I had an idea. I could code a 360º video format that instead of buffering the whole video at once, only buffers a small area of the possible sphere of vision, allowing you to watch 360ª videos in a much higuer quality without spending as much bandwiddth.
Is this viable? Could I monetize it somehow?
>>1365923
I'm almost 100% sure that they have done this already and had poor results.
>>1365923
Seriously? No, of course not.
People like to be constantly looking around and having fun with the video. Silly but true.
>>1365923
that's been tried. the moment you change your field of view, the quality turns to shit as there's nothing buffered
Combine this with VR and you're on to a win.
If I had the skills and money to do this myself, I would do the following:
1. Start a company that allows you to live stream your "view" optimised for VR goggles.
2. Pay interesting people to stream their "view" that can be purchased by other VR users. (There isn't that much of a market right now, but we all know there will be soon)
Get reality TV stars to wear this shit, celebrities... anyone.
This won't likely blow up until I'd say 2020, but in this case, it's good to be early.
3. Watch the money roll in as the fat, dumb and lazy masses pay to live vicariously through their VR glasses. They already do it through the TV, internet... addicted to reality TV and other peoples interesting lives... VR is going to take it to a whole new level.
God damn, I wish I had funds and knew how to program.
I guarantee that the company that does this will go on to be valued in the billions.
>>1366744
but the celebrity has to wear a device that generates a 3D picture all the time. say.... 2 go pros on the head.
so you could just record a reality TV series in 3D and let people watch it on Netflix with their VR thingy
But theres not much you can do about it now until people start buying these VR things
>>1366762
Yeah, either as you said (not live) or it's completely live.
It can be done now.
If you start now and make good progress you'll probably be bought out by a larger company by 2025 tops.
There are companies that are doing this now but in a lesser way.
http://visualise.com/ being probably the closest at the moment. It's not live streaming but it is via VR and pretty similar. I'd be willing to bet that they're going to be acquired in the future.
>>1366762
>But theres not much you can do about it now until people start buying these VR things
Already happening, for this kind of thing now is the best time to start these kinds of ventures because you've got to get in on the ground floor.
The highest end VR devices have sold a few hundred thousand sets between them at a high price point, but the GearVR, the most accessible to most people has sold well over a million sets so far.
>>1365923
no because the whole point of a 360 video is to look around, if youre only loading a small section at a time when you turn to see other parts youll be hit with loading screens
>>1366744
How many celebrities would like to wear a fucking helmet with a spherical camera on top of it?
I mean, I would do it if I could live good off the money, but celebrities wouldn't do it.
