cinematic color?

[kye]

10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

True though I don't think people will tire of seeing expensively produced movies. People like youtube but they also like watching movies. Theaters may die out do to being inconvenient and expensive, but things like Netflix which is just movies from home, will always be around. 

I guess VR stuff could take over, seems pretty gimmicky though. 

VR is gimmicky.  Just think about who would want to sit down in comfort and have images shown to them that make it seem like they're in a different place than where they really are, and doing things that they aren't really doing, and with people that they don't know.  I tell you what, you couldn't even make people sit in a big room and watch such fantasy images, let alone make them pay for it!

Not to pick on you or anything, but I think this is an example of someone not getting it.  People didn't want to be taken into a large room of dubious cleanliness, they came to cinemas to be transported to a world of the writer and directors vision, and be told amazing stories.  If you can't see that VR has the potential to do that in an amazing way, then I guess you'll be surprised by the future.

VR is escapist entertainment where you stop being where you are and will only be somewhere else.  People probably won't be watching VR on the train for example.

AR is to take where you are and to also be somewhere else as well, or at least add a layer onto the place where you are.  People will absolutely do this everywhere they go.  AR will be a Pokemon Go, your phones notification screen, these forums, and a complete heads-up-display for your entire experience.  If you have ever wanted to know something or been bored with something then it will be just great.

The thing about VR is that we just haven't worked out how to do it well yet, and VR has a limitation because not everyone wants to stop being where they are.  VR will come first and AR will come later, but AR will come in a huge way.  VR is like having an expensive home theatre - people will like it but not everyone will have one, AR is the future of the smartphone.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 minutes ago, kye said:

VR is gimmicky.  Just think about who would want to sit down in comfort and have images shown to them that make it seem like they're in a different place than where they really are, and doing things that they aren't really doing, and with people that they don't know.  I tell you what, you couldn't even make people sit in a big room and watch such fantasy images, let alone make them pay for it!

Not to pick on you or anything, but I think this is an example of someone not getting it.  People didn't want to be taken into a large room of dubious cleanliness, they came to cinemas to be transported to a world of the writer and directors vision, and be told amazing stories.  If you can't see that VR has the potential to do that in an amazing way, then I guess you'll be surprised by the future.

VR is escapist entertainment where you stop being where you are and will only be somewhere else.  People probably won't be watching VR on the train for example.

AR is to take where you are and to also be somewhere else as well, or at least add a layer onto the place where you are.  People will absolutely do this everywhere they go.  AR will be a Pokemon Go, your phones notification screen, these forums, and a complete heads-up-display for your entire experience.  If you have ever wanted to know something or been bored with something then it will be just great.

I see it working for gaming and other things of that nature but not really cinema. I go to the cinema usually to relax and watch things play out. VR is invasive. 

 

[kye]

3 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I see it working for gaming and other things of that nature but not really cinema. I go to the cinema usually to relax and watch things play out. VR is invasive. 

 

I added this to my above post after you quoted me:

7 minutes ago, kye said:

The thing about VR is that we just haven't worked out how to do it well yet, and VR has a limitation because not everyone wants to stop being where they are.  VR will come first and AR will come later, but AR will come in a huge way.  VR is like having an expensive home theatre - people will like it but not everyone will have one, AR is the future of the smartphone.

I agree about it being invasive.  My dad thinks that smartphones are invasive.  My daughter told me that she is happy to be born in the best time to be alive for all of human history, both past and future, and when I asked her why she listed a few things, but the first one was having a smartphone and internet.

The times, they are a changin'.....

[thebrothersthre3]

10 minutes ago, kye said:

I added this to my above post after you quoted me:

I agree about it being invasive.  My dad thinks that smartphones are invasive.  My daughter told me that she is happy to be born in the best time to be alive for all of human history, both past and future, and when I asked her why she listed a few things, but the first one was having a smartphone and internet.

The times, they are a changin'.....

Definitely hard to argue its not the best time to be alive other than sentimental reasons. Mobile Phones certainly are invasive and I am pretty sure have been shown to cause stress in many cases. Great tools of course. I grew up with video games, but I don't play them anymore though, I don't need more challenges in my life. I like watching people get blown up in movies but I don't really want to experience it lol. 

VR will be cool once the tech gets better eventually. I don't see it replacing movies because its simply a different thing. At least that's how I see it. 

Newspapers are gone but people still read the news, just online. 

[fuzzynormal]

25 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 go to the cinema usually to relax and watch things play out.

Passive narrative will always have a place.  

Reading hasn't gone away yet --nor should traditional cinema be doomed, regardless of what future entertainment technology offers. 

[kaylee]

wow, this is an amazing thread, rlly got me thinking. I was gonna post something smart but now my mind is elsewhere...

trip on this: there isn’t a single image posted in a thread about cinematic color

?

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Just think about who would want to sit down in comfort and have images shown to them that make it seem like they're in a different place than where they really are, and doing things that they aren't really doing, and with people that they don't know.  

I'm pretty sure thats a summation of Instagram so the answer could be gajillions.

[BTM_Pix]

With regard to VR, I've mentioned it before but if you ever get the chance to go to a 'VR Cinema' (just a big room with lots of swivel chairs so you can move around the image without moving) then it is really quite interesting.

It lends itself to short 15-20 minute documentary pieces and the ones I've seen were a far more visceral experience than if they were shot flat.

Its strange because although its a solo experience in one way its also shared because there are lots of you in there so when you take the headset off it sparks more post viewing discussion than a normal film as you have all experienced subtly or often dramatically different versions of it depending on how you were orienting yourself and how active you were.

Plus, no one can be stuffing their faces while they've got the headset on or talk to anyone so it removes the annoying pricks factor out of viewing stuff in a cinema as well

I think it actually lends itself very well to vlogging (not just for the overcapture/post shot framing aspect) but people really need to de-gimmick it to get it there.

[kye]

41 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

With regard to VR, I've mentioned it before but if you ever get the chance to go to a 'VR Cinema' (just a big room with lots of swivel chairs so you can move around the image without moving) then it is really quite interesting.

It lends itself to short 15-20 minute documentary pieces and the ones I've seen were a far more visceral experience than if they were shot flat.

Its strange because although its a solo experience in one way its also shared because there are lots of you in there so when you take the headset off it sparks more post viewing discussion than a normal film as you have all experienced subtly or often dramatically different versions of it depending on how you were orienting yourself and how active you were.

Plus, no one can be stuffing their faces while they've got the headset on or talk to anyone so it removes the annoying pricks factor out of viewing stuff in a cinema as well

I think it actually lends itself very well to vlogging (not just for the overcapture/post shot framing aspect) but people really need to de-gimmick it to get it there.

Yeah, I've seen some interesting attempts at 360 video, 3D video, and VR (which can be either of those, or interactive) and we're kind of yet to really crack the basics.  I've seen a few VR 3D films where they're attempted to move the camera, to varying effect.

The main challenge for content creators is that we can't make sure the person is pointing the direction we want them to be, or noticing what we want them to notice.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

The main challenge for content creators is that we can't make sure the person is pointing the direction we want them to be, or noticing what we want them to notice.

I think the approach is to mirror how we are directed in our actual vision which is by light, movement and sound cues.

I'm not sure 360 will ever really gain traction other than niche or edutainment purposes but I think what would be very viable is 3D 180.

You're then giving people the same cinematic experience that they've grown up with but just enhancing it with a bit more "look around" capability, which will offer up some interesting new possibilities.

Remind me to do a thread one day about my design for a camera for £3500 that could deliver that

Well, £3504 if you include the cost of the hammer and gaffer tape.

 

[UncleBobsPhotography]

10 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

You're then giving people the same cinematic experience that they've grown up with but just enhancing it with a bit more "look around" capability, which will offer up some interesting new possibilities.

I've been experimenting quite a bit with different type of 3D lately, and this has been my conclusion as well. At first I tried making the view completely static, but the problem with that was that the 3D effect would only really work in the center which is covered by the field of view of both eyes. Giving the viewer the possibility to move their head slightly, the 3D effect works much better. So far I've been happy with only having slightly larger field of view than the VR-headset I'm using (which typically have 90-110 degrees of vision). I don't even see the need for full 180 degrees. 

[fuzzynormal]

19 hours ago, kaylee said:

there isn’t a single image posted in a thread about cinematic color

 

[kaylee]

thats sicc as heck

[IronFilm]

20 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, I've seen some interesting attempts at 360 video, 3D video, and VR (which can be either of those, or interactive) and we're kind of yet to really crack the basics.  I've seen a few VR 3D films where they're attempted to move the camera, to varying effect.

The main challenge for content creators is that we can't make sure the person is pointing the direction we want them to be, or noticing what we want them to notice.

It is the same problem that video game creators have! Thus they learn to guide/nudge the player (or viewer, in the case of VR) in the direction they want

[fuzzynormal]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It is the same problem that video game creators have! Thus they learn to guide/nudge the player (or viewer, in the case of VR) in the direction they want

I'm enamored with the idea of story telling in a virtual world.  Eventually, somehow, story designers will need to find a way to incorporate effective AI that steers the narrative in the direction they want while maintaining the illusion of free will in whatever sandbox environment they've created.

It's a difficult problem of math, as any random decision needs to motivate a seemingly random reaction and those threads of possibility reach levels near infinite pretty quickly.  Manufacturing chance to lead into a predetermined outcome is some existential stuff.

[KnightsFan]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

that steers the narrative in the direction they want while maintaining the illusion of free will in whatever sandbox environment they've created.

Bioshock?

But seriously, I think that the developer of a video game should NOT steer the player. Games are the only medium where the consumer actively shapes the artwork itself. Illusion of free will is ignoring the unique ability of games to provide actual free will.

[TurboRat]

I'm taking notes from this thread ?

[fuzzynormal]

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I think that the developer of a video game should NOT steer the player. Games are the only medium where the consumer actively shapes the artwork itself. Illusion of free will is ignoring the unique ability of games to provide actual free will.

Sure, you can have a environment where the players are all human and just let things happen.  That's fine and fun, but it's not really storytelling.  It's like playing with virtual action figures.  Whatever narrative that arises could be exhilarating, but it's organic not artistically authored.  Controlled fiction is an incredible art form.   

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Sure, you can have a environment where the players are all human and just let things happen.  That's fine and fun, but it's not really storytelling.  It's like playing with virtual action figures.  Whatever narrative that arises could be exhilarating, but it's organic not artistically authored.  Controlled fiction is an incredible art form.   

I guess i am coming from the perspective of an FPS, but you can have the game react realistically while allowing the player freedom to partially shape the narrative, a la the original Deus Ex. There was actual free will and player agency within the world and NPC characters. I guess we are probably saying the same thing in slightly different words.

[kaylee]

the idea of vr games that could be less quest based and more about interacting with the real world is super interesting to me... and also super scary ?