door to your office.
AR may become a commonplace, useful layer on social interaction. For people with compatible hardware... AR that could aid daily life will always signal social detachment for some, but for a younger generation it may be as natural of a tool of rich expression as a whiteboard.
We have somehow managed to understand that wearing headphones and sunglasses means you don't want to talk to people, or that you don't want to be interrupted. Wearing headgear around will die off like Bluetooth headsets if it doesn't allow for clear distinction between local and digital interaction. The phone to ear gesture is well known. Talking to thin air remains dubious to those around you.
AR may become a commonplace, useful layer on social interaction. For people with compatible hardware... AR that could aid daily life will always signal social detachment for some, but for a younger generation it may be as natural of a tool of rich expression as a whiteboard.
We have somehow managed to understand that wearing headphones and sunglasses means you don't want to talk to people, or that you don't want to be interrupted. Wearing headgear around will die off like Bluetooth headsets if it doesn't allow for clear distinction between local and digital interaction. The phone to ear gesture is well known. Talking to thin air remains dubious to those around you.
[deleted]
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read this. It's cool and all, but who is asking for this? No one..
John Carmack overcame all of these technical issues and wrote up this blogpost in the past month with all of his other responsibilities at the same time. Humbling.
> Despite all the talk of hardcore gamers and abstract metaverses, a lot of people want to watch movies and shows in virtual reality.
Source for that claim?? strapping on a headset doesn't seem like a great way to share a movie with friends, but that's just me.
Source for that claim?? strapping on a headset doesn't seem like a great way to share a movie with friends, but that's just me.
The virtual theater (or TV screen) was one of the first things I thought about when I heard about the power of new VR technologies. People don't want to switch devices if they don't have to and projecting output to a single rectangle in a virtual space makes a lot of sense on paper.
I would be the first to say that of course seeing people in real life would be superior, but with the internet I'm finding that some of my closest friends are sometimes thousands of miles away. This is a way to keep in contact that's as good or better than something like facetime and far, far superior to buying a plane ticket just to hang out.
I would be the first to say that of course seeing people in real life would be superior, but with the internet I'm finding that some of my closest friends are sometimes thousands of miles away. This is a way to keep in contact that's as good or better than something like facetime and far, far superior to buying a plane ticket just to hang out.
A lot of people on HN (and general tech sites) seem to think that VR will be used primarily for something other than gaming.
If I were working on any kind of VR software in the next five years, it would be a game, absolutely no question about it. (A game that does not involve the character walking around, by the way.) As long as the hardware requirements for a good VR experience are high, anything else is a novelty.
Serious PC gamers are your audience. Period. Alternative hardware that doesn't rely on a beefy GPU will (for now) be extremely limited and uninteresting.
And even after a few years, you're still going to need a very good reason to spend at least a few hundred dollars on a VR set. I will be very surprised if home users are buying them for something other than games.
If I were working on any kind of VR software in the next five years, it would be a game, absolutely no question about it. (A game that does not involve the character walking around, by the way.) As long as the hardware requirements for a good VR experience are high, anything else is a novelty.
Serious PC gamers are your audience. Period. Alternative hardware that doesn't rely on a beefy GPU will (for now) be extremely limited and uninteresting.
And even after a few years, you're still going to need a very good reason to spend at least a few hundred dollars on a VR set. I will be very surprised if home users are buying them for something other than games.
The one person I know making money with VR programming right now is not in the game, or even entertainment, business. Without giving away what he does, his clients buy VR gear and his software to experience a customer-specific simulated environment (and no, not porn).
Someone made a VR theater for the oculus rift (it's on Steam) which allows you to stream a movie or video to watch with other friends. That's pretty awesome.
You could share it with a friend who wasn't physically there if they had a similar setup, but I"m guessing they're talking about the fact people who are by themselves like watching TV and movies in VR compared to on a standard TV screen in a real room.
I did this on a flight. It was much more pleasant than inflight entertainment.
* 360 film doesn't work well, with not being able to move around.
* 360 film doesn't work well, with not being able to move around.
At first I balked at the idea of watching a movie in VR, but the more I think about it the more I like it. I could easily watch it while lying down on a bed for instance. It would need to be very high resolution however.
Most people I know what watch movies at home do so with distractions. They have their phone out seeing tweets and other notifications. They might have a spouse or kids or guests. They have snacks and drinks. All of those seems like it makes movies in VR likely to be a novelty for most. I'm not saying I won't try it. In fact I have tried it. But so far it hasn't been worth it. Maybe during a plane flight.
PS: Yes I get you could integrate the notifications stuff into VR. In fact if you want to get silly show a virtual tablet on your virtual coffee table in front of your virtual TV. Replying though will be an issue, at least for a while.
PS: Yes I get you could integrate the notifications stuff into VR. In fact if you want to get silly show a virtual tablet on your virtual coffee table in front of your virtual TV. Replying though will be an issue, at least for a while.
You may be underestimating the number of people with few/no friends. Or people like me who have friends, but prefer watching movies alone.
Here's a great conference hallway conversation with Carmack from yesterday. He covers a lot of fun topics with the random folks in the hall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUyg6cUfcw
for those who prefer text summaries:
http://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-talks-difficulty-mobile-pos...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUyg6cUfcw
for those who prefer text summaries:
http://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-talks-difficulty-mobile-pos...
In case you're interested, John's scheduled to speak at Oculus Connect 2 at 13:00 PDT / 16:00 EDT / 20:00 UTC today.
http://www.twitch.tv/oculus
http://www.twitch.tv/oculus
Am I missing something? This lets you watch a movie in a virtual living room on a virtual TV? Why would I want that?
Replace "virtual living room" with "virtual IMAX theater" and you might have your answer.
EDIT:
But the real answer is that the question isn't that different from "why would you want to play a video game on a VR headset?" The answer, of course, is immersiveness. Existing video games (and film/TV) may not be optimized for VR, but future content might be.
Imagine being able to look around 360 degrees in a film. It will be a totally different experience from a traditional film where the director precisely frames every shot, and may or may not be more enjoyable for certain types of content.
EDIT:
But the real answer is that the question isn't that different from "why would you want to play a video game on a VR headset?" The answer, of course, is immersiveness. Existing video games (and film/TV) may not be optimized for VR, but future content might be.
Imagine being able to look around 360 degrees in a film. It will be a totally different experience from a traditional film where the director precisely frames every shot, and may or may not be more enjoyable for certain types of content.
It would also require a lot more thought put into scene changes. In VR video games, suddenly moving the player from one location to the other was found to be too disorienting and broke immersion.
A pretty low quality IMAX. I don't disagree with the concept. I love it. But I think we'll need at least a 4k helmet and even then you would probably only be able to watch videos at 1080p or so, with the rest of the pixels being dedicated to the "cinema" or other spaces outside of the "screen".
The resolution cap in the article is due to Netflix's DRM, but current VR movie theater/media playback applications let you load your own media.
When you do this with HD content, it actually looks quite good in spite of the resolution of the actual HMD due to the subtle movements of your POV. The in-game camera tracked by your head is always barely moving, so the pixels you actually see in the source media are always being transposed and blended differently.
When you do this with HD content, it actually looks quite good in spite of the resolution of the actual HMD due to the subtle movements of your POV. The in-game camera tracked by your head is always barely moving, so the pixels you actually see in the source media are always being transposed and blended differently.
What I meant is that you need a certain amount of pixels just to be able to fully represent the 1080p video pixels, and if you see "extra space" in the VR world around the screen, then you need 1080p video + extra space in pixels, so it probably should be at least 4k.
You need a certain amount of pixels to represent the 1080p video in one particular frame. When the next frame comes along, your head has moved enough that you'll be seeing a different subset of those total pixels. At sufficient framerates (and motion capture rates), this actually does a pretty good job of approximating the full resolution of the imagery (especially when this is happening 2 or 3 times per source video frame, as the case might be with NTSC/PAL content).
Even without the DRM resolution cap, you need somewhere greater than 4096x4096 pixels per eye to adequately represent a 1920x1080 display. VR is not going to be as crisp as a normal monitor for quite a long time.
Tons of interesting scenarios. You're sitting on your couch next to your best friend who recently moved to Singapore and he/she's doing the same.
You're sitting on your couch with the MST3K avatars and you can see them laugh as they deliver their Rifftrax.
And tons of other creative possibilities that we couldn't possibly think of today once people start getting used to consuming a movie in a simulated environment.
You're sitting on your couch with the MST3K avatars and you can see them laugh as they deliver their Rifftrax.
And tons of other creative possibilities that we couldn't possibly think of today once people start getting used to consuming a movie in a simulated environment.
Not everyone lives in a great movie theater environment.
I saw a demo of the GearVR which was pretty believable, and if this thing is higher resolution, more immersive, etc., I might honestly find myself questioning why I need to decorate my living room if I have VR goggles on all the time at some point in the not to far future.
When VR becomes ubiquitous, and you can have shared experiences, expect that to be a very real thing.
I saw a demo of the GearVR which was pretty believable, and if this thing is higher resolution, more immersive, etc., I might honestly find myself questioning why I need to decorate my living room if I have VR goggles on all the time at some point in the not to far future.
When VR becomes ubiquitous, and you can have shared experiences, expect that to be a very real thing.
I would use it lying on my back in bed or in the fetal position. Sometimes sitting up straight to watch a screen is just too much work ;)
For a while after a bad leg injury, I had to lay in bed, on my back, with my leg elevated. Either I watched tv and got a crick in my neck (from the odd angle) before a 30 minute show was done, or I tried holding a book up and in the air and reading it, but I never made it more than a few pages before my arms started to feel like very, heavy, looming weights. I ended up listening to a lot of podcasts and phoning a lot of friends. I would have loved to be able to watch tv from my back during that recovery period!
You jest, but when I moved three years ago, I watched about three seasons of Burn Notice lying in bed, holding my phone in an awkward position overhead about 8 inches from my face. It was less bad than it sounds, but this product would basically mean that I could do that much more comfortably, without bleeding light over and waking up my wife (or vice-versa).
That's how I play games on the Wii U sometimes, laying down while holding the tablet. Not too different with playing games on the iPad either.
The same could be said for a theatrical film on a 42 inch TV or Netflix on a 5 inch phone screen, yet here we are.
Maybe because you're on a cramped public transport like a plane?
The article states that most people prefer to have some distance between themselves and the medium that plays the movie. They don't want to be enveloped by the movie. Hence a virtual theatre was created for the Netflix VR app.
I do wonder if they will also add the full-screen experience. That could be interesting ...
I do wonder if they will also add the full-screen experience. That could be interesting ...
3D movies?
Well, if they simulate a movie theater and you burn some extra money to simulate the price of snacks you can almost have the entire theater experience without the risk of being shot by some nutjob
> without the risk of being shot by some nutjob
I'm sorry, why did you include that hyperbole?...
In the last five years, there have been three incidents of criminal violence in US theatres, killing 14 people and wounding up to 78.[1]
In the US/Canadian theatre market, 1.27 billion tickets were sold in 2014 alone.[2]
Movie theatres sound pretty safe to me.
1 https://www.thewrap.com/a-history-of-violence-at-the-movie-t...
2 http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatric...
I'm sorry, why did you include that hyperbole?...
In the last five years, there have been three incidents of criminal violence in US theatres, killing 14 people and wounding up to 78.[1]
In the US/Canadian theatre market, 1.27 billion tickets were sold in 2014 alone.[2]
Movie theatres sound pretty safe to me.
1 https://www.thewrap.com/a-history-of-violence-at-the-movie-t...
2 http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatric...
Yeah, it seems to me that you're way more likely to be shot at home.
I know you're probably being sarcastic, but that's probably only true if you're a female in an abusive relationship, or particularly if you're a male with suicidal tendencies.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
People spend far more time at home than the movies which increases the statistical chance of dying from a gun at home compared to elsewhere. The user was showing that comparing what is more or less likely is usually very irrelevant because the statistics are often misleading. Ignoring "time spent somewhere" makes home one of the most deadly places to be.
The media overplays it. Scary news articles are gobbled up.
Convince the general public they are unsafe and boom you have a market ready to buy your replacement experience.
Don't try to use facts and numbers against the average citizen. They won't have it.
Convince the general public they are unsafe and boom you have a market ready to buy your replacement experience.
Don't try to use facts and numbers against the average citizen. They won't have it.
What I was hoping for from the Carmack speech:
http://i.imgur.com/ofChTKt.png
I wanted more from Carmack.
http://i.imgur.com/ofChTKt.png
I wanted more from Carmack.
When I think about it, I feel that this would mainly appeal to people like factory workers who live in horrible dorms (windowless closets), prisoners, parapalegics, the homeless; in other words people who are trapped in a specific environment. The problem is that most of them can't afford this setup... yet.
When I think about it, even low income individuals in the US have access to cheap enough flat screen TVs to have a nicer real life living room than a virtual one afforded by Oculus
When I think about it, even low income individuals in the US have access to cheap enough flat screen TVs to have a nicer real life living room than a virtual one afforded by Oculus
I always thought Halliday from Ready Player One was modeled after John Carmack. My hypothesis is getting closer to reality day by day. :)
I'm thinking about the guys in the NAVY stuck in small metal rooms with no windows in the middle of huge ships. VR theaters would be a boon for them!
Good point. I forgot about the submarines and the lily pad bases through out the world.
All I can think of...
http://h.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imageca...
That state is caused by addiction, that, and not VR, is the problem in the picture. The enabler can be whatever: hard drugs, nicotine, coffee, TV, VR, video games,...
Perhaps, but I also see it as a visualization of a future where the masses cannot afford a nice home, and spend the majority of their time in a VR world where they can imagine they live in a nice home.
Are you suggesting those people will literally forget they are living in the real world? I don't see this happening, since they will have to occasionally take the headset off to work, eat, use toilet.
What they will do is ignore the state they live in, and that is already happening today, mostly along with prescription pills, hard drugs and video games. This is what VR is capable of doing, nothing worst that we already have. Therefore VR is not a concern by itself.
What they will do is ignore the state they live in, and that is already happening today, mostly along with prescription pills, hard drugs and video games. This is what VR is capable of doing, nothing worst that we already have. Therefore VR is not a concern by itself.
I don't see it as black and white like that.
Initially, the tech simply won't be good enough to blur that line sufficiently or to have it be "always on." So it will be a temporary thing you put on and experience.
When it is more immersive, and devices are more like glasses or contacts, you'll likely start seeing people spend more time with some form of VR component being "always on." Things like artwork on the walls, lighting, upholstery, paint colors, etc.
Taken to the extreme, if you are a poor person living in a shipping container at some point in the future, and you can afford a device like this, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that person to spend a disproportionate amount of their time in the virtual experience. That said, they will know it is virtual--it will still just be preferable to reality.
It all comes down to escapism and how that works. This is just a better form of it that will be more widely accessible down the line. I've never argued that VR is a new concern for that--it is just a new tool to facilitate existing approaches.
Initially, the tech simply won't be good enough to blur that line sufficiently or to have it be "always on." So it will be a temporary thing you put on and experience.
When it is more immersive, and devices are more like glasses or contacts, you'll likely start seeing people spend more time with some form of VR component being "always on." Things like artwork on the walls, lighting, upholstery, paint colors, etc.
Taken to the extreme, if you are a poor person living in a shipping container at some point in the future, and you can afford a device like this, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that person to spend a disproportionate amount of their time in the virtual experience. That said, they will know it is virtual--it will still just be preferable to reality.
It all comes down to escapism and how that works. This is just a better form of it that will be more widely accessible down the line. I've never argued that VR is a new concern for that--it is just a new tool to facilitate existing approaches.
As others have mentioned a bit, while being a cute demo this really isn't advantageous. The constant brightness gets irritating with lights 3" in front of your face beaming directly into your eyes, and good luck trying to eat pizza and drink something while doing this. On the pro side, well, um.... not very clear what that would be over having an actual TV.
If you don't have a TV and all you have is the oculus, then why try to re-create such an environment at all? You loose the immersive qualities of the oculus to begin with.
To me the point of oculus is having content made directly for it... where it is 180-360 degrees, and you can't see it all without looking around. Repurposing standard Netflix movies doesn't give much an advantage.
If you don't have a TV and all you have is the oculus, then why try to re-create such an environment at all? You loose the immersive qualities of the oculus to begin with.
To me the point of oculus is having content made directly for it... where it is 180-360 degrees, and you can't see it all without looking around. Repurposing standard Netflix movies doesn't give much an advantage.
I believe the use case is when you don't have the alternative of a TV, i.e. Airplane, Train, etc... not ideal for streaming content though.
Have you tried it?
I own the occulus and have tried various bits of movie playing already. While I haven't tried this netflix implementation, it is not difficult to imagine.
VR has some limited cool potential uses, but it's utility is being overblown by the community similar to the 90s.
VR has some limited cool potential uses, but it's utility is being overblown by the community similar to the 90s.
720x480 on a virtual TV set, and a "virtual couch". Is that worth wearing a headset for two hours?
Coming next, in-app popcorn and pizza ordering?
Coming next, in-app popcorn and pizza ordering?
I would really love to be able to watch a movie and look around the scene. Even if the camera was at a stationary point.
Imagine watching Batman while perched up on a ledge in Gotham... when the Joker comes flying down the street to the right and you look right to watch, while someone else viewing the movie looks left to see Batman flying down.
Awesome.
Imagine watching Batman while perched up on a ledge in Gotham... when the Joker comes flying down the street to the right and you look right to watch, while someone else viewing the movie looks left to see Batman flying down.
Awesome.
Does this make anyone else really crave a VR "man cave" (for lack of a better, less polarizing term)?
it reminds me of Aech's basement chatroom from Ready player one
I assume this would simply be a dark empty room.
i wonder if john watched daredevil one episode at a time or if he binged on it
i was intrigued by the virtual theatre concept, but i found watching a film was too much for comfort's sake
ignoring resolution issues, or strain, the goggles pressing against my face was the source of the most discomfort
when i took off the goggles my face was hot and sweaty and my eyes had white circles around them where the blood had been kept out
these current vr headsets are goggles with elastic and as long as that is the case i think they will fail to attract a consistent, returning, user base
your eyes are unable to breathe or receive blood
imagine watching a movie while wearing ski goggles, then have those goggles shine bright lights into your eyes
it is an uncomfortable experience
MSFT's holo lens are glasses that sit off your face, allowing circulation below the lens,this sort of design is certainly the way forward
i was intrigued by the virtual theatre concept, but i found watching a film was too much for comfort's sake
ignoring resolution issues, or strain, the goggles pressing against my face was the source of the most discomfort
when i took off the goggles my face was hot and sweaty and my eyes had white circles around them where the blood had been kept out
these current vr headsets are goggles with elastic and as long as that is the case i think they will fail to attract a consistent, returning, user base
your eyes are unable to breathe or receive blood
imagine watching a movie while wearing ski goggles, then have those goggles shine bright lights into your eyes
it is an uncomfortable experience
MSFT's holo lens are glasses that sit off your face, allowing circulation below the lens,this sort of design is certainly the way forward
Next up, World of World of Warcraft
http://www.theonion.com/video/warcraft-sequel-lets-gamers-pl...
http://www.theonion.com/video/warcraft-sequel-lets-gamers-pl...
Half-baked semi-serious idea: An iOS content blocker that prevents scroll-jacking.
I tried this out and watched some Supernatural. My only gripe would be that I wish I could move further back from the virtual screen. At least I think that's what the problem is.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bringing back skeuomorphism in full force like it's 2005...
There's a lot of focus in this thread on 'Why would you want a fake living room environment?' but he makes this statement:
"You could even go all the way to a face-locked screen with no distortion correction, which would be essentially the same power draw as the normal Netflix application, but it would be ugly and uncomfortable."
This is what his post is about - the work to accomplish a screen surface that exists in 3d space independent from your head. What goes around the screen is a secondary issue.
"You could even go all the way to a face-locked screen with no distortion correction, which would be essentially the same power draw as the normal Netflix application, but it would be ugly and uncomfortable."
This is what his post is about - the work to accomplish a screen surface that exists in 3d space independent from your head. What goes around the screen is a secondary issue.
I don't get it. Why would you want your head forced to point in one direction when you could, for example, lie down and point your head in the most comfortable position.
You can. Just start the app in a comfortable position and the image will me from and center.
None of this "well I guess I knew a bit of C++, let me find another engineer to work on this Netflix app and offer micromanaging style tips and tricks" which is what I've seen from a lot of managers who used to be technical.
He's also an amazing role model for regular programmers; figure out the requirements, take a crack at it with a prototype and then iterate. The iteration doesn't have to be an overtime week affair.