cainn24

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Dec 9, 2012

Comments

Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaxson: 3D via this method is always odd for the brain. Normally we focus at different 'depths' into a scene, but with 3D we're constantly focusing very close to our eyes, and the designer determines where the focus point in the scene is. Not sure if it's a major, but it's actually quite different when you think about it.

I'm also still concerned that the tools to view just aren't there yet. I'm not keen on heading to a theatre where I'm wearing head gear someone else just wore.

I'm not even sure that I _want_ to be having experiences that are so realistic that they are indistinguishable from reality. Maybe I'll find out one day. In the meantime all the telltale signs that can so easily remind you that you're in some virtual space don't prevent this medium from offering a wide range of highly enjoyable and often rather unique experiences. And why would it? We can still enjoy movies even if we're always being reminded that watching a movie is what we're doing. Games are the same. But we can get past it and just embrace the fun. In fact some might argue that a willingness to suspend disbelief and a properly active imagination are leisure "skills" that should be maintained through continued use.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 10:44 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: Why have virtual when we exist in reality? Probably my age, but I just see folk being further detached from their own reality.

"I just worry that folk are now seeking empathy through electronics."

I think that's a valid concern, but not one that necessarily applies to VR any more than a number of other technologies. In fact you could even say the same thing about books. Why seek empathy by burying your head in a fictional story instead of getting out into the real world and actually living life?

"Why go out and experience stuff when you can slip on a head set."

Or watch a movie, or play a game, or read a book, or converse on an internet forum.

Maybe VR will eventually present more of a problem for a greater number of people. Time will tell. All I know is that I'm excited about the positive aspects of the medium, and I think there are quite a few.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaxson: 3D via this method is always odd for the brain. Normally we focus at different 'depths' into a scene, but with 3D we're constantly focusing very close to our eyes, and the designer determines where the focus point in the scene is. Not sure if it's a major, but it's actually quite different when you think about it.

I'm also still concerned that the tools to view just aren't there yet. I'm not keen on heading to a theatre where I'm wearing head gear someone else just wore.

It's more than a discussion point I think. Here's an article about it: http://tinyurl.com/zz5mke2

And here's an example of a VR product that addresses it: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-light-field-vr-headset-vr-la-2016/

In the meantime most of the people I know (or have spoken to) who use VR, even for extended periods of time on occasion, don't report any motion/simulator sickness. But I do personally experience a strange sort of eye fatigue on occasion even after short periods of time. It's not an unpleasant feeling really. It just feels really nice to close my eyes, and I have this strange urge to just lay back and rest like that without even taking my headset off.

Anyway, it would appear that these are mere teething problems for the VR industry.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 00:29 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaxson: 3D via this method is always odd for the brain. Normally we focus at different 'depths' into a scene, but with 3D we're constantly focusing very close to our eyes, and the designer determines where the focus point in the scene is. Not sure if it's a major, but it's actually quite different when you think about it.

I'm also still concerned that the tools to view just aren't there yet. I'm not keen on heading to a theatre where I'm wearing head gear someone else just wore.

A theatre full of VR headsets? Why? There will never be a divide between commercial-grade and consumer-grade VR that is big enough, and lasts long enough, for that sort of industry to take off.

Later this year Google will be launching their Daydream VR platform as part of Android N, at which point a number of Daydream-ready phones and headsets will also be available. In terms of the quality of the experience Daydream is essentially going to be an open-source version of Samsung's Gear VR (and the Oculus store/UI), the difference being that anyone can design phones and headsets for the same platform and have access to the same VR ecosystem. This stuff is a world apart from a mere Google cardboard experience, and is already good enough to provide a wide range of immersive and enjoyable experiences in your own home.

As for "theatrical" content, all sorts of interesting developments are underway. Here's just one example: http://uploadvr.com/ctrl-preview/

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 11:30 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: This would also mean that the camera is stabilized, right? Then it's a nice outdoor and travel device indeed.

I hope connectors like the USB plug don't have little caps that you have to remove and put back on. I also hope you can use it as a torchlight.

I have an S smartphone with heavy glass damages (fell twice) that still works, and i saw many more of them.

I personally wouldn't worry so much about fast updates, if the hardware is useful. But i think the weight wasn't mentioned?

When you're curious about smartphone specs, this is one of the best places to look: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_active-8004.php

You just need to be careful to check for regional variation in the internal hardware specifications.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 13:17 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: This would also mean that the camera is stabilized, right? Then it's a nice outdoor and travel device indeed.

I hope connectors like the USB plug don't have little caps that you have to remove and put back on. I also hope you can use it as a torchlight.

I have an S smartphone with heavy glass damages (fell twice) that still works, and i saw many more of them.

I personally wouldn't worry so much about fast updates, if the hardware is useful. But i think the weight wasn't mentioned?

All the recent flagship Samsung phones have OIS, not just the ruggedized versions.

Neither the USB port or the audio jack has a flap that needs to be closed as the waterproofing is done internally (you should ensure that they are dry before using them after a submersion event, although there is short circuit protection as well in case you neglect to do that).

Like just about every smartphone these days you can in fact use it as a torch (and without having to unlock it).

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 12:02 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)

I'm personally skeptical of the value of this certification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-810#Applicability_to_.22ruggedized.22_consumer_products

I can accept that such ruggedization _might_ be somewhat more effective than a high quality case like an Otterbox Defender for the standard S7, but the latter solution has the advantage of maintaining compatibility with accessories by virtue of being modular. And if you want to maximize the resale value you'd still need a bumper case for the S7 Active anyway.

But there's no arguing with a strong preference for a larger capacity battery and extra physical buttons of course.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 10:04 UTC as 6th comment
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: Why have virtual when we exist in reality? Probably my age, but I just see folk being further detached from their own reality.

Last night I loaded up a VR experience called "6x9", which puts you in a tiny cell in a solitary confinement block of a US prison with some narration about the long term psychological effects of that sort of incarceration. It was quite confronting really because of the additional dimension of realism that a VR experience can generate.

This isn't an example of replacing a real part of my world with a virtual analogue, but rather an example of an expansion of my appreciation for the circumstances in which some other people find themselves. In that sense its fundamentally no different from watching a documentary, or a reading a book, which I'm sure most people would agree is a wholesome activity. The difference is that it was ultimately more impactful, and therefore generated a greater degree of insight.

There are of course an innumerable number of other similarly valuable otherwise inaccessible "experiences" to put on offer, and many of them will arrive if they haven't already.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

cdembrey: Six Flag's Magic Mountain in SoCal now has a roller coaster where the riders wear VR displays. This is a good implementation of VR, but it is CGI, not photography.

My question is how will VR make the ubiquitous internet cat photos better. Or the photos of your children that you send to grandma. Will it improve BIF photos. How about Soccer Mom photos of Kids Soccer Games? Will VR make portraits more compelling?

You talked about one of the functional, social aspects of photography there (pictures for grandma). VR is not stepping into existing paradigms so much as it is extending upon them, and creating its own. In the VR space you don't just have photos of the kids for grandma, you have the experience of watching them play, or take their first steps. And beyond that you have direct real-time interaction from one side of the world to the other using what is being called "holotransportation". This isn't science fiction, it is real technology that transmits 3D reconstructions of participants in real-time so they can have the experience of interacting in the same space. It's not strictly a VR product at this stage, but there's no doubt that it will eventually integrate under that umbrella.

So sure, send grandma some photos. But one day you might be asking her if she wants to sit down a have a face to face conversation with her grandchildren as well, no matter how far away they might be.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 09:09 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Efimoff: Why the medical and scientific implementations of VR haven't been mentioned?

"If we tried to cover every possible use of VR I would still be writing the article..."

You'd never stop writing the article. It's hard enough to keep up with current developments when all you have to do is read about them or listen to a presentation or a watch a video. And it's just about impossible if you try to keep your head wrapped around every new insight into potential future applications as well. The prospect of trying to write about them all truly does my head in.

I think there are a lot of people who think about VR as if it's the latest "gadget". But it's not. As everyone in the industry keeps pointing out it's a whole new platform. And there are more dimensions to it than any other platform I can think of.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 06:13 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

I've acknowledged more than once that it might fail to impress at least some people.

The comment you quoted was about interactive VR (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEMiyGMa58 for an example) which probably has the biggest wow-factor for now even though it's still in its infancy. And I do in fact find it difficult to imagine that anyone would fail to have at least _some_ fun with that sort of thing unless they were determined not to. But the more relevant consideration is the distinction between not liking something yourself, and trying to determine whether or not enough other people are going to like it (even if only in a more evolved form) for the technology to be a success. I mean there's still a whole lot of people who express some degree of disdain for modern smartphones yet there are more than a billion of them in use now.

To be clear I respect your right to be unimpressed, and to disagree. But I see no reason not to continue arguing for the other side of this.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 15:30 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vit Adamek: I am speaking with my friend programmer now and I think that most of you are missing the greatest point of VR. Imagine you have a very compute powerful smartphone in your pocket which is connected wirelessly to your smart glasses. The smartphone can be wirelessly connected to a powerful cloud compute cluster if more compute power is needed for certain tasks. Not a heavy uncomfortable setup. Kind of combination of VR and Google glass and options for see through partially or fully if you like. Now, wherever you sit you can instantly engage into VR, meaning that you may no longer need physical screens, keyboard, physical peripherals at all. You will just select your setup, placement of peripherals and customize it and recall it wherever you need it. You can have any amount of screens around you to, i.e., watch a tv, type a text, code, edit photos, videos, do your banking, You can customize your peripherals, size of your keyboard and other control point, add them, remove them.

I don't think that the absence of physical peripherals is unimaginable at all. Even now I can talk to my phone and ask it to take a photo or activate the flashlight or set a timer or navigate to the nearest petrol station or any number of other things without traditional interaction. I only operate it in this manner on an occasional basis but it works, and it's a casual affair. So voice control is here, and has been for some time.

Beyond that, eye tracking technology has already emerged that allows people to interact with elements in the VR space just by looking at them. And for those who prefer a bit more activity we also already have several incarnations of VR gloves that allow interaction via hand movements, right down to the individual fingers. Arguably gloves are a physical peripheral, but it wont feel that way.

None of these technologies are exclusive to VR of course but they're here, right now, within the reach of the average consumer with a bit of disposable income.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 12:39 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

A pessimist telling an optimist that they need to get help.

A sign of the times I guess...

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 10:38 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

That's rich. If you pay attention you'll notice that what I actually keep doing here in the comments section of this article is responding to people who think their own opinion on VR is somehow transferable not just to others, but to the industry as a whole.

And here you are, too, clearly implying that anyone who sees the potential is simply more "impressionable" than you.

I know for a fact that there will be people who don't care much about VR. I can't think of any technologies at all right now that are _universally_ praised. And that may or may not have something to do with the right sort of exposure. But for as long as there are people who feel the need to try to hammer something into the ground before it's even had its day in the sun I might continue to feel inclined to balance out all the dismissiveness and negativity with a little bit of the opposite.

Sound fair?

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 08:07 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

Things certainly do get boring real fast when someone starts refusing to answer simple questions. But whatever. You're certainly not required to.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 14:55 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Don't be naive - this VR "push" is just a marketing ploy to "hook" people on an unnecessary and potentially harmful technology. If you don't see it, do some reading and historical research. If you still don't see it, then you're already hooked and need to reevaluate your motivations.

I respect your right to stand by your opinion. But you suggested that anyone who is unable to locate and embrace the logic and perspective that underpins your opinion is essentially a bit of a VR addict who can't recognize the truth for what it is.

I'd just like to know a little more about what you personally think that truth is, and how you justify it's elevation to the status of objective fact.

As far as I can see the main issues are addiction and simulator sickness (and possible residual effects for a small percentage of the population). The former is a behavioural issue that is certainly not unique to VR, and the latter is far from a universal problem and will be addressed as the technology matures anyway (in fact the relevant technologies are emerging as we speak).

There are probably other things I haven't thought of. In fact that is almost certainly true. But what are they? And how serious are they? Is there anything that is unique to VR that is impossible to address?

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 14:53 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

Which part of what I said is demonstrably the product of holding onto a belief in spite of the presentation of compelling evidence to the contrary?

And I ask again: have you tried it? Or have you at least attempted to take the pulse of the industry by familiarizing yourself with current developments as well as those that are in the pipeline?

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 12:08 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Don't be naive - this VR "push" is just a marketing ploy to "hook" people on an unnecessary and potentially harmful technology. If you don't see it, do some reading and historical research. If you still don't see it, then you're already hooked and need to reevaluate your motivations.

That's a bit of a cop out. If you have a compelling argument to support the notion that VR is an inherently harmful development rather than just one more thing that already addictive personalities might become wrapped up in (notice how we don't ban all those things just because some people don't know how to exercise restraint and/or moderate their activities) then please, go ahead and make it.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:41 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

Have you actually tried it? I don't just mean some cheap google cardboard solution and a low-end smartphone. That's really just a shadow of what premium products like the Oculus Rift CV1 and HTC Vive offer (the Vive in particular, at least for now). I find it really hard to believe that anyone could come away from a room-scale interactive VR experience and maintain a dismissive attitude with a straight face. Even if by some chance it fails to impress you personally (which would be quite a thing) I'm not sure how anyone could fail to recognize the inevitable impending popularity.

Even without the interaction with virtual objects just being able to do things like stand at the base of the One World Trade Center and look at the tower itself, the memorials, and all the people around you, should drive it home immediately. People are absolutely going to use this tech, and they're going to like it. For all sorts of reasons.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:30 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

It's a virtual certainty (pun intended) that not too long from now you'll be able to "visit" at least some exhibitions that you weren't _able_ to attend in person. And since there is something of an art to the _presentation_ of art, it might make sense to essentially "archive" an exhibition anyway.

I don't see how that stops you from going to actual exhibitions when you can. In fact I don't see how any of this stops you from doing anything. It's an addition, or an extension, not a replacement, just like so many other technologies I'm sure you've already embraced.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 05:42 UTC
Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »