360° cam - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2016, 10:57:39 am
content: Would it be interesting for some of Dave's videos to be 360° videos? Of course, for the usual teardown or mailbag Monday it might be not interesting, but would add new perspectives for outdoor activities like Maker Faire, or when flying a fighter jet:With cameras like the 360fly it is easy to record 360° videos. But even if you don't have such a cam it is possible to create these videos, as I did with some quadcopter footage I made over Cologne, and then used Blender to create a video:Neat feature: If you have an iPad, you can move the iPad to rotate the camera when watching 360° Youtube videos, and I think Oculus Rift allows you to turn your head to turn the camera.

author: encryptededdy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:29:52 am
content: I recently bought a Samsung Gear 360 camera, and, while it's cool and all that, to get any kind of decent 360 video resolution you need to shoot in 4k, thereby resulting in huge ass filesizes.Considering the fact that tradeshow / maker faire type videos (where the 360 camera would be the most useful) are very long (and therefore resulting in huge files when rendered at 4k, I don't think Dave (who already complains about his internet speed a lot) would want to deal with uploading the huge ass files.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:23:40 pm
content: The tradeshow videos could be 1/4 in length, because you can record 4 sides at onceBut looks like not many people are interested in it. I asked some friends about 360° videos and they are not as fascinated about it as me either. Biggest complain is that it isn't possible to select your position, only the rotation. I guess this will need 10 more years to record all locations at once.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:33:18 am
content: I won't be expecting anything within 10 years that will handle varying location.This is because you will need to vary x, y and possibly z spatial parameters of the viewpoint, according to the viewer's choice. With current technologies, these are firmly locked to a single point - the location of the camera - at every moment in time.360º viewing is simply an extension of the 2D image that has been captured for decades - such that it is big enough to encompass a full pan. The skill then is providing a viewing mechanism to allow for the full image to be projected or for a rotational window. Both of these allow for the viewer to choose what part of the single 2D image they will look at.For full variable location, the only real way is to 3D model the scene ... and that will take a new approach altogether. IMHO.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:45:19 am
content: I hate to show my ignorance but here goesHow long has YT had 360 videos?I wait for the day when Dave gets a Tesla auto driver car, puts a camera on the hood and gets in the passenger seat and do a tear down. Here is a sample of a camera mounted on a hoodDoes anyone see the problem

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 07:00:23 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 06:33:18 amYou are right, currently this can be done with static scenes, like with this product:But I can imagine some dozen blimps (not as loud as quadro copters and longer flight time), recording all in 360°, in combination with 3D scanner methods, to create such a dynamic 3D model. Would need a lot of bandwidth and some clever calculations, but it is physically possible.Quote from: ez24 on July 02, 2016, 06:45:19 amSince march 2015:http://www.wired.com/2015/03/youtube-360-degree-video/

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 12:35:57 pm
content: I can't see this adding anything, if a story needs a better perspective to improve then the film maker isn't making the right choices.Same for 3D televisions, you wouldn't remake Casablanca in 3D and expect it to be better.It was always just another excuse for manufacturers to rehash a technology in order to sell more products.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 03:45:41 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on July 02, 2016, 12:35:57 pmI'm inclined to agree.My personal opinion is, when it comes to video entertainment, I am expecting my vision's field of view to be the maximum canvas, with the filmmaker presenting what they want within that space. If I have to look around to see what I need to see, then I have to wonder....Perhaps there might be an argument for moviegoers to have 360º vision capabilities coupled with full spatial audio for things like dog fight aerial battles where any individual view is no better or worse than any other - and the audience member can turn their head for their own views according to their reaction to audio cues.There have been other 'audience immersion' technologies used - such as IMAX and 3D, but I haven't seen rave reviews that would suggest these - or any others - are 'must have' technologies necessitating development for the future.But, let's see where it might take us.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 10:14:56 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 03:45:41 pm+1, for me 360° is cool for a few "real life experiences" where you're an observer like the fighter jet video posted above or this one:but not for narrative content, all examples of 360° narrative content I've seen were awful. If you use the 360° you either force the viewer to constantly spin around and look for the action (and as soon as he's found it it jumps somewhere else and the cycle repeats), do jump / angle cuts that are unnatural and make him feel bad, or contrain the action to a given area but then there's no point in 360°, a normal screen is enough.The problem is that 360°/VR is the only way forward for development of video technology. We've hit a wall of physical limitations of the wetware, and basically without the hope of success of 360°/VR we could just stopdevelopment of anything video related as nearly any improvement on the other aspects would simply be useless.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 am
content: Quote from: Kilrah on July 03, 2016, 10:14:56 amWe've still a few things to accomplish,the next development in TVs will be extending the colour range (RGB LEDs currently don't accurately display actual colours)Then there is the refresh rate, apparently gamers can tell the difference between 25hz and 100hzThe blurring of video is a tricky one, that's a vast amount of data to shift and hope your display technology is going to react accordinglyEverything we see is mostly reflected light, everything on a TV is a light source, I'd imagine the perception of each is different, I don't know how we'd compensate for the difference.I'd like to see manufacturers simply stop putting loudspeakers into TV's - they are now too thin to do the job adequately, yet people persist in ruining their experience by putting up with tinny sound. Although I'd also like to see hi-fi manufacturers stop making tiny loudspeakers and pretending physics is trumped by their marketing department.*cough* Bose *cough*

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 11:25:28 am
content: Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 amHaving color-calibrated several TVs they frankly don't do that bad a job. Color gamut can be extended a bit, but that's not something the average Joe will notice, and that won't even work as a marketing point since manufacturers have already been overusing the "get better color thanks to technology XYZ" for a few years now and have pretty much exhausted the topic... so it's bound to be a thing only for a niche market.Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 amCurrent TVs already supports 4K/60p, which is all that's needed for video and normal gaming... Faster refresh only has some interest for hardcore gaming which is again a niche market (and which I believe is also mostly marketing-driven again due to lack of other things to improve on).Response time we've already got everything that's needed.Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 amI don't think that's a big deal, I'd actually say I personally prefer a screen/light source to a reflective support.Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 amThe fact people put up with it says they aren't asking for more... There are devices with tiny speakers that give out comparatively awesome sound (was very surprised by my Macbook) and large ones that are utter crap - if they wanted to, TV manufacturers could do much better even with the space they have.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 12:32:11 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on July 03, 2016, 11:25:28 amThis is, I think, mostly down to consumer ignorance. Just like crappy MP3 encoding, we live with what is presented to us and accept that as normality.If we had to sit down and evaluate different ways of doing something, then we'd start to appreciate the difference. The appreciation of sound is quite a tricky one to market, most showrooms are noisy and most shoppers only consider something for 30 seconds.Like art is either a pretty way of filling in that blank space over the fireplace, or a mirror to humanity. Nobody ever asked for better art.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 12:46:42 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 12:32:11 pmI don't believe so. I've had people come to my place and say "wow the sound is nice" meaning they notice the difference, but then they won't change their setup or check that the new TV they buy has better sound because they actually don't care that much about it. Others don't even notice that the sound is better and it stops right here, even if you pointed it out they wouldn't understand... good marketing and a pushy seller might get them to buy something better, but they still wouldn't think much of it.There are people who are interested in some things and will look at those details, and others who couldn't care less. I care about image/sound/tech and follow/buy into most of the things I know can improve what I care about, but around me I can count the people who do so on one hand's fingers. Most just buy a TV to have a TV and watch whatever random show without putting any importance on the actual experience, or even understanding they could have a better one.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 01:25:44 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on July 03, 2016, 12:46:42 pmAre they really noticing the difference though?Like someone could look at my PC and notice the two 24" monitors. "Wow, you have two monitors, that's nice, I only use one".To me it utterly inconceivable why anyone would only use one monitor, my mind just boggles at the multitude of irritations involved in moving windows around. Yet the world is filled with offices with only one screen per PC.Nobody* who uses two monitors will ever be happy at going back to just one.*there is always one...Now is this a total lack of demand for two screens, or simply that people haven't experienced it properly?

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 01:34:25 pm
content: I read a lot of tech support stories and the number of stories with people who have 2 monitors at work but leave one off because they can't handle it/don't understand what to do with it, or have it on with their email client on it but call support because their mail client is "gone" is appalling.I had 2 monitors myself and it was good, but now have a single 65" curved 4K TV as monitor.I'd still run a 2nd monitor if it was practical, but it isn't and for what I do I prefer the large 4K screen, so...There are always compromises and personal preferences I guess, along with very different level of capability/awareness between people.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 02:01:28 pm
content: Yep, I'd be happy with 65", simply because the OS is windowed, so work is split into separate workspaces rather than just one.Same for films, someone paid multiple audio engineers to make a very accurate nuanced recording, along with a team of special effects people who have fifty types of door creak to choose from, as well as the guys writing and arranging the music to suit each scene.Given the opportunity people will eventually appreciate this, just as much as they currently notice the barrels full of petrol exploding in 3D.

author: JacobPilsen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 08:00:20 pm
content: On the opposite side that special effects people intentionally uses totally unrealistic sound effects, just because people are accustomed that sound from about century of movies.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 08:26:32 pm
content: I think there is something wrong with the voting. I never got a chance.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 08:29:36 pm
content: He set voting to only be open for 5 days, but the thread only really surfaced after voting was closed...

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 10:49:46 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on July 03, 2016, 08:29:36 pmthanks I missed "Voting Closed"

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 04, 2016, 08:14:27 am
content: Quote from: Kilrah on July 03, 2016, 08:29:36 pmLooks like I can't open it again, but the one voting for 360° camera was by me, so I guess most other EEVblog users don't care anyway.Quote from: bitslice on July 03, 2016, 11:02:46 amI think it doesn't matter if a photon was created at a light source or reflected for the viewer, at least if you don't move. But would be interesting to create a display that can control the direction where the photons are sent (and a bunch of photons per pixel). This would allow real holographic displays without glasses.