I believe that the cinematographer who I was quoting has much more short-term practical goals.
What he might be thinking is that there are 400k to 500k people who have already spent $3500 on a device which currently has no content. If he got 10% of them to "spend" $2 on his short immersive video experience, that would cover the cost of the camera + shoot + profit, in his first successful attempt.
You could also say those stats show there is no market. How many owners are even MAU anymore? Most VR headsets collect dust after the initial wow phase passes and you run out of content.
How much are you spending on marketing to reach those users?
However, the reason that I put "spend" in scare quotes was that it might be the case the these indie immersive content creators get their content subsided, or bought outright, by either Apple or some content app maker.
source: 100% supposition by someone who has never owned a VR headset.
I hope he finds what he's looking for. We've been fumbling about to find a visual language that really clicks for VR storytelling. It feels like there ought to be one, and if he can find it, it can be as huge as moving pictures.
As it is right now it feels like those early days of film, which seem incredibly awkward because they didn't know how to use it to tell a story. But they were clearly casting about for something they knew was there. It just took a while to find.
Of course, you can watch it in a higher pixel per inch on a conventional TV, which can be shared with everyone in the room, for half the price (assuming a high end OLED).
If people didn’t buy into 3D TVs which have the advantage of being able to be shared within a room, nobody in significant numbers is going to buy an expensive isolating 3D experience just to get an amazing cinema experience.
And let’s not forget that cinephiles can get a 4D movie experience for twenty bucks at their local theater. I saw Dune in 4DX and the way the ornithopter shook my seat and moved it around and blew wind in my face was really cool. Can’t get that with a $3500 Vision Pro!
The pixels per inch on a TV vs. Vision are a wash, in my experience.
Technically they are better on the TV in terms of density, but the greater brightness, control of surrounding light, and clarity and (always!) perfect focus of the virtual screen in the eye-screens has its own benefits. Especially when in a surrounding night scene.
> I saw Dune in 4DX and the way the ornithopter shook my seat and moved it around and blew wind in my face was really cool. Can’t get that with a $3500 Vision Pro!
Sounds really great. Maybe not yet, but perhaps something that could be done with linked home theatre furniture - sign me up!
But don't knock being "in" the movie (as a result of my customization recommendations)!
Another not obvious benefit is that by moving the virtual screen "closer" and "farther", you can line up the artificial "depth" of the stereo vision with distance in a way that clicks at the right distance and feels much more real. You can't do that with a physical screen.
> nobody in significant numbers is going to buy an expensive isolating 3D experience just to get an amazing cinema experience
What he might be thinking is that there are 400k to 500k people who have already spent $3500 on a device which currently has no content. If he got 10% of them to "spend" $2 on his short immersive video experience, that would cover the cost of the camera + shoot + profit, in his first successful attempt.