Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–199 of 199 posts

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#191

Post by Leszek »

volaski wrote: post #111
jboy55 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried the Rift, and I completely agree with him.

agree that oculus rift doesn't feel real? I own a rift too, and I don't understand how someone can easily say it doesn't feel real if they actually tried it. Sure it brings nausea sometimes, and sure a lot of the graphics are crappy, but can you so certainly say that it doesn't feel real? I haven't seen anyone who's tried oculus rift that say "huh how is this different from a video game, it's obvious it's fake"

I've tried an Oculus Rift (DK1 only though), so here you go: how is it different from a video game, it's obvious it's fake.

Genuinely though, I found it a far less engaging, far less immersive experience than a normal 2D screen. Maybe the later models are better, I don't know, but I definitely don't see what the fuss was about.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#192

Post by davesque »

devindotcom wrote: post #22

I love all the experimentation in this area but I'm afraid systems like this are going to fall into a sort of uncanny valley of VR. Your brain is incredibly good at picking out the discrepancies between the real world and a high-resolution 120fps image with surround sound - just as it is incredibly good at recognizing objects and motions masquerading as human. It's like going from 2D/24FPS to 3D/48FPS. You'd think it…

I wonder how much of that uncanny value would simply be due to the unfamiliarity of the technology. For example, I'm sure we all know about the stories of people freaking out when they saw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Arriv%C3%A9e_d'un_train_en_ga... though there's some doubt as to whether or not they actually ran to the back of the room. Either way, my point is that I'm sure all new technologies at first seem either unnaturally boring or unnaturally exciting. Eventually, people get used to them and that effect wears off. At this point, I think the only real obstacles standing in the way of widespread VR adoption are the possibility of motion sickness and the resolution of the displays (screen door effect). Otherwise, it seems like the tech has matured and would be very useful to a lot of people.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#193

Post by waynecochran »

joering2 wrote: post #141
waynecochran wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I wrote the code for the http://www.3d-4u.com 3D camera. You definitely can not use simple still image stitching algorithms. Per pixel depth estimation (via dense stereo matching) and subsequent blending must be used. I would say more, but I had to sign a long NDA before I worked on this.

This looks like 180, not 360.

Yep -- same seam issues though.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#194

Post by polymathist »

jonahx wrote: post #159
polymathist wrote: post #140

The most realistic virtual reality I have ever participated in was the Duke immersive Virtual Environment (DiVE). There is a program that simulates a kitchen. There are cereal boxes, silverware, etc that you can pick up and even throw across the room. When I opened the refrigerator door, I instinctively moved my body out of the way. The crazy thing is that it's not even the best tech out there. The resolution was cra…

How did it compare to Oculus Rift? I've never experienced either but I'm curious....

I've tried the Oculus DK1 but not the DK2. They are similar in terms of resolution and tracking accuracy. There are two main differences. The DiVE is a cube-shaped room with six projected walls. So you can fit multiple people into the simulation at once (only one person gets head tracking and the proper perspective). The DiVE also had a "wand" which you could use to interact with your environment. I would bet there are similar peripherals for use with an Oculus Rift, but I haven't tried them.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#195

Post by Nadya »

robflynn wrote: post #149
Nadya wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I differentiate between jump scares/immersion and presence. Imagine playing a hack and slash game. A user is not reacting every time their character is hit. They may have an initial reaction to a surprise attack that catches them off guard, but no more. There is some level of immersion but there is no level of presence. They never feel like they might be in danger and their body does not react as if it is in any dang…

How does something like this compare? I would like to try it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cML814JD09g&feature=youtu.be (The bit with the spider webs especially registered with me as something that might be a trigger for making your brain go wonky.)

If they have material so when you swing your sword - you actually hit something. Or when you shoot your gun - it provides some kick and feedback as if you were firing a real weapon then I can see this working really, really well.

The audio cues are there - the visual cues are there. Add in some haptic feedback and maybe even smell (ie. make a room full of dead bodies and blood smell rancid) and you've hit every sense but taste. I can easily imagine it would cause a state of presence if done right.

Obviously their graphics will have to be "good enough" (although sadly it won't reach their CGI'd video editing level anytime soon :( )

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#196

Post by proee »

Buge wrote: post #132
proee wrote: post #83

Has anyone see the opposite of this done - where you have a 360 degree array of cameras pointed at a target? This would allow the viewer to pan around the point of interest during an action sequence. I'd like to see an array of cameras using quadcopters flying around a target - say a whale jumping out of the water or a football player. This would allow the viewer to see all side of the action. Great for sports playba…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibwTDmxsXuI

Yes, just like this but with an array of quadcopters that auto-track a target.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#197

Post by jboy55 »

volaski wrote: post #111
jboy55 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried the Rift, and I completely agree with him.

agree that oculus rift doesn't feel real? I own a rift too, and I don't understand how someone can easily say it doesn't feel real if they actually tried it. Sure it brings nausea sometimes, and sure a lot of the graphics are crappy, but can you so certainly say that it doesn't feel real? I haven't seen anyone who's tried oculus rift that say "huh how is this different from a video game, it's obvious it's fake"

It doesn't feel real, because I know its fake. My brain isn't fooled into believing that I exist in this different world. I fulling know I'm looking at a video game, in fact I found the raster lines reminiscent of classic arcade games.

I had fun, but what the article in this thread is talking about is a 'holodeck' feeling. The uncanny valley is where the space between where your brain registers the image as imaginary and is ok with it (3d cartoons) and where it rejects the image as if its offended at being lied to (polar express).

The rift is very much in the former, my brain knew it was a game.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#198

Post by WorldWideWayne »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #180
tw04 wrote: post #160

Looking at the top comments - I guess I'm completely crazy. I 100% thought this was a late April's fools. They legitimately think people are going to buy a 3D printed (~$12 hat), that holds about $5k worth of gopros? So... this is like another Nexus Q/really smart guy's horrible idea that's just going to disappear with no explanation?

And why not? It's not about the hardware - it's about the videos they can create with a simple tool (and a few thousand to buy the cameras), which puts this technology within reach of the semi-professionals and higher-end hobbyists, instead of specialized equipment in Google Streetview cars. Like how Cardboard gives simple VR to anyone with a smartphone. It's not about whether it's a killer app, it's about planting t…

If my assumption is correct that Google has a monopoly on search and user-published video, then your argument seems illogical to me. They're already getting almost 100% of the available pie, so where would the growth come from?

Even if there is room to grow - how much extra money do you think will actually come from this venture and why?

No, this product seems like bullshit which is designed to keep nerds talking about the Google brand. It's a flashy, go-nowhere project that nobody is going to use. I'll bet you $100 that people generally do not remember it a year from now.

Re: Jump – Experiences like you're actually there

#199

Post by WorldWideWayne »

wanderingstan wrote: post #44
untog wrote: post #29

Looks great, though as other commenters have pointed out, 16 GoPros makes for an expensive rig. I've been watching this space for a while and pretty much all of the consumer varieties (usually Kickstarter-backed) have pretty terrible video quality, so it looks like I'll be sitting this one out for a while yet.

They don't claim this to be a consumer product. As others have said, the cost of this is peanuts compared to professional cameras. I'd bet one of the first killer-apps for VR will be sports: Imagine several of these rigs set up around (and over) a football field, so that spectators can choose to "be" at the right point on the field to observe the game, and have complete freedom to look around the field.

How is Google going to be involved though? They don't have the licenses for sports casting.

I'll take your bet - how much? - I doubt TV networks are going to do anything with it and if they do, they won't be licensing it from Google.

Post reply on HN