Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Blackmagic Design Unveils Spatial Video Camera for Shooting Apple Vision Pro Content

If anyone balks at the price. You never ever EVER have been near professional video production at all... Yes, this is promising and absolutely crucial. So far most stereoscopic systems are specialized hyper expensive custom jobs. This is as far as I know the 1st standardized camera in a professional ballpark. This will absolutely make it easier to make stereoscopic films and shorts.

They will likely sell a decent amount of these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makosuke, Bodhitree, artifex and 2 others
Jensend said:
I viewed some spatial video I captured on an iPhone 15 Pro and I was not impressed unless the subject was within a couple feet of the camera (though I didn't use the Vision Pro to view them, I used a different VR setup). Maybe for still photos they are handling it differently.

Even if Apple is doing some computation in post, well, AI can also do a decent job of colorizing black and white photos, but it's still better to capture the original color.

I understand Apple doing the best they can with what they have (a preexisting iPhone with closely-spaced cameras), but I just don't understand making a purpose built tool with the same limitations.

I haven't seen the conversions in VisionOS 2, but I'd imagine it would have trouble with foliage, light shafts, floating particles, transparency, chain-link fences, etc.
It would be fun to compare a stereo image shot with correct spacing and a 3D conversion of one of those images.

I'm not an expert or professional with any of this, but I just have a strong interest in vision and how it works, and displays, cameras, VR, optical illusions, etc.
Click to expand...

You’re preaching to the choir. I would rather watch a B&W movie over one that has been colorized. I am one of a vanishing breed that makes the effort to use a real full frame Mirrorless camera when I am carrying a top line phone camera, and I take it even further in preferring a F1.2 prime over a 4.5 zoom.

But I am also someone that doesn’t decide off of specs alone (guess thats why I am a Mac user) but keeps an open mind and actually tries things to see if they work for me.

And so my post was not to say you can‘t improve in spatial photos taken with an iPhone 15 pro max. Of course you can. But the best camera in the world is the one you are carrying. Point is, a lot of people are getting bogged down in what is best on paper, the distance between pupils, etc., and I am just pointing out the obvious. All that might lead to better, and it’s interesting, but it also adds cost, and it’s not that you can’t take pictures with something less that optimal. Just like not everyone needs or wants an AVP but does with something less.. right?

Anyway, i have seen the conversions with VisionOS2, and sure there are artifacts. But I think back to the first digital cameras and how impressed people were with what turns out to be baby steps. This was one heck of a first step, makes me look forward to what is coming with the cannon lens and the black magic system and i am not going to worry about what would be perfect.
 
I like how Apple mentioned DaVinci Resolve, I recently switched over to it and it’s pretty nice for a free Final Cut Pro type program. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive
For an extra $1k, you can get it in wood.

1718165922617.png
 
Probably not a dollar less than 25k. Their target is production companies, not the consumer. Would be really cool to own one though!
 
Richard700 said:
They can possibly re-purpose it for regular 3D content using different lenses
Click to expand...
It's a "chicken or the egg" Situation. With all new technologies, companies have to have the courage to take huge risks. My hats off.
For Vision Pro to be successful they need content. Content creators require the tools to create. Accessory makers require a market. Kudos to Apple and everyone willing to make those bets. Hopefully, it all pays off. The product itself seems to be solid, now it's up to consumers and creators and of course, Apple to support it all. It's not going to happen overnight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artifex
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Yesterday's example appeared to support this concept. However, this thing is only close together at the virtual "nose", which is where our human eyes are also closest together. At the other end near the virtual "temple" I suspect each lens is further out than the outer edge of our human eyes. I'm looking at that picture and wild guessing but I bet the outer edge of each lens is probably somewhere between about 6.5" and maybe 8" or so wide.

I picked up some sunglasses as a point of comparison. The inner edges are pretty close together- like how this lens looks- and the outer edges are pretty far out- like how this lens looks. Slip on the sunglasses and look towards my nose or far out and I see lens in the full view- as I would expect video shot with this thing to look at the extremes towards my nose or far left & right.

So to me- unlike yesterdays Canon example- these look like there is plenty of room to fit in even widely-spaced eyes and still catch what is further left & right in the periphery. Nevertheless, I'm going to guess the Canon model works fine too- just not at this resolution... which will obviously max out the view for Vpro.

Where I'd really like to see this go is full 360˚, high resolution capture so that Vpro and similar user could basically look wherever they want and see what is there. As is, everything is basically capturing what is out in front but there are cheaper 360˚ videos all over YouTube and similar where one can click and drag to look up down, left, right and even behind... like this one...


I didn't check this one but others like it when viewed with iPhone or iPad will let you simply rotate the device around to see other views (presumably the gyros sense you "rotating to what you want to see"... which would be akin to turning your head in Vpro to look over there, or back there, or up there, etc. To me, this would be the ultimate destination for Vpro video. Slip on the goggles, look anywhere you want and there is captured views there.

I presume that's much more robust video capture technology in spite of the presumably cheapie capture examples like that example I shared. Nevertheless, I'd like to see this go there where some kind of ball camera could capture 360 degrees at the same time so viewer is not limited to mostly 180 degrees out front.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue with 360° capture is that there are never enough pixels. Even the Insta360 Titan only has 11K for the whole sphere, while the new BM cam is 8K per eye, only covering half the sphere. And even with high quality capture, most devices can't stream or process more than 4K across in a video stream, so there's never enough resolution for it to look really crisp. That's why Apple aren't promoting 360° video at all with the AVP, and also why they're hosting their own Immersive 180° videos.

Insta360 Titan – Professional 360 VR 3D Camera | 11K Capture

Shoot 11K 360 photos & videos. Titan has 8 Micro Four Thirds sensors for superior low-light performance, 10-Bit color & high dynamic range. Learn more.
www.insta360.com www.insta360.com

VR 180° production is tricky, but at least you can hide the crew, because they stand behind the camera. In 360° production, hiding the crew is hard, keeping the resolution high enough is hard, knowing where viewers are looking is hard, and telling a story is very hard indeed. There are many reasons it didn't take off.

(If you're really curious, I wrote a whole appendix on 360° production in my book, linked below.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HDFan, artifex, Bodhitree and 1 other person
vegetassj4 said:
$14,995? For that much I could get some Mac Pro wheels AND a polishing cloth.
Click to expand...
It’s a cinema camera at the end of the day, and camera and sound departments are the most exp on a production. You can get the money back easily by having the production pay a kit fee or renting it out to productions you aren’t on. When I was in the industry and had a blackmagic camera I made my money back on it 3 times over Along with my DZO Vespid Primes
 
  • Like
Reactions: artifex
Over time expecting more spatial videos to be available. This camera is quite costly. But not expecting end consumers to buy and use this.
 
Kierkegaarden said:
You obviously don’t own a Vision Pro. If you want to view 2D content and interact with someone else in the same room, that’s fine. But if you want to feel like you’re actually in the action or at an event, there is nothing like Immersive Video in AVP.
Click to expand...

Actually this is where the vision pro is about on par with headsets like Meta 3. You’re not gonna get live sports in 180 3D and 8k. You’re lucky to get 4K 180 (today). I’ve watched a few nba games in VR on a quest 3, and it is awesome. The quest 3 has lower resolution per eye, but in this case it doesn’t matter. However quest 3 does have better FOV, and that’s noticeable.
 
mukiex said:
Is it just me or are all these consumer cameras putting the sensors way too close to each other? What do the 180 degree stereoscopic production studios using?
Click to expand...
This $12,000+ camera is NOT a "consumer camera". It is very much professional in its design, function and feature set.
Blackmagic - along with Arri and RED pretty much dominate the professional tv and film market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive
IchabodCricket said:
Watching sports is content consumption, not computing. Just because you happen to be using a personal computer doesn't change that reality.
Click to expand...
You’re using hardware that’s explicitly intended to be a personal device that is specifically designed catering you and for you in a form factor optimally designed around that; that alone makes it very different than watching sports on something like a television
 
zubikov said:
Actually this is where the vision pro is about on par with headsets like Meta 3. You’re not gonna get live sports in 180 3D and 8k. You’re lucky to get 4K 180 (today). I’ve watched a few nba games in VR on a quest 3, and it is awesome. The quest 3 has lower resolution per eye, but in this case it doesn’t matter. However quest 3 does have better FOV, and that’s noticeable.
Click to expand...
Resolutions towards higher PPI always matter, just like FOV.

There’s different trade-offs. I’m of the opinion PPI matters more than FOV for content you passively interact with.

That’s been the case for mainstream content for decades.

Apple’s hallmark advantage over the average device in each device category they’re part of IS their priority of PPI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zubikov
funwithstuff said:
In 360° production, hiding the crew is hard, keeping the resolution high enough is hard, knowing where viewers are looking is hard, and telling a story is very hard indeed.
Click to expand...
Is mounting the camera on a robot, and hiding the crew in a bunker, a strategy? Just curious. That's the first thing I would have tried to work out, if I were faced with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back