Is it worth getting a VR headset to watch movies?

with VR?

the feeling of a giant imax screen is cool but the resolution (and screendoor effect) and weight on your face is dogshit

feet

brynny bros...

is the quality of VR good enough for movies?

Attached: 1561719677263.webm (332x600, 450K)

That's quite cool in a way, can you walk around in the theater?

Attached: sweating device.jpg (56x117, 4K)

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT STOP BLURRING THEM

Attached: 1505073744098.jpg (411x412, 15K)

Patrician taste

the screen feels fucking giant in front of you already, it's pretty cool and could be potentially as immersive as sitting in a cozy dark cinema

but the resolution isn't there yet

wouldn't it hurt your eyes after watching for too long?

Only if the films themselves are designed for VR otherwise no. Come to think of it the only VR movie I can think of is The Great C which is based off a Philip K. Dick short story. Nice lil 30 min movie where you get to basically act as the camera.

oh yeah i forgot, that's another issue. Unlike a movie screen it's light directly into your eyeballs so yeah there's that problem (and the 3d effect also tires you out)

There is some eyestrain after prolonged use but it isn't bad. It doesn't hurt or anything. Just takes a bit for your eyes to readjust to the 'outside' light sources.

the director's cut is way better

LAN Center owner here with VR setups. At this point VR movies are a ways away. Devs are just now starting to bring out the potential in VR platforms for games. When the Vive and Oculus were first coming out the majority of VR titles were cash grab tech demos and carnival style gallery shooters. Now there are full fledged games with well functioning mechanics and immersive worlds. Movies will follow soon but they will need to be filmed/edited with VR audiences in mind otherwise it'll end up like all those summer blockbusters that got 3D tacked on at the last minute.

>Movies will follow soon but they will need to be filmed/edited with VR audiences in mind otherwise
how would you even begin to write something interesting if you cant force the audience to even look in the right place?

it'll always be these jokey rick n morty guy game where a character goes "hey, hey over here, look here". Cinema is way too reliant on directors dictating where to look, editing etc

also moving around is still extremely limited in games and it still needs to use a teletranspoter button

Attached: 1561343461765.jpg (687x1024, 139K)

which one

high res, lower part cut off

Viewer interaction (which is in VR the viewer choosing where to look at) diminishes the artistic value immensely because with film, or a book, or a painting you get an exact fixed unchangeable artistic expression delivered to you just like it is intended, while in VR the artistic expression get's exchanged with the viewer looking where he wants, or whatever other interactive element is introduced only diminishes the original artistic intention and focuses on the viewer/player instead.

Will forever remain merely an entertainment gimmick

this?

Attached: 1561294555574.webm (700x394, 310K)

Attached: uytf.gif (200x200, 696K)

I'm sure something can be made taking all of that into account and "minding the gap" - but yeah I find it incredibly hard for anything worth it to be done in that medium

Defenders then compare to videogames thinking videogames already reached something at all (they can certainly help you become immersed and let your imagination flow as its own thing, but to make 'movies' in VR would be atrocious)

Attached: 1y4wfnahx0y2176.png (780x772, 980K)

The same argument goes for videogames too, the less interactive a videogame is the more "art" it is considered.

>also moving around is still extremely limited in games and it still needs to use a teletranspoter button
Patently false. Most games now use normal game movement. Teleportation movement is almost entirely used as an introduction to VR locomotion. The only games that still have tp only movement are the ones that were designed around that form of ingame locomotion.

Also here's the example I was talking about in youtube.com/watch?v=uI5dqktDswY

People have already lost interest. It will be like 3D, every decade someone will try to bring it back, there will be a flurry of interest and it will go away again.

There is nothing wrong with the TV/Cinema viewing experience in the first place, its misguided.

Yeah the shittiest and most non-interactive games are deemed as 'art' and 'movie-like' because they usually copy the surface aesthetics of 'artsy' things (slow moving pans, moody music, pretty visuals)

but idk the closest videogames feel to art for me is in how they can help you imagine a world and the story behind it. Everytime it tries copying literature or film scenes it fails and clash with the format

Attached: brynnrumfallo.webm (504x896, 2.78M)

it's still a shitty solution since actually walking in the tiny square your real room affords you is the thing that makes VR actually cool and immersive. Walking with a joystick button kinda makes you noxious

also even the example in that vid feels off. The guy is barely looking during the right moments (and dictating the camera angles and motion at the same time it allows you to look around is weird)

idk playing FPS after trying it in vr feels like shit, being able to aim a gun is seriously cool

upload the whole video pls

Attached: tongue.webm (270x480, 255K)