Virtual Reality is Imminent

I was thinking about this as well. There are only a few things that will the theatre togeather.

1. The technologically retarded will not be able to handle VR, so women, children, and old people will still attend. However this will only last a few decades as they will eventually catch up.
2. VR is not seen as something you do in a social group. They need to market it so that it's 'cool' to stay at home with your girlfriend and use VR movies rather than go theatre for watching your romantic movie.

Theatre's days are numbered, it's just a matter of time. I give 20-25 years until they only exist in hill-billy land.

>putting on headphones and strapping a phone to your face so you can watch a movie on a smaller virtual screen

>virtual reality
>a threat to theaters
>a threat to televisions

"VR" in it's current form is completely fucking dead. It's nothing buy investor-mining. It needed software solutions to make it worth a fuck, but, no one actually wanted to develop them, cause it was easier to keep pulling money from retards by promising moronic bullshit, so, shits dead.

>>85274236
Theatre has been around since ancient times. What makes you think VR will kill cinema? It's a different medium and experience.

>>85274983
but dude it can kinda sorta imitate the experience of being alone in a shitty theater sitting in the furthest back row and seeing mostly walls/ceiling or sitting closer and wearing a retarded helmet so the only way you can see the outer edges of the screen is to turn your head!! its THE FUTURE!!!

>>85274415
Yeah it's funny, I don't know whether these prestiged Filmmakers see it as a concern or opportunity, some guys like Inaurittu are dipping their toes in and experimenting with VR as a medium; but for guys like Nolan who seems very pious about the theatrical experience these things must be on his mind, I mean he's briefly acknowledged it in interviews and Dunkirk even has a VR addon to promote it. But yunno maybe concern won't help anything, but I do feel virtual reality will be disruptive across a range of entertainment forum and don't know how it's all gonna play out .All I know is we've got an interesting couple years ahead of us.

>>85274894
VR was invented in the 70s and was even more niche back than. I don't think any of those early prototypes ever made it to retail. Saying its "dead" is incredibly naive and shows a really short term understanding of how technology develops.

It's not all the fucking technology and schemetics just vanish overnight.

The reason VR is slow to catch on is because it is ridiculously draining on your hardware. The specs needed quadruple when something jumps to VR. You have 2 sets of resolution that need to be rendered and each one needs to run at double frame rate. So x4 power needed.

Right now VR is being markted as a gaming device, because no one is going to spend $2,000 for a movie-watching device. Yet in order to run anything on VR that isn't some piece of shit game you would need something way beyond a high-end gaming PC. Eventually we will have improve so that the average PC can handle that type of stuff and the market will fucking explode.

The reason everyone is speculating is because this is the type of bussiness situation where the first guy to be successful dominates the market. It's much better to be early and lose cash in the short term than to try and wait till it's 'safe' and play catch-up.

File: zuckerberg vision.jpg (160KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1200x799px

good news, if you're white you won't be around to see this hellish futurescape, you'll be in camps or living on the outskirts plotting the destruction of ZOG and the flooding of their urban interconnected VR cubicle sprawl with the blood of subhumans

>>85275078
>>85274894
I think this is short sighted way of looking at it, of course if you look at VR now, with its relative low resolution, weight and 'conspicousness' you can wave away the notion of it being viable or adopted by a mainstream, but these issues will be ironed out, and I don't think it'll be very far in our futures. The near term goal is to have VR in a pair of sunglasses, and don't forget this is a multifaceted device with a range of utilities. Having a portable device as an entertainment isn't new, and VR/AR expands that massively, now you can chose not to take that seriously and trivialise it but technologically it's a fucking marvel of the modern age. Whilst theatre has been around for hundreds of years but the way that is showcased and how it has evolved is undeniable.

>>85274415
If going to the movie theatre is a social event to you, then you're a certified pleb. I prefer going by myself as its easier to immerse yourself in the experience with no one to worry about or to bother you. Which makes today's cinema culture toxic since it's become so acceptable to be an obnoxious cunt, with all the annoying over the top laughs and giggles, talking, crying babies, and smelly patrons which really detracts from the experience. I can't wait till we have advanced VR technology that could more than match the digital cinema experience. I'd only go to the theatre to see movies shot in 70mm film , when the day comes.

>>85275234
the only thing "sad" about that image is the apparent lack of women (which is actually a good thing)
I welcome the waifu age

>>85275171
The concept of "VR" has died and revived a few times. The current revival ended almost before it even began because occulus started developing it along a completely dead-ended concept line. Screens are shit. The only time screens aren't shit is when you're sitting far enough away from them that you can't notice how shit they are. "VR" should be a replacement for screens. Not just strapping screens to your face. As the closer screens are to your face, the easier it becomes to notice their limitations.

Not to mention adding motion controls was a complete and total fucking mistake.

>>85275602
We are a few years away from light field displays which should fix all those issues.
https://virtualrealitytimes.com/2017/03/12/light-field-displays-are-the-future-of-vr/

>>85275602
I don't think you know how any of this works, smartphone screens are the best and cheapest option availble for now, custom screens and custom lenses for VR are being made, light field displays are also in the pipeline, but the crux of your argument is resolution, and current VR screens not having enough of it. I don't think this is a long term problem and I am confident in it being a solved in the next decade.

>>85275749
It'll be solved by a completely different technological concept. All current VR is for is pulling money from retarded investors. It'll be ten years before light field displays even hit proof of concept.

>>85275791
>It'll be ten years before light field displays even hit proof of concept.

If they can at all.

>>85275791
>All current VR is for is...

As soon as you start hearing while all encompassing statements you know something's wrong. Boring cynicism, since when was Facebook a retarded investor? Since when were Google Apple and Samsung, (who have whole sects of their company dedicated to VR) retarded investors?

>>85275885
Google's answer to the current strain of VR is absolutely definitive. Card Board.

>>85275820
Magic leap has a viable light field display solution. Although they're probably 5 to 10 years away from commercialising their most impressive light field tech.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5ZZI05A3g

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLkFWq_ipCc

Then there's OTOY and ODG

>>85276085
... you realize you're posting proof of concept AR tech in a VR thread, right? As if AR is the future of VR?

>>85275987
But that's no true, yes they tested the waters with a crass product but did that not, for what it was, reap success? It was light small and compact, amateur yes, but it got something right, plug and play with simplicity, they subsequently developed Daydream VR which is a more sophisticated and serious product more in line with the Samsung Wireless VR series, which can be used with an increasing number of android devices; but that's beneath the point, the end goal is to have a hybrid device that consists of both AR and VR that will supersede smartphones merely by practicality. It's not that difficult a logical step to make, if it's intuitive and has a broad benefit to people it will be adopted. All the big players in the VR industry know and it is only a matter of time.

>>85276129
Eventually they will be intertwined, having a device that can switch between an overlay on the real word and total immersion in the virtual isn't that far a stretch of the imagination.

>>85276436
Negro that would just be a combination of two vastly different concepts with vastly different technological requirements, AR's requirements being a fraction of VR's.

Its really pathetic how little you know about this shit.

>>85276397
You realize I'm sitting here saying all the "big players" in the "VR industry" are just shopping vaporware around for investor money, right?

Acting like a vaporware industry got a few hedged investments means its going places is the height of specious bullshit.

>>85275234

ok LARPer

>>85276512
Is it though? Take cameras in smartphones? Same idea, now of course you can buy a camera separately but the utility of having a smartphone that can also serve as a primary camera unit (which was unheard of and uncanny until the 2000s) is self evident, AR does have less technological requirements which makes it a more than reasonable option to have it attached to the VR, a single device that offers the tenets of both makes sense; I'm obviously not speaking about the present, this is long term, but I don't think unreasonable to see happen in our lifetimes, even before 2050.

>>85276593
And why do you not think it's going anywhere? Because of past vastly inferior attempts?

>>85276896
>Is it though?
Yes. You fucking moron. Yes. Two completely different technological concepts are and always will be two completely different technological concepts. Completely replacement of the audio and visual fields of a user is a completely different concept than overlaying some shit on currently existing images. Now, tomorrow, forever.

Also by talking about AR at all you're invaliding the previous claims of so many huge corporate entities shoveling money at VR. As you're betraying ignorance at the difference between AR and VR and then conflating them as the same thing. As the money you're saying is going to VR is actually going to AR due to, as mentioned earlier, the much lower technological requirements.

>>85276951
More like the present of vastly inferior attempts compared to the, apparently, impossible claims/promises.

File: 1464623318603.jpg (77KB, 499x665px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 499x665px

Question for anyone who's experienced both VR and "typical" 3D: does VR take you out of the movie like 3D does for many of us? I phrase it that way because although 3D is theoretically supposed to approximate "real life", the depth perception effect usually winds up feeling grossly exaggerated (at least to me and quite a few of my friends). The end result is a lack of immersion in the film.

So I worry that VR is more of the same. I get that it's supposed to be more immersive than 3D glasses because it encompasses a wider field of vision, but it just seems like you could never truly forget that you're just watching a movie.

>>85277073
Current VR headsets actually have a lower field of view than 3D glasses and all software built around watching movies just makes a shitty 3D theater and has the movie on a smaller fake screen. See OP image.

>>85276983
I'm not buying this, the Gear VR already has a passthrough mode allowing the user to switch to the real word through mounted cameras, with the headset still on. And whilst obviously unpolished, it acknowledges the desire for people to have access to the real world. Of course it's also there for hazard prevention and obviously these things wouldn't be operating at the exact same time, but if you are to imagine the future of VR similar to a pair of sunglasses, being able to quickly switch between a VR mode and an AR mode to navigate the world with a vastly different interface isn't that out there.

I really enjoy that Asian geisha 4some vr movie

>>85277215
>I don't buy that two completely different technological concepts, with completely different requirements and technological demands are, in fact, completely different technological concepts.

You sir, like every VR shill, are an idiot.

>>85277009
They're not that vastly inferior, there's a baseline and they work well enough for people to have enjoyable and highly immersive experiences that surpass Film and gaming in the ability to induce a feeling of being present in an environment, that's the kitsch that no preceding headset had, either due to horrific latency, resolution or price. We are now at a point where there is the ability to have this experience, whilst flawed in aspects, those aspects are constantly improving and RnD is making leaps, eye tracking will be here in five years, and the litmus test is consumer adoption, which will come when VR makes it to the $300 ish ballpark, software is coming, look up Echo Arena and read some reactions if you wanna see an example of what a AAA title can do. But that's besides the point, VR's go is more than gaming and that's another difference to past gaming-exclusive iterations, and once someone develops its Killer App, a la Facebook, mainstream adoption is inevitable.

>>85277268
I don't buy that these concepts can not eventually be unified in a single ecosystem.

VR will be a gimmick like 3D and IMAX

immersion doesn't come from the tech but the writing

the fact that the cinema screen is bounded and has fire exits on each side is not what takes people out of the experience

>>85277450
Again, they are always going to be different concepts. Making a device that can do both doesn't change this.

The main reason there is this conflation is because people groan, roll their eyes, and look off bored whenever anyone tries to sell AR, but AR is a fuck of a lot easier/cheaper to develop than full or even partial sensory replacement. So they say VR, develop AR, and fuckwits like you can't tell the difference, because, you're fuckwits.

>>85277398
Oh, the $300 ballpark. Something that oculus promised five years ago.

How much did their initial commercial model cost again? I can't remember.

File: VR add.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

VR is a gimmick.
It's interesting in "wow cool" way when you first put on the headset.
I have the samsung gear with an s8 phone and have tried to watch a movie with the virtual cinema app. You're sitting in a virtual cinema, free to look around with a massive screen in front of you. Sounds cool but I can't go more than half an hour without taking it off.
Give me the real thing any day.

>>85277502
Making a device that can do both was my entire case, maybe I shouldn't have used 'intertwined' but I also feel that the the systems wouldn't be completely detached, one can inform the other, software the spans both platforms, taking a location captured in AR and placing it VR, manipulating an object VR and using it AR, photography, architecture and design are all forms which I can see benefitting from the crossplay or VR and AR

>>85277471
>I have not tried VR

>Immersion comes from writing exclusively

>>85277684
Again, you're conflating two completely different concepts. You will never not be conflating two completely different concepts. Any sort of overlap between the concepts exists only because, A: VR right now is shit and will be for the next decade, at least, and AR is easy as fuck to develop, and, in fact, has already been developed as meaningfully as it ever needs to be by fucking nintendo.

>>85277579
And so? Oculus are clear their audience is comprised of PC enthusiasts for the time being and understand that has to change if they're gonna have any way of penetrating the mainstream, which will come through cost. The CV1 had no intention of being mainstream. That ballpark can and will still be reached

>>85277740
>has already been developed as meaningfully as it ever needs to be by fucking Nintendo

AR is still in its baby stages and a naive statement like that shows how limited your view of technology is

>>85277758
>The CV1 had no intention of being mainstream.

The CV1 was initially shipped as being in the $300 range, for mainstream consumption, five years ago, and promised for release and distribution less than a year after that.

So now you're just wantonly revising history to suit a narrative that VR isn't an entirely vaporware industry.

Maybe its just because you don't have sufficient experience with vaporware. People always think their first vaporware obsession is going to be the shiznit.

>>85277740

The be all and end all of AR is not fucking pokemon go

>>85277869
pokemon fucking go is essentially all VR can ever and will ever be. The only difference is better technological integration.

and the best part its how its a knockoff of an AR game from the fucking 90s.

>>85277865
If you think they released CV1 thinking they'd blow up the market then you're wrong, and while we're at it Oculus isn't the only player here, you can fault their strategies but this is a long game, why'd you think there was a bloody surge of interest and new buyers for the CV1 when they dropped it to $399 like two weeks ago? Why are you acting this progress doesn't exist and we're all inside this self contained little bubble of 2016-2017 where all is said and done with VR? It's infantile cynicism.

>>85274894

from what i've picked up, VR theaters are already much better than any tv. I haven't tried it myself because i'm a poorfag.

>>85277903
I fundamentally disagree with you. I also think you vastly underestimate the ability to parcel information on top of the physical world and what that can entail.

>>85278035
>If you think they released CV1 thinking they'd blow up the market then you're wrong,

These were their initial claims.

You can stop trying to rewrite history. Its all there. The promises, the failures, the lies, the sellout to facebook and the flights off to private islands.

>>85278120
Citation please. One citation by Facebook or Oculus that their intention or claim was to go mainstream with CV1 and you win.

>>85278101
I fundamentally disagree with "AR" as being anything more than the ability to overlay endless advertising over the real world.

As that's the real reason it's getting any money/attention. Merging the terms so businesses will invest in the ability to put dynamic pop-up ads on the morning commute and consumers won't realize, hey, that sounds fucking horrible holy shit fuck you.

>>85278162
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game

>>85278188
>I watch Black Mirror fastidiously

File: 1500405917442.jpg (14KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 640x480px

>>85274236
w... what will browsing 4chan be like in VR?

>>85278209
There is nothing here about CV1, or mainstream adoption and is a kickstarter aimed at PC gamers to fund the production of the First 'Development' Kit which was actually priced at $300.

>>85278385
And now you're actively ignoring information. That's wonderful.

>>85278333
you'll put on the headset and jack into a VR representation of your room with a monitor and it'll be just like you're in your room, with a monitor, and a keyboard and mouse, except you're wearing a heavy plastic mask that greatly restricts your field of vision

>>85278468
Where in this Kickstarter did Oculus claim they'd blow up the market? And even then have they not accomplished this? VR is now a multi billion dollar industry, the kickstarter makes a plea to gaming enthusiasts first, everyone else second, and for VR to be considered mainstream the average household should have one, no where did I see Oculus claim/expect this.

>>85274894
>>85275602

Your argument becomes completely undone with one word:

Porn.

Didn't you see that even plebeian 3D TVs are being killed off as a failure?

Just more hype - we've been hearing about VR since the fucking Lawnmower Man in the early 90s.

>>85278895
Counter: Modified uncanny valley. The closer one comes to full sensory replacement without actually being full sensory replacement, the greater the perception of differences.

ask most vr naysayers if they've tried modern day vr and 90% of them will say no

just food for thought

>>85277865
>The CV1 was initially shipped as being in the $300 range, for mainstream consumption,

>for mainstream consumption

anon why are you lying

>>85279211
same for vr shills