Bob Yarwood
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bob Yarwood
-
-
For a look at the movies of the future (hopefully), see this:
Virtual Space - the movies of the future
-
For a look at the movies of the future (hopefully), see this:
Virtual Space - the movies of the future
-
Actually the director can still guide the audience's attention, by simply moving the camera near to where he wants them to look. This is done now in most films, and is called dollying. The only thing a VS camera would not be able to do is zooming, but the effects of zooming and dollying are the same.
-
I imagine you guys have talked about this to the bone, but I thought you might be interested anyway…
It doesn't sound much of a "revolution" to me, merely to increase the frame rate. I have suggested a new system, which really would be a revolution, elsewhere in this forum. It's in the form of an essay, at this address:
Virtual Space - the movies of the future
-
This system would completely negate the viewing experience in as much as how our attention is directed. Films are a gestalt of every element available, and what makes a good film maker is being able to weave these elements just so - to strip away an element of control and handing it to the viewer we are now left with a continuation of possibilities of which most are due to fail as its up to the imagination of the viewer to make it work, not everyone has the patience to make a film ... (I hate editing myself)
Anyways, ask yourself why these 'silly little windows' are still so popular ... *edit>> oops, you already did!
I don't understand much of that as it seems too vague. Yes, the system would be different, and would take some getting used to, but I don't think it would "completely negate the viewing experience". In real life we don't have our attention directed so we direct our own attention to where we want, and VS movies would be like that.
-
Why is everyone so obsessed with seeing things on a screen? We could be right inside the movie or computer game, with the action going on all round us. See my essay at http://www.virtual-space.org.uk
-
I have written an essay about what I see as the future of movies and computer games. It's at http://www.virtual-space.org.uk. I would be glad to hear what anyone here thinks of the idea.
-
For a look at what the future of movies might be, see this:
www.virtualspace.org.uk
-
I have now had over 1500 hits on the essay, and I have continued it as a blog at this address:
http://wwwvirtualspaceblog.blogspot.com/20...movies-and.html
-
I was busy on my new project, at www.virtualspace.org.uk
-
I think that Nintendo is probably the organization best qualified to make some progress in this direction. It would then migrate from interactive games to storytelling. -- J.S.
Good idea - I'll try to interest them in it. Thanxalot!
-
I think that the main trouble with 3D was that it only works within quite a short distance from the head - about arms length. Any further than that and there is no discernible 3D effect anyway, because the eyes are too close together, so it simply isn't worth the bother. And I don't think it is true to say that the the view would be "controlled" by the viewer. The viewer would choose which direction to look in, but which scene he is looking at would be decided by where the director puts the camera, and this can be moved about between scenes and even put on a moving platform.
As for the other points, I think they are fair comment. I did say that big changes in filmed movies would be necessary, but I have faith that solutions to the problems will be found. Besides, I suspect that there is a great deal more to present day filming than the audience can see. When the action seems to go from one scene to the next instantaneously, they probably stopped the cameras and did a lot of rearranging before going on to the next scene. The "chase" scenes were probably done bit by bit and joined up in the editing.
I shall be interested to see if the new video glasses catch on when the price comes down. The airlines might provide them to passengers for watching in-flight movies. That way, no-one can pass in front of the screen when you are trying to watch it! If people get used to that idea it will probably help to get VS movies accepted.
Perhaps at first the technique will be used only for video games, animated films and documentaries, and the filmed drama side will gradually improve over a long time. After all, the present system did not spring into being overnight but took nearly 100 years to evolve to its present state.
-
-
-
I have had an idea for some time about future developments in cinema which I think are glaringly obvious, but no-one else seems to have thought about it. I have written an essay, and to save myself the bother of sending copies to people I have made it into a website which anyone can access. I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks:
-
Continuing my "thesis" on virtual-space movies, I think they would make as much difference to movies as sound did in the late 1920s. If you could not see your actual surroundings, only what was in the movie, you would get a very powerful feeling that you were somewhere else completely - i.e. wherever the camera was which made the film. I like to think of the helmet as a "magic helmet" which transports the wearer instantly to another place. Although you would be sitting in your own living room, you could appear to be in a huge hall, or outside, or even floating in space outside the space station. Using the Google Earth images, you could be flying like Superman to anywhere on Earth across the actual landscape. As charts of Mars have already been prepared, including the heights of the terrain, you could be travelling around Mars before we have even been there!
My favourite idea is to have science fiction movies with computer-generated imagery made in virtual-space form. The best story to start with would be Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous With Rama", in which a gigantic alien spaceship, several miles long and a mile in diameter, visits the Solar System and is boarded and explored by astronauts from Earth.
At the age of 73, I just hope I live to see this happen!
-
Nice work but unfortunately you have just re-invented "virtual reality." ;) It's already applied to video games and you can play a couple good examples of them at DisneyQuest in Orlando. Keep up the work though, maybe you will have a true breakthrough in time!
The term "Viritual Reality" seems to mean many different things to different people, which is why I deliberately avoided using it in this case. I have most often seen it used to describe computer-generated images that are meant to be as close to real life as possible, but still shown on a flat screen in the ordinary way. An example of this is pictures that estate agents have on their computers to show clients the inside of a house without having to visit it.
If there are a couple of examples of video games that are played using head-mounted displays in Orlando I am very glad to hear it, but as I said I have already seen one here (England). That does not alter the fact that neither video games nor movies of this kind are commonly known and available, nor even discussed in any technical magazine that I have seen. If you do come across any mention of them I would be grateful if you would let me know. My email is bob_yarwood@yahoo.co.uk
-
The problem with that is the difficulty of mass viewing. A projection theater has one piece of expensive equipment for many people. Your idea, while very cool and possessing lots of potential, would need 1 piece of expensive equipment for each person.
That alone will doom it to small venues and novelty acts like you saw.
Yes, it would be expensive at first, as all new technologies are, but the cost would come down in time as the idea spread. After all, the computers we have today would have been astronomically expensive ten years ago if they could have been made at all. Anyway, I think the computers we have now, with the right programs, could take care of the software side. The expensive equipment would then consist of the head-mounted display with its motion sensors. These should be externally mounted at first for simplicity and cheapness, and later perhaps incorporated into the helmet.
This technology, which I have provisionally named "virtual-space", would start off quite crude and be refined as time went by. Look how radio started, with a few enthusiasts poking at a piece of crystal with a fine wire - a "cat's whisker" as it was called.
Also, I didn't mention computer games, which would provide another, and perhaps more popular, application. Instead of watching the action on a screen you could take part in the game in person, entering the dungeon or whatever and interacting with the characters as yourself. Considering how keen game players are now and how eager they are to get the latest hardware like Playstation, I think virtual-space games would be wildly popular (perhaps even too addictive!)
I have just written about this to the most obvious and influential person I can think of, George Lucas, but there is no guarantee that my letter will get right to him - it may will be binned by someone many levels down in his organisation!
-
Has anyone heard of films made to be viewed with a head-mounted display with motion
sensors and computer control of the images presented to the viewer? The viewer would
appear to be inside the scene, with the action going on all round, rather than having it
projected onto a screen. I have had this idea for several years now, and it seems to me
that this will be the next big change in the film industry, similar to the introduction of
sound in the 1920s. It seems so obvious to me, and yet I have never heard or read
anything about it. I have written to many people to do with films but no-one has replied
yet.
I am not a cinematographer but I am a graduate physicist and control systems engineer, as
well as a lifelong science fiction fan, so perhaps I have developed the habit of looking
into the future more than most people. I think that once people got used to the idea
they would not want to go back to screen-projected films, any more than they want to go
back to silent films.
The first thing it would need is a camera with an all-round view - 360 degrees in the
horizontal plane and 180 degrees in the vertical plane. I don't expect there are any
yet, but considering that we can send pictures back from Mars, and correct the faults
in the Hubble telescope while it is in orbit, it should't present an insuperable difficulty!
I have actually seen a working model of this, but it was in a seaside amusement arcade.
I stepped onto a platform, put the helmet on, and I was in the most absurdly simple scene
you could imagine - just a boxing ring with ropes and corner posts, and that was all.
When I turned my head, sure enough the ropes and posts were all round me. When
I went back a few weeks later to find out where it came from it had been taken away.
Still, it showed that it can be done.
Is 3D really here to stay?
in General Discussion
Posted
I cannot understand all this fuss about 3D. In everyday life it depends on the separation between the eyes which is only about 2.5 inches, and so only works near to the head - about arm's length. It is only useful for such tasks as threading a needle. The only movies I have seen in 3D were Avatar and The Hobbit, and the 3D effect was hardly noticeable - in fact after a few minutes I forgot all about it. I feel the same about HDTV - an enormous amount of discussion about something which is hardly any different from what we had before. I have mentioned this in my essay at http://www.virtual-space.org.uk.