Comments
mhhf1ve
11/4/2016 2:48:59 PM
User Rank Platinum
360 video since... 1994?
I find it fascinating that Apple has been sitting on 360 video for a couple decades now, and very few media outlets mention it... and Apple itself hasn't really done anything with its Quicktime VR stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime_VR
So why is momentum building now? And will Apple get left behind in a field it pioneered?
afwriter
11/4/2016 4:33:19 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Apple is definitely a different company today than it was in 1994. I would venture a guess that they will get there when they get there, but they are not in any huge rush to push something out right away (they learned that the hard way with Apple Maps).
I also think that the momentum is building now because consumers are asking for it. We have become so accustomed, over the last decade, to having our minds blown by new technology every quarter that we are starting to crave it. That is of course, only my opinion.
mhhf1ve
11/4/2016 8:35:50 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
I'm not so sure that many consumers are "asking" for 360 video. I think a more urgent request would be video that loaded quickly... 360VR is probably a lower priority than 4K video, I'd guess.
batye
11/5/2016 12:20:36 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhhf1ve I would say right now all of the hype is moving towards 4K...
mhhf1ve
11/5/2016 11:48:20 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
I really wonder how high resolution can get? There are 5K displays. When does it stop? At some point, we reach the limits of chemistry and physics. Surely, just like Moore's law is ending, the limits of display resolution must also hit a ceiling.
batye
11/6/2016 12:02:34 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhhf1ve for my eye sight I could not see SD/HD/4K for me it look all the same with glasses on :)
mhhf1ve
11/6/2016 1:01:12 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Well, at some distance, it doesn't matter if you have 20/20 vision -- you won't be able to tell the difference because physics. I don't know what that distance is tho...
batye
11/6/2016 10:37:06 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhhf1ve yes, but in my case it very bad vision :(...
Michelle
11/6/2016 5:47:35 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhh I wonder the same. How do we know the resolution is super-ultra-mega-whopper-huge resolution if our eyes can't detect the difference? I don't see the point of pushing beyone what the human eye can see...why bother if we don't notice anyway?
batye
11/6/2016 10:40:12 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@Michelle it like putting trust in what ever manf. say/put on the product box - under info....
JohnBarnes
11/6/2016 8:32:29 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
mhhf1ve,
I used to guess that the resolution of the unaided human eye would be the limit, but I've seen some experimental short VR pieces that had a magnification feature, so that you could see smaller or more distant things than you would in real life.I guess if you want to be able to look at the night sky and see Saturn's rings without a telescope, or check the pores of an actor for bacteria, then there's a market for VR going beyond visual resolution.
mhhf1ve
11/7/2016 2:05:14 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
> "I guess if you want to be able to look at the night sky and see Saturn's rings without a telescope, or check the pores of an actor for bacteria, then there's a market for VR going beyond visual resolution."
That's a bit beyond the scope of VR, I think.. That shifts into the super-augmented reality realm, giving people super-vision to see the rings of Saturn by looking up into the sky in the right direction. But then again, that'd be like putting a planetarium app in VR goggles, so maybe it's not that far from regular VR. It'd be a lot easier to display Saturn in near-real-time, though, than bacteria on someone's face...
Ariella
11/7/2016 8:36:20 AM
User Rank Author
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
<> "I guess if you want to be able to look at the night sky and see Saturn's rings without a telescope, or check the pores of an actor for bacteria, then there's a market for VR going beyond visual resolution."> @mhhf1ve that reminds me of what a videographer told me about HD pictures and video over a decade ago, it may show more details than you want. In fact, it launched some makeup artist marketing with makeup specifically for that level of capture in which every line and pore is clear if not artificially blurred. In other words, clearer isn't better for all contexts.
mhhf1ve
11/7/2016 11:02:53 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Ariella, I think that concern was a somewhat significant worry for the on-air talent of local TV news anchors. Close ups of a person reading the news or describing the local weather wasn't necessarily a benefit. I think they've mostly avoided these concerns by re-designing news studios so that presenters are farther away from the camera at a nicer-looking table.
Ariella
11/7/2016 4:52:52 PM
User Rank Author
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhhf1ve Intersting. I hadn't thought of that. Back in the last century when I watched the news on TV, I recall closeups of the anchor person. I haven't thought about the difference in camera angles now.
mhhf1ve
11/7/2016 4:59:40 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Who really still watches the "news at 11" anymore? :P I only watch when the local news is either covering something in my neighborhood or if YouTube has caught a local news blooper that's gone viral.
Ariella
11/7/2016 5:02:34 PM
User Rank Author
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@mhhf1ve Nowadays I only end up watching local news, which is channel 12 where I live when I'm stuck in a doctor's or dentist's or my car dealer's waiting room, and it happens to be on. Otherwise, I get news online or listen on the radio for a bit while driving.
dlr5288
11/29/2016 11:34:20 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Haha me too! Only if something really catches my eye and I see it on my Twitter or Facebook feed.
JohnBarnes
11/7/2016 12:19:05 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
mhhf1ve,
The physical limit issue is tricky because in fact we are nowhere near the physical limit for what could be done. Normally resolutions are measured in pixels and the size of the pixels changes depending on your screen; a little phone screen has just as many pixels as a big honking graphics screen, it's just the pixels are smaller. There's no problem with doing this because pixels could be much, much smaller.
Well, how much smaller?
Theoretically if your picture was as "grainy" as the real world, your pixels would correspond to squares with a 190 nm diagonal. That's 1/2 of wavelength of violet, just below ultraviolet, light. Any object or aperture smaller than 1/2 wavelength can't be resolved physically; the wave either blocks totally (for an aperture) or rejoins seamlessly around it (for an isolated object that small), so there's no altered light to resolve an image from. Thus some instrument (surely not a biological eye) could perhaps resolve an object or a space in very deep violet light if it was about 1/5 of the micrometer across, so if you do one pixel per 1/5 micrometer, you've got representation that is as good as God, Nature, or Heisenberg will tolerate.
A square with diagonal 1/5 micrometer implies about 50 pixels to the square micrometer, and since a square millimeter is one million square micrometers, that's a convenient unit: a square millimeter is 50 million pixels at the limits of resolution.
My 27" monitor screen is 13.24" X 23.53", or 311.5 square inches, or 200,968 square millimeters. Times 50 million and you have right around 10 trillion of those smallest-physically-possible pixels. At the standard 16x9 aspect ratio, that's 4.28 million X 2.38 million -- just about a thousand times the resolution of 4K. (4M? "PIFRR" for "Physically Indistinguishable from Reality Resolution"?)
We are still a comfortably long way from that!
mhhf1ve
11/7/2016 2:11:53 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
> '4M? "PIFRR" for "Physically Indistinguishable from Reality Resolution"'
Thanks for doing the calculations.. but just as Moore's Law ends well before 1-nm scale features, I'd guess display resolution also stops improving well before it approaches the theoretical physical limits. But it's still good to know where the physics actually imposes a hard limit.
I assume, as most people view TV screens from a comfortable distance on a couch (10 feet? 20 feet?) away from the pixels, that we're almost already at "PIFRR" with 4K video. Maybe it still matters when we're sitting at a laptop screen at an arm's length away from our eyes..? But not that much.. and we'll probably hit that limit, too, soon.
Adi
11/7/2016 4:42:25 AM
User Rank Author
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
This is great info - many thanks, John Barnes!
JohnBarnes
11/26/2016 2:27:23 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Addendum I meant to put in: the actualy physical resolution as good as reality would imply you could, for example, hold up a magnifiying glass to the screen and have the image stay just as clear (in fact you could put it under a microscope and, I suppose, look at the bacteria on an actor's skin, or at structures inside the mitochondria inside each cell ....
At which point you'd be spending all your time wondering if you'd been living inside a simulation all along.
JohnBarnes
11/26/2016 2:43:19 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
From another side of things: so according to this well-reasoned article by someone who appears to know what he is talking about, the human eye's resolution is about 480 megapixels. Applying the same formulae as I did for the physical limits, the Indistinguishable from Real to the Naked Eye screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio would be about 29212 X 16432. Using that silly K designation, which I'm beginning to hate as I look at how many things it hides, that would be 29K, but I betcha they round up rather than down to 30K, or maybe even to a power of 2 and call it 32K.
That's probably more like the real limit. Figuring we seem to go about a rough doubling of resolution per tech generation, and we're just really deploying 4K now with a tiny bit of 8K in very expensive applications, at a rough guess all resolution competition will be over in 3 more generations of screens beyond 4K. Pure guess, by 2025 at earliest, 2035 at latest. At that point resolution will be effectively not anything to compete about again.
vnewman
11/4/2016 4:35:00 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
Perhaps Facebook is giving them the nudge they needed to forge ahead.
For a while I used an app called Vyclone (Video Cyclone) - which was a type of 360 Video sharing software that would allow you and your friends to create "mash ups" of the same video but from different angles. I thought it would be a huge hit but it just crashed and burned. They ran out of money and had to close up shop.
Perhaps just a little before their time.
dcawrey
11/5/2016 4:49:41 PM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
There certainly is a degree of FOMO out there for VR. Entertainment companies are concerned if they don't get in and spend big bucks they will be left out. So we're going to continue to hear about VR for a very long time, even if it isn't in everyone's living room.
batye
11/6/2016 12:04:40 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: 360 video since... 1994?
@dcawrey yes, you are right as hype never stops :)
clrmoney
11/4/2016 4:21:37 PM
User Rank Platinum
360 Video
This is great for the video world to access things easier and using for the virtual world and can be use by many people for which its use has value to it.
afwriter
11/4/2016 4:38:43 PM
User Rank Platinum
The content is coming together
I think that a lot of people (including myself) are having trouble imaging the scope of VR video. When I read about watching football from a player's perspective it gets me a little excited about a media that I am not quite sold on yet.
batye
11/5/2016 12:16:30 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: The content is coming together
@afwriter technology changing and after it get proven I think we gonna change our view of it accepting as new VR reality :)
elizabethv
11/7/2016 9:12:55 AM
User Rank Platinum
Exciting
This is really exciting, and interestingly enough a topic we had talked about not too long ago. With the ratings declining for live viewership of sporting events, there needs to be something new and exciting to appeal to fans enough to make time for sporting events when they are happening. Being able to see the game from any angle they want would definitely meet the criteria for that appeal. I'm not even the biggest sports fan and even I think that would be exciting.
mhhf1ve
11/7/2016 11:06:19 AM
User Rank Platinum
Re: Exciting
Before live sporting events are broadcast in VR, I'd be willing to bet that first, VR video games will be broadcast as they are played. The popularity of LetsPlay YouTube and Twitch might beat live sports to the VR arena.
clrmoney
11/7/2016 10:29:50 AM
User Rank Platinum
360 Video momentum
Let's see how much momentum the video world can build as time goes one with new things coming out.
|
|
Italy's 5G auction could exceed a government target of raising €2.5 billion ($2.9 billion) after attracting interest from companies outside the mobile market.
The emerging-markets operator is focusing on the humdrum business of connectivity and keeping quiet about some of its ill-fated 'digitalization' efforts.
Three UK has picked Huawei over existing radio access network suppliers Nokia and Samsung to build its 5G network.
Vendor says that it's its biggest 5G deal to date.
Verizon skates where the puck is going by waiting for standards-based 5G devices to launch its mobile service in 2019.
Orange has been one of the leading proponents of SDN and NFV. In this Telco Transformation radio show, Orange's John Isch provides some perspective on his company's NFV/SDN journey.
10/16/2017
Huawei Network Transformation Seminar
The adoption of virtualization technology and cloud architectures by telecom network operators is now well underway but there is still a long way to go before the transition to an era of Network Functions Cloudification (NFC) is complete.
The Small Cell Forum's CEO Sue Monahan says that small cells will be crucial for indoor 5G coverage, but challenges around business models, siting ...
People, strategy, a strong technology roadmap and new business processes are the key underpinnings of Telstra's digital transformation, COO Robyn ...
Eric Bozich, vice president of products and marketing at CenturyLink, talks about the challenges and opportunities of integrating Level 3 into ...
Epsilon's Mark Daley, director of digital strategy and business development, talks about digital transformation from a wholesale service provider ...
Bill Walker, CenturyLink's director of network architecture, shares his insights on why training isn't enough for IT employees and traditional ...
All Videos
|
On-the-Air Thursdays Digital Audio
Special Huawei Video
Tweet This