Apple TV+ 'Monsterverse' Show Filming In 3D For Vision Pro Viewing (macrumors.com) 40
The upcoming Apple TV+ show "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters," based on Legendary's Monsterverse franchise, is reportedly being shot in 3D format to support Apple's Vision Pro headset. If true, it would be the first confirmed TV+ show to support the 3D video-viewing capabilities of the headset, which offers a wide virtual screen environment and spatial audio. MacRumors reports: According to ScreenTimes' Sigmund Judge, the live-action Godzilla and Titans TV series that's based on Legendary's Monsterverse franchise has been shooting in a three-dimensional format supported by Apple's newly announced headset, based on conversations with people familiar with its production. [...] Apple announced its order for the Godzilla TV series in January 2022, but has not yet revealed when it will arrive on TV+.
The series takes place after the battle between Godzilla and the Titans leveled San Francisco, and will be produced by Legendary Television with co-creator Chris Black serving as executive producer and showrunner. Black is known for his work on "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Outcast."
The series takes place after the battle between Godzilla and the Titans leveled San Francisco, and will be produced by Legendary Television with co-creator Chris Black serving as executive producer and showrunner. Black is known for his work on "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Outcast."
Still seems dumb (Score:4, Informative)
I'm that asshole who went out and bought a 3D TV and Blu-Ray player when they were available. Guess how often I put on those glasses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if they could make it not hurt.
From the reviews I have read; which seem to be from nearly hour-long Test Drive Sessions (long enough to notice discomfiture) Vision Pro seems to be doing well on both the physical and motion-sickness comfort scales.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was perfect, like looking at a play on a stage in your living room, it would still suck.
3D doesn't add anything. In fact it makes movies and TV shows worse because they get even lazier. Ever noticed how every random monster on TV doesn't just attack, it has to roar at the camera first? In 3D it's head has to pop out of the screen in your face too.
3D doesn't add any useful options for directors and cinematographers.
Remains to be seen, but... (Score:2)
Actually, 3D would add a lot. But this is probably only 2.01D stereovision, with exactly one viewpoint.
Having said that, this headset could actually do 3D, because it knows where you are, it knows where you're looking, and it could assign the appropriate view from any angle and multiple distances.
The data requirements, however... steep. Even with really smart interpolation and zoom. So probably it's just stereovision, in which case, yep, doesn't add much worth having.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but I think they have sports sorted out just by selecting a good camera angle that shows a lot of the play area and which makes it easy to track where the ball is.
A bigger upgrade for sports is 8k/120Hz. Super smooth, "retina" display.
Re: (Score:2)
The only time I ever was "impressed" with 3D was during Pacific Rim, the scene in the ocean, where fish are swimming all around the mechs, and there really was a three dimensional quality to where they were placed. Everything else has felt gimmicky as shit. Which makes me wonder if we just haven't had a directory realize that you can use it subtly, and it doesn't have to be jump-scare level stupidity every few seconds to pay for itself.
The absolute WORST 3D was probably that Journey to the Center of the Ear
Re: (Score:2)
I'm that asshole who went out and bought a 3D TV and Blu-Ray player when they were available. Guess how often I put on those glasses.
No, everyone was. For a while 3D TVs were the only things available. It was the definition of a forced feature. We have a 3D TV here. Never used the glasses either. The underlying TV is excellent.
3D (Score:4, Interesting)
And wouldn't it be nice if we could still buy 3D TV's to watch such content when not wanting a headset?
3D costs almost NOTHING to add to a TV (maybe $1 in licensing). It just doubles the native frame rate, which the TV can already do, and flip between the two views rapidly. Want to use it? Just pay for the what-could-be optional LCD glasses, which connect to the ALREADY PRESENT bluetooth in the TV. Don't care about 3D? Then don't buy the glasses. Everyone wins.
And yes, I have a high-end TV with 3D from 2015. I have lots of 3D Blurays and love the occasional 3D viewing treat. But now I can't upgrade my TV without losing 3D completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"And when you turn your head, what happens?"
If my eyes follow, then I am not looking at the screen anymore? That's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
My 3D TV (an LG) uses passive glasses. It came with like six pairs. If you want more, just steal them from the movie theaters. This method does halve the onscreen resolution, but you don't really notice after a while.
Re: (Score:3)
>"My 3D TV (an LG) uses passive glasses. It came with like six pairs. If you want more, just steal them from the movie theaters. This method does halve the onscreen resolution, but you don't really notice after a while."
The problem with that method, other than halving the resolution, is that it requires a specialized ($$) filter on the front of the LCD, with every other line oppositely polarized. So you will end up paying more for such a TV.
Optional active glasses require *no* change to the TV, other th
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. I also love 3D movies and watching it with a projector makes it really a great experience. I just wished they would create larger glasses, and if only they had a universal way of doing the active glasses (well DLP-Link should also work on tv's).
New projectors luckily still have 3D as an optione (although only being DLP-Link which has it's problems with bright scenes and glasses not being able to sync properly).
Maybe thanks to the Vision Pro 3D will also come to other streaming servi
Re: (Score:2)
No 3D does cost something. It's not expensive, but not $1 either. You either need flipped polarisation panels or the ability to transmit the current frame timing to active glasses.
But more importantly 3D TVs SUCK. To be clear 3D doesn't suck. 3D is amazing, when it's on a 50ft screen projected by ultra bright laser projectors. It also doesn't suck inside a VR HMD. It absolutely sucks on a crappy 60" wide panel that is already too dark to see in the living room before you put your glasses on which half the b
Re: (Score:2)
The cost is so minimal as to be meaningless.
Mine is 75", which is plenty immersive. And when it goes into 3D mode, it automatically increases the brightness to compensate for the glasses, so it looks normal.
Well (Score:3)
And it will be pirated... (Score:2)
Directly to far cheaper VR platforms which already have spatial movie viewing capabilities.
I bet it'll show up in a VRChat movie world within a week of release.
How about actual VR dramatic content? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I did find this endorsement [youtu.be] of sports-watching potential to be oddly specific (tossing out a dollar figure):
Re: (Score:2)
The down side is that Apple will track your gaze in real-time, and use it to tune your recommendations and ads.
Expect a lot of cleavage.
Re: How about actual VR dramatic content? (Score:2)
What you describe is unique to VR, but Iâ(TM)m not seeing a marketable valuable advantage over:
Watching the show from a series of vantage points selected to enhance the storytelling.
Early cinema looked a lot like theater: wide shots. Then directors learned to shoot twice, facing actors close-up during dialogues, etc. And to start wide and close in, or pan out, or show subtle details in background that the story needed, etc.
Letting an audience member rove the stage isnâ(TM)t better. Itâ(TM)s
No one... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...is gonna pay almost $4k for a glorified 3d tv you wear on your head just to watch a show...
Which is immaterial; because Vision Pro is obviously much, much more.
Think about it: Do you really think it takes a frickin' M2 Plus Geordi's Data Concentrator Chip to pull off a simple tiny 3D TV?
Oh-Kayeee. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Make TV screen big
Make Laptop screen big
???
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Innovative features such as:
Make TV screen big
Make Laptop screen big
???
What a dullard you must be if that's all you can think of.
Re: (Score:2)
Make Facetime screen big
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake, Apple also demoed:
Make Facetime screen big
Interesting that you conveniently "forgot":
Independently Run Multiple Apps, including some iOS and iPadOS Apps, in a fairly-infinite Display-Space. That is much more than "Make Movies Big" or "Make Mac-Screen Big".
Take 3D Videos and Photos. People who have seen the demo video of a child's birthday party describe it as "being there". That alone is fairly unique for a Consumer-level Product.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a full blown computer with a massive monitor, and 3D space manipulation. Yes it's priced way more than is reasonable but I wouldn't go calling it a glorified 3D TV. You could use it as a glorified 3D TV, but I imagine you could replace your macbook with it easy enough. Attach a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and your can have 3 monitors open anywhere you take your headset and work on files in private. There are a lot of other use cases that we haven't even thought of. If we ever get to wide spread adopti
The 2010s called (Score:2)
Oh look (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is providing garbage content that no one asked for or wants for their useless device that no one asked for or wants.
Re: Oh look (Score:2)
Sounds a lot like â No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.â(TM)
New stuff usually fails. Iâ(TM)m not quite seeing the killer app here. But if youâ(TM)re not intrigued by crazy-high megapixel displays, strange new UI and interaction mechanics, and heads-up display mechanics, thatâ(TM)s entirely you. Win lose or draw, itâ(TM)s cool tech.
the problem with filmed 3d (Score:1)
is a fixed inter-ocular distance. if yours is low, like mine, anything close blows out into two different images. which is why i never watch any filmed 3d content on my vr headset.
3D content is Plato's Cave (Score:2)
The real holy grail of 3D film making should be to allow the view to focus on whatever they want to look at and not just what the director wants them to look at. The few times I've watched a 3D film, the effect falls apart if you start looking around in the scene.