Vision Pro's First Scripted Immersive Film Is Coming This Week (9to5mac.com) 59
The first scripted Immersive Video project for Apple's Vision Pro debuts on October 10. Called Submerged, the film "invites viewers onto a WWII-era submarine and follows its crew as they wrestle to combat a harrowing torpedo attack." 9to5Mac reports: The short film was written and directed by an Academy Award-winning filmmaker. That makes it stand out from other Immersive Video Apple has produced to this point. The filmmaker, Edward Berger, is best known for films like All Quiet on the Western Front and the upcoming Conclave. You can watch the trailer with commentary from the director here.
Yawn? (Score:3)
Yaaaaawn
Re:Yawn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. 3D video has existed for a long time. So have 3D movies.
This is just Apple (and their fans) doing their usual schtick of relabeling existing technologies and pretending they invented something revolutionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. 3D video has existed for a long time. So have 3D movies.
This is just Apple (and their fans) doing their usual schtick of relabeling existing technologies and pretending they invented something revolutionary.
No this is worse. 3D (depth) is just a visual trick to create realism on a film. It is still fully in control of the director (e.g. you can't focus on an out of focus area of the image forcing your eye to see what the director wants you to see).
This immersive video on the other hand has very little control over the narrative you see. The director said it right "you're not watching a movie anymore, you're inside the story". All the tools at their disposal to create emotions are gone. No ability to add a Dutc
"Short" means "advertisement" (Score:2)
This will flop far harder than 3D movies.
The fact they are wasting all those resources and all they're coming up with is a short kinda indicates both their lack of faith in the technology AND their ability to squeeze anything worthwhile out of it - other than an advertisement disguised as "content".
It is not the future of cinema. It is once again an overpriced solution desperately looking for a problem someone else is willing to throw money at.
In one word - Apple.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This will flop far harder than 3D movies.
The fact they are wasting all those resources and all they're coming up with is a short kinda indicates both their lack of faith in the technology AND their ability to squeeze anything worthwhile out of it - other than an advertisement disguised as "content".
It is not the future of cinema. It is once again an overpriced solution desperately looking for a problem someone else is willing to throw money at.
In one word - Apple.
Howabout that this is a new cinematic and directorial universe, and it will take some time to apply it to a feature-length project.
What we have right now is akin to the Demo Records that came out when Stereo, and later, Quadrophonic, first appeared on the scene.
And don't start a flamewar over Quadrophonic; and in fact is a decent example of technical innovation that took awhile to "catch on".
After format-wars appeared to kill the idea of Quad recordings for music, it resurfaced about a decade and a half lat
Re: (Score:1)
They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown
Re: (Score:2)
They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Or in other words: just because successful format changes initially struggled before becoming accepted, that doesn't mean that everything that initially struggles will become accepted.
True; but both outcomes are certainly in the realm of "reasonable possibility"; especially over a decade or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Atmos is a little removed from the others in that the recording no longer encodes sounds for a specific channel but rather says 'this sound goes here physically' you figure out the best way to approximately render that.
Actually it probably mirrors the difference between "3D" and immersive video in some ways. Rather than a fixed viewer position off to the side of the scene and information about 'depth' you now have images with a relationship to each other than the viewer "controls" the camera positi
Re: (Score:2)
If you have fixed speaker positions, Atmos encoding is no different to a 5.1 mix for the same number of speakers. Where it is better is when you have many more speakers and a room that's not a perfect shape. A well calibrated system can use the speakers where they are and calculate the right positions in the sound field (and send to speakers at different levels appropriately).
HOWEVER, home Atmos mixes don't always have much more than the 7.1.4 premixed base channels. There are bandwidth constraints. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
If you have fixed speaker positions, Atmos encoding is no different to a 5.1 mix for the same number of speakers. Where it is better is when you have many more speakers and a room that's not a perfect shape. A well calibrated system can use the speakers where they are and calculate the right positions in the sound field (and send to speakers at different levels appropriately).
HOWEVER, home Atmos mixes don't always have much more than the 7.1.4 premixed base channels. There are bandwidth constraints. That means zero objects at all. The only benefit to home Atmos most of the time is a height differential. So if you want to turn up just the dialogue, you're limited to turning up just the center channel and if someone is off to the left or right they are quiet. For that matter, I don't think they have object tagging, so you can't turn up volume on "dialogue" anyway.
Exactly right on the "Height" being the only new dimension.
"Object Tagging" (real time audio compositing) is the Next Big Thing(tm) in Audio "reproduction". Very useful for Dialog, LFE (which is already separate), and Sound Effects (pyro work). Yes, a fancy name for "mixing"; but also where the term "Objects" begins to make sense in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Atmos is a little removed from the others in that the recording no longer encodes sounds for a specific channel but rather says 'this sound goes here physically' you figure out the best way to approximately render that.
Actually it probably mirrors the difference between "3D" and immersive video in some ways. Rather than a fixed viewer position off to the side of the scene and information about 'depth' you now have images with a relationship to each other than the viewer "controls" the camera position.
Actually, many Surround techniques theoretically Encode a full 360 degrees of positioning. Heck, IIRC, even the lowly SQ Quadrophonic Matrix Encoders can theoretically Resolve a full sphere of soundfield(!), with something like 2 degree accuracy(!).
So, "mapping" Encoded full-circle Surround info onto finite discrete outputs has been going-on since Stereo came on the scene. Atmos is just the latest refinement and expansion of the same equations, concepts, and speaker positions.
Re: (Score:2)
We had the inverse with "theatre in the round" where the audience looks in from all sides for many hundreds (thousands) of years. It wasn't compelling enough to keep it. The flat stage is actually not conducive to large audiences but that is what persists.
Re: (Score:2)
We had the inverse with "theatre in the round" where the audience looks in from all sides for many hundreds (thousands) of years. It wasn't compelling enough to keep it. The flat stage is actually not conducive to large audiences but that is what persists.
Yes; but each individual audience member was not generally encouraged to roam around the stage. Quite different. This could be almost akin to a holo-movie.
Re: "Short" means "advertisement" (Score:2)
Bullshit, this is yet another case of Apple trying to come up with an application for Touch 3D before its users discover that it's basically a useless over-engineered novelty. Problem is, that ship has already sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, this is yet another case of Apple trying to come up with an application for Touch 3D before its users discover that it's basically a useless over-engineered novelty. Problem is, that ship has already sailed.
Time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
[. . .] All the tools at their disposal to create emotions are gone. No ability to add a Dutch tilt to create a sense of unease. No ability to create a slow almost imperceptible zoom towards characters faces to build tension. Heck no ability to focus on the characters at all, that wonderful subtle hint of an emotion that came out after 10 takes is worthess if your viewer has the option to not even look at the right character at the right time.
Hmmm.
Sounds like you're referring to some of the same, once-innovative, now overused, cheap cinematic "devices" used for decades by lazy Directors.
This has the potential for New cheap cinematic devices to be created.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing cheap or overused about cinematic devices, any more than the fact we use words to convey meaning is cheap and overused. They are used literally in every scene all the time because meaning is conveyed by the choices made.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly. -- See suddenly this is annoying but it wasn't until
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing cheap or overused about cinematic devices, any more than the fact we use words to convey meaning is cheap and overused. They are used literally in every scene all the time because meaning is conveyed by the choices made.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly.
The only time you notice them is if they are used or overused incorrectly. -- See suddenly this is annoying but it wasn't until I started repeating the statement without any meaningful effect. Now it looks dumb.
This has the potential for New cheap cinematic devices to be created.
Except my point is it doesn't. This technology literally takes away the ability to frame the viewers view and replaces it with nothing.
Dutch angles are overused. Period.
There simply hasn't been nearly enough Content to assess the "Cinematic Device" potential. That is like watching Thomas Edison's "Movie", The Sneeze, and concluding that the entire idea of film entertainment was silly and destined for failure.
Re: (Score:2)
All the tools at their disposal to create emotions are gone.
most of the "camera tools" are gone, but it's still his choice where to place it, how and when, what to show and what to hide, how to construct scenes. it is indeed a different thing entirely and needs different approach to create emotion and mood, direct attention, tell stories, etc. at the basic level, this isn't anymore about telling a linear story but about crafting the world where the story happens. this kind of cinema is mostly unexplored territory and lacks the century worth of art to learn from tha
Re: (Score:2)
They can be, they can give you a visceral punch to the gut. The high lining immersive multiple times I got the strong sensation of falling. The hot air ballon one I got a similar feeling of not seeing it but being there. Multiple of the nature ones I literally dodged an animal that “got too close” because that was not something I thought would be fun, or something I thought could be interesting, but because something deep in my brain to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's already Hollywood.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. 3D video has existed for a long time. So have 3D movies.
This is just Apple (and their fans) doing their usual schtick of relabeling existing technologies and pretending they invented something revolutionary.
Um, most excellent and cool story bro!
Can you show us where Apple said they invented anything here? Help a friend out, you know where the cites are where Apple claimed they invented 3-D.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us where
5 words that tell you you've lost the argument. If you're asking someone else to provide proof of your assertion, your assertion is without substance.
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us where
5 words that tell you you've lost the argument. If you're asking someone else to provide proof of your assertion, your assertion is without substance.
Dooood! you made the assertion that and I quote:
"This is just Apple (and their fans) doing their usual schtick of relabeling existing technologies and pretending they invented something revolutionary."
Perhaps I should say Cite your sources that support your assertion. Or are you one of these people who can just say something and no one is allowed to call you out on it?
You might think that asking a person to support their assertion is losing the argument, but sorry - your sideways claim tells the wor
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us where
5 words that tell you you've lost the argument. If you're asking someone else to provide proof of your assertion, your assertion is without substance.
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
It's because you can't prove a negative.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us where
5 words that tell you you've lost the argument. If you're asking someone else to provide proof of your assertion, your assertion is without substance.
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
Held to what? I suspect the only people of intellectual ability to even think Apple created 3-D are people who makeup stories that Apple fans think that Apple invented 3-D.
It's because you can't prove a negative.
Idiot.
Silly summer child, I just asked you to prove a positive, that Apple and it's fans think that Apple Invented 3-D.
You made that up, When asked to prove it, you made another thing up. And now you claim I'm trying to get you to prove a negative.
Brilliant! You probably do believe the stuff you make up.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show us where
5 words that tell you you've lost the argument. If you're asking someone else to provide proof of your assertion, your assertion is without substance.
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
Held to what? I suspect the only people of intellectual ability to even think Apple created 3-D are people who makeup stories that Apple fans think that Apple invented 3-D.
It's because you can't prove a negative.
Idiot.
Silly summer child, I just asked you to prove a positive, that Apple and it's fans think that Apple Invented 3-D.
You made that up, When asked to prove it, you made another thing up. And now you claim I'm trying to get you to prove a negative.
Brilliant! You probably do believe the stuff you make up.
Wait! I didn't call YOU an Idiot; I was calling mjwx an Idiot!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait! I didn't call YOU an Idiot; I was calling mjwx an Idiot!!!
Yikes! Sorry about that. I concur that mjwx is the very aspect of an idiot. Not you!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait! I didn't call YOU an Idiot; I was calling mjwx an Idiot!!!
Yikes! Sorry about that. I concur that mjwx is the very aspect of an idiot. Not you!
Whew!
Re: Yawn? (Score:2)
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
Like when apple called their me-too smart speaker a "breakthrough" even though nothing about it was particularly novel. Worse, its "intelligence" was powered by siri, which was (still is?) even dumber than Alexa.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple won't directly say something, but they heavily intimate it without saying the words directly precisely so they can create an impression of something without being held to it.
Like when apple called their me-too smart speaker a "breakthrough" even though nothing about it was particularly novel. Worse, its "intelligence" was powered by siri, which was (still is?) even dumber than Alexa.
"Breakthrough" is not invention. It's just standard P.R. hype.
And P.R. hype is not something that Apple invented either.
There is a narrative that Apple users are stupid,https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/d7i4wm/people_who_buy_apple_products_are_stupid/?rdt=62470
No, they are not. As a daily user of Apple, Windows, Android and Linux, I don't suddenly become stupid when using my Macs or my iPhone. I was born that way!
But yaknow what? They all work. I do prefer Apple for my daily driver
Re:Yawn? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not "3d video". This is VR video. They are not the same thing. 3d video is static, just perceived with depth. VR video lets you look around in any direction, creating much more of a sense of immersion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yawn? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually focus on different things near or far similar to real vision.
Well it's not projecting a light field. It might be force-shifting focus based on eye tracking, but not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's still just a form of 3D video as it has existed for years and years.
The whole VR180 in high resolution thing has been done a lot, especially in the porn industry (google for "vr180 porn"), and yes, it is very immersive. But go ahead, look into what data the Apple format contains and what that allows for (hint: stereoscopic 3D, not 6DOF). Don't be fooled by marketing.
This subreddit has been around for a while: https://www.reddit.com/r/VR180... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
creating much more of a sense of immersion.
Immersion at the expense of emotion. 90% of a directors job is to control the viewer's emotion by framing the image. Cinematic masterpieces like this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] are simply not possible in VR. This technology sacrifices sooo much in the name of immersion that IMO it's not worth it. And I say this as a fanatical VR fanboi.
Re: (Score:2)
There haven't been a lot of 360 3D videos. But I did watch a few on Youtube with Google Cardboard.
Re: (Score:2)
360 3D videos generally suck due to the lack of resolution per degree.
The 180 degree 3D videos are much higher quality and thus far more convincing, although even then immersion is much improved with higher resolutions (8k+) and high bitrate/good compression.
Re: (Score:2)
Yaaaaawn
Don't be so dismissive, I'm certain all 12 Vision Pro owners are very excited to see this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yaaaaawn
Don't be so dismissive, I'm certain all 12 Vision Pro owners are very excited to see this.
How many people do you know that have a legit 5.1/7.1/9.1, let alone a Dolby Atmos, playback system at home? Yet virtually all movie, TV and music incorporates these technologies, and the additional creative freedom they offer.
Why? So that one guy you know can enjoy it? Obviously not.
Re: (Score:2)
Movies are shown in theaters, many of which are equipped for all of that. It takes less work to downmix to 5.1 than it does to stereo. They can blame the home user's equipment if it doesn't gracefully convert to stereo very well.
TV is mostly a stereo medium with an added dialogue channel. Low frequencies are shunted to the subwoofer but that's about it. Stock footage / audio might have ambient noise in all directions but it's just incidental. Maybe once in an episode of an action show the rear speakers
Re: (Score:2)
Movies are shown in theaters, many of which are equipped for all of that. It takes less work to downmix to 5.1 than it does to stereo. They can blame the home user's equipment if it doesn't gracefully convert to stereo very well.
TV is mostly a stereo medium with an added dialogue channel. Low frequencies are shunted to the subwoofer but that's about it. Stock footage / audio might have ambient noise in all directions but it's just incidental. Maybe once in an episode of an action show the rear speakers kick on for something flying overhead. 5.1 for TV is just a useful encoding because it can be used for 3.1
5.1 for home happened because the mixes had already been produced for the theatrical release.
It's not the listener's, or his equipment's, fault that the vast-majority of audio engineers never really progressed beyond Stereo-Thinking. Like Khan, they exhibit two-dimensional thinking. By way of contrast, Listen to a Steven Wilson 5.1 Mix to experience someone who understands surround-sound mixing.
Immersive headpiece (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Immersive headpieces are nice, but I'd really like to find a solution for a full-room projection mapping, complete with touch feedback and location detection. There is a lot of potential there.
And when that happens, the great driver of video technology will be there to move it along - Pr0n.
Ironic? Sarcastic? Probably just insightful.
Oh yeah, the perfect sales pitch (Score:2)
Apple Vision Pro: the perfect device to experience claustrophobia in a life-and-death situation you have no control over.
Next movie: This Is the End, a belter of a movie that will let you experience suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate, with great immersive views of the city on the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Vision Pro: the perfect device to experience claustrophobia in a life-and-death situation you have no control over.
Next movie: This Is the End, a belter of a movie that will let you experience suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate, with great immersive views of the city on the way down.
Dude, you panicked me there for a second. I don't want to spend the apocalypse in James Franco's house. I like your idea much better.
here (Score:5, Informative)
here
https://youtu.be/HjvzQeqoGRg [youtu.be]
I'll wait for 'Das Porno U-boot' (Score:2)
just saying.
Am I the only one who wants to know... (Score:2)
... which submarine they're talking about?
If it's a US submarine and we're talking in the pre-upgrades Mark 14 era, odds are the torpedo that hit it was its own ;)
How does this move the needle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Available for rent on flights (or complimentary with First Class) sounds great. At say 1500-2000 flights per year (US or EU non-transoceanic typical), 50% usage rate, and a couple year's lifespan in heavy use (several thousand uses mean time to failure), even a $1 rental cost would be profitable. At $5 per set I'd imagine that half of your passengers would rent one. Would need good procedures to prevent theft, though.
Re: (Score:2)
At $5 per set I'd imagine that half of your passengers would rent one. Would need good procedures to prevent theft, though.
The amount of cleaning or disposable light seals / cushions you'd need to come up with would outweigh the profits if the breakage rate doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be vanishingly small percentage of people who would buy AVP for this. But it will likely be could for already have one and make people happier about their purchase. If Apple want people to get elicited about the tech they should have “pop up theaters” in high traffic oddball locations where someone can buy a ticket to watch this. Like an oversized phone booth on the street in Time Square or Battery Park. Maybe even have some available on air planes, a place with abnormally high amount of higher net worth individuals with time to on their hands. Particularly in first and business class.
I tried one, the tech is awesome. But it doesn’t do enough for me to want to spend $3000 for what is essentially an entertainment device. I spent a grand more on a high end out Mac Book Pro instead. Something I can use for work and play. But I think making the experience more available while making money off it would be a good way for Apple to sell more of them and more get people to buy one in the future when they release a more capable all around version which can perform intensive tasks, or at least run multiple large windows for an existing Mac, and a less expensive versions in the future.
That's actually a great idea!
When you're done, can I watch it? (Score:1)
Freakout farming? (Score:1)
Screw immersion, I want interactive (Score:2)