Apple TV+ 'Monsterverse' Show Filming in 3D for Vision Pro Viewing

[Mac Fly (film)]

3D content is largely antithetical to movie format because of how this long form story art works. Case in point: what made Jaws a great movie was what you didn’t see. The 4D part happened in the imagination.

Relying on 3D distracts from the medium of storytelling. The best storyteller is the viewer and you want the viewer to fill in the blanks to complete the story without 3D gimmicks getting in the way. In the movie Gravity with a water droplet coming toward the viewer. Yeah, we get it, now back to the story. What about the story?

2D invites them in. 3D forces the content upon them and stops them from completing the story in their own mind—the best part of the experience.

 

[Rigby]

I love 3D tv and hate that they lost popularity. I still have my 3d Plasma and avatar 3d blu ray

Same here. I still have a lot of 3D Blu-rays, but since my old projector croaked I no longer have a good way to watch them (it's just not the same on a TV). Would be great if someone found a way to play 3D BDs (or rips thereof) on the Vision Pro. That would make it a lot more interesting for me, although I'm not sure I'd want to wear the thing for 2+ hours ...

BTW, a 3D Blu-ray of Avatar 2 will actually be released next week in the US. Perhaps a last hurrah for the format.

 

[honglong1976]

it would be cool if they could setup enough cameras in a soccer stadium to create a truly unique experience of almost being on the field while the match is happening

Content is what will sell this. I think they will sell frontside tickets to a basketball game, real, it’s like your there experience.

Let’s see what happens.

 

[Motawa]

jarjar is to key to all of this

 

[armandxp]

Content is what will sell this. I think they will sell frontside tickets to a basketball game, real, it’s like your there experience.

Let’s see what happens.

Concert experience's, too! I’ll probably never go to some countries to see some surely amazing places, I think I could enjoy the experience on this, as maybe the next best thing?

 

[jimbobb24]

Same here. I still have a lot of 3D Blu-rays, but since my old projector croaked I no longer have a good way to watch them (it's just not the same on a TV). Would be great if someone found a way to play 3D BDs (or rips thereof) on the Vision Pro. That would make it a lot more interesting for me, although I'm not sure I'd want to wear the thing for 2+ hours ...

BTW, a 3D Blu-ray of Avatar 2 will actually be released next week in the US. Perhaps a last hurrah for the format.

Should be no reason VLC cannot work on this thing. Hope the operating system isn’t weak or pure iPadOS in 3D

 

[Antes]

So long as I don’t get motion sickness from any of this I’m all for it

 

[Antes]

$3,500 x family of 5 = $17,500 to watch 3D movies.

I don't see that happening when I can put together a big screen with 5.x or 7.x speaker home theater set up for a fraction of that where we can all watch together without each person needing their own Vision Pro.

I wonder how long it will take Netflix and others to start charging extra for 3D content. And you'll probably need a currently non-existant subscription plan that offers 5 (or more) simultaneous streams since each Vision Pro headset will be considered 1 streaming device.

This isn’t for multiple people yet. that’s maybe 5 years time ahead I’m sure Apple will make SharePlay sync experiences to everyones headset in the future VisionOS updates.

 

[JamesHolden]

Remember how successful 3D televisions were?
Same thing here.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Vision Pro's 3D experience will be orders of magnitude better than any 3D TV. That said, most content just doesn't need 3D. 3D will feel gimmicky in any serious drama, etc, but special-effects laden blockbusters (where story, acting, etc doesn't really matter) will no doubt be a really fun experience.

These uniquely immersive cinematic experiences will drive adoption of Apple Vision Pro.

For a relatively small percentage of (rich) people. How is a family of four supposed to enjoy such 3D content? Spend $15K so that each member of the family can watch together? Or take turns watching and then discuss the film after?

 

[axantas]

I am admirative of the Vision Pro. But not for 3D movies, please, please...

You know the miracles about options in High-End hardware? You are not forced to use it. Isn't that wonderful? It is there, because the hardware can. And you simply can ditch it, by not activating it.

 

[tranceme]

$3,500 x family of 5 = $17,500 to watch 3D movies.

I don't see that happening when I can put together a big screen with 5.x or 7.x speaker home theater set up for a fraction of that where we can all watch together without each person needing their own Vision Pro.

I wonder how long it will take Netflix and others to start charging extra for 3D content. And you'll probably need a currently non-existant subscription plan that offers 5 (or more) simultaneous streams since each Vision Pro headset will be considered 1 streaming device.

Really good point. I guess you can take turns. Not a family event anymore. Come to think of it, good way to spend less time together as family. Not ideal.

 

[TheOldChevy]

You know the miracles about options in High-End hardware? You are not forced to use it. Isn't that wonderful? It is there, because the hardware can. And you simply can ditch it, by not activating it.

It's not that I don't want to use the Vision, but I expect more than just a 3D version of Godzilla or Avatar III. Immersion in enhanced reality is something else, either for gaming, for exploring, for controlling vehicles... for learning, for art, for interaction... there are plenty of things that will really use this projection of my head in another universe.

 

[MrTemple]

Watching 3D movies in VR is a much different and more natural experience compared to using 3D glasses in a theater or on a 3D TV.

having goggles vs glasses is more natural?
I'm excited for the headset but your comparison is - comical ...

3D movie in theatres were usually only ever 12fps per eye. A bit better on TVs. But the hack for the simple plastic glasses was they show different frames to each eye. Each eye only gets every other frame.

And worse, they require you to focus your eyes at a different distance than the object you were looking at. Meaning if there was an object that appeared half-way between you and the screen, the moment your eyes would naturally focus on that object it would go blurry, because you were no longer focused on the distance where the image actually appeared. As your eyes turn inward to focus on something closer, the image on screen would double or get blurry.

It was a VERY unnatural experience for me.

I haven't experienced this with even cheaper VR sets. Because they have complex lenses, which actually change the light path. As your eyes converge, they look through a different part of the lens, and the focus just works.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

3D content is larger antithetical to movie format because of how this long form story art works. Case in point: what made Jaws a great movie was what you don’t see. Relying on 3D distracts from the media which is storytelling. The best storyteller is the viewer and you want the viewer to fill in the blanks to complete the story without distracting 3D gimmicks distracting in the way. 2D invites them in. 3D forces it upon them and stops them from completing the story in their own mind, which makes the story experience much better.

Haha: now apply the same bias to the nature trail experience which is definitely 3D with surround sound + smell + touch + taste. Anyone doing a self-guided hike/ride fills in the gaps of "story" between maybe only a few posts with some historical information on them. That story is not robbed or lessened by not being viewed on a 2D screen. That 3D is inviting the viewer in via the most immersive of experiences: actually being there in full, (5-sense) reality.

Considering that, Vpro works down from there... not purely versus a traditional 2D screen view... by stripping away 3 senses.

Given the choice, I'd rather be ON that trail than watching a 2D video of being on that trail. And if I can't be on every trail, I'd rather it feel more like I am than only watching a video of being on trails I'll never (be able to) walk/ride.

Sports: I'd love to be courtiside OFTEN. But at the cost of court-side tickets, I generally watch on the 2D screen instead. However, if this could give me something between the two- more "there" than the equivalent of watching through a 2D window without the cost of actually buying one of those seats, I'm interested.

Concerts? Live shows? Etc.

There are many examples where the closer one can get to actually being there, the better the experience. This is a "middle ground" between looking through a 2D window (screen) and actually being there... presumably for a fraction of the cost of doing the latter once we get past the high initial outlay.

Our individual biases are showing. I fully agree the Jaws story benefitted by what it did NOT show. However, if Steven Spielberg remade the same move with this technology, I suspect the same absence to spur imagination could be done... only now we could feel we are even more in that water, on that sinking boat, etc.

I saw Jaws and Jaws 3D and the latter was dreadful in comparison. Why? Obvious money grab. Poor story. No notable stars. No Spielberg. Forcing the 3D effect because with the 50-cent glasses, it takes forcing it to fully notice the 3D. I'd suggest that movie was about the 3D much more than it was a killer shark.

 

[Rigby]

3D movie in theatres were usually only ever 12fps per eye. A bit better on TVs. But the hack for the simple plastic glasses was they show different frames to each eye. Each eye only gets every other frame.

That's not true at all. Theatrical 3D has always shown the images for both eyes simultaneously, with at least 24 frames/s. They are then separated by passive glasses (either through polarization filters or, in the early days, red/green color filters). A few 3D movies (e.g. The Hobbit) were also shown at 48 frames/s in 3D.

 

[axantas]

It's not that I don't want to use the Vision, but I expect more than just a 3D version of Godzilla or Avatar III. Immersion in enhanced reality is something else, either for gaming, for exploring, for controlling vehicles... for learning, for art, for interaction... there are plenty of things that will really use this projection of my head in another universe.

It is just like you were complaining about the iPhone doing messages as a basic function.
It will do your immersion applications - and 3D movies too.

 

[Rigby]

3D content is larger antithetical to movie format because of how this long form story art works. Case in point: what made Jaws a great movie was what you don’t see. Relying on 3D distracts from the media which is storytelling. The best storyteller is the viewer and you want the viewer to fill in the blanks to complete the story without distracting 3D gimmicks distracting in the way. 2D invites them in. 3D forces it upon them and stops them from completing the story in their own mind, which makes the story experience much better.

3D can be amazing if done right. For example, try Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity ...

 

[trip1ex]

I don't see it. It's the nicest headset judging by the reviews and reveal, but at the end day what does this do for you?

A way to watch tv and movies, a way to watch them in VR(3d) if filmed that way, a way to surf in spatial windows, a way to view 3d photos and a way to FaceTime with 50% AI CGI 3d human faces?

The utility is not clear. And it involves strapping a box to your face.

 

[anthogag]

Very cool. It could be total immersion in the scene. Spatial actors right here, not over there. Perhaps the monster bends down and licks the Vision Pro user.

I "can't wait" to try spatial movies.

Spatial sports and movies/tv-shows could really sell the Vision Pro. 🤳

 

[reallynotnick]

And worse, they require you to focus your eyes at a different distance than the object you were looking at. Meaning if there was an object that appeared half-way between you and the screen, the moment your eyes would naturally focus on that object it would go blurry, because you were no longer focused on the distance where the image actually appeared. As your eyes turn inward to focus on something closer, the image on screen would double or get blurry.

Really it requires you to focus on whatever the camera is focused on, which makes it very weird feeling to look at someone far away or close up because of the depth of field it will never be in focus no matter how you focus your eyes.

Between not being able to refocus the image depending on where you look and the image not shifting when you move your head or sit off center I have found the effect terribly lacking. Obviously both are very hard to do vs just showing two slightly offset images, but that's what would make 3D compelling to me.

 

[armandxp]

Very cool. It could be total immersion in the scene. Spatial actors right here, not over there. Perhaps the monster bends down and licks the Vision Pro user.

I "can't wait" to try spatial movies.

Spatial sports and movies/tv-shows could really sell the Vision Pro. 🤳

“Perhaps the monster bends down and licks the Vision Pro user.” Said no one from the porn industry. 🤣🤣 Just being silly, but you know it’s gonna happen if AVP is a success.

 

[aidler]

I think that’s a great idea. They should sell each single episode to the Vision Pro owner for $50.

 

[aidler]

Really good point. I guess you can take turns. Not a family event anymore. Come to think of it, good way to spend less time together as family. Not ideal.

The device they unveiled last Monday is highly customized to the individual user and cannot be easily shared.

 

[Mousse]

Very cool. It could be total immersion in the scene. Spatial actors right here, not over there. Perhaps the monster bends down and licks the Vision Pro user.

OOoOooOo... watch Jurassic Park from the POV of the guy on the porcelain throne.😅

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I don't see it. It's the nicest headset judging by the reviews and reveal, but at the end day what does this do for you?

A way to watch tv and movies, a way to watch them in VR(3d) if filmed that way, a way to surf in spatial windows, a way to view 3d photos and a way to FaceTime with 50% AI CGI 3d human faces?

The utility is not clear. And it involves strapping a box to your face.

Adjust your perspective. Would you like a 17” MB? How about 18”? 20?” Ever seen anyone wishing iMac 27” back? Why would they want that when they have a 24”? iMac 30”? 32”?

Ever wish for a bigger screen TV?

Ever in a situation where the phone is the only “TV” available and you want to watch something but wish you had a bigger screen?

This is a relatively small package able to deliver any size MB,any size iMac, any size iPad,any size iPhone wherever you and it happen to be. On that plane in that cramped seating, you could wash away the seat in front of you and watch whatever on an IMAX-sized screen… or two of them.

Those secretly wishing for an iPhone “fold” like those who once secretly wished for Apple phablets… those wishing for an even bigger iPad… an even bigger laptop… etc, have potential to get up to all of those in one, “small(?)” package.

Given the volume of posts wishing for bigger screen everything from Apple, here is potentially ONE thing to buy that could deliver bigger screen everything on demand. The potential utility should be obvious.

Case in point: many of us barely blinked at spending about $2K for a fixed-size screen likely doomed to be parked in one spot for life of device. This should let you have that screen or maybe five of them anywhere you are… like a giant laptop with many screens MINUS the weight of all of that.