Is VR filmmaking about to enjoy a new renaissance?

[IronFilm]

There has been a short lived frenzy for 3D filmmaking ages ago, and then again a few years back for 360VR, both in the end frizzled out. As people prefer their flat 2D moving images on a normal rectangular screen. 

Honestly, 2D rectangular filmmaking but simply rotated 180 degrees from landscape mode to portrait mode instead has had a bigger impact as "a new format" of filmmaking than 3D or 360VR has. 

But maybe that's about to change? Thanks to the new Apple Vision Pro (and whatever new versions and copycats are coming next). 

I see a couple of interesting news stories today on Newsshooter, first of all there is yet another new Blackmagic product: 

https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/06/10/blackmagic-ursa-cine-immersive-capture-content-for-apple-vision-pro-with-8160-x-7200-resolution-per-eye/

This is one mega monster drone to be carrying an URSA Cine:

And a far more affordable option than Blackmagic's URSA Cine variant, I see also got announced today:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/06/10/canon-announced-the-rf-s-3-9mm-f3--stm-dual-fisheye-rf-s-7-8mm-f4-stm-dual-lenses/

"With the demand for VR content creation increasing at pace (the market is projected to grow to more than 22 billion U.S. dollars by 2025), the latest lens makes creating 3D content – from gaming and education to tourism, documentaries, and entertainment – more achievable." 

Rear mounted filters!

And yet another new lens is also in development:

"Canon also announced today that it is working on the development of the RF-S 7.8mm F4 STM DUAL lens for capturing spatial video for use with Apple’s Vision Pro."

Which will be even more aimed towards the mainstream mass market I expect. 

[BTM_Pix]

That BM aquascooter looks pretty wild and you'd hope they are producing the lens system as a separate swappable option for the 17K camera rather than it just being a single unit.

Its certainly got the resolution to make the most of shooting VR and commercially if you are one of few people shooting for a content starved device (and consumers) like the Vision Pro then it makes more sense maybe than being A.N. Other shooter of "regular" content.

Its a risk though as you'd be gambling on this being the trigger for more widespread adoption of a very expensive device that has received far higher praise for its technology and conceptual aspects than its actual utility.

Of course, the "consumer" priced version may be just around the corner but, again, thats a bit of a risk and the whole thing is very chicken and egg.

The R7/3.9mm dual fisheye is a very different proposition entirely though.

I think this is something where you have to forget about a wider audience or naysayers ("Its too low res bro") and likely any commercial use, particularly at the current time, and look at your own needs and say will creating stuff with this please me ?

 From content that I've watched on my Quest 2 that is made by its bigger brother R5/5.2mm combo then I'd say, yes, it does please me, particularly considering the price differential.

The R7 is a very capable and compact camera that is great for travel and this (along with events) is what I would use it for to capture nice looking immersive 3D memories.

Years ago, I had one of the Sony TD20 3D camcorders and I actually thought it was pretty great for that stuff but then, like a lot of people, got sucked into the "I'm going on holiday to France, I simply cannot shoot anything that doesn't look like it was shot by Roger Deakins" bollocks. 

I just don't enjoy a packing list that reads "Swimming shorts, sunglasses, flip flops, sunscreen, three lenses, ND filters, matte box, follow focus..." for holidays any more.

Thats why I've gravitated towards the Osmo (if indeed I take any camera) these days and I think this combo would give me some way to bridge the gap and make something more interesting. 

With the option, of course, of taking one of those small RF primes or zooms if I felt like using it as a regular camera.

However.....despite being far cheaper than the R5 equivalent, the R7/3.9 mm has a combo price of around £2300 which is way over the top for me these days for a "that might be fun" indulgence but I certainly look forward to enjoying what other people do with it.

In this video, Canon are advocating using it the 4K/30/25 fine mode for maximum quality (as its from oversampled 7K) but it would be interesting to see it what it does in the R7's 4K/60/50 mode.

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

Its a risk though as you'd be gambling on this being the trigger for more widespread adoption of a very expensive device that has received far higher praise for its technology and conceptual aspects than its actual utility.

That's the risk with being an early adopter. You're making a big bet, if you get it right you might be getting in early to make $$$$$$

If you get it wrong, you could be losing it all. 

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

Of course, the "consumer" priced version may be just around the corner but, again, thats a bit of a risk and the whole thing is very chicken and egg.

I think the consumer priced version is the Canon R7

Or perhaps the next generation iPhone Pro Max???

 

[BTM_Pix]

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I think the consumer priced version is the Canon R7

I worded that clumsily.

I meant the consumer priced version of the VisionPro, which is "from £3499" when it launches in the UK next month.

[gt3rs]

 

As posted a few months ago after my haha moment while trying the Vision Pro 3 months ago I brought a dual fisheye (already had the R5c) and a Meta Quest 3 (kind of Vision Pro for the poor 🙂)

So far I have filmed:

-Bungee jumping on the James Bond Goldeneye jump, probably the most impressive so far that I did.

-Basketball 

-Horse showjumping

-Bike

-Car

-5 Star Luxus Hôtel

Everybody that I have filmed, and I show them on the Quest they just say "ohhhh wow just incredible it seems to be there". It is definitely an early stage, but I feel the tech is finally mature enough for early adopters.
 

Every time I look at the footage it seems unreal.... yet you need to wear a heavy and clumsy device to experience so the 1M$ question is: will Vision Pro style devices become mainstream and if yes when?

I also started filming some family moment, not really a lot of work as the camera is normally static just to have some memories in case the tech will really take off.


Anyway, I'm happy that Resolve will have tools for immersive (VR180) as right now is a bit of a pita the process, some stuff is quite complex like stabilization...

 

What I would dream of an Insta360 X4 but VR180... I watched some of this year Alaskan Snowboard 360 trip video on the Quest and is just wow, but 360 is not as great as VR180...

[Evgeniy85]

I bet BM and Canon didn't expect vision pro to fail. 

[gt3rs]

2 hours ago, Evgeniy85 said:

I bet BM and Canon didn't expect vision pro to fail. 

Did it fail?

Have you tried one and watch one of your work on a high res big screen and you may change idea?

I was very skeptical but I’m now a believer.

Just watching my own movies on a big screen is impressive. The immersive stuff is scary good.

Quest 3 is at the right price and already quite good much better than what I thought, now that finally there is competition fast forward 2-3 years and we will get Vision Pro quality at 500$.

We may even change how we consume video no more low res vertical crap but this is more an hope than a prediction😂😂

[Evgeniy85]

https://www.fastcompany.com/91112727/vision-pro-sales-tanking-supply-chain-data-meta-quest

Not surprising for $3500 toy. It's cool and all but there's nothing unique about it to justify owning it. 

[hojomo]

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

fast forward 2-3 years and we will get Vision Pro quality at 500$.

No way this is realistic at all. The components, before assembly or any other cost -- is above that for Apple and that is not going to change substantially for awhile. And that goes for anyone else attempting to make an AR/VR headset with the tracking & visual specs the Vision Pro has. 10 years, yes -- but only if there is a huge expansion of capacity to make the sensors & tiny screens, optics etc that would be required.

All the Quest stuff looks like cheesy old PC game technology. At least the lack of lag and 4K to each eye on the Vision Pro starts to feel a lot more immersive. But it is crazy heavy and expensive. Probably going to take Apple two more tries at least. I am sure the Meta/Qualcomm/Microsoft alliance will improve a lot more too.

[hojomo]

I bought the original iPad, and what a toy that was. It took them until the 5th generation, (insanely expensive) iPad Pro to make a useful tablet, for me. A lot of that is software and a platform maturing. These headsets are way more ambitious devices to deliver high quality at a moderate cost.

[KnightsFan]

8 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Have you tried one and watch one of your work on a high res big screen and you may change idea?

I was very skeptical but I’m now a believer.

Just watching my own movies on a big screen is impressive. The immersive stuff is scary good.

I'm a software engineer for a VR company. As someone who uses VR 2-5 days a week, I have no desire to wear a headset more than I absolutely have to. I've tried a variety of models, including the Vision Pro. It's fun to experience VR the first few times, but in terms of physical comfort, sitting on a couch with a 65" screen and a subwoofer is way better than watching films on a headset, even considering the 3d factor. If you add a few people in, I would MUCH rather sit on a couch than both wear headsets and pretend we're watching the same thing.

Not to diminish what you enjoy of course! We all have different preferences 🙂 However most people I talk to are roughly in my camp, especially those of us who are in VR on a regular basis. The novelty wore off. We'd rather text than talk in VR with avatars.

Gaming, on the other hand, is a lot of fun. I like VR games. I like how they introduce unique motor skills (you actually have to aim your hand and hold it steady to get a headshot!). I think to get widespread VR adoption, all the big companies need to do is make a game that is properly fun and polished. The hardware is fine as is it's the content that's lacking. I haven't tried anything that truly felt blockbuster quality.

[gt3rs]

6 hours ago, hojomo said:

No way this is realistic at all. The components, before assembly or any other cost -- is above that for Apple and that is not going to change substantially for awhile. And that goes for anyone else attempting to make an AR/VR headset with the tracking & visual specs the Vision Pro has. 10 years, yes -- but only if there is a huge expansion of capacity to make the sensors & tiny screens, optics etc that would be required.

All the Quest stuff looks like cheesy old PC game technology. At least the lack of lag and 4K to each eye on the Vision Pro starts to feel a lot more immersive. But it is crazy heavy and expensive. Probably going to take Apple two more tries at least. I am sure the Meta/Qualcomm/Microsoft alliance will improve a lot more too.

I truly dislike Vision Pro eye tracking and the pinch gesture is so unnatural and slow.
The controller on Quest is so much better input for me, I'm as fast as using my phone.
I watch a lot of YouTube on Quest something that I struggled a lot on Vision Pro especially entering text for search is such a pita. I also disable passthrough in Quest. 
So, for me I have no need of complex eye tracking, high quality passthrough (although this is kind of useful) or silly outside projecting your eyes.

What I would love is Quest 3 with Vision Pro screens at 1'000 or 1'500 usd. Imo doable already now or in 1-2 years.
 

[zlfan]

11 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'm a software engineer for a VR company. As someone who uses VR 2-5 days a week, I have no desire to wear a headset more than I absolutely have to. I've tried a variety of models, including the Vision Pro. It's fun to experience VR the first few times, but in terms of physical comfort, sitting on a couch with a 65" screen and a subwoofer is way better than watching films on a headset, even considering the 3d factor. If you add a few people in, I would MUCH rather sit on a couch than both wear headsets and pretend we're watching the same thing.

Not to diminish what you enjoy of course! We all have different preferences 🙂 However most people I talk to are roughly in my camp, especially those of us who are in VR on a regular basis. The novelty wore off. We'd rather text than talk in VR with avatars.

Gaming, on the other hand, is a lot of fun. I like VR games. I like how they introduce unique motor skills (you actually have to aim your hand and hold it steady to get a headshot!). I think to get widespread VR adoption, all the big companies need to do is make a game that is properly fun and polished. The hardware is fine as is it's the content that's lacking. I haven't tried anything that truly felt blockbuster quality.

10 years ago I bought a Zeiss glass goggles. I forgot the name. it is kind of like giving you a 100 inch 3d feeling. I bought it about $500 brandnew. I planned to use it with a camera. my eyes felt sore quickly. I gave it to a friend.  

[Danyyyel]

12 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'm a software engineer for a VR company. As someone who uses VR 2-5 days a week, I have no desire to wear a headset more than I absolutely have to. I've tried a variety of models, including the Vision Pro. It's fun to experience VR the first few times, but in terms of physical comfort, sitting on a couch with a 65" screen and a subwoofer is way better than watching films on a headset, even considering the 3d factor. If you add a few people in, I would MUCH rather sit on a couch than both wear headsets and pretend we're watching the same thing.

Not to diminish what you enjoy of course! We all have different preferences 🙂 However most people I talk to are roughly in my camp, especially those of us who are in VR on a regular basis. The novelty wore off. We'd rather text than talk in VR with avatars.

Gaming, on the other hand, is a lot of fun. I like VR games. I like how they introduce unique motor skills (you actually have to aim your hand and hold it steady to get a headshot!). I think to get widespread VR adoption, all the big companies need to do is make a game that is properly fun and polished. The hardware is fine as is it's the content that's lacking. I haven't tried anything that truly felt blockbuster quality.

I think people just don't understand "I don't need to look behind me during a horror film, or explore the environment in a war movie etc etc. I mean their is a reason a movie is a movie, as you said, I just lay down, relax and get transported in another world, another story etc. Sometimes you just want to have to do nothing.

VR has its place and for 4 decades, and it is games. I have stopped gaming but both have mature in their own ways because it is how people enjoy them.