What does /g/ think of the gear vr? Is it worth $100? I'm interesting in seeing what movies look like with VR and don't want to wait for other crap to come out.
proprietary samsung trash
>>51986295
http://www.gearbest.com/virtual-reality/pp_244920.html
Nuff said.
If you're interested in the idea of virtual reality, I'd say it's worth it, although it won't be on the level of the dedicated headset tech that eventually comes out.
It's somewhere between Cardboard and the Rift/Vive.
>>51986365
Cardboard has nothing on Gear VR, they're totally separate things. Oculus has all sorts of software for the headset specifically. I'm gonna go ahead and assume you can use Cardboard apps on the Gear VR, but you probably can't do the opposite.
>>51986295
It's not worth the Galaxy S6 or Note AND the headset. All in all you're well over $500 for mediocre VR immersion.
Definitely wait for the Rift or the Vive.
If you already have a Note5 or S6 then sure, $100 is a no brainer.
It's not worth it if you need to buy the S6 or Note5 as well though.
>>51986295
looks cool
VR is worthless until it's plug-a-cable-into-your-head matrix style.
>>51987281
says some random dude on 4chan.
I'm sure glad you're an expert.
Does anyone know if the new VR has a SD slot. Kinda sucks that my memory is limited to my phone for BR movies.
>>51987388
it can't do anything HD in VR anyway due to the stupid DRM.
The VR graphics pipeline doesn't have the proper hardware DRM features.
This is also why the Netflix VR app is limited to like 540p resolution. That and the GPU would have a fair bit of struggle to manage good framerates at 720 or 1080p
>>51986295
how does the 2nd gen gear vr compare to the 1st gen? i have a note 4 so i think im limited to the 1st gen
>>51987318
Don't have to be an expert to give my opinion.
No one on this website is an expert on anything.
>>51987559
>No one on this website is an expert on anything.
not true at all, i've spoken to plenty of experts on here, ranging from networking, encryption, electrical engineering, etc.
>>51987553
Its lighter, less stuffy feeling, more room for glasses, slightly wider range of focus on the lenses, overall more comfortable and the controls are better on the side.
>>51987559
yeah keep thinking everyone is as dumb as you senpai
>>51987281
this is 100% correct
everything else is nothing but gimmicky shit you'll be bored with in days
>>51987281
>>51988254
You've both used the rift, then?
>>51986295
>Paying 100 quid for a phone case
Fuck me! I could be making BILLIONS!
>>51989211
Well no, obviously not. He just KNOWS it's shit before trying it. Duh
>>51988254
3D movies failed because the porn industry couldn't care less about it.
VR will be massive success because porn companies are already producing tons of VR scenes.
I have one. Best VR right now, until the Rift and other headsets come out.
I'm thinking about giving one as an xmas present. I've heard nothing but good things about it after looking at reviews etc.
I'd say it's worth $100... I mean it's proper virtual reality. $100 is basically nothing
a normal tv is better in every way for watching media. that shit is a fucking gimmick
>>51992192
>proper virtual reality
It's going to be shit compared to what's coming out in 4 months. Still it's a pretty good xmas gift for anyone with a compatible device.
>>51992213
sure just take your 40" TV everywhere and set it up on a plane, on a train, in a coffee shop, in the bathroom, on the ceiling above your bed...
>>51992272
then just use your normal phone. if you actually are considering strapping one of those dumb shits to your face in public you are truly hopeless
>>51992220
What comes out in 4 months? Oculus rift?
That experience will have better tracking and possibly better screen quality? But the sheer convenience here is a major factor. It gets the power from the phone and has no external cords, the whole thing is really tidy and doesn't require a powerful gaming rig to run. You can just pack it in your bag and use it anywhere you like.
I do have to acknowledge that obviously the technology is in its infancy and things will improve greatly from here on out, but as a sort of first step, I would say this is what I would call in the realm of "proper VR"
>>51990854
>3D movies failed because the porn industry couldn't care less about it.
50% of The Force Awakens money has been from the 3D version. 3D is far from dead
>>51992213
Have you used this or any other VR before?
Just curious
>>51992300
3d has already been accepted as a flop in the film industry, it still exists but no one cares about it compared to normal versions
>>51990854
3D failed because it sucks
>>51992310
yes, i have used an oculus. i went in thinking it would be cool, but it took less than a minute of wearing it to be completely unimpressed. normal media consumption is seriously stupid with this, you know you are wearing a screen, you dont think its some 100 foot amazing display, you see the black around it and realize the low resolution display in front of you is nothing special.
>>51992297
Actually the screen quality on the Oculus Rift is going to be slightly less than the GearVR. My argument was against
>proper virtual reality
I don't consider virtual cinema and 360 degree videos to be "proper". Both the Rift and Vive have head tracking and hand tracking controllers, which is orders of magnitude more "proper" than GearVR.
>>51992332
>3d has already been accepted as a flop in the film industry, it still exists but no one cares about it compared to normal versions
That "flop" made record numbers this weekend for star wars. You're talking out your ass.
>>51992380
that is like saying avatar means everyone loves 3d. you have very select movies that use it, the majority dont even bother to shoot in it
I think VR roght now is ygly, bulky dogs hit that people will look back at and laugh as we do to the 1980s Motorola brick. When it's refined and useful will consider.
>>51992480
Every single 3d animated kids movie is in 3D and rakes in big cash. You're living in a hole
>>51992654
you are missing the point. 3d is only done well in certain applications, just because a movie is in 3d doesnt mean 3d tickets are always the majority. just stop, i used to work in tv and film, 3d is nothing important
>>51992689
>X is only done well if I say so
ok bud
>>51992705
what are you fucking talking about? you think star wars would have done less numbers if it wasnt in 3d? they did like 47% 3d sales, the FACT remains most films dont even bother with 3d anymore because its not worth it. only a few can actually make use of it correctly
>>51992727
>somethings not worth it because I say its not worth it
tell it to the judge
>>51992738
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? if you can actually provide evidence that sales are increased with 3d vs not go ahead, otherwise you are literally acting like a tool
Its pretty damn costly, you have to buy the phone, headset, controller, and games. Probably better off buying a good computer and the oculus rift. But the Gearvr is still an awesome piece of tech and I get alot of enjoyment out of it.
>>51992749
>le strawman
>>51992766
no, i am saying back up your claims. i am only making fun of you because you have not brought anything to the table but claims that are unsubstantiated. i have in now way changed my opinion on your claims because of yourself acting like a fag, they have remained the same.
take your wikipedia logic arguments back to high school kid, and back up YOUR claim
>>51992779
>implying
How long until all movies are 360º VR experiences?
I can imagine that instead of video files, movies will be rendered real time to give the viewers a little freedom and maybe some interaction with the story.
The line between video games and movies will start to blur even more.
>>51992815
nice to see you are literally just some tool who is just trying to fit in. at least you tried
>>51992847
dont expect it all. you will get a couple essentially tech demos but when it comes down to it, the way features are made with the amount of work that goes into sets and the amount of the crew, it isnt feasible.
>>51986638
That plus the gear vr has built in sensors specifically designed for be by occulus
Not to mention the control pad
>>51992851
u r dum
>>51992868
It seems at least likely with fully animated movies. And it seems you'd be surprised how much CGI is in movies these days. (refer to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24)
The only thing stopping such a thing from going "mainstream" is probably the problem with how to get it into theaters.
>>51992877
Rekt hard, family.
>>51992932
i am well aware of how much cgi is used, and you are right about animated films, but even that is a long shot in the real world because of how much time it takes just to have a single angle.
when it comes down it, that shit really is a gimmick and really isnt something that would make the vast majority of movies any better. you would have to create with that shit just in mind, and when you alienate viewers like that you would be lucky to get close to making your money back.
for regular indie shit with a bunch of gopros strapped together, yeah thats another story
If you already own a Samsung flagshit go for it
>>51992847
Although I'm very keen to check out a 3d video (never seen one before), I feel there is still something to be said for the traditional film medium.
With the "limited" screen, the viewers attention can be directed and controlled, allowing the producer of the movie more artistic expression and hopefully a great experience.
You don't always want the viewer looking around the scene, you want the concentration on where the camera is directly pointing at that moment. What if they turned around and they missed something integral to the story?
So in that way I don't see it becoming huge for traditional movies as they are now. Maybe a new style of movie-making and story-telling will emerge.
I think it could have other great applications though, for example watching sports, so it would seem like you are in the best seat in the football stadium or on the drivers helmet of a formula 1 car. Stuff like that will be amazing.
What is Google Cardboard like? I ordered a kit for the hell of it.
>>51993014
From what I hear... it's very basic, but it "works"
>>51992975
I don't think the angle is too much of a problem. Surely film makers will adapt and develop new methods and such that works well for 360º.
I see the main bottleneck being hardware limitations, especially for rendering such experiences in real time like it should.
>>51992995
Yeah, focusing your attention is really important, but if you're sitting and immersed into the action in front of you, I don't think you'll be looking behind you too much, except for when you hear something behind you or something and the focus changes.
I can imagine 360º opening up a lot of opportunity for easter eggs and such.
>>51993014
Yeah, it's basic. Literally entry level VR. I got a google cardboard the other day. Watched some videos and played a couple games. It technically works, but the fact that you're using a phone, and its not really strapped to your head, just makes me want an actual HMD all that much more.
>>51993065
you wouldnt render it in real time, no one is going to shoot an entire movie in one long shot. there isnt any 'adapting', you are talking about normal theater releases into this dumb shit, and the answer really comes down to 'never'. like i said, normal indie tech demos will use it, but this isnt something that would make normal movies better.
what are you saying just doesnt work in a real environment, because you either do fucklong takes with high risk of reshoots, or you have many cuts and basically jerk the person around which is dumb.
then you deal with the lighting and setwork, which means you either have to go through and edit EVERYTHING out instead of what cant be hidden, or you shoot 100% practical indoors and hide the reflectors and diffusion which is too much work.
in the real world, it just isnt practical and without trying to talk shit to you, it really is a gimmick.
>>51992932
I imagine first video games will give the vr experiences and then some company like pixar will try it and itll be bad and then video games will do it better and then pixar will try again and itll be good and THEN actual film makers will try it (and it will be bad)
its going to be a long process.
>>51993117
none of this will ever be shot using physical cameras
vr movies will probably be a thing some day, but always 100% cgi or within "video games" as mentioned above
>>51993154
I imagine full CGI anime type VR shit will be a fairly big entertainment industry.
>>51993154
just like video games, it will be very limited in audience. but unlike video games this requires a much higher monetary investment, which means if there arent enough people to make it worthwhile, you will get nothing but stupid valve 'filmmaker' bullshit
>>51993182
Soon
http://www.sign.site/koukaku_vr/en/sp/
>>51993192
yeah people might have to actually go out and put money into a box and look into a viewer to see some gimmicky flashes of light for a few minutes.
wait that sounds familiar
VR kinda sucks on a low red display, cardboard on my 1920x1080 phone pixels are hueg
>>51993227
the difference is, a computer monitor or tv is actually useful for any kind of media consumption and use. you sound like someone who sits in threads talking about MUH PORN when you have never actually used one of these things
>>51993285
you just sound pessimistic.
>>51993203
just watched this with my cardboard.
hyped.
>>51993014
Just werks
