I think you're right. I'm giving immersive video a go with The Sound Traveler because I want to control the viewer's view. I'm also open to being wrong and think that shooting this video in 360 was super clever.
For your sound traveler videos to work with 360° video you would need a way to also let viewers rotate the audio with the video which isn't possible I think.
another thing 99% of people r not considering apparently including u is...... u can have a cinema in vr with the good old crappy rectangle... "very clear and focused"..... and that can transition to a proper 360 vr experience video ...part of the time also there is a huge differece between "360 video" and a proper vr experience which is ......clear high res 3d 360 with spatial audio and good vr goggles and good headphones
+GLRaema Maybe in the future if UA-cam will bundle some surround sound codec with the videos. How hard is it to record surround sound audio by the way? Just some directional antennaes each aimed at different locations?
As someone who have ADHD.. I love this video that I can look around. It make me watch ALL the video instead of just stopping the video when is bla bla.. even when its interesting I need video like Vsauce to make me listen all the video. This one I listened more than any other "2veritasium" Videos. I love his videos and what he say.. But I dont sub.. because I cant really focus on bla bla.. I dont see the point of video when we talk... Faces is boring to ADHD ppls.. Its so... Everyday-ish lol.. Yes body language is important.. I DO pay attention to that.. But Idk.. Feel like when things are just previsible there is no point for me to look there. Maybe ADHD is just an evolution of a certain role of ppl.. I mean.. Some got to be distracted and NOT look ahead.. and some have to look ahead. I see that as a role. But nowdays this "Role" is not so much useful lol.. Maybe in the future we will "De-evolve" this feature OR just find a way to make it work in this system. Humanity is a team.. A system isn't it? ^^
Cool experiment! You know my thoughts on this, Derek. Nobody really thinks 360 video is going to surpass or replace traditional video in any way, and if they say so then they are trying to sell you something, so I think you're maybe setting up a reality that doesn't exist. But 360 video is going to make a YUUUUUGE difference in delivering experiences… no stories, just self-guided immersion in a given environment. Perfect case in point: Google Expeditions (which is incredible… I welcome someone trying to explain to me how it's not an enhancement over traditional video) But yeah… 360 stories? Meh. 360 camera tech circa 2016? Double meh.
Think I saw two cute girls, but to low resolution to be sure. I think you are right about 360 not being the future. Maybe if i had one of those VR glasses, but on a flat screen it does not add much, and it takes away important stuff that you mentioned in the video.
I've gotta say: this is the most entertaining 360 degree video I've seen so far. I tend to agree with you, but this video has changed my mind more than I expected.
honestly, i really enjoyed watching this in spherical. being able to look at your environment as you walked around was way more interesting a viewing experience than if you were just going to vlog this direct to camera. not that your on camera presence isn't great, but i spent a lot of time listening to your words as i looked forward, where you were walking, what you were seeing. spherical might not work for the incredibly fact based, single-learning objective videos -- but it is a useful medium for experiences. even with crappy resolution, you took me to a place i'd never been in a way that would require a lot more production equipment/experience to feel similar in a regular ol' 2d video.
Exactly. It was a lot of fun watching him going on the street, to feel we are walking with him and taking to him, rather than staring at his face while he speaks. I think 360 videos will be immensely popular, we just need better and affordable household devices to watch them, and it will happen soon. He gives examples of how people have wrongly believed something would be very popular, but there are many times more example of how people thought a new technology will never be successful and won't replace existing tech, but it did. Infact every new technology sees this initial resistance.
Maybe thats the difference between given you an experience to explore yourself and trying to explain to you what happened. In this video he is not referncing things you should see. If he would, it would be a huge hassle to follow where he wants to point your attention.
The moment I realized I could move the video around (it was a few seconds in) I was amazed. I immediately spiraled around and marveled at Seoul, the people, and the technology. And then ten seconds later, I stopped playing with it and went back to my Sudoku.
Agreed. 360 video implies there's something going on all around you, but you can only take in a small section of it at a time, so it gets really exhausting really fast. I feel like I haven't properly 'watched' until I watch the video from all possible aspects, which means it takes forever - and most of the time that's wasted, because you don't need to be looking at all angles. The material could've been better presented, tighter, and punchier with an actual editor pointing out where I should be looking.
clamo6362 you always look forward, never forward and backwards simultaneously. In this video, I want to see everything at the same time so I pause a couple of seconds to see if I miss an important detail in the video. Nobody walks around turning their head 24/7.
There are pros and cons in every new technology, you just don't get them in 360. Why would you like to force people to learn specific thing, and prevent them to look around to wonder first. But this is not the point, if people aren't interested in topic that much perhaps the other stimulation would help them to catch some unwanted information from the video, or do you think you should force them?
I don't think you are wrong in saying 360 would not take over, but there is certainly a use for it, travel and exploration for those who can not afford to being the first to come to mind. If you are going to tackle interesting subjects while letting me look around a place I would otherwise never get the opportunity to see, I will literally watch all the videos you mak, and as I can not look at every single thing in one view I have incentive to rewatch some of them and as a result the subject matter would really stick. So for me personality I think this kind of video you just demonstrated is the best thing since sliced bread.
How the hell do you hold that thing out, navigate your way through all that mess, people yelling, birds squawking, etc... and somehow narrate everything so elegantly without your brain stopping at all or losing train of thought?
Your walk around the street actually shows what 360 degree videos are great for. VIRTUAL TOURS! if you think about how tour groups go around in a street, even though the whole group is moving in the same direction, every individual person in the group is looking in a different direction. to bring that experience to a video format, you need a 360 video. it allows you as a virtual tourist to look at whatever you find interesting while simultaneously following the virtual tour guide or the virtual tour group wherever they are going.
I would love to see a 360 video of you, Michael from Vsauce, Jake Roper, Hank Green, or any other science-related UA-camr all sitting at a table, having a conversation, with a 360 camera on a table exactly in the center. I honestly don't care if the video is an hour long or so.
That is actually a very interesting idea. Usually for these type of discussions you do the panel type set up, so everyone is lined up and you can see them all but that isn't at all natural. For a natural conversation, especially more casual ones, a 360 view around a table and stuff would be cool. My one concern however, is that it might be easy to get lost while trying to focus on who is talking. If you had like a 3d headset, then that isn't an issue, but if you are doing it on a screen and have to scroll all around to see everyone, it might be a pain.
Using 360° video for "in-the-round" discussions might be more appropriate for VR headsets with good positional audio. That way, you could use souund to quickly and naturally direct your attention to the current speaker if and when you chose to, when you weren't looking at reactions to the speaker. The current mouse-dragging interface in videos like this doesn't seem like an elegant way to quickly redirect your vision _in time_ to see the source of a sound.
Really? I'd hate to be standing in the middle of a circle of four people who were discussing something, having to whirl around the whole time to see who's talking. And the video you're suggesting would just be a bad simulation of that terrible experience.
Spherical video opens up the potential to visit places that one usually can't. To look around at architecture or great wonders of nature that are dangerous or hard to reach. For sight seeing they hold real potential. However, for most forms of video it is the framing and editing that imparts the feel and tension, brings drama and makes points. That is how we tell stories and educate. There is little then that 360 can bring to those types of video.
With everything, it depends a lot on the content. Making content for 360° video can result in good experiences. Taking content that is made for "normal video", and just making it 360° just for laughs, well that'll be a bad experience.
Totally agree... sea- or skydiving, for example, where there is more than one direction that offers things to see. Alas, the quality is still subpar for these applications...
I actually like this format for your vlogs. I feel like we're walking together while I listen to you, and I get to look around. It may not revolutionize anything, but it will have its niche.
I think you are right that the 360 view is distracting to the conversation, but I can also say that you are narrowly looking at this from your point of view as a teacher of stuff. Movies will not be shot to any real effect in 360 because movies are the art of crafting the narrative, in the same vein as teaching is the art of conveying information. Where this will really shine is in imparting an experience. Personally i was able to follow along with your talk, but i also got a knowledge of the street. Its not useful and will be forgotten shortly, but it was someplace new. Its kinda like virtual reality, most games are not going to work well with it, but in games that focus on the experience, it can be a powerful tool. Its all about using the tools available and correctly to get the greatest impact out of your goal.
Wraith Gear I agree , in the kind of videos he does 360 video doesn't do much. But creators like Casey Neistat that produce content based on sharing a experience can benefit from this new technology. its not gonna replace the traditional way of film making or videos in general but it is a good method to get a point across.
@Wraith Gear I was just about to write a comment when I realized, what I was going to write has probably already been written. Guess what, i found my thoughts. Totally agreed. Spared me several minutes, thanks :-)
Don't just say "but only that". It makes you seem small-minded. It could be fun to watch 360 videos for space exploration, for riding virtual roller coasters, for deep sea diving, for watching specific events, for watching movies. There is way more potential than just walkumentaries.
If you think of 360 video as just normal video, but with more range, then yes, it's a terrible idea. But, it's a NEW medium. It'll take new thinking on how to best use it, or what content is best for it. For the types of video on Veritasium, I wouldn't think it would always be the best choice, but take this video or your other walk and talks you do on 2veritasium, it seems like it might actually be an enhancement. I've personally watched it twice, once through looking primarily at you, but then a second time, as I scanned around and looked at what was going on around you. Double the views! Like VR (and player controlled camera games before that), understanding how to use the medium when you don't control the users view takes time, but isn't necessarily universally better or worse, but usually better at some things and worse at others. What types of videos would you make where HD and singular viewer focus isn't the priority? Seems like a place to begin to solve a problem.
Exactly. You could think the same of 360 photography for photographers in general. Now see how it is used for Google street view and how its implementation brought multiple usages. For example just visiting a place before going there (or knowing you will never go). Just to say as you said: it depends on the pertinency of the medium for each case.
I think 360 video will stick around, because you can use it to make cool looking nature documentaries, but it will never be mainstream. Fly a drone that can take 360 video and fly it through the glacier as an iceberg cleaves off. That would be amazing footage. Or do the same why flying through a swarm of locusts, school of fish, etc.
yeah. plain 360 is for effect only. When you put it into VR you can do a little more with it and show scale to people, as that is the one thing screens are very bad at. but then again you lose a lot of focus and direction. Concluding from that i think 360 video would be best for VR exibitions, where you port from spot to spot and get some narration with each place. there i would not stich time but much rather space as 4th dimension, at least if time is not important for atmosphere (leaves, animals, people and grass moving). Can you still call that a video then?
VR is where 360 shines. All that other crap is going to fall off short. It just isn't meant to be like that. Director of a documentary is way better off not having viewers to be in control what they see. It just destroys the whole purpose of having a director to begin with.
I enjoyed looking forward to see the city while listening (as if walking with a friend who is talking). Didn't care to watch him talk and look past his shoulders as usual, no offense. It's nice to see scenery of cities I haven't yet been to.
***** at the same time there are tons of accessories that never caught on to a major extent. Bluetooth headsets come to mind. Or those awful sneakers with toes. There's really no telling what the public will love or hate.
Toed shoes are amazing for climbers and Bluetooth earpieces may just have a comeback with the rumours about the new Samsung and iPhone 7 phones. These products - if they fail to be accepted by the majority - will still fill a niche market. I don't expect the premise is to walk around with a TV permanently strapped to your face; rather, to use the technology for a particular purpose.
***** The thing is though that you don't need to create content especially designed for Bluetooth headsets. VR on the other hand requires companies to invest in reworking or creating content for VR. Which is going to be a tough sell if it's a niche market. Still, I think VR is going to be more than just a niche thing. All I'm saying is that I personally will not strap a tv to my face, haha. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on some form of AR being more successful.
I looked around a little bit in the beginning of the video, but then I thought to myself that was completely pointless, and watched the whole thing without looking around at all.
***** I agree completely. I think it's very very limited in its usefulnes :) Even with goggles you don't want to turn around like a maniac all the time.
If you full screen the video and click on the arrows in the top left corner you can then use your keyboard to control the camera angle. It made looking around very easy.
Derek, initially I thought it was lame to just find arguments against 360 video instead of trying to see if it could be useful. But you made precisely that point at the end, that we should actually be open to new stuff. I agree that storytelling with 360 video appears really challenging, and I would love to see you experiment more with it! Thanks.
For this video, you could just have listened to the audio and got the same message. The visuals were nothing but an example but, if you've already seen this kind of thing, so what? Towards the end, I scrolled down through the comments since the visuals were altogether pointless regarding the point he's making.
Exactly i think there are some nice uses for this, but for most purposes it would be a distraction. But you dont have to go all the way to 360. Imagine a VR movie with 210 degree vision where you can slightly move your head to get immersive super widescreen but still see the center focus point. And for documentaries it would be great for some scenes, but not others. This switching however is not very appealing to the user.
Decus, I agree. I can see some interesting utilitarian uses. Perhaps in the real estate business. Surveillance and live news reporting comes to mind as well.
VR Headsets are really good for games, but for video, films and the like they remove the viewpoint that the director wants you to see and look at which makes them worse.
I see 360 as one tool, and it can be used well or badly. I think the best uses (at the moment) are when tracking, panning, tilting zooming decisions are made in post, then exported in standard formats. You shoot 360° but direct the viewers' attention where you want it. You can cover a scene in one take, one camera, one setup, then use various parts of it in various ways.
360 video actually works well in this case since you aren't trying to show us something. All you are doing is talking so it isn't necessary for us to even watch the video. I could have technically opened another tab and just listened to you. It didn't work well when you wanted us to look at that tennis ball video since you have to get viewers to turn around and focus on something. I decided to stay and look around at things because it isn't something i normally get to see. I can also choose to look at you or i can see other things. That's one thing I don't like about your other videos compared to this one, you are walking around in fascinating places but you only show us your face but i want to see what you are seeing.
Just because it doesn't distract you as much does not mean it works well. Yes, you could just open another tab and just listen. But the file sizes and upload times of 360 videos are so big and long so it is worth it? Furthermore, most videos do want you to focus on one thing that is happening. Listening and looking around is ok or even good in this case, but it is not necessary. You could Google pictures up, so they would be less grainy than in the video. Even if these technical things were fixed, there is still a question: Do you really need 360 degrees of vision for your field of sight, a fraction of that amount?
That's actually because of the place he's at. It's called Namdaemun Market. Other neighborhoods have different varieties of shops. But still, you're right... that was also a suprise for me. I don't remember seeing that many when I lived there. Maybe I just didn't pay attention to them.
HellzJanitor I couldn't figure out why all I was seeing was Derrick's hands (I watch videos with my phone flat on the table). Then, when I realized it was a 360 video I had to hold the phone straight out in front of my face to see him speaking. Very uncomfortable. Who watched UA-cam with their device held straight out in front of their face. 360 videos need to be shot at a 45 degree angle so that they can see the speaker at a comfortable angle - like help in their hand below the face.
I think both 360deg and standard video both have their place. This video would have been much more focused on the topic at hand in standard video. However I would have not gotten the ability to see the setting, it was really interesting to look around the environment you were in with 360 deg vision. See all of the tiny shops crammed with goods, see the local culture. Structured narrative content should be fixed viewing (2d or 3d). But I 100% believe there is a place for 360deg video. Especially for capturing a place at a given moment in time. I think what I said will be the general way that things are, but there will be some exceptional exceptions to it.
I was just watching this on my phone while sitting down, holding my phone down in my lap, pointed upwards, and I didn't actually realise what it meant that the video was 360 so for like three or four minutes literally all I saw was his hand and I genuinely thought that was just it...
That is life you will miss a lot, but you can see so much more than in only his "selfie" vlog. It is like if you don´t want to jump to pool full of money just because you are afraid that you will not get every penny...
If he didnt record in 360, he wouldve shown the things he wanted to show. which are probably the things i want to see or require to see the understand what he's talking about. i think 360 can be situationally perfect though.
I can't believe so many people liked this comment. People miss things constantly. Its like a law that somewhere a human is missing out on something. I actually think the missing out on things is an advantage of 360 videos. You can replay it and experience something new and different multiple times. That could lead to awesome videos with non-linear storytelling. Like having a famous speaker making a speech in front of you in a crowd, but if you look behind you or to the side, you can see an assassination attempt unfolding, no cutting necessary for the details. You don't have to look unless you want to. Very complex and immersive stories could be told. If we have the bandwidth for it....
I think that's a very limited view point(get it). But in all seriousness I think 360 video is a tool that can be used by engineers and artist alike, and used properly will give us some awesome results. It's kinda like CAD(Computer Aid Design) and 3D computer graphics software like Blender are basically two different applications of the same technology. It's probably not useful for most traditional types videos, but I'm sure somebody is going make really awesome and fun videos using this tech.
Said that people thought motion pictures would replace books. They didn't but they have their very own charme and place in our world. People still read books and watch movies (or youtube videos) and that's what 360 videos will do too. It's up to our creativity to make interesting content for it showing something you can't show with normal videos to make them earn their place where no other medium can get.
i’ve never disagree with you until now, i watched this video with you talking in the background while scanning the view around you and it was like i was walking with you in the street and talk to you, i was able to look at all those markets i wanted to look at unlike these videos when the cameraman just rotates it and you feel like oh man but i wanted to see that!! i have never been able to travel abroad but this experience felt like i’m visiting a new place! it was awesome! and of course even in real life the option of looking out at every single place around you can make you feel dizzy but the beauty is that *you* choose where to look at as in real life and in this virtual reality this is physically way more easy to look around you on everything with only your finger instead of your whole head. i didn’t think of that topic before but after this video i wish that you are wrong because if 360 cameras will be our future everything can step ahead in this media world, there are so much things to do with this technology! and the technology will get better only if people actually give it a try and start using it, then it will naturally evolve over time.
I kept thinking, when does this video become spherical, based on the thumbnails. Took me a bit to realize earlier thumbnails looked spherical, and it was because the youtube video was only showing one direction...
*Problem 1: Resolution*. I don't agree. We've all seen how fast we've increased the resolution. It will probably be in actual HD in only a few years. Same goes for the bandwidth that you were talking about. It has increased a lot these last years, and will probably keep doing so. *Problem 2: Most things are far away*. I don't agree. I've never felt the need to zoom in on a regular video or a spherical video. There will always be a background, but if the cameraman knows how to be a cameraman he will be going close to the things that is of interest in the video, just like they do with regular videos. *Problem 3: Our brains don't work in this way*. I don't agree. While we can only look in one direction at a time in this video, we do the exact same thing in real life. In real life we choose where to look just like we can do in a spherical video. *Problem 4: Lacks ability to direct attention*. I don't agree that it's a problem. In theaters the audience can look at whatever they want, and the actor has to be interesting in order to keep people's attention toward him. If you are the most interesting thing in the video, people will be looking at you. If you are extremely boring while walking around some funny things, people will look at the funny things. Why shouldn't we be allowed to look at what's interesting to us? We're all different. *Problem 5: You'll miss some things (basically)*: Yes, but you also miss everything that is around a regular video, even if you wanted to look at something specific. But I do agree that a spherical video could be bad for education, if it's isn't used right. *Problem 6: People overstate what spherical videos could do*. Partly agree. I probably won't be amazing, and sometimes a regular video will be better, but for many kinds of video or even movies spherical cameras could be great! These are all my personal opinions. I'm not saying that I'm right or that 2veritasium is wrong. Just telling you all how I see things.
if it's not so simple can you explain it better then? please try not being a pretentious ass because you may or may not understand a subject. correct them and inform them how it really works. small acts of education are not meaningless and make the world a better place by improving us who live here.
I enjoyed this video more because I could look around in 360°. There were several moments when I saw someone or something happening that made it more enjoyable to watch.
himan12345678 I love how me saying "I'm not sure you understand X if you think Y" is taken as an *extremely rude* comment but you get to call me a "pretentious ass" all willy nilly. I am left wondering whether you are inherently confrontational OR inherently hypocritical as a person. In any case, bandwid th as it is defined for transmission of data over the internet is dependent on multiple factors, of which the physical capabilities of your receiver are just one. There are other factors, such as internet protocols, that create overhead at an unavoidable amount, and the technology of the source server (which you have no control over) as well as, as may be the case, cross-server communication. There are even limitations caused by the very laws of physics, simply, the impossibility to determine frequency with sufficient accuracy so that said interval could be used losslessly for data transmission (admittedly, we are not at that point yet, but it IS a real wall). Now, simple question. What is more useful for the practically-minded person? Reading the anterior wall of text that is necessarily abbreviated anyway, or simply taking it at face value that yes, extending bandwidth is hard and tricky? My 2 cents.
Tudor Naconecinii I do understand. I've even taken specialiced courses to learn more about networks. Bandwidth, simply stated, is the amount of data you can transfer. Quite recently my home got a cable upgraded to Fiber, making it able to transfer data faster. Both my router and my computer are faster than the previous ones I had too, making them able to send and recieve data faster. Not that the computer usually is the bottle neck. It can obviously be improved by technology. Do you think we could have had the servers we have today, 20 years ago? No, because of technology. It keeps getting better.
They have a lot of good purposes in my opinion but for a planned video not so much. When used as a camera to capture something that is bound to go off semi randomly out of frame this could be a good backup camera. Beyond that I really love these cameras for security purposes and oddities like showing an environment where you walk through a building or scenery and the viewer can choose to pause and what to look at. Higher resolutions would be a a nice to have though.
Depending on the content that you’re creating, it could be the best tool. We all need to choose the right tools for the job. Sometimes spherical video might be the best. Why not?
I don't think he's arguing that it shouldn't exist. I think he's arguing that it's not going to take over the domain of video like it was being hyped up to do.
Your first point (resolution and bandwidth) is pretty silly. Ten years ago, you could have made exactly the same argument and concluded that UA-cam will never work. Point four (the film maker wanting to direct our interest) is a much better point, for most situations. The Alaskan cruise seems like exactly the sort of case where 360 is a huge win: the whole landscape is the subject, if you will, and allowing people to explore that from their own viewpoint sounds like a big win. On the other hand, you doing a piece to camera while walking through a market is obviously a terrible choice for 360. The market is an irrelevant distraction to what you're saying, and people want to watch you, rather than it. In this case, the immersive experience is imagining that you're talking directly and personally to me, not imagining that I'm walking through a marketplace. Point six _is_ the point: 360 does look pretty good for atmospheric shots. That's it's niche. Ultimately, it seems that you're arguing against the strawman that every video will be shot in full 360,. Any worthwhile piece of video is shot using a number of different techniques. Sometimes, 360 will be an appropriate technique for some parts of a video; most of the time, it won't be an appropriate technique for most parts of a video. You know, just like slow motion or timelapse. But you don't bother making a video pointing out that we shouldn't shoot 100% of our footage in timelapse.
+beeble2003 "The market is an irrelevant distraction to what you're saying, and people want to watch you, rather than it." I disagree that this is universal: -I spent much of the time enjoying the interesting market (often looking left/right) -I disliked looking "behind me" and watching the speaker -When I got bored of looking around I wanted to look straight ahead I agree with the rest of what you say, however.
Thanks for the hint where to look at :-) It showed the Problem very well. I think the main problem ist storrytelling. So as allways there will be applications for 360 like real estate videos for example, but i don't see it as a future format vor all kind of videos.
An Addition: It could work as a bonus on veritassium Videos. Let's say you happen to visit a telescope or some other place normaly not open to the public. Shoot a bonus video vith a walk through in 360 to watch in addition to the main Veritasium video. So everyone can explore it.
Yes I agree, mixed single frame and 360 video will be an important step. A format with a director controlled viewpoint that can be switched to a user controlled viewpoint will give us the best of both worlds and change the way the world is captured while maintaining a strong storytelling focus that is so important for content creators.
I think you're wrong. But not because your points are wrong, but rather the concept you're starting with is wrong. 360 video isn't "the" future, rather it's "a" future. Your video is actually an excellent example of a successful way to use 360 video. It was really fun to be able to look around the same way I would have been if I was there in person. Taking in the surroundings and being oo'd and ah'd by things. It didn't distract me at all from the conversation you were having with the viewer either. Will 360 replace normal video? Absolutely not. But I do think it will grow and find a comfortable niche.
I agree, it is just like taking a walk with someone, you can enjoy the walk and listen to person without a problem. 360 could be interesting, I can image an immersive point of view film with a story. Where you are seeing the world from the view of the main character (There is one movie that is made entirely pov but with normal camera). It would be quite similar to a video game. 360 is also great for landscapes or filming some extreme sports. 360 will find its place but "normal" filming gives a lot more opportunities for artistic expression.
Alexandr Korekov you've never been a tourist, eh? :) Also, how many people do you walk with where one of you is walking backwards so you can be face to face the whole time? Cause that's just impressive :D
Isn't that what he was saying the whole time ? He said it's not the future, and that's the exact same thing you said, he could be willing to accept that it is a future, but mainly he was proving that it isn't THE future.
Alexandr Korekov Oh come on, you never had conversation while driving a car or cooking? You don't need to look at the person to pay attention on what they are saying.
I think 360 video is always going to have it's place. Whether it's appropriate to use or not is going to be decided on a case by case basis and depend greatly on the subject matter. I don't know if this is a thing yet, but I think also limiting the very to less than 360 is going to important too. For example: During a lecture the camera can be placed close up to the person giving the lecture. Being close up to the speaker is generally more interesting than having the camera way in the back. Giving the person watching the ability to rotate the video a few degrees left and right (and maybe up and down) will allow them to do things like move the camera to look at some notes the person wrote on a white board earlier that they might have missed or need to review. Sure they cold just rewind the video, but that breaks the momentum of the speech and means they have to look scrub through the video to find were the notes were written or talked about and then try to find the moment they left off from when they go back. Doing something like this might even be entirely impossible during a live stream presentation.
I'll tell you what though, the immersion with a 360 video is amazing. Looking around the market, it really felt like I was actually there with you, looking around. I agree with the fact that 360 isn't going to replace cinematics any time soon, and neither should it They are two very fundamentally different things. But for videos like these? Maybe some documentaries like mentioned at the start? I would love that (Barring the shitty quality and that jarring line in the middle where the sphere meets itself).
Doomlazy Something can be immersion in 8 bit pixelart you know. While resolution obviously helps (quite a lot in this case because the quality, as you said, is potato), it's not everything. I had a great experience looking around the market in this video. But I'm not saying I wouldn't have had a greater experience if the quality wasn't better.
This is pretty cool in mobile, but it's not perfect, it's slowly drifting away, by the end of the I was stating straight upwards even though I was still gazing the exact same way.
Part of the problem for 360 video is that some action is required of the the viewer. I watched this video on my desktop computer. At the beginning, I looked around a bit but after a few seconds, I just wanted to sit back and watch. When it came time to change the angle of view to see the video clip I did nothing. Even when it comes to interacting by leaving a comment that is usually done after the video is finished. I think it will be a much more engaging experience when we are all watching these videos using a 3D headset allowing us to change the viewing angle by simply turning our head. This is a much more natural way to interact with a 3D video and may be the necessary tool needed for a more widespread adoption of this new technology.
Yeah I agree with that. A headset is going to greatly improve it over having to scroll all around by hand. That or we get technology to just scroll around telepathically.
yes, but it still seems like a niche. I think 360 videos are only useful for specific situations, otherwise it is just distracting. It has to be used just right.
I find that using 360 video when talking about something while walking gives the viewer more to look at and interact with instead of encouraging the viewer to let it run in the background while s/he does something else.
I agree for once I was actually looking at the video all the way, then again, I was barely watching derek. Although it felt more like I was walking with him on some street in Seoul.
Exactly, you get a package deal that is relevant to the topic at least in most cases so it's got it's charm. Still no replacement for traditional flat shot filming
it is good for experiencing a place. you can turn your "head" and get a better picture of what is around the person. i only look side to side or up and down as opposed to behind the way the person is facing (while walking). so, it may work better if it was only the front hemisphere because then the person filming could orient it in the direction they were facing. thus, you could "experience the moment with them". just a thought, take it with a grain of salt.
You are both right and wrong. Watching a film (and other examples you mentioned) is much better to be presented in the current form, everything you say about that is correct. However, your own video disproves your statement. No one wants to watch your face for 6 minutes as you talk, but I had fun watching the streets and shops of a far away country while listening to you. Similar to how I listen to a podcast while doing other things. If it's not a guided experience but a world to explore, 360 can offer much more information and the ability to rewatch the same video to learn even more.
Alicorn I completely agree with you. In some cases, it provides a much better experience for the audience. For example, there are some rollercoaster review videos in 360 which have amazingly indepth videos with plenty immersion. This immersion makes the video even better because instead of saying "That looks like fun" they will say "That WAS fun, I want to do that in real life."
I agree. movies, documentaries, and things like that are made to show something specific and it doesn't make sense to have people looking around. But I honestly spent most of the video watching the interesting scenery. As far as immersion goes, it felt like I was going on a stroll with Veritasium just hanging out and browsing a bizarre. So yeah, I agree, his video disproves his point.
I also feel in walking shots it's much more natural to be moving in the same direction as the speaker. It's like you're walking and having a conversation with them. It's quite odd to stare at someone who's only talking and be moving backwards. There's a bunch of use cases where a 360 option makes for a great video.
I feel like it's better to shoot in 360, then edit the video to show the most interesting parts. My biggest problem with 360 is that moving around is slow and choppy, and I often have to rewatch videos several times in order to see the best angles.
I foresee virtual tourism emerging through this technology. Bad day at the office? Log into our Venice Gondola stream, or soak up the City of Lights with our Paris walking tour. 360 video is good for atmosphere, ambiance, not narrative.
Found this almost 5 years later. The first half about resolution seems pointless now. The second part where you would be distracted from the presentation is 100% true and I agree with that WHEN you're supposed to focus. I mean, when I watch a movie I don't want it to be a 360 presentation so I can see people sitting in the theater :D HOWEVER I think 360, virtual reality crazes have vanished a bit but I think they are useful when you want to actually explore a place without particularly focusing on someone talking or presenting something. It's like virtual travelling. That's when I think it makes senseto use this.
You are completely missing the point. You souldn't expect 360 video format to become the only video format available in the future, it's just another tool that video editors and directors can now use to tell their stories. It's good for some tasks like showing an immersive beautiful landscapes and bad for other tasks like showing a video where the viewer is supposed to look at something specific like that tennis ball example. People are so quick to come to conclusions. Oooh we invented the internet - lets burn all the paper books, oooh we invented a CGI - lets make all movies in cgi now, oooh we created a phone - lets not talk to people in person now..
Миша Шевченко yeah you didn't watch the whole video, and if you did you missed the point by a couple miles. the point where he's talking about Edison and motion pictures replacing textbooks. his argument here isn't that 360 video shouldn't be used, he just feels like its not a replacement for anything like a lot of people seem to think.
***** you seem to miss my point. He said that he doesn't see how 360 video can become mainstream, my point is that you SOULDN'T even expect it to become mainstream. Every time a new technology is created people always say "this is it, it's gonna change the world" and that's wrong. You can't always predict these things.
One positive I found from this format in your video is that I was able to look at other things, which actually helped me to focus on the subject of the video. Sort of like how you don't simply stare at someone constantly when they are talking to you, because it feels natural to avert your gaze and makes listening a bit more relaxed.
Exactly. The resolution is a little annoying and, if i see on mobile in bed, I would have troubles to look where I would like. But, I liked it. I think new tools can do everything from good to terrible. Is up to the content creator to use that for a good reason. When you do a podcast, you don't do the same way as vlog. So, if want to shot a 360 documentary, you can't try to prove a much linear point with the visuals. And the public doesnt have any good means to watch a full-length documentary in 360 in a confortable way.
I think if 360 is going to be successful, it relies on achieving widespread use of VR headsets, because without VR headsets, 360 video is exponentially more difficult to watch.
even with VR headsets, it is still a huge distraction, unless it is just a casual video without a particular focus. however, i am sure these kinds of video will be quickly fade away as people find it boring.
I agree that a headset increases the immersion. However I'd argue that holding your phone up and spinning around is the next best thing. Given there are very few comfortable GUI's that support being in VR (UA-cam included, shame on them), a headset becomes an extra step you have to "choose" to want to engage with prior to even loading the video. Then once the video stops, oh no, you have to take it off your head, select something else, and put it back on again. It's great fun but it's currently very very messy.
I feel like for educational videos probably 360 isn't the way to go however for vlogs it would be really cool and this video of you walking down the street was really fun and I believe it has a future in videos such as this one where there is a place to discover
I personally don't think 360 video helps vlogging. I think it's more likely to help skits. Check out "Sleep No More" immersive theater which is a theater show where you can walk around the set/scene (in real life) and look where you want. I could see 360 Video becoming something like that
Smart people once said the same thing about telephone and radio. Sure, 360 video is stupid for things like vlogs and movies, but it definitely has a niche. Especially for things like virtual tours.
xbmc xbmc Yeah kinda. Virtual Reality is huge with a bright future. Every VR headset is just a glorified viewmaster (stereoscopic viewer) for 360 video.
It's not even that though. His main objections are resolution and bandwidth... which are both short-sighted. Resolution just requires better camera sensors being cheaper, which I find mass production accomplishes quite well. For bandwidth... yeah wtf. My entire city and the surrounding areas have gigabit fiber internet service. And it's not even a huge city. The point is that increasing bandwidth is simply a matter of literally just going ahead and doing it. Even with wi-fi, where speed caps and range can be an issue, you can quite easily just increase the access point density so it isn't so sparse and there's less interference.
It's not even that though. His main objections are resolution and bandwidth... which are both short-sighted. Resolution just requires better camera sensors being cheaper, which I find mass production accomplishes quite well. For bandwidth... yeah wtf. My entire city and the surrounding areas have gigabit fiber internet service. And it's not even a huge city. The point is that increasing bandwidth is simply a matter of literally just going ahead and doing it. Even with wi-fi, where speed caps and range can be an issue, you can quite easily just increase the access point density so it isn't so sparse and there's less interference.
You may be right but this video is proof of why you should do 360. I never would've known the things i learned about the open markets in this place you visited. We see a wealth of culture here, how the local population interact and come about their goods. I would've never been able to see the one lady in the pink shirt standing in the doorway as you passed her on your right giving you an odd look, giving me the indicator that you are odd, but she stares more at the camera which makes me question the look of the device and how odd it must be to look at it rather than through it. To your point yes, you can't direct the viewer to the information you want but we don't get that luxury in life either so a social commentary while we walk through the streets being allowed to observe as we individually see fit forces is to be observant ourselves in the first place. The things I wished to learn and the things you would have liked me to learn can always be wildly different. Do I think 360 will take over? No. Should everything be filmed in 360? No. Does it have it's uses? Absolutely. To think of a film as being solely the responsibility of the creator is selfish and wrong, we as the viewer hold the other half of that responsibility. If you wish to show us a busy market place where it is impossible to track one thing without missing something else, 360 is a must. It allows the viewer the liberty of discovery. Being allowed to discover is it's own type of learning. But you know all that already, don't you?
Completely aggreed, it will be very usefull for some stuff (this kind of video ironically might be one of the places where it is kinda usefull), and other things it will be useless, if not plain out dumb to do
So you proved him right trying to prove him wrong.This video was not about Seul market, people or anything was on screen, it was about 360 videos. This could have been an audio podcast, and the message would have passed through. I haven't see the lady you talked about, so if the video was about people reactions, I would have missed her. It's good to show places? Sure... Showing places conveies a message? Absolutely not, as he explained it just leaves to exploration.
Hose Clamp I agree completely. In fact, if he were giving some sort of teaching about a subject, 360 means I would watch the same video multiple times trying to take everything in; so the audio repeating each time would really help drive the point home.
I think there’s a huge potential for 360 video if someone can figure out how to do it right. The lack of linear focus actually could help rewatchability because every persons experience is different. Open World video games are designed to not have a linear structure, but many still take it as an art medium because of what you can fit into a video game. You could even use the same focus strategies paintings use to give more of a central focus. The bandwidth problem could be solved by having movie theaters start using 360 video. Movie theaters are slowly but surely losing money due to streaming, but giving a new focus, and using existing technology that brings something new and exciting to the table, might save movie theaters worldwide. Their only problem is lack of movies. I’ve only seen one feature length film on UA-cam, and even that film looked like it was on a serious budget. The problem seems to be that technology is moving faster than creators right now. It’s the same problem vr is facing at the moment. If we give creative people the time to put in a serious amount of effort we may very well have a new art medium. Do I think it will take over movies or make movies obsolete? Probably not. But will it be a tool many artistic people can use to their advantage in the future, I don’t really see why not.
360 works on a limit sets of occasions. Lets see you want to take people on a video to experience the surface of Mars. Or maybe swim around bacteria or cells. In those scenarios I can see a very good application. Even in movies, but that movie must be design for that, and Im not sure if it will hold for a two hour one.
I think it could hold for two hours, given that the HMDs are comfortable enough, and the video is clear enough. We just need to do, as you said, design for it. Make the movie not just take place in front of the watcher, but all around them. Yes, there will be times that focus on a certain place could be important for the story (but I'd argue not paramount if you can still hear what is going on) but the actions of the movie could happen all around the viewers just like it does in life. But then I'm talking more about true VR movies and less about 360 movies in this case. Though I agree that 360 video will have specific uses. Still specific uses and niche do not equal fad.
"Wait, I think I once heard something about Galileo and falling objects... hmmm, changing speed sounds like the obvious answer so I'll play it smart and choose 'constant'..."
It's incredible how people can get to that age and be so incredibly ignorant about the world around them. I think I probably knew about acceleration due to gravity when I was probably no older than 5 years old, maybe even before. I certainly remember being told about the “Monkey and the Hunter” thought experiment when I was probably about 6 or 7 and thinking that it was so obvious that I was amazed at how my classmates didn't realise what was going on.
Hmm, I think you make fair points but I also think 360 video has its uses. It's definitely not going to, nor should it, replace regular video entirely but when its advantages are leveraged it can be very useful. As for directing the viewer, the same principles apply as in theatre. How to direct the audience to look in a certain place. I think of this new format as a new opportunity and a new challenge rather than to dismiss it outright as a fad. It will be niche, that's for sure.
I'd add that, since interactivity is being added, there should also be parallels in how narrative-driven video games direct their players. And we've seen how interactivity alone can be leveraged for story telling and increased engagement/immersion for decades now in that industry.
360 video is cool, it's just never going to replace traditional "flat" filmmaking techniques. It's an addendum - a new style that has yet to really be figured out - for some things it might really work, for others it won't. One thought to chew on - perhaps the draw of the 360 headset is you get a much more immersive screen. Instead of watching it on the confines of your phone, the viewing area now encompasses you entire periphery. Perhaps thinking in terms of that (scale) is a better direction that constantly having stuff pop up behind the viewer.
1. Resolutions will obviously improve. Bad argument. Bandwidth will improve too. 2. Zooming on 360 will also not be a problem. Extremely weak argument. 3. Are you forgetting that VR makes 360 perfect. It makes the video viewing experience MORE like how real humans see the world not less. On top of that even in the 2D player we are still looking at and focusing on the exact same real-esate on the screen. The same amount. Only it's interactive and we get to choose where we look. Where else do we see this? Video games. I guess those aren't successful for this reason as well? (Oh wait, they are wildly sucessful.) Not only is this a bad argument... examination of the argument leads to pros of 360 video, not cons. 4. Sounds like a selfish and personal reason... not really anything against 360. End of the day the consumers drive the technology and not the content creators. 5. I'm not going to debate with you on learning (even though I don't fully agree) but this fifth point is literally nothing to do with 360 video. And is even only tangental to "teaching" 360 videos. 6? control is out of the hands of the creator? No. Does a stage performer somehow lose something by allowing the audience member's heads to move? No. Think about how magicians can control where people look and what they focus on without actually physically controlling their head or eyes. Is it more challenging? Yeah. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. 7. All of your examples were really bad and didn't help your case. Motion pictures didn't replace books... but motion pictures are insanely popular. (Way more than books.) So you are saying that 360 won't replace 2D video... but will just be wildly more successful than 2D video? You are looking at 360 video with a very very narrow lens. Only in education. Try to be more open minded and examine everything objectively before jumping to a conclusion. (You know, like scientists do.)
By the way, I watched the whole video looking in the direction you were walking. I was able to get everything you said just fine without looking at or focusing on your face. It actually felt like we were walking together and having a conversation.
I agree with his points about SPECIFICALLY videos.(more so for movies and shows) It is unfeasible for the industry to stage and make movies in an artistic way, seeing as it gives more personal perspective. Movies are a NARRATIVE, thus personally interjecting yourself defeats the purpose of trying to push a specific view point.... When you think of movies/shows shot in 360, it becomes infinitely harder from an artistic and a functionally viable stand point. That being said, I doubt 360 videos will replace movies in the same way that movies 'replaced' books, however, 360 is NOT a fad. I do own a Vive, and have not regretted the purchase once. You are arguing with focus on more than just video, which is what most of the comment section is doing. (they say that it is a fad or not useful for entertainment, which is false for anyone who has actually used 360 games or environments via VR)
In fact, 360 (in real life) for movies and shows do exist, and are already MUCH less common. Going to a play, or murder mystery, things like that, are examples were the world is around you, and you can view as you are there. You can even interact with things like murder mysteries... and yet there is still very little industry comparatively to the movie industry.
Bridden They are much less common because the market is emerging. I've already begun to see a spike in 360 video content and I am thoroughly enjoying it. So many times in history people have labelled technology as a "fad" and quite often they were completely wrong. "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943 "Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." Darryl Zanuck, executive at 20th Century Fox, 1946 "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 "Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Maybe soon we will be quoting Derek here? I think we haven't even unlocked the full potential of 360 yet. It has a LOT of potential and I have no reason to think it won't do well. Regardless... none of Derek's arguments were good arguments. Even if 360 goes away and is just a fad, it won't have made his arguments any less wrong.
I found it especially odd that he said "In 2013 they said online video courses would revolutionize education", with the implication that they didn't. It's been three years! That's like someone looking at ARPANET in 1976 and dismissing the chance that computer networks will revolutionize content delivery. Is 360 video mostly a gimmick now? Quite emphatically yes, but it's also an immature technology that needs to increase in fidelity a lot (it will) and people need to learn how to play to its strengths (they will).
When he pointed to the video on the screen I literally just stared at him the entire time and only noticed the video was playing behind where the camera was facing, I now know I am dumber than rocks
I think it depends on the kind of video you're trying to make. I agree that 360 video is highly probably detrimental to educational content. It is best suited to creating an atmosphere. I really liked this 360 vlog, because there was nothing in particular we needed to focus on visually in order to understand the video. We can listen to your voice no matter where we're looking. So for 2veritasium, I would like all the vlogs to be 360 videos. Some other people will probably dissagree with me, so I hope you'll then go for a compromise: some (most :D) vlogs 360, some not. I think that 'the' weakpoint of 360 video is that the audience doesn't know where to look. Therefore, it is well-suited for videos where it doesn't matter much where you look (vlogs, music videos, any other video that mostly relies on audio) or for videos where creators might not want you to know where to look immediately (horror movies, as FEAFi already commented) I think there are probably other kinds/genres of videos that also fall in one of these categories, but that didn't come to mind right now. Thank you if you read all of that. Basically: 360 is not an educational revolution, but it will attract certain kind of videos.
you are assuming we'll be watching on a TV or phone. my guess is that it will be much cooler when watching on VR goggles and when directors learn to film for 360. there's a huge learning curve. when people first started filming in 2d, they kinda sucked at it for a while.
Erik Rimes you can't frame a shot if everything is in frame. 360 video when used for something like this just encourages laziness from the person filming
A film in 360 you say? So please tell me how you're gonna solve not showing all the equipment, directors, lighting crew, engineering crew, dolly's, dolly tracks, big RED camera equipment and so forth. It's not gonna happen unless its a select scene that is rendered entirely in 3d.
John Rambo Exactly, this is why practical effects have pretty much vanished from filmmaking, because while great, its impractical compared to the better options out there.
I believe it depends on the information being displayed. Having the ability to gather more detail and information from any video is very useful depending on how it is displayed
I think there is a place for 360 video. I found this one interesting cus I could look around and see the streets of some other country and listen to you talk. However, exactly as you said, it would be terrible if you were trying to show someone something specifically. I would love for this technology to advance, but I don't think it will replace anything.
I think your non-technical reasons are what makes them so interesting. To me, they are a way to explore somewhere I can't be. I don't think it's going to be something that somehow replaces normal video formats. But as an additional interactive media, especially with VR in mind, I think it's a good new thing to have. Just like with VR & video games, 360 video and traditional movies or shows won't just work. What will make 360 video interesting is the new forms of video that come from it, as well as the new forms of storytelling that don't rely on the traditional techniques (technical problems aside). Re-thinking the fundamental parts of cinematography to take the advantages of interactivity into account is what it requires to really make 360 video something that stays around as a medium. I think the problem here is that you're bothered by the fact that it isn't identical to traditional video formats, but you're attempting to force it into that mold. That you can't just do what you always do and it'll work fine. That's misunderstanding it and it's advantages; the reason that it's something new and different to begin with.
It's really very similar to video game storytelling in general. Can video games not tell stories well or teach the player because they aren't constantly guiding the eye are because they require interactivity? Of course not. As we know, they still do both, arguably for more effectively because we've learned to use that interactivity to our advantage instead.
Yeah but you want to explore because it's new. What happens when it isn't new anymore? Then you're left staring around wondering why this guy made such a dull ass video where he put barely any effort into it and just walked and talked. Having control as a cameraman lets you direct experiences instead of leaving it all to the viewer to amateurise the entire experience to hell and beyond. 360 definitely has its use, but not in the media everyone is expecting it to excel in.
Well, yeah, you can only explore one video once for the initial appeal, if that's what you mean. This is the same for every form of media, though. But as long as there is new content being made there is new things to explore. And, if the content resonates well enough, a person might want to come back and have that experience again in the future. As in video games and other interactive media, taking control away from the camera and giving it to the viewer does not mean the same thing as taking away direction. Players are still directed in single player video games to a great degree, and huge movie-quality (and many, many fantastic Indie level) stories are still told. They are directed with things like camera effects, art styles and set designs, color, lighting, sound design, and even how the player interacts with the game to begin with. All of these things can still be done. I can tell you are looking at this through a very specific lens, and it's totally understandable. But 360 video is just not traditional video. It would not have a cameraman in a normal sense. Yes, it takes control away from a cameraman in a sense, if you're really only worried about the cameraman. But, instead, you'd have a designer/director who, rather than focusing on the camera and shots as in normal cinematography, they instead craft an experience with all the tools available that let's the viewer discover the story they want to tell on their own. Cinematography would still, of course, be one of these tools (like sound or lighting or color) that are used to enhance this story and guide the viewer. So, what is the trade-off for taking that initial control away that you have in video? The viewer is no longer playing a passive role in the media they are consuming. It increases engagement, which helps with learning, remember the story, and overall makes a bigger impact on the viewer. If I had a story I wanted to tell, that sounds to me like a trade-off that's damn worth it. Honestly, if people use it to it's potential, it would have a lot more in common with other interactive entertainment, like games, than with movies or TV shows. It is slightly odd that they are the one's trying to push it.
Awesome! Nice reply! Yeah it's the same as most media, but what incentive does that give the filmer to do something cool when everything innovative and new is for the viewer to experience on their own. Cinematography tells it's own story, its a vital part of the process of creating an experience, which with real life film making already starts to show a huge amount of limitations and lack of freedom for the filmer My guess is, is that 360 videos are in a too early stage to even make use of its full potential, and the dangers of this is that people will give up on it too soon. Right now, outside of CG created environments the limitations are just too big for anyone to properly do something creative with it without it taking an impractical amount of work Video games though, i'm all with you on that. If there's a place where 360 can settle its VR. Its a perfect tool with so much freedom and practicality that you can do just about whatever you want. This is where VR and 360 will grow to become something amazing. Just don't expect it to escape video gaming anytime soon. Current 360 videos just give too much control to the viewer, and like allot of things, too much of something is bound to grow old fast. Cinematography is more then just good angles and panning shots, it tells stories, and can lift emotions of the ground. Giving too much freedom to the viewer would almost destroy the art the cinematographer wishes to show you. That said, there are definitely uses for it, 3d scenes can give a whole new meaning to VR in movies, but you can't just do a few 3d shots and switch back to standard filmmaking. It's gonna disorient the entire experience and create such an impractical workflow. Until the resolution settles at something crisp and clear i doubt that it's gonna go much further than video gaming and full on CG movies where the freedom allows you to make use of it on a practical level.
Thanks! I'm enjoying the conversation, haha. I mean, isn't the incentive to make any story in any medium at all (beyond money, of course) for people to see and be entertained by it? Maybe even impacted by it? If it were me, the fact that the viewer can experience that on their own (potentially in a more engaged way) would only make me want to explore the possibilities more, not less. Something new is sort of scary, but it's also exciting when you have stories and ideas that you really want to share with the world. And yeah, cinematography does tell a lot of the story, but there are many techniques in cinematography that could still be used in 3D video (as far as I'm aware, anyway). You can still "frame" and position the 360 camera, shots with movement still all apply, any form of cut, (depth of field?), etc. As in video games, it still plays a reasonable size role. And I wouldn't be surprised if new techniques more specific to the medium show up if the right people get into it. Traditional movies and tv had a loooooong time to develop all this stuff for cinematographers to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if the tech just isn't here yet to take huge advantage, but I wouldn't disregard the medium for it. And honestly, coming from the video game background, 360 video is an extremely limited amount of control for the viewer as far as I'm concerned. If anything, it'd get old because there's some interaction but not enough to keep engagement, but I doubt it'd be the other way around unless it's really used poorly to begin with. The point is, I think, to leverage that viewer control to the entire projects advantage. Not to try to voice existing things into it. If the project doesn't work in 360 video and doesn't gain anything from it, it's not a good idea for 360 video. As with a video game in VR, the things that will make 360 video interesting are the things that were created solely for 360 video in mind. Not with traditional cinematography in mind. It's, frankly, just not the same thing. This is why it might feel like it's destroying that art. But, really, t's just a different art that may borrow many concepts from cinematography, but certainly won't be the same or tell the same stories in the same way. After all, if it was doing the same thing as cinematography already, it'd be entirely redundant. Not a very good new technology. ;) And, as a side note, yeah. I'd be surprised to see live action do any major traditional film style stuff in 360 video ever, frankly. I can't see that style of video working in 360 video at all. I can see CG bridging the gap and playing a major role early in the life of 360 video, though. If I were attempting to make a 360 video style story myself, I'd try something more along the lines of guided atmospheric environmental storytelling, with little or no active script or traditional characters at all. If you are interested in an example of the kind of thing I mean, here is an interactive FMV (not 360 video, though) that got a lot of attention awhile back for it's uniqueness. I think it's a nice introduction thinking more like how you might do storytelling with 360 video. sortieenmer.archives.grouek.com/
It was 15 seconds before I noticed, "Hey, why's my cursor a white glove? I don't use a Mac?!" Then I understood you were talking about spherical video and so I tried dragging the image around - and it worked! Then I tried using the control arrows in the upper left corner. Hey, that worked too. This is cool! That was generally my thought process. So everything you said between the 15 and 45 second marks.... I have no idea what you said.
I'm sure 360 will have it's use, but it won't replace normal video. Especially if you make me turn arround just to see another video part. I'm lazy. I just want to sit and watch.
Nokijuxas actually I watch full hd all the time, and I noticed the video was very low quality immediately, saw it was 1080p and thought "oh well, maybe it will fix itself in a couple seconds"
You don't even have to look around lol. If you have a shitty internet connection, I empathize because I have one too, and the video quality was crap lol.
I feel like this too, it's disurbing to be able to look all around. Like I want to look at him while he is explaining things, but i know i have the possibility to look somewhere else, it makes me feel a bit weird.
360° video is not the future; it is a part of the future. It is another tool and will be appropriate where it is appropriate. Oddly, I really liked it in this video, but that was because your real content was in the audio track, so I was free to have fun looking around without missing anything. Anyone who has taught knows that teachers will never be replaced by technology, but teachers who know how and when to appropriately use technology will have an advantage over those who don't.
the fact "technology example X" hasn't revolutionized education time and time again with different technology at this point clearly has less to do with something lacking in the technologies ability to revolutionize education and more to do with the fact education system are extremely resistant to change and so most new tech that could make a big difference will never get the chance to.
That's one hypothesis. Another is that the new tech has not in any significant way provided improvements to education and therefore has not been adopted. I am of the belief that when a new technology provides a significant benefit it is adopted pretty quickly, e.g. microwave ovens, smart phones, uber, the internet, and soon self-driving cars...
Not sure what the education system is like in america but would you say schools have adopted new technology at a comparable rate as the general population? In the UK we have only just about gotten rid of chalk boards in exchange for white boards and some electronic whiteboards just installed into general classrooms where they barely work and most teachers just use them to put a textbook on the board and occasional have one student use it interactively. Schools are massive money pits yet they waste money on tech that ends up not being well implemented. Students drive spaces and even teachers are still limited to amounts in MB. The school internet connections are slow and the internet arbitrarily blocked resources like UA-cam to everyone including teachers. Students have powerful PCs in their pockets but they have to put those away and switch them off. I could go on and on about all the messed up ways schools are resistant to change in technology and all the reasons why but its a blatent issue of the school. Technology can't force itself into a school the school system has to integrate the tech itself. But that would mean a system change that will never happen when the people making the big decisions think that going back to using textbooks more is a big change. There needs to be a section to education systems that builds educational tech. Right now the way it works is companies have to try and sell their latest virtual learning environment, the latest gadgets. Some look promising but even if they but them there is next to zero training for teachers on how to use them, even if they did give enough training teachers don't have the time to do it with the work schedules they get right now.
DNCTRKS it varies a bit yeah, but public schools, private school, tech wise theres no that much difference, students in a private school will be more likely to be well rounded motivated students who just need someone to tell and show them things and they will learn. by home schooling do you mean publicly funded home schooling, or students not enrolled at a school being taught from home by their parent? because that doesnt really count as part of the education system i'm talking about. if you want to talk about budget. The school my aunt used to work at, they spent £90 million on rebuilding it only to close it down shortly after and the building is now costing the council £12,000 a day just to maintain it when its completely closed. the system is broken. i still don't understand why exam boards are private companies, educational resource makers, separate companies, all out to make profit. why doesn't the uk education have a centralised oranisation hiring teachers and designers and tech people to make resources in house that the whole country can use thats not for profit rather than every teacher in every classroom having to come up with their own resources and scheme of work? instead we get individual schools being sold tech systems that get implemented badly and teachers arent trained for. it's a mess. its an inefficient awful mess just leaking money.
DNCTRKS yes, i am aware there are some tech systems out there in schools, i am a teacher, i've worked in public and private school, i've been a private tutor and currently work for a home education service for students who cant attend a mainstream school for medical reasons. I've seen schools with hundreds of thousands of pounds of laptops that are all nicely locked away in big metal charging safes, that get used about once a term. as i have said several times now it down to lack of training, no time to do training, how well the systems are designed for education in mind. as well as how the schedules/scheme of work is so tight to get students ready for exams that there is no time to "waste" haf the lesson messing around getting 30 students set up with laptops or tablets to use software that is too much of a gimmick and not actually very educational, especially when every test they take will be them writing on paper with a pen pretty much the same answer thats have been expected of students for the past couple of decades. we teach them to be able to pass a non calculator paper as though there will ever be a time in their future when they couldn't just take their phone out thats 1000 times more powerful than the first pc i ever built and capable of doing advance calculus instantly for them. how much more do you need to understand that the education system is and has always been way behind the times for many many reasons.
man, you can't just "revolutionize" education. It's a very delicate system and screw ups are bad. And the only thing that new tech brings is just the paper content is on screen. That's it. There's a reason the education doesn't change much, it's cause it works the way it is.
this videos prooves that 360 video is really good at showing you a place. if i am in a market or similar place for the first time, i look around in exactly the same way i did in this video. it fully demonstrates the visual feel of that place. directing your focus is merely a different approach not a superior one. the truly superior approach is to have both 360 and directed video.
Hilariously enough I caught myself getting distracted by your surroundings instead of paying attention to what you said for the first 3 minutes. Your point was proven by the end of the video lol
I think 360 is great for entertainments, art exhibitions, museums, video games, etc. Just because it's unsuitable for certain needs, such as teaching, doesn't mean it's useless for everything else as well. For example, from the thing you mentioned, the over hype of motion pictures, that it would've replaced text books; though it's obviously by now not replacing text books, it still has a huge impact on life. You yourself use the tech don't you, all these videos are motions pictures don't you think?
I don't even see the need for 4k unless you have a 70 inch TV. However, for certain types of video - nature documentaries, science pieces, and media where user exploration is the point, then I see value in spherical video. Otherwise I agree that this is simply a gimmick.
I absolutely agree with that Soren, but as a domestic DISPLAY medium, which this piece is about, I think it's massively redundant. Big numbers just for the sake of it.
basically since the first 4k camera was out and anything new is 4K. Porn adapts new tech a lot faster then anything else look at VR and you already have a big library of pron in VR.
Derek, you are looking at it from a content creator's point of view. As a traveller, a 360 camera is a godsend to me. I enjoy going on long walks in foreign cities, just soaking up the atmosphere, admiring the landmarks, and having a 360 camera on a stick, sticking out of my pocket or backpack above me, I have a 3rd person view of my walk, essentially as if I had a personal drone I don't need care about and which follows me and documents the whole trip. I don't need to take photos all the time, I don't need to focus on selecting what might be interesting to watch later. Of course I still can, I still have a camera, but I don't feel the pressure of documenting those memories - the 360 camera does that for me and it is much better at documenting everything around me than me myself with any other camera ever would. So, to me, a 360 camera is a great device if you ever feel like you'd like to have a drone following you everywhere and capturing footage of everything that's around you. Another point of view - you can reframe the video any way you wish during editing and export in a classic format.
He's not saying that it doesn't have any use cases, just that there are to many problems for it to widely used. He's talking specifically about people who (back then) were saying it's the future. Like it's something that will have a big impact.
I think you're right. I'm giving immersive video a go with The Sound Traveler because I want to control the viewer's view. I'm also open to being wrong and think that shooting this video in 360 was super clever.
For your sound traveler videos to work with 360° video you would need a way to also let viewers rotate the audio with the video which isn't possible I think.
another thing 99% of people r not considering apparently including u is...... u can have a cinema in vr with the good old crappy rectangle... "very clear and focused"..... and that can transition to a proper 360 vr experience video ...part of the time
also there is a huge differece between "360 video" and a proper vr experience which is ......clear high res 3d 360 with spatial audio and good vr goggles and good headphones
+GLRaema Maybe in the future if UA-cam will bundle some surround sound codec with the videos. How hard is it to record surround sound audio by the way? Just some directional antennaes each aimed at different locations?
Aren't there even special 360° microphones?
As someone who have ADHD.. I love this video that I can look around. It make me watch ALL the video instead of just stopping the video when is bla bla..
even when its interesting I need video like Vsauce to make me listen all the video.
This one I listened more than any other "2veritasium" Videos.
I love his videos and what he say.. But I dont sub.. because I cant really focus on bla bla..
I dont see the point of video when we talk... Faces is boring to ADHD ppls.. Its so... Everyday-ish lol..
Yes body language is important.. I DO pay attention to that.. But Idk.. Feel like when things are just previsible there is no point for me to look there.
Maybe ADHD is just an evolution of a certain role of ppl..
I mean.. Some got to be distracted and NOT look ahead.. and some have to look ahead. I see that as a role.
But nowdays this "Role" is not so much useful lol.. Maybe in the future we will "De-evolve" this feature OR just find a way to make it work in this system.
Humanity is a team.. A system isn't it? ^^
i looked down at his thumb the whole time....
So did I..
were you stuck looking at his hang nail too? .. and wondering, if it's painful (it's all swollen and red, it must be)
I was going to type this exact comment!
warrenann WHOA!? REALLY!? /sarcasm
i was being a creep, staring at women as they passed us by :)
Cool experiment! You know my thoughts on this, Derek. Nobody really thinks 360 video is going to surpass or replace traditional video in any way, and if they say so then they are trying to sell you something, so I think you're maybe setting up a reality that doesn't exist. But 360 video is going to make a YUUUUUGE difference in delivering experiences… no stories, just self-guided immersion in a given environment.
Perfect case in point: Google Expeditions (which is incredible… I welcome someone trying to explain to me how it's not an enhancement over traditional video)
But yeah… 360 stories? Meh. 360 camera tech circa 2016? Double meh.
It's Okay To Be Smart I think you summed that up perfectly
I think combining 360 with AR is what's really going to be interesting, for a lot of different purposes.
Think I saw two cute girls, but to low resolution to be sure. I think you are right about 360 not being the future. Maybe if i had one of those VR glasses, but on a flat screen it does not add much, and it takes away important stuff that you mentioned in the video.
IKR
Joe, you sound so ... normal. Is that really you?
I've gotta say: this is the most entertaining 360 degree video I've seen so far. I tend to agree with you, but this video has changed my mind more than I expected.
Never expected to see you here
honestly, i really enjoyed watching this in spherical. being able to look at your environment as you walked around was way more interesting a viewing experience than if you were just going to vlog this direct to camera. not that your on camera presence isn't great, but i spent a lot of time listening to your words as i looked forward, where you were walking, what you were seeing. spherical might not work for the incredibly fact based, single-learning objective videos -- but it is a useful medium for experiences. even with crappy resolution, you took me to a place i'd never been in a way that would require a lot more production equipment/experience to feel similar in a regular ol' 2d video.
Exactly. It was a lot of fun watching him going on the street, to feel we are walking with him and taking to him, rather than staring at his face while he speaks. I think 360 videos will be immensely popular, we just need better and affordable household devices to watch them, and it will happen soon. He gives examples of how people have wrongly believed something would be very popular, but there are many times more example of how people thought a new technology will never be successful and won't replace existing tech, but it did. Infact every new technology sees this initial resistance.
Maybe thats the difference between given you an experience to explore yourself and trying to explain to you what happened. In this video he is not referncing things you should see. If he would, it would be a huge hassle to follow where he wants to point your attention.
absolutely agree
3:16
The moment I realized I could move the video around (it was a few seconds in) I was amazed. I immediately spiraled around and marveled at Seoul, the people, and the technology. And then ten seconds later, I stopped playing with it and went back to my Sudoku.
Adnan Ilyas same
Ikr and I was using a phone without a gyro, and it still felt amazing.
*seppuku
I agree with you. being able to look around is cool at first, but HAVING to look around all the time is annoying.
So life is anoing to you cause you have to look around all the time.
You don't have to use a mouse to navigate life, neither do you need to have a mess of wires around your head to navigate life
Agreed. 360 video implies there's something going on all around you, but you can only take in a small section of it at a time, so it gets really exhausting really fast. I feel like I haven't properly 'watched' until I watch the video from all possible aspects, which means it takes forever - and most of the time that's wasted, because you don't need to be looking at all angles. The material could've been better presented, tighter, and punchier with an actual editor pointing out where I should be looking.
clamo6362 you always look forward, never forward and backwards simultaneously. In this video, I want to see everything at the same time so I pause a couple of seconds to see if I miss an important detail in the video. Nobody walks around turning their head 24/7.
There are pros and cons in every new technology, you just don't get them in 360. Why would you like to force people to learn specific thing, and prevent them to look around to wonder first. But this is not the point, if people aren't interested in topic that much perhaps the other stimulation would help them to catch some unwanted information from the video, or do you think you should force them?
I really enjoyed looking around at the scenery while I listen to you talk. Can you make more videos like this?
I don't think you are wrong in saying 360 would not take over, but there is certainly a use for it, travel and exploration for those who can not afford to being the first to come to mind. If you are going to tackle interesting subjects while letting me look around a place I would otherwise never get the opportunity to see, I will literally watch all the videos you mak, and as I can not look at every single thing in one view I have incentive to rewatch some of them and as a result the subject matter would really stick. So for me personality I think this kind of video you just demonstrated is the best thing since sliced bread.
@@AnthonyRichardsez Yeah, I feel like I enjoyed this street-view video more than the last dozen tourist vlogs I've watched
Ya 360 should be a thing of mainstream videotapes I loved the view and having freedom of just wondering around
How the hell do you hold that thing out, navigate your way through all that mess, people yelling, birds squawking, etc... and somehow narrate everything so elegantly without your brain stopping at all or losing train of thought?
I think he can immerse himself into the topic, kind of makes him really intelligent...
A little thing called editing.
NZT is the shit yo.
Where do you see the video being edited, looks like he did it all in 1 take
There are a few cuts, but yea it's only one shot. It's very impressive that he's able to do this.
My game was to watch for the people who stared at the camera and then pretend I was staring right back at them...
KrazeeCain I like the way you think, gonna grab my vr real quick haha
omg... so many things to buy... nobody show this place to my mother.
😂😂😂
Charles Miller hurry up and take her to the Dollar tree store and drop her off b4 she sees it xD
Still dying of laughter with this comment.
Your walk around the street actually shows what 360 degree videos are great for. VIRTUAL TOURS! if you think about how tour groups go around in a street, even though the whole group is moving in the same direction, every individual person in the group is looking in a different direction. to bring that experience to a video format, you need a 360 video. it allows you as a virtual tourist to look at whatever you find interesting while simultaneously following the virtual tour guide or the virtual tour group wherever they are going.
Over 6 minutes in before I realized I could rotate the screen by swiping...
Alan Jeffrey thanks!
Alan Jeffrey thanks
Alan Jeffrey same hahah it started to be off
Me too lol
On phone you just see everything at the same time, and gosh, his hand is stretched all over the bottom point of the video...
Spent the entire time looking at his hands at the bottom.
Kevin Yeoh lol I did tht too
You are definitely not alone sir !
Me toooooo 😂😂😂
You are definitely not alone!
*t h u m b*
I would love to see a 360 video of you, Michael from Vsauce, Jake Roper, Hank Green, or any other science-related UA-camr all sitting at a table, having a conversation, with a 360 camera on a table exactly in the center. I honestly don't care if the video is an hour long or so.
Outstanding idea. 👏
That is actually a very interesting idea. Usually for these type of discussions you do the panel type set up, so everyone is lined up and you can see them all but that isn't at all natural. For a natural conversation, especially more casual ones, a 360 view around a table and stuff would be cool. My one concern however, is that it might be easy to get lost while trying to focus on who is talking.
If you had like a 3d headset, then that isn't an issue, but if you are doing it on a screen and have to scroll all around to see everyone, it might be a pain.
yeah, this is a case where the videos trhemselves aren't that interesting anyway, and would work just as well as audio only podcasts...
Using 360° video for "in-the-round" discussions might be more appropriate for VR headsets with good positional audio. That way, you could use souund to quickly and naturally direct your attention to the current speaker if and when you chose to, when you weren't looking at reactions to the speaker. The current mouse-dragging interface in videos like this doesn't seem like an elegant way to quickly redirect your vision _in time_ to see the source of a sound.
Really? I'd hate to be standing in the middle of a circle of four people who were discussing something, having to whirl around the whole time to see who's talking. And the video you're suggesting would just be a bad simulation of that terrible experience.
I was trying to pay attention to your words and look at the market at the same time. I did miss a lot of what you said.
Spherical video opens up the potential to visit places that one usually can't.
To look around at architecture or great wonders of nature that are dangerous or hard to reach.
For sight seeing they hold real potential.
However, for most forms of video it is the framing and editing that imparts the feel and tension, brings drama and makes points. That is how we tell stories and educate. There is little then that 360 can bring to those types of video.
I only like 360 when the videos purpose is to immerse yourself in an area or something else that would benefit from having it in a 360 form
With everything, it depends a lot on the content. Making content for 360° video can result in good experiences. Taking content that is made for "normal video", and just making it 360° just for laughs, well that'll be a bad experience.
Totally agree... sea- or skydiving, for example, where there is more than one direction that offers things to see. Alas, the quality is still subpar for these applications...
I think 360 videos are only going to work well in VR
That's why the topic is 360 VIDEOS, more precisely science videos...It can be very beneficial for other immersive content...
I feel like I am a little person being carried...I don't like it
Tucker The "Indian in the Cupboard" effect.
needs a steady cam. Looking sideways as you walk is jarring. Otherwise really cool.
looking down is really weird
I actually like this format for your vlogs. I feel like we're walking together while I listen to you, and I get to look around. It may not revolutionize anything, but it will have its niche.
I think you are right that the 360 view is distracting to the conversation, but I can also say that you are narrowly looking at this from your point of view as a teacher of stuff.
Movies will not be shot to any real effect in 360 because movies are the art of crafting the narrative, in the same vein as teaching is the art of conveying information.
Where this will really shine is in imparting an experience. Personally i was able to follow along with your talk, but i also got a knowledge of the street. Its not useful and will be forgotten shortly, but it was someplace new. Its kinda like virtual reality, most games are not going to work well with it, but in games that focus on the experience, it can be a powerful tool.
Its all about using the tools available and correctly to get the greatest impact out of your goal.
Wraith Gear I agree , in the kind of videos he does 360 video doesn't do much.
But creators like Casey Neistat that produce content based on sharing a experience can benefit from this new technology.
its not gonna replace the traditional way of film making or videos in general but it is a good method to get a point across.
@Wraith Gear
I was just about to write a comment when I realized, what I was going to write has probably already been written. Guess what, i found my thoughts. Totally agreed. Spared me several minutes, thanks :-)
cool thank you!
+
Wraith Gear yes exactly!
i think 360 videos are great for 'walkumentaries' , where a person walks through a place and tells a story about it
yes, but only not that
Don't just say "but only that". It makes you seem small-minded. It could be fun to watch 360 videos for space exploration, for riding virtual roller coasters, for deep sea diving, for watching specific events, for watching movies. There is way more potential than just walkumentaries.
TheGreatCapra just look how I edited the comment
You know what was far more interesting than looking all around during the video? Hovering over the time bar and seeing the whole picture in a box.
if you watch it on a ps3 it's the same, but on a big screen xD super annoying, stuff flies by at 200 miles an hour
If you think of 360 video as just normal video, but with more range, then yes, it's a terrible idea. But, it's a NEW medium. It'll take new thinking on how to best use it, or what content is best for it.
For the types of video on Veritasium, I wouldn't think it would always be the best choice, but take this video or your other walk and talks you do on 2veritasium, it seems like it might actually be an enhancement. I've personally watched it twice, once through looking primarily at you, but then a second time, as I scanned around and looked at what was going on around you. Double the views!
Like VR (and player controlled camera games before that), understanding how to use the medium when you don't control the users view takes time, but isn't necessarily universally better or worse, but usually better at some things and worse at others.
What types of videos would you make where HD and singular viewer focus isn't the priority? Seems like a place to begin to solve a problem.
You're correct.
He can't see it has a huge potential.
security cameras!!!
Exactly. You could think the same of 360 photography for photographers in general. Now see how it is used for Google street view and how its implementation brought multiple usages. For example just visiting a place before going there (or knowing you will never go). Just to say as you said: it depends on the pertinency of the medium for each case.
This would be amazing for something like a war documentary.
I think 360 video will stick around, because you can use it to make cool looking nature documentaries, but it will never be mainstream. Fly a drone that can take 360 video and fly it through the glacier as an iceberg cleaves off. That would be amazing footage. Or do the same why flying through a swarm of locusts, school of fish, etc.
I wonder what would happen if you flew a drone through a swarm of locusts.
In the same way it could be neat for things like snowboarding, skydiving or surfing videos. But, indeed, not for regular movies.
Yeah, it will have specific applications where it will be awesome, possibly even expected, but it's neither practical nor ideal for most video.
yeah. plain 360 is for effect only. When you put it into VR you can do a little more with it and show scale to people, as that is the one thing screens are very bad at. but then again you lose a lot of focus and direction.
Concluding from that i think 360 video would be best for VR exibitions, where you port from spot to spot and get some narration with each place. there i would not stich time but much rather space as 4th dimension, at least if time is not important for atmosphere (leaves, animals, people and grass moving). Can you still call that a video then?
VR is where 360 shines. All that other crap is going to fall off short. It just isn't meant to be like that. Director of a documentary is way better off not having viewers to be in control what they see. It just destroys the whole purpose of having a director to begin with.
I just stayed on the normal view, where you can see him talking
i enjoyed looking up at the buildings
It was funny to see the people giving him confused looks as he went past.
I enjoyed looking forward to see the city while listening (as if walking with a friend who is talking). Didn't care to watch him talk and look past his shoulders as usual, no offense. It's nice to see scenery of cities I haven't yet been to.
i looked down at his hand for ages
The problem of not being able to keep any production crew out of shot, not so much.
I'm just too lazy to move around a 360 video. Just show me what I need to see and let's get it over with...
and I sure as hell ain't strapping no tiny tv to my face!
People used to say that about watches. Yes, normal watches.
***** at the same time there are tons of accessories that never caught on to a major extent. Bluetooth headsets come to mind. Or those awful sneakers with toes.
There's really no telling what the public will love or hate.
Toed shoes are amazing for climbers and Bluetooth earpieces may just have a comeback with the rumours about the new Samsung and iPhone 7 phones. These products - if they fail to be accepted by the majority - will still fill a niche market. I don't expect the premise is to walk around with a TV permanently strapped to your face; rather, to use the technology for a particular purpose.
***** The thing is though that you don't need to create content especially designed for Bluetooth headsets. VR on the other hand requires companies to invest in reworking or creating content for VR. Which is going to be a tough sell if it's a niche market.
Still, I think VR is going to be more than just a niche thing. All I'm saying is that I personally will not strap a tv to my face, haha.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on some form of AR being more successful.
Honestly, I don't care how useful this is. The engineer inside me is absolutely in love with this tech.
I looked around a little bit in the beginning of the video, but then I thought to myself that was completely pointless, and watched the whole thing without looking around at all.
You're "supposed" to wear goggles :)
***** I agree completely. I think it's very very limited in its usefulnes :) Even with goggles you don't want to turn around like a maniac all the time.
If you full screen the video and click on the arrows in the top left corner you can then use your keyboard to control the camera angle. It made looking around very easy.
Derek, initially I thought it was lame to just find arguments against 360 video instead of trying to see if it could be useful. But you made precisely that point at the end, that we should actually be open to new stuff. I agree that storytelling with 360 video appears really challenging, and I would love to see you experiment more with it! Thanks.
For this video, you could just have listened to the audio and got the same message. The visuals were nothing but an example but, if you've already seen this kind of thing, so what? Towards the end, I scrolled down through the comments since the visuals were altogether pointless regarding the point he's making.
This video is not drunk friendly. I shall visit later time.
No you didn't but funny lol!
Did you ever visit it
@@NooneStaar Thank you for reminding. Now this later time that I have visited and watched this video, I think it is not sober friendly either.
@@Fawerown Thank you for following up and reporting your finding.
I believe that 360 will fill an interesting niche, but otherwise that you are correct.
Exactly i think there are some nice uses for this, but for most purposes it would be a distraction. But you dont have to go all the way to 360. Imagine a VR movie with 210 degree vision where you can slightly move your head to get immersive super widescreen but still see the center focus point. And for documentaries it would be great for some scenes, but not others. This switching however is not very appealing to the user.
Decus, I agree. I can see some interesting utilitarian uses. Perhaps in the real estate business. Surveillance and live news reporting comes to mind as well.
VR Headsets are really good for games, but for video, films and the like they remove the viewpoint that the director wants you to see and look at which makes them worse.
I see 360 as one tool, and it can be used well or badly. I think the best uses (at the moment) are when tracking, panning, tilting zooming decisions are made in post, then exported in standard formats. You shoot 360° but direct the viewers' attention where you want it. You can cover a scene in one take, one camera, one setup, then use various parts of it in various ways.
360 video actually works well in this case since you aren't trying to show us something. All you are doing is talking so it isn't necessary for us to even watch the video. I could have technically opened another tab and just listened to you. It didn't work well when you wanted us to look at that tennis ball video since you have to get viewers to turn around and focus on something.
I decided to stay and look around at things because it isn't something i normally get to see. I can also choose to look at you or i can see other things. That's one thing I don't like about your other videos compared to this one, you are walking around in fascinating places but you only show us your face but i want to see what you are seeing.
Exactly.
I missed the start of the video with the girls because I was looking away. That just demonstrates Derek's point.
same, i didnt notice it played until he pointed at it :/
Just because it doesn't distract you as much does not mean it works well. Yes, you could just open another tab and just listen. But the file sizes and upload times of 360 videos are so big and long so it is worth it? Furthermore, most videos do want you to focus on one thing that is happening. Listening and looking around is ok or even good in this case, but it is not necessary. You could Google pictures up, so they would be less grainy than in the video. Even if these technical things were fixed, there is still a question: Do you really need 360 degrees of vision for your field of sight, a fraction of that amount?
Randumb Person oh i agree, theyre not needed but theyre not pointless/detrimental in this context atleast :P
I spent the entire video looking at the shops around him... Never knew every 5th shop in Korea was for optical glasses.
thaghost lol
near-sightedness is a huge problem, especially in Asia, so it makes sense. But yeah, I didn't know they had so many shops :D
They are laundering money :-D
That's actually because of the place he's at. It's called Namdaemun Market. Other neighborhoods have different varieties of shops. But still, you're right... that was also a suprise for me. I don't remember seeing that many when I lived there. Maybe I just didn't pay attention to them.
Anyone else not know it was 360 video for a few minutes? lol
HellzJanitor Yep. I didn't realize it until I rubbed my screen to get a bit of dirt off it.
HellzJanitor Lol. No.
HellzJanitor I couldn't figure out why all I was seeing was Derrick's hands (I watch videos with my phone flat on the table).
Then, when I realized it was a 360 video I had to hold the phone straight out in front of my face to see him speaking. Very uncomfortable. Who watched UA-cam with their device held straight out in front of their face. 360 videos need to be shot at a 45 degree angle so that they can see the speaker at a comfortable angle - like help in their hand below the face.
glennac you can move it with your finger so while it's flat on the table it's in the right orientation.
glennac I watch videos on my bed so I just rest my device on my stomach while holding it up so it doesn't fall.
I might have been staring at your chest all the time wondering why on earth you'd choose that angle.
Guess the jokes on me
I think both 360deg and standard video both have their place.
This video would have been much more focused on the topic at hand in standard video.
However I would have not gotten the ability to see the setting, it was really interesting to look around the environment you were in with 360 deg vision. See all of the tiny shops crammed with goods, see the local culture.
Structured narrative content should be fixed viewing (2d or 3d). But I 100% believe there is a place for 360deg video. Especially for capturing a place at a given moment in time.
I think what I said will be the general way that things are, but there will be some exceptional exceptions to it.
Just tried this video in Cardboard. Was awesome.
well said. I agree.
Look straight down and see his hand holding nothing
I spent most of the video watching his hands :)
Yes, hands :D
I angled the camera down towards his hand and couldn't stop laughing
Scrolled down just to see if anybody else noticed that. So gross. 8(
It's like like Hanson from Scary Movie 2. _TAEK MAH HAND!_
MY STRONG HAND
Vito C I also did and it didn't impress me at all, let alone unstopable laugh
I was just watching this on my phone while sitting down, holding my phone down in my lap, pointed upwards, and I didn't actually realise what it meant that the video was 360 so for like three or four minutes literally all I saw was his hand and I genuinely thought that was just it...
I like that EVERYONE is turning around and looking at you xD.
I dont like 360 because I can't look at everything at once and I'm afraid I'm going to miss something
That is life you will miss a lot, but you can see so much more than in only his "selfie" vlog. It is like if you don´t want to jump to pool full of money just because you are afraid that you will not get every penny...
+Drual
Well said.
If he didnt record in 360, he wouldve shown the things he wanted to show. which are probably the things i want to see or require to see the understand what he's talking about. i think 360 can be situationally perfect though.
I can't believe so many people liked this comment. People miss things constantly. Its like a law that somewhere a human is missing out on something. I actually think the missing out on things is an advantage of 360 videos. You can replay it and experience something new and different multiple times. That could lead to awesome videos with non-linear storytelling. Like having a famous speaker making a speech in front of you in a crowd, but if you look behind you or to the side, you can see an assassination attempt unfolding, no cutting necessary for the details. You don't have to look unless you want to. Very complex and immersive stories could be told. If we have the bandwidth for it....
Anthony Baker lol I haven't got that much time on my hands I have something called a life
I love looking at all the people going past
yea you can eyeball ppl without making mutual eye contact.
It stays unnaturally still.
with the expression of your avatar?
Enkii Muto Correct
look at his fingers holding the camera
I think 360 is a useful tool, but not good for entertainment. For instance, in CCTV security footage it would be useful.
I can't say it better .. The world of videography is big and expanding and always the question is what the right tool to get the wanted result.
it would also be interesting for things like music festival streaming
ironically this video demonstrates a perfect usage case for the tech.
I think that's a very limited view point(get it). But in all seriousness I think 360 video is a tool that can be used by engineers and artist alike, and used properly will give us some awesome results. It's kinda like CAD(Computer Aid Design) and 3D computer graphics software like Blender are basically two different applications of the same technology. It's probably not useful for most traditional types videos, but I'm sure somebody is going make really awesome and fun videos using this tech.
Said that people thought motion pictures would replace books. They didn't but they have their very own charme and place in our world. People still read books and watch movies (or youtube videos) and that's what 360 videos will do too. It's up to our creativity to make interesting content for it showing something you can't show with normal videos to make them earn their place where no other medium can get.
i’ve never disagree with you until now, i watched this video with you talking in the background while scanning the view around you and it was like i was walking with you in the street and talk to you, i was able to look at all those markets i wanted to look at unlike these videos when the cameraman just rotates it and you feel like oh man but i wanted to see that!! i have never been able to travel abroad but this experience felt like i’m visiting a new place! it was awesome! and of course even in real life the option of looking out at every single place around you can make you feel dizzy but the beauty is that *you* choose where to look at as in real life and in this virtual reality this is physically way more easy to look around you on everything with only your finger instead of your whole head. i didn’t think of that topic before but after this video i wish that you are wrong because if 360 cameras will be our future everything can step ahead in this media world, there are so much things to do with this technology! and the technology will get better only if people actually give it a try and start using it, then it will naturally evolve over time.
I was wondering why my cursor turned into a little hand. I didn't realize the video was 360 until he said 'granted you are getting a nice view' lol...
exactly the same!
x2eXu50x u
I kept thinking, when does this video become spherical, based on the thumbnails. Took me a bit to realize earlier thumbnails looked spherical, and it was because the youtube video was only showing one direction...
*Problem 1: Resolution*. I don't agree. We've all seen how fast we've increased the resolution. It will probably be in actual HD in only a few years. Same goes for the bandwidth that you were talking about. It has increased a lot these last years, and will probably keep doing so.
*Problem 2: Most things are far away*. I don't agree. I've never felt the need to zoom in on a regular video or a spherical video. There will always be a background, but if the cameraman knows how to be a cameraman he will be going close to the things that is of interest in the video, just like they do with regular videos.
*Problem 3: Our brains don't work in this way*. I don't agree. While we can only look in one direction at a time in this video, we do the exact same thing in real life. In real life we choose where to look just like we can do in a spherical video.
*Problem 4: Lacks ability to direct attention*. I don't agree that it's a problem. In theaters the audience can look at whatever they want, and the actor has to be interesting in order to keep people's attention toward him. If you are the most interesting thing in the video, people will be looking at you. If you are extremely boring while walking around some funny things, people will look at the funny things. Why shouldn't we be allowed to look at what's interesting to us? We're all different.
*Problem 5: You'll miss some things (basically)*: Yes, but you also miss everything that is around a regular video, even if you wanted to look at something specific. But I do agree that a spherical video could be bad for education, if it's isn't used right.
*Problem 6: People overstate what spherical videos could do*. Partly agree. I probably won't be amazing, and sometimes a regular video will be better, but for many kinds of video or even movies spherical cameras could be great!
These are all my personal opinions. I'm not saying that I'm right or that 2veritasium is wrong. Just telling you all how I see things.
I'm not sure you understand what bandwidth is if you think "extending it" is simply a matter of improving technology.
if it's not so simple can you explain it better then? please try not being a pretentious ass because you may or may not understand a subject. correct them and inform them how it really works. small acts of education are not meaningless and make the world a better place by improving us who live here.
I enjoyed this video more because I could look around in 360°. There were several moments when I saw someone or something happening that made it more enjoyable to watch.
himan12345678 I love how me saying "I'm not sure you understand X if you think Y" is taken as an *extremely rude* comment but you get to call me a "pretentious ass" all willy nilly. I am left wondering whether you are inherently confrontational OR inherently hypocritical as a person.
In any case, bandwid th as it is defined for transmission of data over the internet is dependent on multiple factors, of which the physical capabilities of your receiver are just one. There are other factors, such as internet protocols, that create overhead at an unavoidable amount, and the technology of the source server (which you have no control over) as well as, as may be the case, cross-server communication. There are even limitations caused by the very laws of physics, simply, the impossibility to determine frequency with sufficient accuracy so that said interval could be used losslessly for data transmission (admittedly, we are not at that point yet, but it IS a real wall).
Now, simple question. What is more useful for the practically-minded person? Reading the anterior wall of text that is necessarily abbreviated anyway, or simply taking it at face value that yes, extending bandwidth is hard and tricky? My 2 cents.
Tudor Naconecinii I do understand. I've even taken specialiced courses to learn more about networks. Bandwidth, simply stated, is the amount of data you can transfer.
Quite recently my home got a cable upgraded to Fiber, making it able to transfer data faster. Both my router and my computer are faster than the previous ones I had too, making them able to send and recieve data faster. Not that the computer usually is the bottle neck.
It can obviously be improved by technology. Do you think we could have had the servers we have today, 20 years ago? No, because of technology. It keeps getting better.
well its not revolutionary
but its not useless either
agreed
It is a LITTLE revolutionary, after all it does turn around ;)
They have a lot of good purposes in my opinion but for a planned video not so much. When used as a camera to capture something that is bound to go off semi randomly out of frame this could be a good backup camera.
Beyond that I really love these cameras for security purposes and oddities like showing an environment where you walk through a building or scenery and the viewer can choose to pause and what to look at. Higher resolutions would be a a nice to have though.
Depending on the content that you’re creating, it could be the best tool. We all need to choose the right tools for the job. Sometimes spherical video might be the best. Why not?
Exactly, why look at an innovation and try to dissuade people from using it just because it doesn't perfectly replace a previous tech?
I don't think he's arguing that it shouldn't exist. I think he's arguing that it's not going to take over the domain of video like it was being hyped up to do.
Your first point (resolution and bandwidth) is pretty silly. Ten years ago, you could have made exactly the same argument and concluded that UA-cam will never work.
Point four (the film maker wanting to direct our interest) is a much better point, for most situations. The Alaskan cruise seems like exactly the sort of case where 360 is a huge win: the whole landscape is the subject, if you will, and allowing people to explore that from their own viewpoint sounds like a big win. On the other hand, you doing a piece to camera while walking through a market is obviously a terrible choice for 360. The market is an irrelevant distraction to what you're saying, and people want to watch you, rather than it. In this case, the immersive experience is imagining that you're talking directly and personally to me, not imagining that I'm walking through a marketplace.
Point six _is_ the point: 360 does look pretty good for atmospheric shots. That's it's niche. Ultimately, it seems that you're arguing against the strawman that every video will be shot in full 360,. Any worthwhile piece of video is shot using a number of different techniques. Sometimes, 360 will be an appropriate technique for some parts of a video; most of the time, it won't be an appropriate technique for most parts of a video. You know, just like slow motion or timelapse. But you don't bother making a video pointing out that we shouldn't shoot 100% of our footage in timelapse.
I was going to comment something along the lines of this but, you said way better than I ever could.
But all videos should be shot in 8K 10000 FPS 360 slow motion...
👌
beeble2003 You said everything I was thinking. Very nice!
it's a point nevertheless, and it will get better in probably only 3-4 years
But hey, his other points is on point (no pun intended)
+beeble2003
"The market is an irrelevant distraction to what you're saying, and people want to watch you, rather than it."
I disagree that this is universal:
-I spent much of the time enjoying the interesting market (often looking left/right)
-I disliked looking "behind me" and watching the speaker
-When I got bored of looking around I wanted to look straight ahead
I agree with the rest of what you say, however.
Thanks for the hint where to look at :-) It showed the Problem very well. I think the main problem ist storrytelling. So as allways there will be applications for 360 like real estate videos for example, but i don't see it as a future format vor all kind of videos.
An Addition: It could work as a bonus on veritassium Videos. Let's say you happen to visit a telescope or some other place normaly not open to the public. Shoot a bonus video vith a walk through in 360 to watch in addition to the main Veritasium video. So everyone can explore it.
nice idea! :)
Yes I agree, mixed single frame and 360 video will be an important step. A format with a director controlled viewpoint that can be switched to a user controlled viewpoint will give us the best of both worlds and change the way the world is captured while maintaining a strong storytelling focus that is so important for content creators.
I think you're wrong. But not because your points are wrong, but rather the concept you're starting with is wrong.
360 video isn't "the" future, rather it's "a" future. Your video is actually an excellent example of a successful way to use 360 video. It was really fun to be able to look around the same way I would have been if I was there in person. Taking in the surroundings and being oo'd and ah'd by things. It didn't distract me at all from the conversation you were having with the viewer either.
Will 360 replace normal video? Absolutely not. But I do think it will grow and find a comfortable niche.
I agree, it is just like taking a walk with someone, you can enjoy the walk and listen to person without a problem. 360 could be interesting, I can image an immersive point of view film with a story. Where you are seeing the world from the view of the main character (There is one movie that is made entirely pov but with normal camera). It would be quite similar to a video game. 360 is also great for landscapes or filming some extreme sports.
360 will find its place but "normal" filming gives a lot more opportunities for artistic expression.
Bingo! You said the same point that I tried to say, but you said it better.
Alexandr Korekov you've never been a tourist, eh? :)
Also, how many people do you walk with where one of you is walking backwards so you can be face to face the whole time? Cause that's just impressive :D
Isn't that what he was saying the whole time ? He said it's not the future, and that's the exact same thing you said, he could be willing to accept that it is a future, but mainly he was proving that it isn't THE future.
Alexandr Korekov
Oh come on, you never had conversation while driving a car or cooking? You don't need to look at the person to pay attention on what they are saying.
I think 360 video is always going to have it's place. Whether it's appropriate to use or not is going to be decided on a case by case basis and depend greatly on the subject matter. I don't know if this is a thing yet, but I think also limiting the very to less than 360 is going to important too.
For example: During a lecture the camera can be placed close up to the person giving the lecture. Being close up to the speaker is generally more interesting than having the camera way in the back. Giving the person watching the ability to rotate the video a few degrees left and right (and maybe up and down) will allow them to do things like move the camera to look at some notes the person wrote on a white board earlier that they might have missed or need to review.
Sure they cold just rewind the video, but that breaks the momentum of the speech and means they have to look scrub through the video to find were the notes were written or talked about and then try to find the moment they left off from when they go back. Doing something like this might even be entirely impossible during a live stream presentation.
I'll tell you what though, the immersion with a 360 video is amazing. Looking around the market, it really felt like I was actually there with you, looking around. I agree with the fact that 360 isn't going to replace cinematics any time soon, and neither should it They are two very fundamentally different things. But for videos like these? Maybe some documentaries like mentioned at the start? I would love that (Barring the shitty quality and that jarring line in the middle where the sphere meets itself).
Doomlazy Something can be immersion in 8 bit pixelart you know. While resolution obviously helps (quite a lot in this case because the quality, as you said, is potato), it's not everything. I had a great experience looking around the market in this video. But I'm not saying I wouldn't have had a greater experience if the quality wasn't better.
Oh yes, 360 144s 15FPS and Shit internet go well together.
This is pretty cool in mobile, but it's not perfect, it's slowly drifting away, by the end of the I was stating straight upwards even though I was still gazing the exact same way.
MrAntieMatter you can drag the screen to move the footage :)
Part of the problem for 360 video is that some action is required of the the viewer. I watched this video on my desktop computer. At the beginning, I looked around a bit but after a few seconds, I just wanted to sit back and watch. When it came time to change the angle of view to see the video clip I did nothing. Even when it comes to interacting by leaving a comment that is usually done after the video is finished. I think it will be a much more engaging experience when we are all watching these videos using a 3D headset allowing us to change the viewing angle by simply turning our head. This is a much more natural way to interact with a 3D video and may be the necessary tool needed for a more widespread adoption of this new technology.
Yeah I agree with that. A headset is going to greatly improve it over having to scroll all around by hand. That or we get technology to just scroll around telepathically.
Good luck turning your head 180
Swivel chairs
yes, but it still seems like a niche. I think 360 videos are only useful for specific situations, otherwise it is just distracting. It has to be used just right.
If the director controls the shot then it's not really a 360 video, but 3D via VR goggles.
5 years later, and there's almost no 360 videos. looks like derek was right.
I find that using 360 video when talking about something while walking gives the viewer more to look at and interact with instead of encouraging the viewer to let it run in the background while s/he does something else.
I agree for once I was actually looking at the video all the way, then again, I was barely watching derek. Although it felt more like I was walking with him on some street in Seoul.
Exactly, you get a package deal that is relevant to the topic at least in most cases so it's got it's charm. Still no replacement for traditional flat shot filming
it is good for experiencing a place. you can turn your "head" and get a better picture of what is around the person. i only look side to side or up and down as opposed to behind the way the person is facing (while walking). so, it may work better if it was only the front hemisphere because then the person filming could orient it in the direction they were facing. thus, you could "experience the moment with them". just a thought, take it with a grain of salt.
You are both right and wrong. Watching a film (and other examples you mentioned) is much better to be presented in the current form, everything you say about that is correct.
However, your own video disproves your statement. No one wants to watch your face for 6 minutes as you talk, but I had fun watching the streets and shops of a far away country while listening to you. Similar to how I listen to a podcast while doing other things.
If it's not a guided experience but a world to explore, 360 can offer much more information and the ability to rewatch the same video to learn even more.
Alicorn I completely agree with you. In some cases, it provides a much better experience for the audience. For example, there are some rollercoaster review videos in 360 which have amazingly indepth videos with plenty immersion. This immersion makes the video even better because instead of saying "That looks like fun" they will say "That WAS fun, I want to do that in real life."
I completely agree.
I agree. movies, documentaries, and things like that are made to show something specific and it doesn't make sense to have people looking around. But I honestly spent most of the video watching the interesting scenery. As far as immersion goes, it felt like I was going on a stroll with Veritasium just hanging out and browsing a bizarre.
So yeah, I agree, his video disproves his point.
I also feel in walking shots it's much more natural to be moving in the same direction as the speaker. It's like you're walking and having a conversation with them. It's quite odd to stare at someone who's only talking and be moving backwards. There's a bunch of use cases where a 360 option makes for a great video.
I feel like it's better to shoot in 360, then edit the video to show the most interesting parts. My biggest problem with 360 is that moving around is slow and choppy, and I often have to rewatch videos several times in order to see the best angles.
I foresee virtual tourism emerging through this technology. Bad day at the office? Log into our Venice Gondola stream, or soak up the City of Lights with our Paris walking tour. 360 video is good for atmosphere, ambiance, not narrative.
Found this almost 5 years later. The first half about resolution seems pointless now. The second part where you would be distracted from the presentation is 100% true and I agree with that WHEN you're supposed to focus. I mean, when I watch a movie I don't want it to be a 360 presentation so I can see people sitting in the theater :D HOWEVER I think 360, virtual reality crazes have vanished a bit but I think they are useful when you want to actually explore a place without particularly focusing on someone talking or presenting something. It's like virtual travelling. That's when I think it makes senseto use this.
You are completely missing the point. You souldn't expect 360 video format to become the only video format available in the future, it's just another tool that video editors and directors can now use to tell their stories. It's good for some tasks like showing an immersive beautiful landscapes and bad for other tasks like showing a video where the viewer is supposed to look at something specific like that tennis ball example. People are so quick to come to conclusions. Oooh we invented the internet - lets burn all the paper books, oooh we invented a CGI - lets make all movies in cgi now, oooh we created a phone - lets not talk to people in person now..
Миша Шевченко yeah you didn't watch the whole video, and if you did you missed the point by a couple miles. the point where he's talking about Edison and motion pictures replacing textbooks. his argument here isn't that 360 video shouldn't be used, he just feels like its not a replacement for anything like a lot of people seem to think.
***** you seem to miss my point. He said that he doesn't see how 360 video can become mainstream, my point is that you SOULDN'T even expect it to become mainstream. Every time a new technology is created people always say "this is it, it's gonna change the world" and that's wrong. You can't always predict these things.
Yes but people do and he's refuting that saying that it really can't as its not ideal for that purpose
Zoom down to look at his hand and then spin it around.
Thanks for making me barf
I agree. It's not going to replace regular video, though in the gaming industry it's going to be evolving like crazy.
One positive I found from this format in your video is that I was able to look at other things, which actually helped me to focus on the subject of the video. Sort of like how you don't simply stare at someone constantly when they are talking to you, because it feels natural to avert your gaze and makes listening a bit more relaxed.
I was staring at his hand for half the video before I figured out the camera moves
I think your walk and talk videos are the perfect application for 360 video
Exactly. The resolution is a little annoying and, if i see on mobile in bed, I would have troubles to look where I would like. But, I liked it. I think new tools can do everything from good to terrible. Is up to the content creator to use that for a good reason. When you do a podcast, you don't do the same way as vlog.
So, if want to shot a 360 documentary, you can't try to prove a much linear point with the visuals. And the public doesnt have any good means to watch a full-length documentary in 360 in a confortable way.
I think if 360 is going to be successful, it relies on achieving widespread use of VR headsets, because without VR headsets, 360 video is exponentially more difficult to watch.
there is a potenial damage to the eyes, watching something that close will strain the eyes. So in a way 360 video may not be successful.
even with VR headsets, it is still a huge distraction, unless it is just a casual video without a particular focus. however, i am sure these kinds of video will be quickly fade away as people find it boring.
VR headsets actually reduce eyestrain by having your eyes focus at infinity.
I agree that a headset increases the immersion. However I'd argue that holding your phone up and spinning around is the next best thing. Given there are very few comfortable GUI's that support being in VR (UA-cam included, shame on them), a headset becomes an extra step you have to "choose" to want to engage with prior to even loading the video. Then once the video stops, oh no, you have to take it off your head, select something else, and put it back on again. It's great fun but it's currently very very messy.
I think it's only useful for visiting places, because that when you turn to look everywhere.
I feel like for educational videos probably 360 isn't the way to go however for vlogs it would be really cool and this video of you walking down the street was really fun and I believe it has a future in videos such as this one where there is a place to discover
D'accord; 360 suits many 2veritasium videos.
I personally don't think 360 video helps vlogging. I think it's more likely to help skits. Check out "Sleep No More" immersive theater which is a theater show where you can walk around the set/scene (in real life) and look where you want. I could see 360 Video becoming something like that
Smart people once said the same thing about telephone and radio. Sure, 360 video is stupid for things like vlogs and movies, but it definitely has a niche. Especially for things like virtual tours.
So, basically it's the video equivalent of a View-Master.
I don't think View-Master has movement tracking? I don't know. I've never had one
xbmc xbmc Yeah kinda. Virtual Reality is huge with a bright future. Every VR headset is just a glorified viewmaster (stereoscopic viewer) for 360 video.
It's not even that though. His main objections are resolution and bandwidth... which are both short-sighted. Resolution just requires better camera sensors being cheaper, which I find mass production accomplishes quite well. For bandwidth... yeah wtf. My entire city and the surrounding areas have gigabit fiber internet service. And it's not even a huge city. The point is that increasing bandwidth is simply a matter of literally just going ahead and doing it. Even with wi-fi, where speed caps and range can be an issue, you can quite easily just increase the access point density so it isn't so sparse and there's less interference.
It's not even that though. His main objections are resolution and bandwidth... which are both short-sighted. Resolution just requires better camera sensors being cheaper, which I find mass production accomplishes quite well. For bandwidth... yeah wtf. My entire city and the surrounding areas have gigabit fiber internet service. And it's not even a huge city. The point is that increasing bandwidth is simply a matter of literally just going ahead and doing it. Even with wi-fi, where speed caps and range can be an issue, you can quite easily just increase the access point density so it isn't so sparse and there's less interference.
You may be right but this video is proof of why you should do 360. I never would've known the things i learned about the open markets in this place you visited. We see a wealth of culture here, how the local population interact and come about their goods. I would've never been able to see the one lady in the pink shirt standing in the doorway as you passed her on your right giving you an odd look, giving me the indicator that you are odd, but she stares more at the camera which makes me question the look of the device and how odd it must be to look at it rather than through it. To your point yes, you can't direct the viewer to the information you want but we don't get that luxury in life either so a social commentary while we walk through the streets being allowed to observe as we individually see fit forces is to be observant ourselves in the first place. The things I wished to learn and the things you would have liked me to learn can always be wildly different. Do I think 360 will take over? No. Should everything be filmed in 360? No. Does it have it's uses? Absolutely. To think of a film as being solely the responsibility of the creator is selfish and wrong, we as the viewer hold the other half of that responsibility. If you wish to show us a busy market place where it is impossible to track one thing without missing something else, 360 is a must. It allows the viewer the liberty of discovery. Being allowed to discover is it's own type of learning. But you know all that already, don't you?
Completely aggreed, it will be very usefull for some stuff (this kind of video ironically might be one of the places where it is kinda usefull), and other things it will be useless, if not plain out dumb to do
So you proved him right trying to prove him wrong.This video was not about Seul market, people or anything was on screen, it was about 360 videos. This could have been an audio podcast, and the message would have passed through. I haven't see the lady you talked about, so if the video was about people reactions, I would have missed her. It's good to show places? Sure... Showing places conveies a message? Absolutely not, as he explained it just leaves to exploration.
Hose Clamp I agree completely. In fact, if he were giving some sort of teaching about a subject, 360 means I would watch the same video multiple times trying to take everything in; so the audio repeating each time would really help drive the point home.
I think there’s a huge potential for 360 video if someone can figure out how to do it right. The lack of linear focus actually could help rewatchability because every persons experience is different. Open World video games are designed to not have a linear structure, but many still take it as an art medium because of what you can fit into a video game. You could even use the same focus strategies paintings use to give more of a central focus. The bandwidth problem could be solved by having movie theaters start using 360 video. Movie theaters are slowly but surely losing money due to streaming, but giving a new focus, and using existing technology that brings something new and exciting to the table, might save movie theaters worldwide. Their only problem is lack of movies. I’ve only seen one feature length film on UA-cam, and even that film looked like it was on a serious budget. The problem seems to be that technology is moving faster than creators right now. It’s the same problem vr is facing at the moment. If we give creative people the time to put in a serious amount of effort we may very well have a new art medium. Do I think it will take over movies or make movies obsolete? Probably not. But will it be a tool many artistic people can use to their advantage in the future, I don’t really see why not.
360 works on a limit sets of occasions. Lets see you want to take people on a video to experience the surface of Mars. Or maybe swim around bacteria or cells. In those scenarios I can see a very good application. Even in movies, but that movie must be design for that, and Im not sure if it will hold for a two hour one.
I saw drift and rally videos shot in 360 and it was amazing! Apart from the low resolution.
Where it doesn't matter where you look. But most of the time, it does matter.
Pretty much, I don't see it ever becoming more than a niche thing.
Talk shows and interviews might actually be very good in 360 (if you have a headset).
I think it could hold for two hours, given that the HMDs are comfortable enough, and the video is clear enough. We just need to do, as you said, design for it. Make the movie not just take place in front of the watcher, but all around them. Yes, there will be times that focus on a certain place could be important for the story (but I'd argue not paramount if you can still hear what is going on) but the actions of the movie could happen all around the viewers just like it does in life. But then I'm talking more about true VR movies and less about 360 movies in this case. Though I agree that 360 video will have specific uses. Still specific uses and niche do not equal fad.
"Do you think it's constant or do you think it's speed was changing?"
"Constant"
Well there's two people who failed GCSE Science.
"Wait, I think I once heard something about Galileo and falling objects... hmmm, changing speed sounds like the obvious answer so I'll play it smart and choose 'constant'..."
exactly what i thought
It's incredible how people can get to that age and be so incredibly ignorant about the world around them. I think I probably knew about acceleration due to gravity when I was probably no older than 5 years old, maybe even before. I certainly remember being told about the “Monkey and the Hunter” thought experiment when I was probably about 6 or 7 and thinking that it was so obvious that I was amazed at how my classmates didn't realise what was going on.
Daan
I remember you... you were one of my clueless classmates, right? The one who used to stick crayons up his nose.
Nah man. You must be trippin balls.
Hmm, I think you make fair points but I also think 360 video has its uses. It's definitely not going to, nor should it, replace regular video entirely but when its advantages are leveraged it can be very useful. As for directing the viewer, the same principles apply as in theatre. How to direct the audience to look in a certain place. I think of this new format as a new opportunity and a new challenge rather than to dismiss it outright as a fad. It will be niche, that's for sure.
*Challenge in terms of the technology as well as the artistic side.
I'd add that, since interactivity is being added, there should also be parallels in how narrative-driven video games direct their players. And we've seen how interactivity alone can be leveraged for story telling and increased engagement/immersion for decades now in that industry.
May be we should see Nat geo videos in 360 to know the advantages of 360 videos
360 video is cool, it's just never going to replace traditional "flat" filmmaking techniques. It's an addendum - a new style that has yet to really be figured out - for some things it might really work, for others it won't.
One thought to chew on - perhaps the draw of the 360 headset is you get a much more immersive screen. Instead of watching it on the confines of your phone, the viewing area now encompasses you entire periphery. Perhaps thinking in terms of that (scale) is a better direction that constantly having stuff pop up behind the viewer.
1. Resolutions will obviously improve. Bad argument. Bandwidth will improve too.
2. Zooming on 360 will also not be a problem. Extremely weak argument.
3. Are you forgetting that VR makes 360 perfect. It makes the video viewing experience MORE like how real humans see the world not less. On top of that even in the 2D player we are still looking at and focusing on the exact same real-esate on the screen. The same amount. Only it's interactive and we get to choose where we look. Where else do we see this? Video games. I guess those aren't successful for this reason as well? (Oh wait, they are wildly sucessful.) Not only is this a bad argument... examination of the argument leads to pros of 360 video, not cons.
4. Sounds like a selfish and personal reason... not really anything against 360. End of the day the consumers drive the technology and not the content creators.
5. I'm not going to debate with you on learning (even though I don't fully agree) but this fifth point is literally nothing to do with 360 video. And is even only tangental to "teaching" 360 videos.
6? control is out of the hands of the creator? No. Does a stage performer somehow lose something by allowing the audience member's heads to move? No. Think about how magicians can control where people look and what they focus on without actually physically controlling their head or eyes. Is it more challenging? Yeah. Is that a bad thing? Not at all.
7. All of your examples were really bad and didn't help your case. Motion pictures didn't replace books... but motion pictures are insanely popular. (Way more than books.)
So you are saying that 360 won't replace 2D video... but will just be wildly more successful than 2D video?
You are looking at 360 video with a very very narrow lens. Only in education. Try to be more open minded and examine everything objectively before jumping to a conclusion. (You know, like scientists do.)
By the way, I watched the whole video looking in the direction you were walking. I was able to get everything you said just fine without looking at or focusing on your face.
It actually felt like we were walking together and having a conversation.
I agree with his points about SPECIFICALLY videos.(more so for movies and shows) It is unfeasible for the industry to stage and make movies in an artistic way, seeing as it gives more personal perspective. Movies are a NARRATIVE, thus personally interjecting yourself defeats the purpose of trying to push a specific view point.... When you think of movies/shows shot in 360, it becomes infinitely harder from an artistic and a functionally viable stand point.
That being said, I doubt 360 videos will replace movies in the same way that movies 'replaced' books, however, 360 is NOT a fad. I do own a Vive, and have not regretted the purchase once. You are arguing with focus on more than just video, which is what most of the comment section is doing. (they say that it is a fad or not useful for entertainment, which is false for anyone who has actually used 360 games or environments via VR)
In fact, 360 (in real life) for movies and shows do exist, and are already MUCH less common. Going to a play, or murder mystery, things like that, are examples were the world is around you, and you can view as you are there. You can even interact with things like murder mysteries... and yet there is still very little industry comparatively to the movie industry.
Bridden They are much less common because the market is emerging. I've already begun to see a spike in 360 video content and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
So many times in history people have labelled technology as a "fad" and quite often they were completely wrong.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
"Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
Darryl Zanuck, executive at 20th Century Fox, 1946
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
"Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse."
Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995
Maybe soon we will be quoting Derek here?
I think we haven't even unlocked the full potential of 360 yet. It has a LOT of potential and I have no reason to think it won't do well.
Regardless... none of Derek's arguments were good arguments. Even if 360 goes away and is just a fad, it won't have made his arguments any less wrong.
I found it especially odd that he said "In 2013 they said online video courses would revolutionize education", with the implication that they didn't. It's been three years! That's like someone looking at ARPANET in 1976 and dismissing the chance that computer networks will revolutionize content delivery.
Is 360 video mostly a gimmick now? Quite emphatically yes, but it's also an immature technology that needs to increase in fidelity a lot (it will) and people need to learn how to play to its strengths (they will).
you're not wrong,... 360 is pointless
Correct, there's no focus point, you can look all around. :P /s
So it's like real life, you can watch the guy talking OR look around and see what else is going on, also TOTAL focus point in VR Porn, Just saying.
did you just made a joke and no one understood?
until we find a usecase for it...
It could replace imax in a cinematic way. Planet earth in ultra mega imax HD 360 would be awesome.
When he pointed to the video on the screen I literally just stared at him the entire time and only noticed the video was playing behind where the camera was facing, I now know I am dumber than rocks
Omg when I realized that this is filmed in 360 and I can look around...
If your pc is configured correctly you can use your mouse and turn the view around and see every thing and every body around. neat huh
I think it depends on the kind of video you're trying to make. I agree that 360 video is highly probably detrimental to educational content. It is best suited to creating an atmosphere. I really liked this 360 vlog, because there was nothing in particular we needed to focus on visually in order to understand the video. We can listen to your voice no matter where we're looking. So for 2veritasium, I would like all the vlogs to be 360 videos. Some other people will probably dissagree with me, so I hope you'll then go for a compromise: some (most :D) vlogs 360, some not.
I think that 'the' weakpoint of 360 video is that the audience doesn't know where to look. Therefore, it is well-suited for videos where it doesn't matter much where you look (vlogs, music videos, any other video that mostly relies on audio) or for videos where creators might not want you to know where to look immediately (horror movies, as FEAFi already commented)
I think there are probably other kinds/genres of videos that also fall in one of these categories, but that didn't come to mind right now.
Thank you if you read all of that. Basically: 360 is not an educational revolution, but it will attract certain kind of videos.
i was about to coment exactly the same. i agree with you in everything. (Y)
I wish all the former vlogs are 360 as well. The places he vlogs look very interesting.
Everything? What if he hates puppies?
I think this nails it. If you don't need to focus your vision, why not let it wander!
hermest99 LOL, true. No puppies should be harmed. ¬¬... haha :P
you are assuming we'll be watching on a TV or phone. my guess is that it will be much cooler when watching on VR goggles and when directors learn to film for 360. there's a huge learning curve. when people first started filming in 2d, they kinda sucked at it for a while.
Erik Rimes you can't frame a shot if everything is in frame. 360 video when used for something like this just encourages laziness from the person filming
You can decide where and when to shoot and what's in your movie.
A film in 360 you say? So please tell me how you're gonna solve not showing all the equipment, directors, lighting crew, engineering crew, dolly's, dolly tracks, big RED camera equipment and so forth. It's not gonna happen unless its a select scene that is rendered entirely in 3d.
Zappas Bappas I think thats true. Even if you did crop all the stuff out, it would be preety freaking hard and probably impractical
John Rambo Exactly, this is why practical effects have pretty much vanished from filmmaking, because while great, its impractical compared to the better options out there.
I believe it depends on the information being displayed. Having the ability to gather more detail and information from any video is very useful depending on how it is displayed
I think there is a place for 360 video. I found this one interesting cus I could look around and see the streets of some other country and listen to you talk. However, exactly as you said, it would be terrible if you were trying to show someone something specifically.
I would love for this technology to advance, but I don't think it will replace anything.
I can see 360 videos lasting just as long as 3D movies.
Cardboard. No need to imagine ;)
Colin, 360 "3D" videos.... Don't exist yet, if it ever could?
Faux 3D then ;)
+George Woods google virtual real p
I think your non-technical reasons are what makes them so interesting. To me, they are a way to explore somewhere I can't be. I don't think it's going to be something that somehow replaces normal video formats. But as an additional interactive media, especially with VR in mind, I think it's a good new thing to have.
Just like with VR & video games, 360 video and traditional movies or shows won't just work. What will make 360 video interesting is the new forms of video that come from it, as well as the new forms of storytelling that don't rely on the traditional techniques (technical problems aside). Re-thinking the fundamental parts of cinematography to take the advantages of interactivity into account is what it requires to really make 360 video something that stays around as a medium.
I think the problem here is that you're bothered by the fact that it isn't identical to traditional video formats, but you're attempting to force it into that mold. That you can't just do what you always do and it'll work fine. That's misunderstanding it and it's advantages; the reason that it's something new and different to begin with.
It's really very similar to video game storytelling in general. Can video games not tell stories well or teach the player because they aren't constantly guiding the eye are because they require interactivity? Of course not. As we know, they still do both, arguably for more effectively because we've learned to use that interactivity to our advantage instead.
Yeah but you want to explore because it's new. What happens when it isn't new anymore? Then you're left staring around wondering why this guy made such a dull ass video where he put barely any effort into it and just walked and talked. Having control as a cameraman lets you direct experiences instead of leaving it all to the viewer to amateurise the entire experience to hell and beyond. 360 definitely has its use, but not in the media everyone is expecting it to excel in.
Well, yeah, you can only explore one video once for the initial appeal, if that's what you mean. This is the same for every form of media, though. But as long as there is new content being made there is new things to explore. And, if the content resonates well enough, a person might want to come back and have that experience again in the future.
As in video games and other interactive media, taking control away from the camera and giving it to the viewer does not mean the same thing as taking away direction. Players are still directed in single player video games to a great degree, and huge movie-quality (and many, many fantastic Indie level) stories are still told. They are directed with things like camera effects, art styles and set designs, color, lighting, sound design, and even how the player interacts with the game to begin with. All of these things can still be done.
I can tell you are looking at this through a very specific lens, and it's totally understandable. But 360 video is just not traditional video. It would not have a cameraman in a normal sense. Yes, it takes control away from a cameraman in a sense, if you're really only worried about the cameraman. But, instead, you'd have a designer/director who, rather than focusing on the camera and shots as in normal cinematography, they instead craft an experience with all the tools available that let's the viewer discover the story they want to tell on their own. Cinematography would still, of course, be one of these tools (like sound or lighting or color) that are used to enhance this story and guide the viewer.
So, what is the trade-off for taking that initial control away that you have in video? The viewer is no longer playing a passive role in the media they are consuming. It increases engagement, which helps with learning, remember the story, and overall makes a bigger impact on the viewer. If I had a story I wanted to tell, that sounds to me like a trade-off that's damn worth it.
Honestly, if people use it to it's potential, it would have a lot more in common with other interactive entertainment, like games, than with movies or TV shows. It is slightly odd that they are the one's trying to push it.
Awesome! Nice reply!
Yeah it's the same as most media, but what incentive does that give the filmer to do something cool when everything innovative and new is for the viewer to experience on their own. Cinematography tells it's own story, its a vital part of the process of creating an experience, which with real life film making already starts to show a huge amount of limitations and lack of freedom for the filmer
My guess is, is that 360 videos are in a too early stage to even make use of its full potential, and the dangers of this is that people will give up on it too soon. Right now, outside of CG created environments the limitations are just too big for anyone to properly do something creative with it without it taking an impractical amount of work
Video games though, i'm all with you on that. If there's a place where 360 can settle its VR. Its a perfect tool with so much freedom and practicality that you can do just about whatever you want. This is where VR and 360 will grow to become something amazing. Just don't expect it to escape video gaming anytime soon.
Current 360 videos just give too much control to the viewer, and like allot of things, too much of something is bound to grow old fast. Cinematography is more then just good angles and panning shots, it tells stories, and can lift emotions of the ground. Giving too much freedom to the viewer would almost destroy the art the cinematographer wishes to show you. That said, there are definitely uses for it, 3d scenes can give a whole new meaning to VR in movies, but you can't just do a few 3d shots and switch back to standard filmmaking. It's gonna disorient the entire experience and create such an impractical workflow.
Until the resolution settles at something crisp and clear i doubt that it's gonna go much further than video gaming and full on CG movies where the freedom allows you to make use of it on a practical level.
Thanks! I'm enjoying the conversation, haha.
I mean, isn't the incentive to make any story in any medium at all (beyond money, of course) for people to see and be entertained by it? Maybe even impacted by it? If it were me, the fact that the viewer can experience that on their own (potentially in a more engaged way) would only make me want to explore the possibilities more, not less. Something new is sort of scary, but it's also exciting when you have stories and ideas that you really want to share with the world.
And yeah, cinematography does tell a lot of the story, but there are many techniques in cinematography that could still be used in 3D video (as far as I'm aware, anyway). You can still "frame" and position the 360 camera, shots with movement still all apply, any form of cut, (depth of field?), etc. As in video games, it still plays a reasonable size role. And I wouldn't be surprised if new techniques more specific to the medium show up if the right people get into it. Traditional movies and tv had a loooooong time to develop all this stuff for cinematographers to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if the tech just isn't here yet to take huge advantage, but I wouldn't disregard the medium for it.
And honestly, coming from the video game background, 360 video is an extremely limited amount of control for the viewer as far as I'm concerned. If anything, it'd get old because there's some interaction but not enough to keep engagement, but I doubt it'd be the other way around unless it's really used poorly to begin with.
The point is, I think, to leverage that viewer control to the entire projects advantage. Not to try to voice existing things into it. If the project doesn't work in 360 video and doesn't gain anything from it, it's not a good idea for 360 video. As with a video game in VR, the things that will make 360 video interesting are the things that were created solely for 360 video in mind. Not with traditional cinematography in mind. It's, frankly, just not the same thing. This is why it might feel like it's destroying that art. But, really, t's just a different art that may borrow many concepts from cinematography, but certainly won't be the same or tell the same stories in the same way.
After all, if it was doing the same thing as cinematography already, it'd be entirely redundant. Not a very good new technology. ;)
And, as a side note, yeah. I'd be surprised to see live action do any major traditional film style stuff in 360 video ever, frankly. I can't see that style of video working in 360 video at all. I can see CG bridging the gap and playing a major role early in the life of 360 video, though. If I were attempting to make a 360 video style story myself, I'd try something more along the lines of guided atmospheric environmental storytelling, with little or no active script or traditional characters at all.
If you are interested in an example of the kind of thing I mean, here is an interactive FMV (not 360 video, though) that got a lot of attention awhile back for it's uniqueness. I think it's a nice introduction thinking more like how you might do storytelling with 360 video. sortieenmer.archives.grouek.com/
It was 15 seconds before I noticed, "Hey, why's my cursor a white glove? I don't use a Mac?!"
Then I understood you were talking about spherical video and so I tried dragging the image around - and it worked! Then I tried using the control arrows in the upper left corner. Hey, that worked too. This is cool! That was generally my thought process.
So everything you said between the 15 and 45 second marks.... I have no idea what you said.
I'm sure 360 will have it's use, but it won't replace normal video. Especially if you make me turn arround just to see another video part. I'm lazy. I just want to sit and watch.
I didn't even notice the video was 360° until around 3:00 lol
me neither
That's some low video quality expectations you share. It's immediately obvious.
Nokijuxas actually I watch full hd all the time, and I noticed the video was very low quality immediately, saw it was 1080p and thought "oh well, maybe it will fix itself in a couple seconds"
I watched the whole vid. Until he said that this video is in 360 I just thought he has a bad camera
I just found this whole video a little bit annoying because it's in 360, I hate it
I actually think it's cool lol
You don't even have to look around lol.
If you have a shitty internet connection, I empathize because I have one too, and the video quality was crap lol.
I feel like this too, it's disurbing to be able to look all around. Like I want to look at him while he is explaining things, but i know i have the possibility to look somewhere else, it makes me feel a bit weird.
Like so much of film making principles are just useless if something is filmed in 360
360° video is not the future; it is a part of the future. It is another tool and will be appropriate where it is appropriate. Oddly, I really liked it in this video, but that was because your real content was in the audio track, so I was free to have fun looking around without missing anything. Anyone who has taught knows that teachers will never be replaced by technology, but teachers who know how and when to appropriately use technology will have an advantage over those who don't.
the fact "technology example X" hasn't revolutionized education time and time again with different technology at this point clearly has less to do with something lacking in the technologies ability to revolutionize education and more to do with the fact education system are extremely resistant to change and so most new tech that could make a big difference will never get the chance to.
That's one hypothesis. Another is that the new tech has not in any significant way provided improvements to education and therefore has not been adopted. I am of the belief that when a new technology provides a significant benefit it is adopted pretty quickly, e.g. microwave ovens, smart phones, uber, the internet, and soon self-driving cars...
Not sure what the education system is like in america but would you say schools have adopted new technology at a comparable rate as the general population? In the UK we have only just about gotten rid of chalk boards in exchange for white boards and some electronic whiteboards just installed into general classrooms where they barely work and most teachers just use them to put a textbook on the board and occasional have one student use it interactively. Schools are massive money pits yet they waste money on tech that ends up not being well implemented. Students drive spaces and even teachers are still limited to amounts in MB. The school internet connections are slow and the internet arbitrarily blocked resources like UA-cam to everyone including teachers. Students have powerful PCs in their pockets but they have to put those away and switch them off. I could go on and on about all the messed up ways schools are resistant to change in technology and all the reasons why but its a blatent issue of the school. Technology can't force itself into a school the school system has to integrate the tech itself. But that would mean a system change that will never happen when the people making the big decisions think that going back to using textbooks more is a big change.
There needs to be a section to education systems that builds educational tech. Right now the way it works is companies have to try and sell their latest virtual learning environment, the latest gadgets. Some look promising but even if they but them there is next to zero training for teachers on how to use them, even if they did give enough training teachers don't have the time to do it with the work schedules they get right now.
DNCTRKS it varies a bit yeah, but public schools, private school, tech wise theres no that much difference, students in a private school will be more likely to be well rounded motivated students who just need someone to tell and show them things and they will learn. by home schooling do you mean publicly funded home schooling, or students not enrolled at a school being taught from home by their parent? because that doesnt really count as part of the education system i'm talking about.
if you want to talk about budget. The school my aunt used to work at, they spent £90 million on rebuilding it only to close it down shortly after and the building is now costing the council £12,000 a day just to maintain it when its completely closed. the system is broken. i still don't understand why exam boards are private companies, educational resource makers, separate companies, all out to make profit. why doesn't the uk education have a centralised oranisation hiring teachers and designers and tech people to make resources in house that the whole country can use thats not for profit rather than every teacher in every classroom having to come up with their own resources and scheme of work? instead we get individual schools being sold tech systems that get implemented badly and teachers arent trained for. it's a mess. its an inefficient awful mess just leaking money.
DNCTRKS yes, i am aware there are some tech systems out there in schools, i am a teacher, i've worked in public and private school, i've been a private tutor and currently work for a home education service for students who cant attend a mainstream school for medical reasons.
I've seen schools with hundreds of thousands of pounds of laptops that are all nicely locked away in big metal charging safes, that get used about once a term. as i have said several times now it down to lack of training, no time to do training, how well the systems are designed for education in mind. as well as how the schedules/scheme of work is so tight to get students ready for exams that there is no time to "waste" haf the lesson messing around getting 30 students set up with laptops or tablets to use software that is too much of a gimmick and not actually very educational, especially when every test they take will be them writing on paper with a pen pretty much the same answer thats have been expected of students for the past couple of decades. we teach them to be able to pass a non calculator paper as though there will ever be a time in their future when they couldn't just take their phone out thats 1000 times more powerful than the first pc i ever built and capable of doing advance calculus instantly for them.
how much more do you need to understand that the education system is and has always been way behind the times for many many reasons.
man, you can't just "revolutionize" education. It's a very delicate system and screw ups are bad. And the only thing that new tech brings is just the paper content is on screen. That's it. There's a reason the education doesn't change much, it's cause it works the way it is.
I like to watch all of the people either awkwardly staring at him as he walks by, or covering their face from the camera
this videos prooves that 360 video is really good at showing you a place. if i am in a market or similar place for the first time, i look around in exactly the same way i did in this video. it fully demonstrates the visual feel of that place. directing your focus is merely a different approach not a superior one. the truly superior approach is to have both 360 and directed video.
Woah! Somehow I made it glitch and I can see the entire 360 view at once...
Hilariously enough I caught myself getting distracted by your surroundings instead of paying attention to what you said for the first 3 minutes. Your point was proven by the end of the video lol
I think 360 is great for entertainments, art exhibitions, museums, video games, etc. Just because it's unsuitable for certain needs, such as teaching, doesn't mean it's useless for everything else as well.
For example, from the thing you mentioned, the over hype of motion pictures, that it would've replaced text books; though it's obviously by now not replacing text books, it still has a huge impact on life. You yourself use the tech don't you, all these videos are motions pictures don't you think?
I don't even see the need for 4k unless you have a 70 inch TV. However, for certain types of video - nature documentaries, science pieces, and media where user exploration is the point, then I see value in spherical video. Otherwise I agree that this is simply a gimmick.
Mat Broomfield 4K is great for recording. Then you can crop without loss in quality and export video in 1080p which is nice.
I absolutely agree with that Soren, but as a domestic DISPLAY medium, which this piece is about, I think it's massively redundant. Big numbers just for the sake of it.
works great with porn.
lol - I can imagine, but then how much porn is filmed in 4k?
basically since the first 4k camera was out and anything new is 4K. Porn adapts new tech a lot faster then anything else look at VR and you already have a big library of pron in VR.
Derek, you are looking at it from a content creator's point of view.
As a traveller, a 360 camera is a godsend to me. I enjoy going on long walks in foreign cities, just soaking up the atmosphere, admiring the landmarks, and having a 360 camera on a stick, sticking out of my pocket or backpack above me, I have a 3rd person view of my walk, essentially as if I had a personal drone I don't need care about and which follows me and documents the whole trip. I don't need to take photos all the time, I don't need to focus on selecting what might be interesting to watch later. Of course I still can, I still have a camera, but I don't feel the pressure of documenting those memories - the 360 camera does that for me and it is much better at documenting everything around me than me myself with any other camera ever would.
So, to me, a 360 camera is a great device if you ever feel like you'd like to have a drone following you everywhere and capturing footage of everything that's around you.
Another point of view - you can reframe the video any way you wish during editing and export in a classic format.
He's not saying that it doesn't have any use cases, just that there are to many problems for it to widely used.
He's talking specifically about people who (back then) were saying it's the future. Like it's something that will have a big impact.