cainn24

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Dec 9, 2012

Comments

Total: 298, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 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 (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: Reality vs Actuality. People are not even familiar with their own consciousness - they would do well to meditate on their own mind constructs first.

Reality is something that goes on inside your head.

Whoever coined the term VR made an ontological error.

They should have termed it Virtual Actuality, as that's what it is.

What people experience with these 'Virtual Actuality' headsets is still real inside their head, there's no 'virtual' reality about it - it's 100% real / and 0% actual - except for turning your head.

Anyway if you're going to wear a cardboard box on your head - as a guinea pig for this basic technology, I suppose you probably will be ignorant of the difference between reality and actuality.

It _is_ semantics, because do in fact know what they are talking about when they say things like "I watched a movie in a virtual cinema using my VR headset" regardless of how much you feel it is necessary to critique the terminology.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 05:19 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: PS - 3D failed because content creators failed to recognise the need to change the way content was created to suit the new medium. They continued to make films the way they have for decades, just with two cameras - This made for a less than enjoyable experience for many and was disregarded as a gimmick. 3D is actually incredibly good, though VR theoretically takes it all a huge step further and this time, by necessity of the way it is produced (currently at least) it won't have the same problems as 3D did.

It's all about the depth of field.

The point here is that virtual interaction combined with a shared experience combined with voice communication puts some degree of intimacy back into the equation.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 18:43 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earth Art: If there are any aliens watching us from orbit right now, I would like to point out for posterity sake, that I am not one of the "humans" who puts silly crap over their head to experience an alternate reality. Please spare me in the culling. :)

You don't think they have even better VR tech than us to get them by while they're traversing interstellar space or whatever? You know, like holodecks or something?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bombastic: Next time you plan to use your VR goggles, pause and think when was the last time you had walked down an uncharted path or street, and truly connected through real scent, flavor, and touch with a real place, and a real human.

You might find out there's a fascinating world out there, and you already own all the gear required to interact with it.

https://xkcd.com/189/

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: PS - 3D failed because content creators failed to recognise the need to change the way content was created to suit the new medium. They continued to make films the way they have for decades, just with two cameras - This made for a less than enjoyable experience for many and was disregarded as a gimmick. 3D is actually incredibly good, though VR theoretically takes it all a huge step further and this time, by necessity of the way it is produced (currently at least) it won't have the same problems as 3D did.

It's all about the depth of field.

In the meantime you can watch traditional 3D movies in a virtual cinema that you can look around in, which does a reasonable job of simulating an actual 3D movie going experience. And it wont be long before you can have your friends sitting next to you whom you will actually be able to speak to during the movie. Who says that being half a world away doesn't mean you can't see a film together?

It's going to make long-distance relationships seems not quite so long distance.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 16:47 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I realize that DPreview feels that VR is the "wave of the future." And they might be right, 500 years from now. But for the time being, this is just another useless overpriced gimmick for techies, hipsters, and gamers. And probably for the porn industry too.

For the time being, this will end up on the marketplace trash heap, along with 3D TV, Google Glasses, The Segway, Apple Maps, WebTV, and the APS photo system,

I pity the early adopters.

@Dale

A decade from now?

This VR thing is right on the cusp of achieving critical mass already, both in terms of technology and content. There is a pretty big wow-factor even now with the high-end head sets, and I can't see it taking longer than a couple of years before things get to the point where the experiences are so strikingly immersive that anyone who walks away from a good demo offered by a friend wont be able to stop thinking about how to justify the expense of picking up a setup of their own. And eventually I doubt that people will have to pay very much at all for a premium experience.

The developer kits have been a success. The consumer versions are on backorder. New content is rolling in at a steadily increasing rate. More and more players are jumping on board every day across a wide-range of industries. This is not sensationalism. It's just what's happening.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: Reality vs Actuality. People are not even familiar with their own consciousness - they would do well to meditate on their own mind constructs first.

Reality is something that goes on inside your head.

Whoever coined the term VR made an ontological error.

They should have termed it Virtual Actuality, as that's what it is.

What people experience with these 'Virtual Actuality' headsets is still real inside their head, there's no 'virtual' reality about it - it's 100% real / and 0% actual - except for turning your head.

Anyway if you're going to wear a cardboard box on your head - as a guinea pig for this basic technology, I suppose you probably will be ignorant of the difference between reality and actuality.

There's no ontological error here, just a semantic quibble. Meanwhile the experiences are what they are, and people understand the functional nature of those experiences just fine without having to be exposed to a philosophical debate about the proper way to refer to them.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
Total: 298, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »