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

[Abazigal]

Apple's decision to dabble in services is looking to look a lot of prescient on the back of their Vision Pro announcement. Content support will be a dealbreaker, and one way of working around the question of whether third party creators will support the Vision Pro at launch is to simply create said content yourself.

No spatial video? Film it yourself. With their MLS partnership, Apple can also livestream their matches in said format. With Apple Music, Apple could film a few live concerts. With Apple Arcade, there will be a library of games available from day 1. And there's also Apple Fitness for those adventurous enough to try exercising with the headset on.

It will be interesting to start looking back at the numerous Apple hardware / software / services announcements over the last decade and see how each new offering was, in one way or another, laying the foundation and setting the stage for their eventual mixed reality headset release.

Now that's playing the long game. Google and Facebook should start taking notes.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

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

I edited my comment to mention Gravity. I wasn’t aware you said it. I’m personally not into 3D for feature length movies at all. Gravity included. I saw Gravity in the cinema and got bored of the 3D aspect. 3D takes me out of a movie more than 2D for the reasons I mentioned. I’m more interested in story and plot and acting and editing and characters and dialogue and music, and camera position as story telling tool.

I find 3D is better suited to other kinds of entertainment like games and such.

I appreciate Gravity may gotten awards including for special effects, but I found myself wondering if the movie would be any good in 2D. 2D is a different set of restraints for the filmmaker and I think 2D well done is much better than 3D when it comes to film. It’s somewhat akin to sculpture vs paintings. Give me a Monet or Mona Lisa or a John Constable or a Rothko, or The Open Window by Metisse over an artistic sculpture any day. Sculptures can be very cool, but a good painting transports us in a way sculptures often quite do not.

 

[Rigby]

I edited my comment to mention Gravity. I wasn’t aware you said it. I’m personally not into 3D for feature length movies at all. Gravity included. I saw Gravity in the cinema and got bored of the 3D aspect. 3D takes me out of a movie more than 2D for the reasons I mentioned. I’m more interested in story and plot and acting and editing and characters and dialogue and music, and camera position as story telling tool.

Couldn't disagree more. Lubezki's cinematography is amazing and specifically designed for 3D. And it uses "camera position as a story telling tool" masterfully.

 

[Rigby]

They only show images for both eye simultaneously if they have dual projectors. The two theaters nearest to me have only single projector auditoriums.
The projector runs at 144FPS, and shows each image 3 times to each eye, interleaved. So it's LRLRLR. So each eye does get 24 unique frames, but not simultaneously. I notice artifacts from that pattern. VR will have true simultaneous images to each eye.

OK, that's true. Modern digital projectors can do that. But you still have at least 24 frames/s on each eye. And 3D on good old analog film always used dual projectors.

 

[ftaok]

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

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I like 3D movies on Bluray on my TV. It's a shame that they don't sell 3D movies anymore.

 

[timcorin]

This could the start of something big. If it’s more than just 2.5d 3d with a bit of depth, and possibly shot in 360 degree vision, that’s crazy cool. It could mean a whole new way of telling stories, as editing will have to change. More like a theatre show I suppose. Im sure it’s been done before, but with Apples cash and commitment It’s going to be interesting to see this all develop.

 

[spcopsmac21]

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

Hahahhahahaha. No. $3500 for a screen the whole family can watch. But $3500 per person.
I’ve got a horse with wings I’ll sell you. Trust me.

 

[Rigby]

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

I'm still convinced that this is mostly because TVs are simply too small for 3D viewing. Nobody wants to stare into an aquarium. You really need a projector, and then it has to be a model with very high light output to overcome the attenuation caused by shutter glasses. Very few are willing to invest in this kind of equipment.

Headsets/glasses of some kind could perhaps revive 3D, if they could somehow overcome the discomfort factor. Maybe in a few years displays of the quality that Apple is apparently using in the Vision Pro will come down in price, and someone will make reasonably priced movie watching glasses. They wouldn't need a lot of CPU power (because they wouldn't be made for "spatial computing"), and could therefore probably be built more lightweight and use less power,.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

Couldn't disagree more. Lubezki's cinematography is amazing and specifically designed for 3D. And it uses "camera position as a story telling tool" masterfully.

Yes the cinematography in Gravity was specifically designed for 3D and that’s what I don’t like about the movie. I prefer cinematography designed for 2D. Oliver Twist (1948), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), High Noon (1952), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)… some of these come to mind as what I’m talking about when I say camera position as a story telling tool. 3D relies on the gimmick of things appearing to come toward the viewer via 3D camera technology, but 2D doesn’t have this and relies exclusively on cuts, positions and deliberate movements to convey the visual aspect of the emotion. The latter 2D tech invites the filmmaker to think about filmmaking differently and in my sense allows the audience to fill in more of the movie in their own mind which makes the medium more audience participatory and qualitatively better as a result. Can you imagine Shawshank in 3D? Would utterly ruin the movie.

I can hear you saying, “but if it was 3D from the start it would be made differently”. Yes, and it would ruin it. The limitation of 2D is where craft shine. Less gimmick and more storytelling craft.

3D takes me out of the movie and less able to suspend disbelieve. I’m sure there are certain uses where 3D might be cool such as gaming, but in general for film 2D is best.

 

[ErikGrim]

Disagree. You have to buy 5 VR sets to watch a movie with your family. thats 17000 USD. Even if you are a alone with your girlfriend, thats 7000. You can buy a nice used car for that money.
So, this set is not for watching movies, its for business & gaming

Imagine people choosing to buy a car over this

 

[matrix07]

I think you'll be ok.. At $3500 a pop I don't think there will be a mad dash of orders.

The problem is there won’t be a mad dash of stock either.

 

[spcopsmac21]

Disagree. The difference here is that 3D movies don’t require any additional hardware once you’re using the headset. It’s already a 3D monitor.

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.

At $3,500 per person…… it better fold laundry

 

[matrix07]

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.

It has nothing to do with 3D vs 2D but good story telling.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

It has nothing to do with 3D vs 2D but good story telling.

Sorry, no, you’re missing the point of my comment entirely.

 

[Jensend]

Yes the cinematography in Gravity was specifically designed for 3D and that’s what I don’t like about the movie. I prefer cinematography designed for 2D. Oliver Twist (1948), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), High Noon (1952), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)… some of these come to mind as what I’m talking about when I say camera position as a story telling tool. 3D relies on the gimmick of things appearing to come toward the viewer via 3D camera technology, but 2D doesn’t have this and relies exclusively on cuts, positions and deliberate movements to convey the visual aspect of the emotion. The latter 2D tech invites the filmmaker to think about filmmaking differently and in my sense allows the audience to fill in more of the movie in their own mind which makes the medium more audience participatory and qualitatively better as a result. Can you imagine Shawshank in 3D? Would utterly ruin the movie.

3D takes me out of the movie and less able to suspend disbelieve. I’m sure there are certain uses where 3D might be cool such as gaming, but in general for film 2D is best.

You could replace 2D and 3D with B&W and color, respectively, in your post, and it would read mostly the same.

Not that I think all films should be 3D. Nor am I dismissing your opinion. 3D can be uncomfortable in a way that color isn't.

 

[matrix07]

Like I said, sad. As a skier who actually skis the kind of "extreme" terrain you think you're going to "experience" with a headset on, VR is nothing - NOTHING - like the real thing.

I dived many times and the first time I tried SONY VR headset and they play scuba scenery it’s like I’m back in the ocean again. Suddenly I felt cold like I’m diving.
And that was low resolution VR.

 

[rukia]

Like I said, sad. As a skier who actually skis the kind of "extreme" terrain you think you're going to "experience" with a headset on, VR is nothing - NOTHING - like the real thing.

Neither are adult videos but that doesn't stop people from watching it.

 

[ipedro]

tv+ is making a lot of sense now, isn't it? Apple was playing the long game.

I don't expect Apple to make this 3D format exclusive to their content – they want to sell hardware. Instead, having their own streaming service sure is a large catalyst to get other studios on board. Between tv+ and Disney+, 3D Vision (perhaps the name of the format?) is going to catch on.

 

[JimmyHook]

So far, myself and 3 other immediate family members are getting this headset in day 1. Can’t wait!!!

 

[JimmyHook]

I don't think this service will cost just the price of the vision pro... I'm sure there will be a pretty hefty subscription price or per game cost.

Justifies it for me. I was sold within 5 minutes of the demo starting

 

[JimmyHook]

Like I said, sad. As a skier who actually skis the kind of "extreme" terrain you think you're going to "experience" with a headset on, VR is nothing - NOTHING - like the real thing.

As a combat veteran who actually fought in a war you think you’ll experience when playing Call of Duty, the game is nothing - NOTHING - like the real thing.

Yet people play it by the millions

 

[JimmyHook]

I edited my comment to mention Gravity. I wasn’t aware you said it. I’m personally not into 3D for feature length movies at all. Gravity included. I saw Gravity in the cinema and got bored of the 3D aspect. 3D takes me out of a movie more than 2D for the reasons I mentioned. I’m more interested in story and plot and acting and editing and characters and dialogue and music, and camera position as story telling tool.

I find 3D is better suited to other kinds of entertainment like games and such.

I appreciate Gravity may gotten awards including for special effects, but I found myself wondering if the movie would be any good in 2D. 2D is a different set of restraints for the filmmaker and I think 2D well done is much better than 3D when it comes to film. It’s somewhat akin to sculpture vs paintings. Give me a Monet or Mona Lisa or a John Constable or a Rothko, or The Open Window by Metisse over an artistic sculpture any day. Sculptures can be very cool, but a good painting transports us in a way sculptures often quite do not.

Some 3D movies were 3D just for the sake of being 3D. They did a disservice to a cool technology. But when a filmmaker chooses 3D because it’s a better format for that particular film, and the directing/cinematography is actually designed for it, the experience can be amazing. Gravity is a great example of this.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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

It’s pure iPadOS in 3D. And the iPad has VLC.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Your list makes me sad for humanity, but I fear this is the future. People sitting alone in their apartments, content with the "experience" of these hollow simulacra.

That’s the present. And the past. People have been watching-not-doing for a looong time. Throughout history, more people have seen videos/pictures of Everest than have climbed to the top.

 

[mariocapo]

Yeah so instead of “buying or subscribing” all you have to do is shell out $3,500 for a headset.

Unless of course, you live with another person and want to watch with them. That’s the dealbreaker.