Topic: Sony VR

[MaryJane]

Clearly 3D is evolving rapidly. Are there any new technologies that Sony is interested in?
Yeah absolutely. One of the cool things we’ve just announced is our new PlayStation monitor, this is not only a great HD, 2D and 3D monitor, but it also supports a unique feature that lets two players play head-to-head gaming, full-screen on the same screen without each other seeing the others screen.
This is going to be great feature that many developers are really excited about.
We've also got a new head mounted display that we showed at CES, that can produce really great quality 3D and a very immersive experience for games. The head-mounted display has twin-OLED screens; very high quality.
At the moment it’s just a head-mounted display; the head isn’t being tracked – but that’s something we’re doing R&D on. I have to say, what we’ve done in the R&D projects has just been fantastic.
We’re working with a couple of games at Sony that are experimenting with virtual reality type experiences.

Are you saying virtual reality is coming back?
Yeah it could be, it certainly seems possible, and these head-mounted displays incorporate 3D tech. It’s very, very cool. And obviously it’s a fantastic way to experience 3D because both images are being directly fed into each eye.

Not an outright confirmation, but they seem to be working on it.

http://www.develop-online.net/features/1359/Sonys-3D-re-vision

[Ceric]

Sony is always working on 3D.   The Tech I really liked from them that they were showing a year or two ago was a device that did glasses free 3D where it was like a  bust.  So you could walked around it and see different parts just like a bust.

[dack25]

As soon as I heard VR it reminded me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2smM87r14

[broodwars]

Virtual Reality's a dead-end with our current technology, just like Sony's similar obsession with 3D is.  Until you can remove obstructions like glasses or the clunky helmet that never works right and present a true Star Trek-quality holodeck, the technology's never going to take off.

[MaryJane]

If the helmet is lightweight, I don't see what problems it presents as you'd be playing in the privacy of your home.

[TJ Spyke]

3D in movie theatres is a hell of a lot better than the 3D in the 3DS IMO, and has been very popular.

[broodwars]

3D in movie theatres is a hell of a lot better than the 3D in the 3DS IMO, and has been very popular.

And yet 3D movie box office returns are steadily declining.  Hopefully that means this fad will die off for good in the near future until we have the technology to truly do something new with a movie's presentation.

As for VR Helmets, I've yet to wear one that actually fit properly and whose lenses were properly aligned.  And given that people complain about wearing lightweight 3D glasses for a few hours at the theaters, I don't see even lightweight VR helmets accepted any better.

[Ceric]

I'm still wating for my Augmented reality glasses that they showed.

[TJ Spyke]

3D in movie theatres is a hell of a lot better than the 3D in the 3DS IMO, and has been very popular.

And yet 3D movie box office returns are steadily declining.  Hopefully that means this fad will die off for good in the near future until we have the technology to truly do something new with a movie's presentation.

As for VR Helmets, I've yet to wear one that actually fit properly and whose lenses were properly aligned.  And given that people complain about wearing lightweight 3D glasses for a few hours at the theaters, I don't see even lightweight VR helmets accepted any better.

It's not a fad, as when the 3D is done right it makes the movie a lot better than the 2D version. And the article you linked to points to two movies which in general did less than their predecessors. The current Harry Potter movie, for example, sold out it's 3D tickets opening weekend and broke IMAX records. I also don't get why anybody would complain about the glasses, I forget I am even wearing them after a few minutes.

[SixthAngel]

Adding to the post above me 3D Transformers just came out and did gangbusters.  I am surprised that 3D Potter is being called good though since its post production.  Most of the stats I see aren't exactly reliable either and are used to portray the side they want.  For example when comparing overall revenue on opening weekend for Potter or Transformers you are dealing with a ton of sold out theaters.  The revenue difference should almost be decided before hand simply by checking how many 3D showings there are versus 2D. 

Tranformers earned 59% of its opening day revenue from 3D screens.  That is a ridiculous amount of extra money brought in from 3d screens.  I don't expect Avatar numbers again but it's not going anywhere.
I would also like to point out that the 3D market outside the US is growing, something that is becoming increasingly important to Hollywood.

On the article:
I think the biggest problem with any headmounted display is not making it look ridiculous.  I doubt Sony will overcome that hurdle.

[TJ Spyke]

I can't find numbers for the US, but 61% of foreign revenue for Potter has been from 3D screens in its first 3 days.

Almost all live action movies have 3D added in post production because it is very expensive to film in 3D. I think Avatar is the only one.

[Arbok]

Almost all live action movies have 3D added in post production because it is very expensive to film in 3D. I think Avatar is the only one.

Both big and small budget films have been filmed in 3D that are live action (ala Piranha 3D for a cheapie), here is a list:

http://realorfake3d.com/

In terms of 3D, its in the decline in the US rather dramatically for theatrical movies. It helped out Harry Potter and Transformers, but has been very weak on films like Cars 2 and Green Lantern and most other examples past Thor (which was only 60% opening weekend).

The reason 3D is here to stay, though, is because in the international market outside of the US, 3D is huge right now.

[Ceric]

Almost all live action movies have 3D added in post production because it is very expensive to film in 3D. I think Avatar is the only one.

Both big and small budget films have been filmed in 3D that are live action (ala Piranha 3D for a cheapie), here is a list:

http://realorfake3d.com/

In terms of 3D, its in the decline in the US rather dramatically for theatrical movies. It helped out Harry Potter and Transformers, but has been very weak on films like Cars 2 and Green Lantern and most other examples past Thor (which was only 60% opening weekend).

The reason 3D is here to stay, though, is because in the international market outside of the US, 3D is huge right now.

I have to say for Cars 2 I think its a demographic deal.  Kids don't like wearing glasses.  I thought the 3D had its place and enhanced the experience.  Like seeing a live show compared to watching an excellent recording.

Sort of stinks for Captain America and Avengers.

[Ian Sane]

I can't find numbers for the US, but 61% of foreign revenue for Potter has been from 3D screens in its first 3 days.

Is 3D the draw though?  Harry Potter was a guaranteed success.  Now if you go to the theatre to see it you might think "well **** it, I might as well see it in 3D."  I've seen a couple movies in IMax format entirely because of "**** it, it's here" logic where I was going to see the movie in theatre anyway and figured I might as well see it in the fancier format.
 
Are people going to the movie theatre specifically to see a movie because it is in 3D or because the movie they want to see just happens to also be available in 3D?

[Morari]

Are people going to the movie theatre specifically to see a movie because it is in 3D or because the movie they want to see just happens to also be available in 3D?

I don't think most people go for movies they specifically want to see even. More likely, they simply go to the theater every Friday night because it's what they're expected to do with their group of friends. They watch whatever has the coolest looking poster out front and that's that. 3D is a gimmick that no one cares about. The only reason the industry wants you to think that you care is so they can sell more expensive television, charge more for movie tickets, sell you your entire DVD collection again, etc. They saw a huge drive for home theaters when DVD became popular. They want to replicate that, but probably never will... not while holding themselves back with crap formats like Blu-Ray at least.

[Ceric]

Are people going to the movie theatre specifically to see a movie because it is in 3D or because the movie they want to see just happens to also be available in 3D?

I don't think most people go for movies they specifically want to see even. More likely, they simply go to the theater every Friday night because it's what they're expected to do with their group of friends. They watch whatever has the coolest looking poster out front and that's that. 3D is a gimmick that no one cares about. The only reason the industry wants you to think that you care is so they can sell more expensive television, charge more for movie tickets, sell you your entire DVD collection again, etc. They saw a huge drive for home theaters when DVD became popular. They want to replicate that, but probably never will... not while holding themselves back with crap formats like Blu-Ray at least.

I'm now curious which Format you would prefer.

[TJ Spyke]

Ian, I have seen two 3D movies and and both times I went specifically to see the 3D version (Priest and Transformers: Dark of the Moon). I suppose I would have watched the 2D version of the 3D one was sold out.

[Ian Sane]

I don't think most people go for movies they specifically want to see even. More likely, they simply go to the theater every Friday night because it's what they're expected to do with their group of friends. They watch whatever has the coolest looking poster out front and that's that.

Depends on the audience I suppose.  I typically only go to the theatre when I REALLY want to see a movie and don't want to wait until it comes out on DVD or the film is so visually stimulating that it seems worth it to see it on a big theatre screen.

Though either way I don't think anyone is specifically going to the movies because of 3D.  That's what makes something a draw.  A specific film is a draw if people specifically go to the theatre to see it.  Star Wars did that.  Lord of the Rings did that.  I think even without 3D Avatar would have done it because it was a big blockbuster action movie with tons of special effects and directed by James Cameron who hasn't made a dud in at least 25 years.  Hollywood tends to associate superficial elements as the key to a film's success, probably because that's easier then making a good film.  Avatar was 3D so they clung to the superficial element.

If a film has a huge opening weekend and then quickly dies out, it isn't a draw.  It's just grabbing that "every Friday night" crowd.  A real draw
has a long period of success as people see it multiple times and convince their friends and family to go see it.

As for Sony VR, I think VR gaming is something that should be explored at an R&D level but until we have something Holodeck like, it isn't going to result in a decent product.  Though the Wii's appeal was very VR like so if you can do a VR gimmick cheaply, then you could probably make it successful.  But the low cost is absolutely essential.  No one is going to pay an arm and a leg for VR goggles and power gloves, just to play some half-baked junk.

[Ceric]

A lot of the sensors needed for VR are getting cheaper and used in more varieties of items.