-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon R5 Dual Fisheye 8K VR180 Video: At the Falls
- Thread starter Markr041
- Start date
Sean Nelson
Forum Pro
Interesting to be able to pan around in the image while it's playing. I feel like there are some possibilities there...
It does seem a tad soft and rather low contrast to me on my HD display though...
Is there anything special you need to do in Resolve to edit and render the footage?
It does seem a tad soft and rather low contrast to me on my HD display though...
Is there anything special you need to do in Resolve to edit and render the footage?
sludge21017
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,624
- Solutions
- 8
- Reaction score
- 1,424
It looks to me a little bit cloudy in spots... not sure if the gel inserts did that or smudged lens.
Once you have processed the 8K RAW dual fisheye originals in the Canon VR Utility you can treat the clips as regular clips in DaVinci. You do have to inject the proper metadata to inform YouTube it is a VR180 video (this is a lossless process).
Now, in this case the 8K RAW fisheye images were both deBayered, aligned vertically and horizontally, white balanced and exposure changed and made equirectangular in the utility (all in one step). They were rendered as Clog2 and Canon cinema color clips in 8K ProRes 10bit 422. So, in DaVinci color management I specified that as the input characteristics and then REC709 for output, just as I do for any clips. I could have increased contrast or color saturation etc. and I did some of that. My workflow was designed to retain as much of the original quality as possible.
Now, as to softness. I assume you chose to view the 4K version - the HD version looks horrendous). The softness in "4K" is mainly because you are only viewing a slice of the one-eye 4K image (in 2D you see only one eye, and each eye gets 4K), blown up to fill your 16:9 screen. This is not the same as seeing an original full 16:9 4K image. The same issue pertains to 360 video - 360 cameras of even 12K give you 16:9 slices that you can move around that have far less resolution. And it's worse for 3D, since then you have to literally double the resolution. In this case 8K -> less than 4K per eye, and the fisheye image is stretched and manipulated to give a rectilinear 180-degree view that you see segments of on your screen.
Now this was my first attempt at this. So, I am sure with more experience I can improve the look, but I think on resolution, that is the best you can get. It really is meant for 3D VR moving one's head around the scene, which makes up for the resolution loss.
This is what a clip looks like out of the camera (these are stills, but the video frames look the same):
This is what the VR utility processing yields:
So, in DaVinci Resolve, this is what the clips you work with look like. If you do a 100% zoom on one of the sides, that will replicate what you are seeing on your screen when you can move around the image. The original looks fine but blown up so you can move around the image, it looks soft.
And for fun, here is a 3D anaglyph version of the above (get those blue and red 3D glasses out):
Last edited:
More investigations needed.
For this, all processing was done in the Canon VR program - the program deBayers from the 8K RAW clips and creates an equirectangular 3D REC709 VR180 video. Exposure and white balance adjustments from the RAW were also handled within the program by me. But the contrast and color are all from Canon's transformation. Clips were merged losslessly. So, there was only one compression step.
6 X 17 Feind
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,150
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 219
I remember in the 2018/2019 time frame VR 180 was supposed to take the world by complete STORM...
and then it didn't!
I think the problem is 180 VR is limiting. 360 VR is interesting in that you can completely spin around 180 VR feels restrictive somehow?
I don't know what say you all?
and then it didn't!
I think the problem is 180 VR is limiting. 360 VR is interesting in that you can completely spin around 180 VR feels restrictive somehow?
I don't know what say you all?
I think 180 VR is pointless.
360 all the way.
You do understand that the video is VR180 3D, right? Did you view it in 3D? Then viewers might see the point.
I want to make another point: in real life when you find a subject, a vista, an object of interest you view it moving your head right and left and up and down. You don't twirl around to look at what is in back of you. Not everything in a circle around you is interesting, in fact, rarely is that true. So 3D VR180 replicates a real-world experience, complete with 3 dimensions.
Another way to think about this: 3D widescreen movies that people pay a premium to see are inferior to 3D VR180, in which you have a much wider view that is so wide (and tall) you have to move your head to take it all in. Just like in real life, and 3-dimensional.
Last edited:
6 X 17 Feind
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,150
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 219
Nope didn’t know it was 3D, I just pulled it up on YouTube. Even being 3D it still doesn’t overcome the limiting view of 180, 360 has ruined moving 180 unfortunately.
Here is a photo that is roughly 180. I find the viewing experience much more pleasurable for some reason.
What does everyone else think?
--
6 X 17 Feind
3D has ruined 2D of any FOV
Seriously, if you do not view it in 3D you miss the whole point and certainly cannot conclude what you just said.
The video needs to be viewed in a VR headset to get both 3D and the ability to look around and up and down at the scene. Otherwise, forget it.
Last edited:
Sean Nelson
Forum Pro
Any suggestions for a VR headset that I don't have to join Facebook to use?
I share your aversion. I am still investigating. I just borrowed a friend's Oculus.
The Oculus Quest 2 does not require an actual Facebook account, although you do have to create a Meta account (same company) so maybe that's splitting hairs. I would say just use a dummy account if you're concerned about privacy. If you just don't want to give your money to Facebook/Meta there's always the Pico 4 although you have to order them from abroad if you live in the U.S. Alternately, there are a number of PC based VR/Mixed Reality systems if you have a powerful enough graphics card.
180VR still makes sense for a few reasons. Mainly, it's just that stereoscopic 360° video takes an enormous amount of pixels before it starts to look decent. The Quest 2, for instance, maxes out at 5.7K playback for stereoscopic 3D content. That just doesn't cut it when you're stretching those pixels around a 360° sphere; things only just start to look good at around 8K. With VR180 you only need half as many pixels to match that quality.
6 X 17 Feind
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,150
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 219
Even with a VR headset, you will still hit the left and right limitations. Anyone who has ever looked at 360 will then feel limited by the inability to turn around 360 degrees. The only way this particular picture experience would have my interest was if Margot Robbies personal cell phone number was in plain view, in it.
6 X 17 Feind
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,150
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 219
Looking at a live scene is COMPLETELY different from looking at an electronic image. When I go to the grand Canyon am I looking in every direction? HELL YESSSS I am and usually photographing it.
Here's what I am trying to say. Anytime you go into VR... either with a 3D viewer of some kind or on youtube, people have already looked at 360 images and gotten used to that reality.
Viewing 180 makes you feel like something is missing. If 360 images didn't exist? 180 would be beyond cool! These days, 180 feels like there's something wrong when you hit the edges. 180, Its a day late and a dollar short tech, or at least it feels that way.
Here are a couple of long swing panos for ya. The rocky mountain top is in South Africa and is just shy of 360 degrees. The snow scene is roughly 220 degrees and I would much Much MUCH rather look at both of these images flat field on a wall or computer screen rather than having fuzzy edges that stopped me from looking further. THATS why I don't like 180. if Im gonna go through the trouble of creating something in VR? Its gonna be 360.
Besides ya never know when Bigfoot might be breaking into your SUV in the parking lot to steal your ham sandwich and HEY with 360? You'll have it on video BABY ! ! !
View attachment 50927502b7e844ca965a10078be362e7.jpg
--
6 X 17 Feind
sludge21017
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,624
- Solutions
- 8
- Reaction score
- 1,424
I really don't care to turn around in my gaming chair while wearing a headset.
Gets kind of silly IMHO.
6 X 17 Feind
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,150
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 219
How much VR do you actually look at? You know... in your gaming chair?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum