360VR in 2019...and the Future???

[Rick Miller]

360/VR video had been slow to take off, as shown by lack of interest on this forum. However, dont think dead yet. It's a niche market for sure.

I'm focusing on the eLearning side. Developing interactive training videos in VR, complete with question/answer quizzes within the VR arena. Along with this I believe will take off is gaming, already kinda has, but I'm not interested in that side of things.

I bring this up because of the Oculus Go. It is such an improvement over all the previous headsets that require inserting a smartphone. Dont have to worry about smartphone overheat, bumbling around trying to insert, was a pain. The Go is standalone, wireless, and has much improved optics.

Is the quality great? No. I've read people complain about quality, but those expecting 4K seem to be video professionals mostly. The Average Joe clients of mine luv it and say nothing about quality. Of course, my clients are not Fortune 500 companies, they may have higher expectations.

VR on it's way, slowly, but sub $200 products like the Go seems to be a good decision for the future. I'm just trying to stay a bit ahead when/if it takes off.

I'm curious if there are other traditional vid pros out there tinkering around with VR, and their experiences and predictions, thx.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Rick Miller

I'm curious if there are other traditional vid pros out there tinkering around with VR, and their experiences and predictions, thx.

It's dead already. Why would someone want to watch a 360 degree training video in VR? What possible advantage would it have over a traditional training video specifically?

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

It's dead already. Why would someone want to watch a 360 degree training video in VR? What possible advantage would it have over a traditional training video specifically?

Immersion in the scene is valuable when there’s something to see in several directions.

My work in simulation-based training in the mid-2000s was too late for QuicktimeVR, which is well and truely dead, but too early for 360 video camera arrays. We used 360 stills to represent real world environments for sims. Simulation-based training can be very effective indeed, our projects were to help first responders and emergency managers to prepare for events that might only occur once or twice in someone’s career.

For example, one sim we created was for hospitals. How do you train to evacuate a hospital? You can read about it. You can watch a video on it. You can go to professional events where it’s discussed. We created a way to experience the event, make decisions that affected others, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. That’s simulation-based training.

Now, price is coming down and quality is going up steeply for all-in-one-chassis video camera arrays, some offering stereoscopic capture that actually works. Youtube, and more recently Vimeo, are supporting distribution.

Then there’s the VR gaming industry, not my own cup of tea, but, there’s a reason it’s blowing up; well designed immersive and interactive experiences are incredibly engaging!

I’ve been learning 360 video workflows, and recently completed a doc about a friend who is a home brewer.

It’s up on Youtube right here.

Unfortunately, forum software automatically created an embed from my url, which doesn’t support the 360 functions of Youtube’s current player. You’ll have to click on the “Youtube” logo in the player.

Not all devices do. Not all browsers do either. But, this doc was designed for the Oculus Go, and, via Youtube is viewable on most headmounted displays (HMD), and most recent mobile devices.

The display on recent smartphones/tablets is what Google calls a “magic window”. Using Youtube’s iOS/Android app you can move your mobile device around to see different angles on the scene.

The display on an HMD is very different. You need to see it to understand it.

[Rick Miller]

Good Question, as I am trying to figure out what the advantages are myself, and see where it goes. Here's an example I am working on, paying client:

1. Local Hospital Safety Training - they have numerous surprise inspections throughout the year. Every single foot of a medical facility gets checked for fire safety, equipment safety, etc. We purposely set up a room with a couple No-No's, and the cam is setup in the middle of the room. With the 360 option, the viewer can look around the entire room and try to find the problems. After reviewing the room, a quiz comes up and user has to answer. Followed up by video shot with narration and highlight boxes showing the problem areas. This also works on a regular web browser in case headset not used.

[Gary Huff]

There's a huge gulf between the descriptions of things (i.e. marketing) and how they work in actuality. For instance, in both of these examples, I have questions about how it actually works.

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

For example, one sim we created was for hospitals. How do you train to evacuate a hospital? You can read about it. You can watch a video on it. You can go to professional events where it’s discussed. We created a way to experience the event, make decisions that affected others, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. That’s simulation-based training.

How does being "on rails" and having a 360 view enhance this experience? How does on actually make decisions in this training? Based on the description, I assume you're attached to some nebulous body that is moving of its own accord through a scene, and the action stops for the user to engage with different choices? That's not how it works in emergencies. It's essentially a "choose your own adventure" with a technological coat of gee-whiz painting. The biggest result is that the training company can charge a premium for it over what has been done before. If this is not how the simulation works, I'd be happy to hear specifics.

Originally Posted by Rick Miller

Local Hospital Safety Training - they have numerous surprise inspections throughout the year. Every single foot of a medical facility gets checked for fire safety, equipment safety, etc. We purposely set up a room with a couple No-No's, and the cam is setup in the middle of the room. With the 360 option, the viewer can look around the entire room and try to find the problems.

Every single foot gets checked? How does this work in 360? Is the resolution so high that small, easily overlooked problems can be seen? Or are these problems intentionally made big and bold so that they aren't noticeable in a way that would cause a high failure rate? How useful is it if it's the big, easily noticeable things that have to be used to make the simulation work, vs the typical small things that are easily overlooked in real life? Will the user be glued to a specific place in the room where they can only look around and not move forward? Can they look closer at something? If so, how is that achieved?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

Unfortunately, forum software automatically created an embed from my url, which doesn’t support the 360 functions of Youtube’s current player.

My apologies about that. I was aware of this issue but I appreciate the reminder. It's on my list of several things to fix here. Many thanks,

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

My apologies about that. I was aware of this issue but I appreciate the reminder. It's on my list of several things to fix here. Many thanks,

Is there a fix for Youtube embeds to be 360 aware? My understanding was that this is typical of any YT player embedded on a web page... A fix would be great!

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

...I have questions about how it actually works.
...How does being "on rails" and having a 360 view enhance this experience? How does on actually make decisions in this training? Based on the description, I assume you're attached to some nebulous body that is moving of its own accord through a scene, and the action stops for the user to engage with different choices? That's not how it works in emergencies. It's essentially a "choose your own adventure" with a technological coat of gee-whiz painting. The biggest result is that the training company can charge a premium for it over what has been done before. If this is not how the simulation works, I'd be happy to hear specifics.

The company's work ran down two broad tracks.

One relied on branching scripts such as Gary critiques above. I think what one might miss is that the training needs are real, and the cost of field training for first responders and emergency managers is very high. Those training approaches were initially created by a former chief of police here in Portland, and further concepts developed by a business strategic gaming specialist. Gaming is an interesting model for training, essentially that's what simulation training is.

I'm referencing part of the discussion to these other people because they were the training experts; I was responsible for production of supporting media. I learned a lot about training in the process, of course, but I wasn't the one with the PhD, nor was I representing the value proposition to clients.

Reading about the issues and seeing presentations wasn't sufficient to the former police chief. He observed in his career that elected politicians and other community leaders were unprepared for the decision-making needed in real disasters. He thought they should and could do better with some real training. IIRC, he went on to continue his career in peacekeeping with the U.N. I don't know if he had training responsibilities there.

The other broad track had to do with creating realistic simulation (gaming?) environments for training. This was pre-360 video, we were using 360 stills. Here, the player would navigate a space. I suppose you could call it an easter egg hunt, only the egg was a simulated radiological source, and you would be using various detectors just like you would in real life, practicing the real world skills involved in keeping us safe.

Gary is right - it was expensive to create and run. But, there was (and is) a real need for training beyond book learning. Actual field training is also offered by the various national labs, but safely getting a real radiological source out into the field for training is quite a bit more expensive, and difficult to manage for new-hire and refresher training if you can only do it once every two years.

The truth is that we were a bit ahead of our time. The internet infrastructure was too limited and fragile for the data loads we were pushing. Our DIY programming team did not have access to modern tools like Unity and Unreal Engine. There are more companies doing this type of training because the needs are still there, and now there's a lot of supporting technology.

I've certainly wondered what my workgroup would be doing with today's tools; probably we'd base our sims in Unity with a healthy dose of the photorealism we did accomplish with those earlier tools.

I feel for Rick and the people he's working with - innovating and making something of value that people haven't seen before is all uphill, and there are always people to say "you're doing it wrong!"

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

The truth is that we were a bit ahead of our time. The internet infrastructure was too limited and fragile for the data loads we were pushing. Our DIY programming team did not have access to modern tools like Unity and Unreal Engine. There are more companies doing this type of training because the needs are still there, and now there's a lot of supporting technology.

Which isn't 360 video, hence why I feel like it's dead. I think, instead, you'll end up with photorealistic texturing on an advanced 3D engine built for games which would allow real-time decision making and actual ability to "investigate" environments, something that seems well outside of the abilities of even high-end 360 video content.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Which isn't 360 video, hence why I feel like it's dead. I think, instead, you'll end up with photorealistic texturing on an advanced 3D engine built for games which would allow real-time decision making and actual ability to "investigate" environments, something that seems well outside of the abilities of even high-end 360 video content.

You’re quite right IMO about the most opportunities for designing interactivity being in gaming tech.

And, the photorealism now possible on 3d gaming engines does seem to be a big step forward in its credibility. The interactivity and credible moving imagery would have been a great support for some of the simulation training, and such are being made.

I think we’re going to see 360 video as just another data type that’s fully merged with 3d. Meaning, that spacial data is packed in picture data. Definately check out volumetric video capture, that’s a new kind of studio shoot!

360 video and stills have had their ups and downs. There’s a lot to suggest growth in 360. The explosion of 360 content on Youtube, the wide distribution of gaming headsets, the smartphones native 360 video display abilities, the easy availability of basic to comfy smartphone VR holders starting at $15 or less, the new standalone HMDs that don’t require a PC with a hot graphics card to run them, nor a recent cell phone with a good data plan.

The Go costs $200. Though it doesn’t do everything room scale systems do, it does a lot, including screening 360 films.

And there seems to be interest at a level we never saw before. There are the full boat of manufacturers’ marketing programs, of course, but also lots of bloggers, lots of people sharing tips & tricks as well as reviews.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

There’s a lot to suggest growth in 360. The explosion of 360 content on Youtube, the wide distribution of gaming headsets, the smartphones native 360 video display abilities, the easy availability of basic to comfy smartphone VR holders starting at $15 or less, the new standalone HMDs that don’t require a PC with a hot graphics card to run them, nor a recent cell phone with a good data plan.

And there seems to be interest at a level we never saw before. There are the full boat of manufacturers’ marketing programs, of course, but also lots of bloggers, lots of people sharing tips & tricks as well as reviews.

But here's the thing, saying there's a lot of interest, that there is an "explosion" of 360 content, and so on, and the actual numbers are two different things. All of the above is marketing, and may have been true in 2016/2017, but in 2019, not so much. I don't see an "explosion" of 360 content on YouTube. In fact, I use to see far more 360 content in my feeds on social media and YouTube...back in 2016/2017. I don't see it at all now. I know two people with headsets, an HTC Vive and a Occulus Go. The use case is, "It's cool to play around with for a few weeks, now it's been months, or even a year, since it was last dug out". Smartphone VR holders are discounted heavily at the big box electronic stores now.

There are people who staked in 360, and now they are losing their shirt. Clients aren't asking for it, there's literally no interest. I know people who were doing these shoots and posting about it in 2016/2017, and now they are not. That's the reality, not the marketing.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Well, I wish we had numbers to look at, and I’ll be sure to post any metrics I find for 360 video content on sharing sites. Real data would help this part of the discussion!

Is there interest, and how relevant is that interest in gauging the health and prospects for 360 video? I don’t have a crystal ball, and shouldn’t make predictions. I will say that I know people locally who are professionally active in 360 video content creation who appear to own shirts ;-)

I appreciate Gary’s skepticism, though. It’s growing and shrinking in fits and spurts; like other new tech there will be wins and losses.

My personal perspective, and it’s just a semi-and-selectively-informed opinion, is that there is growing traction, and that there will be significant overlaps and cooptions with the parallel growth of content creation for gaming engines and creative coding, to the benefit of 360. I’m not sure that means anything of immediate interest or concern to traditional independant producers and small agencies.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

I know people locally who are professionally active in 360 video content creation who appear to own shirts ;-)

I'm sure they are, but that is basically the difference between offering 360 as a service, and building a production house solely around 360.

My prediction is that 360 degree video will be around, but will not be anything worth doing for the most part, just like filming in 3D hasn't gone completely away, but it's definitely a shadow of its former self, and investing money in a 3D rig would be just as foolhardy for people at this level.

[Seth Bloombaum]

I quite appreciate this conversation. Gary is helping me prepare for future conversations as I continue to promote innovation in VR, VFX, and 360 video learning opportunities.

Note to the O.P.: This is what promoting production in new technology is like. There have been many successes and failures over the last 30+ years. There are smart and well-spoken people who have been informed by that. IMO we too need to be aware of the potential pitfalls of pursuing the bright and shiny latest greatest new stuff.

Demo. Move your ideas and inspirations from tell to show. That’s my advice. You’ll learn, find some stuff that doesn’t work, find some that does.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

360 degree video will be around

Okay, I did in fact LOL.

However, if you're going to lower yourself to this level, please keep in mind that it's a bannable offense.

More effort, please. If you want to pun with this audience, you'll have to work a lot harder than that.