Why is the future of technology so shit?
>>54269451
because people think we are way further along in technology than we actually are because the iPhone kind-of works.
>>54269496
Yeah, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to see 100 years in the future but I'm sure it would be very disappointing - like all those people who thought we'd be living in mile high skyscrapers with flying shit and robots everywhere now. We're desperately clinging to that vision of the future with drones and what have you when really we should embrace technology as it comes and stop being guided by what we think it should look like.
Article related.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/future-screens-are-mostly-blue/
Because the humans who create these technologies are shit, obviously.
>>54269451
The future is shit in general, desu.
>THE FUTURE as told by GEXTER
beery welated to op's pic
https://youtu.be/o3q2mXDSqRU
>>54269451
>tfw no GNU/Reality
>>54269682
that's kinda cool tb.h
>>54269699
This is truly magnificent.
>>54269451
>>54269781
The problem with VR is that there are no games yet. only concept demos, which all require you to be standing in the middle of a room to work properly. but don't worry soon the hype will pass and game dev's will return to joystick based camera movement and I will be able to play videogames without having to come out from under my sheets.
>>54270009
Yeah that's oculus. Head tracking and an xbox controller
>>54269920
In that case it makes sense though.
>>54269451
Why do you think we can't even grow a new tooth so we stick titan implants in peoples mouth? There are no true inventions only marketing bullshit and waste of resources.
>>54269781
Whos she?
>>54269920
there is a logic behind her being there you dumb fuck.
>>54269920
Yes, that's what makes photos on facebook different from a random photo from google image search dumbass. What would even be the point of taking a photo of say, the eiffel tower without yourself in it?
VR is just a meme. Only retards with too much money are buying into that shit. VR is fucking retarded. I don't want to fucking block my goddamn vision of the real world to be immersed into fucking VR video games and porn wtf. That sounds like the most fucking security risk thing to do irl. You're gonna be so immersed that a negro breaks into your house and you don't notice it. Like nigga fucking stop being such a virgin that you need VR.
>>54269451
VR will be pretty great for watching movies when it gets a tad bit better. Really digging the Oculus Cinema and Netflix apps for the Gear VR.
>>54270098
He probably knows that. In fact, the differing motivations behind men and women sharing photographs may be the entire point of the comic.
Go play space pirate trainer and see if you still think VR is shit
>>54270145
>VR is just a meme
this is true. Pretty much all technologies start out as memes. VR is a solution looking for problems. The best potential I see for VR is sensory integration, i.e. a non-shit version of google glass that makes sense, integrates mutliple information sources and overlays them and so on
VR is bad for:
entertainment videogames
entertainment tv/film
VR is good for:
serious games/training
being transported into a different environment (see military/space/industry uses)
and so on. Just because VR is shit for your vidya, doesnt mean the tech is shit. Its just boring shit for you
VR is not really a consumer product, not at this point, yet it is being sold and marketed as exactly that, which is exactly the schizophrenic capitalism we have today: right product, wrong customer
>>54270159
I dread the era when VR enters the movies.
You remember with 3D we had this
>Wooo! Stuff coming towards you!!
All over the place and it was a total immersion killer.
With VR we're going to get an era of actors looking straight at the camera and saying something to you.
We're going to have first person gimmicks up the ass with VR and it's going to suck.
>>54270208
Any reason you think VR is bad for video games or film? Since you didn't give one I'll just assume it's bait.
>>54270208
I'm the poster you're replying to. I can see the appeal of VR for things like military training or anything serious but I don't see the benefit for the consumer. I don't game on PC so I definitely don't see the appeal. I think with evolution of VR for the military will be good to teach our soldiers to be more efficient killers.
>>54270227
I'm not even talking about 360 video. There are cinema apps where it feels like your sitting in a cinema and it looks like an IMAX size screen.
Also, 3D movies which you don't appear to be a fan of work very well in it.
>>54270094
Her name is Eva Hoerth. https://medium.com/@downtohoerth
>>54270234
VR gives the ability to turn your head and look at whatever you want. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what film is about. You can do that already on google street view.
for video games you can already do that without turning your neck awkwardly
for depth perception we already have 3D, dont need to strap crap to your head
so
>> novelties and serious applications
>>54269451
I love how VR triggers autists like nothing else.
So many faggots buying extra screens overpriced headphones and mechanical keyboards yet VR is the somehow the worst thing imaginable.
Get over yourselves, no one thinks you are smart cause you are "avoiding the fad".
Reminds me of fat neckbeards sitting on the bench during PE cause they cant understand how people can enjoy playing sports.
>>54270367
VR doesn't just give you the ability to turn your head. It transports you into the medium. This is exactly what film is about: It's about telling a story in an immersive way. VR simply makes it even more engaging.
Also saying we already have depth perception in 3D movies so we don't need that in VR, is like saying we already have unicycles so cars are useless.
>>54270367
>film is a medium that cannot change!
ok
>>54270367
You can already turn your head wherever you want when you're watching a movie without VR. What difference does it make?
>>54270251
It's irrelevant whether 3D movies work well or not, the point is that most of the 3D moments stand out like a sore thumb.
They're not well made.
It's like watching a movie that's filled with moments where you can hear the Wilhelm scream.
It's an immersion breaker and it sucks ass.
And I'm not talking about 360 video either.
What I mean is that VR is going to take that gimmicky shit to the extreme, by having movies filled with game like mechanics where the actors interact or direct some of their dialogue to the viewer.
It's not going to be pretty.
>>54270407
But that's fucking wrong.
Have you ever heard of a thing called cinematography?
There are metric fucktons of rules that films follow, in order to make them work.
Having 360 video in films would be on par with throwing all of that shit out of the window and the result would be terrible.
>>54269451
But anyone who's tried the Vive knows just how amazing it is, and anyone who isn't daft can see how incredible the possibilities of VR are within the next decade or two.
>>54269615
There wouldn't be much new technology to embrace if nobody had any ideas of what they wanted it to look like
>>54270499
Why not? We keep retrofitting tech to our current lives instead of working with it. E.g. autonomous cars. Let's start designing roads with them in mind already, it's not like they aren't going to happen and if roads were built for them the tech wouldn't have to be so complex and we could be using them already.
>>54269781
>>54270094
>>54270261
Unf.
https://twitter.com/downtohoerth/status/722859083095678977
>>54270475
>Having 360 video in films would be on par with throwing all of that shit out of the window and the result would be terrible.
So revamping, salvaging, and starting a new is bad with the introduction of new technology? So lets just hold back all new tools we create in order to keep the 'order' we already have? You sound like a dick desu.
>>54270557
And you sound like you have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about.
There are rules to creation and those rules exist for a reason.
They've been developed during hundreds of years and they fucking work.
You can't just throw them out of the window and call it a day, just because a new gadget came to the market.
This is the way of thinking that leads to shitty movies with moments people call gimmicks. Moments that don't work.
Also you can't just apply mechanics you see in games, to a format that's not interactive on any level.
Imagine one of those in game moments where you've been running and then some character says "Wow, would you look at that!" And there's an airship burning and falling down in the background.
Ok, you look at it for a moment and then go and explore the environment,look for ammo, shoot a gun, whatever and the airship is still falling, but you already saw that.
But imagine that you're unable to explore the environment and you're just stuck standing there, with a crowd of people staring in some direction.
You can either look at the crowd or the action unfolding in front of you.
But here no rules of cinematography apply, because your attention isn't going to be drawn into the right places, by for example leading your eye with camera tricks or placing the action.
There's no constructed or carefully placed picture that sub-consciously tells you where to look at and this leads to a shitty experience.
It's like fucking up the composition with art, it's simply bad storytelling.
>>54270661
You make a claim:
>You can't just throw them out of the window and call it a day, just because a new gadget came to the market.
Then:
>Filler blable
Then finally you give the only reason which isn't really one:
>it's simply bad storytelling.
I don't think you're a smart person. And no one is assuming all of these 'rules' have to be absolutely thrown out. You're arguing with yourself, buddy.
>>54270661
VR specific movies aside, VR will be great for watching old movies on simulated big screens.
The resolution however, isn't quite there yet.
>>54270208
Have you.... tried it?
>>54270227
>You remember with 3D we had this
>>Wooo! Stuff coming towards you!!
>All over the place and it was a total immersion killer.
It worked a hell of a lot better when theatres used active goggles, shit managed to wooo! almost directly into your face.
Shit also gave you a killer headache after 30 minutes so movies had to be purpose-made and short, unlike the "let's just add it in post and make everything dark and shitty" attitude that cheap polarized glasses encourage.
>>54270735
Smart enough to make money from art and often my job includes telling people what they want, instead of listening to their ideas which simply wouldn't work, even if they think they just came up with a wonderful concept.
Also your retort here basically was:
>Blah blah bbble babble I'm not listening.
and
>lol, storytelling means jack shit.
We're talking about a format that tells a story and you're saying that storytelling doesn't matter?
That's one of the most retarded things I've heard this year.
And while you might think that things like composition or storytelling means jack shit, let's try with very simple example you should be able to understand or at least see.
Rule of thirds.
Place the things in these certain places in the picture and it guides your eye to these places.
You move your head, no more rule of thirds, composition on this part went to shit and your eye isn't guided to right places anymore.
This shit actually matters, believe it or not.
ITT: fuggin morans
especially >>54269615
>>54270949
Thanks for your insightful opinion.
>>54270661
Except VR movies have already been made. See the ones by Oculus Story Studio for example. And they're perfectly all right and show great promise for the medium. You talk a lot of the theory of movies but it doesn't mean shit when you are provably wrong. Too see if something works or not in the realm of art, there is absolutely no other way than to actually try it. And VR movies have been tried. And it works. End of story.
>>54269920
Cropped properly you stupid anon
