360 Video assigment

[steven-king]

Because I did not explain how to post to the wiki in class. You can post your 360 video comparison here as a comment.

[leslieunc]

Caught on 360 Cam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU95-wX0xJo This first video is from youtube vlogger, Chris Atwood who is experimenting with 360 video for the first time. The camera doesn't seem to be adjustable for different lighting situations or focus. Although it doesn't have the greatest image or audio quality, he decided to do 360 video anyway to give us a more immersive experience of his day. It's pretty impressive as he's talking about what his friends are doing and I can move the video to actually see what they're up to in different parts of the room. He no longer has to turn his camera to see the things he wants us to see. Everything is just there, all of the time. Because of this, there is less focus on camera technique, angles, and even editing. He mentions that he doesn't have to stress out about capturing things anymore and can focus more on living his life while vlogging with 360 video.

MythBusters - Shark Shipwreck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQd41nbQM-U In this Discovery Channel video, we go underwater to swim with sharks. There is an animated narrator providing commentary with clear audio. We can also hear one of the divers breathing, added music, and water. At the beginning of the video, I was impressed with the Discovery Channel logo seamlessly worked in - meaning I could move the video around and the logo morphed to match. Although this video isn't amazing quality, it's underwater and it's still better than the vlog. Being immersed here 360 makes me feel as if this ocean environment is actually surrounding me. For networks such as Discovery, 360 video seems especially useful as we can go to hard to access places such as space, the ocean, the safari, etc.

[Elaine0226]

The 360 video I watched is Climbing 1 World Trade Center: Man on Spire, produced by New York Times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYP95WJmW3o This video basically depicted how professional mountaineer and photographer Jimmy Chin climbed world trade center needle as well as New York night scene. The most interesting part in this video is the climbing part. People watch 360 video for a part of reason that they can get a first-person view as the shooter did. In this movie, the video does not only provide a shooter’s view but a view of seeing the climber climbing. (Because they have at least two shooters to take this video, one is Jimmy Chin and the other one is a different shooter shooting the climbing of Jimmy.) In that case, this 360 film gives us two points of view. The audience can choose if they want to follow Jimmy’s steps or to have a “god view” and see him climbing, which makes this video more engaging.

The other video is called Roller Coaster 360 Virtual Reality, produced by Special Head, an independent agency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdVpQt71cG8 The topic is great but the angle of shooting is weird. Since the camera is held by the shooter all the time, who is on the roller coaster, the image is shaking and as long as I press the direction button to choose another angle, I get lost easily and have no idea what I am looking at.

For both of them, one thing I would notice that will bring me back to the reality is the sound. In the first climbing world trade center video, I was expecting to hear the whistle of wind. Due to the sound quality, as I assume, they replace the original sound with music. In the roller coaster video, I can hear a mixed sound of wind and scream, which is good but will be better if they make it a 360 sound with the video.

I like the video produced by NYT better. Technically speaking, the scene in the first video is smoother and steadier. In the second video, there is even a disconnection of hand image when I keep pressing “down”. To view it in a design perspective, although the roller coaster topic seems to be more interesting to me, NYT one did a better job in shooting angle, image choice and video quality.

[courtjacobs]

NYT - Fight for Fallujah

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ar0UkmID6s] The first 360 video I watched was created by The New York Times. It was narrated and filmed by Ben C. Solomon, a video journalist for the NYT. The video was very good for showing firsthand sights of the fighting in Fallujah, Iraq from the side of Iraqi soldiers. What wasn't able to be shown on video was described by Solomon, such as the history of fighting in Fallujah. When the scenes changed, Solomon would explain where we suddenly were and what was happening. It was very good quality and an incredible glimpse into the lives of soldiers and the desolate state of Fallujah. I enjoyed trying to find the camera's reflection throughout the story, which only occurred a few times when Solomon mounted the cameras to the hood of a car or something else that reflected them. I thought Solomon did a great job placing the camera in locations that gave the best 360 view, where anywhere you looked provided something to look at rather than boring space. He would describe particular parts of a scene, and it was interesting to look around and find what exactly he was describing. The majority of time, Solomon placed the camera right in the middle of a group of people, or a car, so you felt like you were a part of the group from the camera's viewpoint. The video immersed you with sound by allowing all the ambient noise of shooting and talking exist. This helped provide a very realistic and raw experience.

Happy Birthday

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v09F25__MCQ] The second video I watched was a 360 short film about a birthday. It included multiple scenes and was of decent quality. The creator said they used 6 GoPro's on a mount to film it. I liked seeing a fictional video with a plot and storyline compared with the NYT's video journalism use of 360 video. The camera acted as a first-person perspective, but what was interesting here as compared to the NYT video was that the characters in the film interacted with you (the camera) as if you were the main character. In the beginning, friends and family sing Happy Birthday to you, and next you are brushing your teeth. The video tried to create suspense and thriller qualities by keeping the camera viewpoint in the dark at one point to simulate a bag being over your head. Some moments were of lesser quality because of experimenting with camera placement in order to achieve the most realistic first-person perspective. For instance, with the brushing teeth scene, it looked very odd when you looked down because I think the camera was placed on top of someone's head, so instead of seeing the floor you see the top of a head when looking down. Lots of noises were used to convince you that you were the main character. There was the sound of teeth being brushed and of footsteps crunching over ice in one scene. From the perspective of filming, it really felt like you were the one doing these things, since when the camera moved so did your viewpoint.

I enjoyed experiencing both 360 videos because they were very different. It was interesting to see what a filmmaker did with 360 video when given full creative freedom, and also impressive to see how a video journalist told a factual story with it. Personally, I am intrigued by the contribution 360 video can make toward hard news. It feels like it'll be pulled toward a documentary style, but I'd be interested in seeing what else journalists and media companies can do with it.

[pseelinger]

The Harbor That Never Sleeps

This video was done by Discovery Channel and presents the story of a tugboat captain on the New York Harbor. The video was done like a typical profile video, with the captain's monologue playing over various scenes of the harbor and the boat. The 360 video was shot well, as I did feel immersed and the views of the harbor were quite nice. One thing I noted about halfway through the video was that being able to move around and look around the harbor was very distracting from what the captain was saying. I had to make a conscious effort to pay more attention to him, which I feel like detracts from the video. One thing the video did nicely was using a chime sound to indicate a new fact (presented by Dunkin Donuts!) was somewhere on the screen. Any time I heard that sound I new to look around for whatever information was displayed in front of the harbor. The storytelling itself was fine, and the music fit it well. I just feel like the 360 video was actually distracting me from learning about this man's life as I was pretty content to just look around at the harbor.

KIDNAPPED! Get taken in 360° Video (Comedy)

Due to the gimmicky name, I did not have high hopes going into this one. I was pleasantly proven wrong. This is a short comedy sketch done in 360 video that I think uses the technology rather creatively. It was amusing to watch a couple clearly incompetent criminals kidnap me. Scene changes were done with the kidnappers throwing a bag over my head and there was a cloth man underneath where the camera sat. This made it look like I was there, but it was clearly fake, which I can't decide if that was on purpose as some sort of meta joke or not. Either way, the narrative was done mostly well (the ending could have used some work), and I did feel immersed. In particular, having one of the kidnappers wave a gun in my face got me a little scared for a second, and little details like having the two kidnappers buckle my seat belt on the ride to the drop off point added to both the humor and immersion. Overall I think this was a really creative use of 360, making the viewer part of the story they were trying to tell and delivering a few laughs along the way. I hadn't really thought of 360 comedy before, but this shows there may be something there.

The two videos were very different, but I liked the second one better for its creative use of the technology. I also felt more engaged with the story that one was telling over the harbor one, where I got distracted for a large portion of the video. The first video had better traditional storytelling, but the kidnapping video really took advantage of 360 video. It did a much better job of keeping my attention while allowing me to look around and experience the world the video creators were making. I definitely feel like the first video used 360 video at the expense of overall storytelling, while the second one did a great job integrating the technology into the story.

[chaosdone]

http://www.discoveryvr.com/watch/mantas-flying-on-the-edge

GONDOLA RIDE IN VENICE 360

The first video I watched in from Discovery VR. As can be guessed from the title, you would be sitting on a rowing boat, traveling on the Gondola river in Venice. I was pretty immersed because I’ve went to Venice several years ago, and it’s interesting to see things around me again just like deja vu. This tour video doesn’t have narrator, but some natural noise and soft background music. The video is of high quality I think, because I not only see the old Venice architectures clearly, but also the very details of the decoration on the boat besides me. The water texture is also really nice and real. The production value of such tour video is immense in the future I think, because it might somehow replace the travel industry. Especially for some people who don’t have that much money to travel to the other side of world, or elders and handicapped who are unable to do so. I feel like if it was for pure tour purpose, adding some narrative would be better to guide people theough the whole process, and make it more storytelling.

Another interesting point is that the couple sitting back of you on the boat. I went back to watch the video again only to see details of those couple (though very annoying), but looks really real like someone’s traveling with you. This could be made as some nostalgia video that you travel with your friends or family, if individual has the ability to shoot a 360 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFtNFyN59U

SPACE GIRL 360

The second video I choose is a storytelling 360 video produced by independent producer on Youtube. Basically you act as a character called Rookie, and start the first day job at the space station. I find the theme pretty creative, but plot and acting just a bit weird, as it’s an very short and independent one. The interesting point is when the pink thing pop out from the vent, which surprised me. The later shooting scene is not that real with the low cost effect and smog. The girls’ voiceover is the highlight of this video I think, especially when she yells and shouts. I notices that her sound has a Doppler effect, depends on how far she’s from me. Overall, I feel it should have more content to enrich the storytelling and experience.

COMPARE The two video are a bit different regarding the theme. I feel more immersed in the first one, because it has better resolution and video, sound technique. The second is more definitely more creative, but I think I just focused on the plot and the character who interacts with me, instead of looking around at the environment.

[pawilson]

Man on Spire by Jimmy Chin of the New York Times The first video I watched was made by professional mountaineer, filmmaker, and photographer Jimmy Chin. Jamison Walsh, an inspector of the WTC's needle, led Chin up the towering skyscraper to the highest point in New York City. Chin stops periodically on his trip up, helping the viewer to feel the change in perspective as he gets higher and higher. While the video is beautiful and the perspective is something I have never experienced before, I can't help but feel underwhelmed. I look around, but the world looks flat; void of all depth. Chin depicts his experience as chilling, almost transcendent as he says that being up so high over millions of people can make anyone feel insignificant. However, I don't feel this same thrill. While the imagery is certainly the video's saving grace, the quality of the video is not high definition enough for me to feel like it is even close to real. I want to feel a little scared about looking down, or even feel like the buildings in the distance are more than just flat projections of the towering masses that they are, but I don't. The production cost was low I am assuming, since all it took was the 360 rig that I'm sure the NYT already had, and with their connections I'd imagine they didn't have to foot too much money to get up there.

Sisters by Otherworld Interactive LLC The second video I watched was a short teaser for an upcoming VR video experience called Blair Witch, an animated VR horror film. The scene opens outside at nighttime in front of a tree stump with a candle burning on top of it. When you look around, you see towering trees around you and a decrepit house in front of you. The score that accompanies the video is just like any other horror video, it intensifies when something is about to happen and peaks when something pops out at you. While the animation wasn't exactly the most convincing, I certainly felt a little immersed in the video. I looked around when I heard a sound behind me, I responded to changes in light and other visual cues. My only gripe is that the video is short, only about a minute and a half. And while it is meant only as a teaser, I feel like I was almost starting to feel scared. In the last seconds, I turned my head, something jumped towards me and I was a little jolted to be honest. I would imagine the video had a higher production cost than the first video, but still not a large cost. All-in-all though, I did enjoy this video.

Comparison While the first video of the WTC was composed of real-life 360 video, it felt flat in comparison to the animated video that I watched second. The skyscrapers looked flat, whereas in the second video, when you look up, the trees seemed to converge as though all leaning towards each other. The second video was far more immersive, and although the animation was like something off of a Playstation 1, it felt more real. I connected way more with the second because I was more emotionally invested in it. I've seen pictures of skylines and sunsets, and that is what the first video felt like. But that's why I think I liked the animated video more, because I don't have something real to compare it to and so it becomes my reality. Neither video really had a story, which is okay, but I'd like to feel like I'm part of something, and not just a fly on the wall.

[kchen421]

Seeking Pluto's Frigid Heart [NY Times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIxQXGTl_mo] I watched a couple of NY Times's 360 videos, but I opted to focus on this one. In this video, you follow a satellite through space as it travels to Pluto and explores Pluto's surface. The production value was extremely high quality, in terms of both visual and audio. The pacing and simplicity of the narration also made it interesting and easy to follow.

However, by nature of the video, I also became a bit nauseous (but I also got motion sickness watching Interstellar so). I felt immersed for the most part; my experience was disrupted by video buffering and a notification that popped up on the screen. Another aspect of the video that caused me to feel disoriented were the video cuts. On a two dimensional screen, I expect video cuts to the point where I don't notice them anymore; but for this 360 where I was supposed to feel fully immersed, the video cuts took away from the "real life" aspect--after all, I wouldn't experience video cuts in real life.

Chainsmokers and Halsey Perform "Closer" | 2016 Music Video Awards [MTV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp3YAY_T36Q] I searched 360 videos on YouTube and because I like concerts, this one caught my eye. In this video, the camera is set up in the seated pit section of the 2016 MTV MVAs. That's it. The camera doesn't move, and as the viewer, you can turn and follow The Chainsmokers and Halsey as they move around the stage. There is no narrative, the video was a bit grainy, and the sound quality wasn't extremely clear, which I found problematic since it was essentially a concert video.

The video was a bit of an awkward experience for me. I spent a decent amount of time just looking at the audience members seated next to the camera, but there was no interactivity so they didn't turn and look at me, leaving me to feel like I was just stalking them. Also, the camera was fairly close to the stage, but the performers appeared very small on camera. I think it was harder to see the performers in the footage than it would have been if I had been sitting where the camera was set up. I think I may have enjoyed the video only because I really like the song--the visual aspect did not engage me much. And again, the video buffering interrupted the immersion of the experience.

Comparison After watching both videos, I realized that the narratives present in the NY Times videos really added significant value to the viewing experience. However, I don't think this means 360 can't be used for concert videos, since the NY Times also had 360 music videos, but there would need to be an additional storytelling aspect. Still, the storytelling aside, in both videos it seemed that even though you could look around, there was really an area where you were supposed to be looking.

For the 360 videos in general, I actually felt a bit stressed watching them. Despite the way much of the Pluto video featured an endless black void and the way the MTV video featured an uninteresting crowd, I felt like I had such a broad vantage point that focusing on any one spot meant I was missing something somewhere else.

Also, a Google Cardboard video I watched (not linked here) was interactive, which I felt really added to the experience and made it more real, despite the video being animated. I think both videos I talked about here would have been more interesting if they were interactive.

[alma19]

Syd and the Internet: 'Smile More' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBxhNz2dG4

The first video I watched was produced by the NY Times. This video followed one artist, Syd and the Internet, as she recorded, practiced, and eventually performed one of the her songs in concert. I felt like this was a pretty simple idea/thing to do for 360, and certainly isn't as exciting as watching someone climb the Empire State Building, but I enjoyed it a lot. I liked the simplicity of it because I feel like sometimes when a 360 video has too much going on, it can be hard to decided what to look at, and hard to figure out what exactly is important. Because this video was so lowkey, you could just look here and there at your leisure, and not miss anything. It made me feel as if I could actually be in the studio or at practice, or in front of a crowd with her because of how simple it was. It made me feel immersed, like I was hanging out with her and her friends, and I really enjoyed that.

Nightmare 360 VR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOgrFZxyQhk

This video was created by Experience 360, a VR design and production studio. I'm not a very big fan of horror movies and whatnot, because they're either too scary or too stupid, but I think that 360 is a really great way to make horror more real/interactive, so I wanted to give it a try. I wasn't a big fan of this one because narratively, it wasn't very strong. The video seemed to be just a bunch of horror tropes and jump scares thrown together, and didn't have a strong story to keep me interesting. It was a lot of just looking around, seeing the door open ominously, hearing screams and whatnot surrounding me, and weird monsters popping out at me. If there was an actual story to be told, it would've definitely been more interesting. As it was, it was pretty boring. I also wasn't too impressed with the graphics and animation. There was one point where it had this monster/demon type creature running up the walls, and since the animation wasn't too good, it came off as funny more than it did scary.

Comparison

One thing that I think that both of these videos did well was handle the interactivity of 360 well. In the NY Times video, the chill atmosphere of the environment really helped to make you feel like you were there in the video,and the fact that you could move around and see and face whoever was talking at the time made everything feel more real. There was also no worry about missing anything important going on, because it was so simple that you feel like you're just hanging out with your friends, and that everything is easily accessible. Even though I didn't think the horror video was very strong in story, it showed how much potential horror stories have with 360. In horror movies, misdirection is something that's often used to build up suspense. You don't know where the monster is coming from, and the same goes for 360. You might be looking at a completely different part of the video, and unknowingly have something waiting for you when you come back.

That being said, I think the NY Times video was executed more seamlessly. The video flowed perfectly wherever I looked, whereas in the Experience 360 video, the video was lagging in some places, and didn't seem as well stitched together.

[alexisbarnes]

Washington Post: Brazil's massive protests in 360: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDRo43Up-nw

This video was focused on a protest going on in Brazil about 4-5 months prior to the Olympics. It showed a variety of different shots of the protest while using voiceover to tell what was going on and why people were protesting. There were some graphics included to tell the viewer where they were. The Washington Post's logo was right under you, which I am assuming is because they want to hide the 360 camera pole. The video quality wasn't all that great, which I think is normal in these google cardboards. It was hard to read what some of the signs said. There was one point when I felt dizzy because one still shot transitioned into a shot where the camera was moving into the crowd. It took my mind a couple of seconds to realize the camera was moving, and I wasn't going crazy. But overall, it was very informative. I think I spent more time looking around rather than actually listening to what the voiceover actually said.

Video tour of Addie's Bedroom: https://youtu.be/C4c9NZwrcn4

This is a 360 video tour of a little girl named Addie's bedroom. This is the family's first 360 video. It was very simple. I watched her go around the room and explain just about everything in the room. At first, the father would turn the camera every time Addie moved until he realized about 3 minutes in that he didn't have to do that. It was very unsettling when he would turn the camera, but other than that the video was simple. I couldn't watch her talk for the full 11 minutes, so I definitely felt that she could've given a quick tour, but that's okay. She (or the family) has over a million subscribers, so I guess their viewers are going to watch it anyway.

Comparison: I think the Washington Post's video is much better in terms of the use of the 360 video. There were interesting visuals for us to look at. There were different scenes we are able to explore. And then there is audio to give us context of what is going on. So this was a journalistic approach to 360 video. A 11-minute bedroom tour is not the best use for 360 video. It was cute and funny for about a minute, then I got tired of watching. I could see a 360 tour of a house being useful in trying to give a virtual tour of homes on the market. But overall, the video quality of both wasn't too bad.

[emhoo]

Isle of Jaws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0hVLEe5mU

The first 360 video I watched was produced by Discovery. I was interested to see how they would integrate a 360 view into environments not all people may be able to experience first hand. In this video, we get to see what it looks like to swim (or float in a cage) around great white sharks. The video started on a boat and made it feel as if you were just another crew member. As the camera was put into the water you were able to see both the man in the cage as well as all the water around the camera. I thought that this was a great choice because it allowed you to see it as if you were in a separate cage. This not only helped with immersion, but it was also a great way to show the other swimmer's reactions.

Hardcore Parkour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzcOQkAwOTs

The second video I watched was made by a YouTube channel called "The Game Theorists". Although they have a large following on YouTube and gain larger amounts of views, the 360 video they produced wasn't as "professional" as Discovery's. In this video, the viewer follows the path a woman takes as she parkours in different environments. While I can see that they tried to make it feel immersive, it was more like you were watching her from cool angles. It was more fun to watch than a static video of the same nature, but I don't think it was the best usage of 360 video.

Comparison**

These two videos were quite different. While Discovery's video focused around one central point, The Game Theorists' video was more of a bug-on-the-wall approach. I think that they were both neat in their own way, but I personally found Discovery's to be far more immersive and interesting. I think what ultimately makes a 360 video interesting is the ability to place yourself in the scene entirely.

[igjosey]

360 Video Comparison – Ian Josey

Video 1: “The Source” on the Within App

“The Source” is the story of an Ethiopian girl’s struggle to find clean water. The video tells her story from an anonymous 3rd person perspective. The audience can see Selam, the girl, struggle to carry her 20-gallon container of water from the leach-infested water hole. We then get to see relief workers come into her village and drill a well, which becomes the first clean water Selam has ever tasted. The video itself uses camera placement in a big way to tell the story. For example they placed the camera in the dirty water hole to give the audience a greater feeling of disgust when told the water is leech-infested. During a scene in Selam’s classroom, they place the camera behind one of the student’s heads, perfectly blocking the chalkboard. This camera placement makes the audience feel like they are sitting in the crowded classroom, and like they could just scoot a little to the left to see better. When the clean water finally bubbles out of the new well, they actually place the 360 camera in the water. I did not like the quality of the video however. I watched it on standard Google Cardboard and I felt a little motion sick afterwards. I could not distinguish faces in the video unless they were inches away from the camera. I also felt like I had to look around more than I wanted to in order to follow the subject. I prefer 360 videos that guide your focus to 1 or 2 parts of the field of view, rather than all over the place.

Video 2: “Grand Teton Adventure” by Louis Cole on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJs0fPMD3s

This video displays some of the scenery in the Grand Teton mountains. It starts out simply with no camera movement. It allows the audience to take in all of the scenery while Cole and others talk about the mountain and their time in Wyoming. The video moves out into the shallows of a lake and lets the audience take in more of the scenery. Cole then goes walking on a path around the lake briefly, and it ends with Cole jumping off a large rock into the lake. I liked the quality of this video and I didn’t feel sick after watching it. I feel like the motion in the walking portion was about to make me feel bad, but the scene was too brief for that to happen. I enjoyed the simplicity of the video—showing off the beauty of nature. I appreciated the adventurous nature of the video as well as Cole’s ability to keep the video interesting by being a good verbal storyteller.

Comparison:

The two videos were quite different in their quality, story and mission. “The Source” was lower quality in terms of the actual video resolution, but there was obviously more work put into it. “The Source” had upwards of 15 different scenes, while the Louis Cole video had 4. Their stories are different in that “The Source” is the heartbreaking story of a girl who has gone without clean water for her entire life, and the Louis Cole video is the story of a few friends having a good time in a beautiful part of America. I prefer the simpler video. I think that because 360 video is supposed to give the viewer the feeling that he is actually there, lots of scene changes does not really make sense. Whenever there was a cut in “The Source” I felt like I could no longer focus on the story and had to focus on getting my bearings. The Louis Cole video had only one or two areas that drew my focus at any one time. I think that the simpler style of storytelling, exemplified by Cole, is conducive to better storytelling.

[Graydorsett]

Virtually Inside the First Tanks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciR-eDMtg0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciR-eDMtg0o The first 360 video was Virtually Inside the First Tanks. It was interesting because it showed both the educational uses of VR and how AR and virtual environments can be used with 360 real-life footage to create a single experience. The virtual environments it had showing tanks moving about were very poor, and lacked the fine details in the images and sound that trick your mind into believing its somewhere else. It was interesting enough though to show the value that VR can add to even low quality games. The 360 video most of the time didn’t add too much. It adding 360 video to interviews and tours only made you feel like you’re in a museum and didn’t capture my attention. When it most showed its value however, was when they shot footage inside the tank. It was able to convey the sense of small, almost claustrophobic space very well, and had much more meaning than nearly seeing a panorama or video of the inside.

Disney Petes Dragon 360 Experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0WY4IgMEzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0WY4IgMEzI Being from disney, the second video was much higher quality and production value. It not only showed whats capable of VR when created with the resources of a major company, but VR’s value to business and entertainment as a marketing tool. The experience put me on the back of a highly detailed CGI dragon, as it flew across a photorealistic/real valley and through mountains. The experience only consisted of flying, but was so detailed it was more memorable than the first video. What made perhaps the biggest difference in the immersion, was the sound. The distant sound of the river below, the deep flapping of the wings and heavy bass of the dragons breath caused the real world to drown away. While the overall video was very well made, there were parts where you could see where the 360 shot was stitched together, reminding you that you’re on a couch and not on a dragon.

On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Steven King notifications@github.com wrote:

Because I did not explain how to post to the wiki in class. You can post your 360 video comparison here as a comment.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithub.com%2fsteven-king%2f660-storytelling-vr%2fissues%2f5&data=01%7c01%7cgdorsett%40live.unc.edu%7c98ebeb42d08246b9806508d3d64cf187%7c58b3d54f16c942d3af081fcabd095666%7c1&sdata=N13osHvp9dmN5f%2fkiluId3gO%2fj99dLbM3Jlg6pGPSZo%3d, or mute the thread https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithub.com%2fnotifications%2funsubscribe-auth%2fAIGTAqbV2zgdG9rX3pY7cuDw5AAmSkelks5qnVUWgaJpZM4J1wfg&data=01%7c01%7cgdorsett%40live.unc.edu%7c98ebeb42d08246b9806508d3d64cf187%7c58b3d54f16c942d3af081fcabd095666%7c1&sdata=cd90QfCNXGihau3awH%2fS6nzkPrEsffVqXMhM%2bzWqXEk%3d.

[jvossy]

Valen's Reef vs Pilgrimage

http://www.sportdiver.com/watch-360-degree-video-scuba-diving-film-valens-reef

Valen's reef was created by a conservation group as a fundraising/awareness raising instrument. It briefly follows a man and his sun around their home village and then into their fishing boat before heading underwater to visit coral reefs and swim among the fish. The production value seemed low, as best I could tell it was one guy with a camera following the fisherman around, then taking a scuba dive with the camera. Overlain was the sound of an interview with the man, used to emphasize some aspect of the footage and tell a story. The underwater scenes were very effective at bringing the viewer in, as being able to look up and around at fish really helped create an immersive experience, and definitely made me feel like I was less captured in a plane.

http://www.newsplanet.org/pilgrimage-a-21st-century-journey-through-mecca-and-medina-360-vr-video-the-new-york-times/

Pilgrimage is a 360 video produced by the New York Times, showing the city of Mecca and telling about what it means and what it's like. Like Valen's Reef, it relied on the use of voice-over to deliver commentary and explain the events surrounding the viewer. The viewer was also taken into large crowds of people, and a few even looked into the camera, smiled for it, and otherwise reacted to its presence among them. Perhaps the most disconcerting part about this video was how high the camera was. I felt obligated to stand up while watching it due to the disconcerting feeling of sitting several feet above everyone else. While it may have been necessary to capture the best views, it removed the viewer from the experience. The other thing I noticed in the crowd was that people who got too close would cut as they walked around it, appearing to lose half their face briefly as they passed between cameras in the array.

Both occasionally used white text on an otherwise all black background to inform the viewer. Valen's reef actually did a better job with this, as they placed the text in multiple places around the viewer to ensure that no matter which way they were looking before, they saw it immediately instead of having to spin and find it, as in the NYT video. The clipping in the NYT video was also somewhat immersion breaking, though it was likely a result of them filming a more ambitious setting. Additionally, the people interacting with the camera and actually noticing it did help make me feel as though I was physically there, and they were interacting with me, not the camera. Even just glances in its direction helped, as opposed to in Valen's Reef, where everyone ignored it except a few instances of kids waving at it. In both videos, the viewer is able to take advantage of 360 video as a medium for experiencing exotic locales from the comfort of a living room.

[WeijianL1]

The 360 Video

A VR Mystery: Part 1- His Vision

http://share.discoveryvr.com/3ROc/rV7vUdZNsw (This link can only be opened on a phone) This is a storytelling video about a crime triggered by a strange bag. The video series has four episodes and this is the first one. The main scene was shot in an interrogation room, which was pretty attractive to the audience of a crime movie. Unlike other 360 or VR videos whose themes are skydiving or scuba diving, which give the audiences immersive feeling by bringing fabulous landscape and excitement to the audiences, this video just puts the audiences into the “actual” scene, and let the audiences feel what the main character has been through. This storytelling approach gave the audiences a different immersive feeling, which kept me intrigued through the whole video. For example, when the character was chased by a truck, I could feel the fear that he felt, and when the detective lost all clues on that case, I also could feel his upset. Overall the video quality is pretty high, with high resolution and an intriguing storyline. However, a little downside of this video is that the editing and connecting between scenes were a little chaotic for a 360 video. I had to keep turning my head around to find where the focus of that scene is. The fast montage also made me feel a little dizzy.

Skydiving Freefly VR 360

https://youtu.be/gpHHZk2j03Y This is a short POV video of skydiving. Since I happened to experience skydiving during the long weekend, I wanted to know what it feels like in a 360 video. Of course the VR skydiving wasn’t so exciting as the real one, because I didn't get strong immersive feeling. The reasons for that were the relatively low resolution and unstable video shooting. I could barely see the landscape on the ground because of the low resolution. It was like a huge piece of mosaic to me. The video shooting also made me feel dizzy, not because of the fast and chaotic montage like the previous one, but because of the unstable shooting. Different from the previous video, this one is not a storytelling one. The videographer only recorded only one from his jumping out of plane to his landing without any cutting and montage. The video intended to bring the audiences the immersive feeling by trying to simulate the real POV of skydiving, but because of the poor quality of the video, it failed to do so.

[madisonwalls]

“The Click Effect” by The New York Times

The first video I watched (or experienced) was a professional video created by The New York Times called “The Click Effect.” The project explored the life of a whale and dolphin through their eyes in this documentary-like virtual reality experience. Overall, this video was powerful and very well made. As we discussed during the first class, taking 360 videos underwater can be a challenge, and this video is entirely underwater - including deep dives through abandoned shipwrecks. NYT made the video look effortless, and as if the added challenge of water was not an issue. Even the noise, which I thought would sound like muffled water hitting a waterproof microphone, was clean and soothing, and having the picture match the sound was important for this video since it was all about the clicking sound whales and dolphins make.

The video as a whole was presented like a documentary you might hear on National Geographic with narration guiding us through the story. With 360 video the producers could expand upon the traditional subtitles and titles by making the words move with the motion. The titles appear every 90 degrees so that way they could be found in 2 or 3 parts of the video’s rotation, thus assuring no information would be missed. One down side to this video was the vast amount of empty space. Since it is the ocean, I found myself twirling around and spinning just to see where the dolphins or action was at, otherwise I would be looking into empty ocean water.

Pilot’s Test Video of Him flying

This homemade 360 video was very much a one-engine pilot who was extremely excited about showing off his flying skills. Secured onto one wing of the plane, the viewer goes on a four-minute continuous trip with the pilot and soars above green fields and through blue skies. While interesting at first, it quickly lost its appeal since there was no story. I probably didn’t need to see four whole minutes of him flying, but I could see where it’d be cool to personally have a video like this. I bet the video was a big hit with all of his friends when (if) he posted this on his Facebook. Technically, there were some stitching problems. I’m not sure what it is like to “stitch” the different camera angles together, but on this video, you could see where the two cameras switch. The purpose of the video was to experience flying, and I think it accomplished that.

When comparing the two videos, the first noticeable similarity was that you couldn’t see the camera or cameraman. This might have been a little more difficult for the ocean video since someone had to physically be holding the camera and directing it through the water, whereas the pilot had his camera mounted to the wing of the plane. I think I found myself more immersed in the ocean video simply because the story progressed with a narration, and it made me more invested in what was going on “around” me. However, I think that the airplane video could improve or be used for a bird’s eye view “tour” of that town. If it connected the visual aspect to a story, the viewer might be a little more immersed in the experience.

[kwboyd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0-89v4Fk-M

The professional video I watched was Walking New York by The New York Times. This 360 video featured an artist producing a large piece of street art to express the ways in which immigrants seem to walk in the shadows of New York City. The video began with the conception of the idea, then moved to the printing and rolling of the art onto the street by a large team, then moved to aerial views of the work from a skyscraper and a helicopter. The 360 format helped tell the story, as the scale of the work could not be captured by one camera from the ground. Bringing the camera to the sky with a helicopter was also beneficial -- it was cool to be able to see both the entire artwork on the ground as well as the artist’s reaction to actually seeing his work. I appreciated that in each shot there was enough time to look around at the whole scene. The narration also helped carry the story along and helped me feel immersed instead of unsettled by scene changes. The one thing I really did not like was that the text did not appear entirely on my phone without me moving it left-to-right. I know that this video is meant to be viewed in a headset, but I think many people are still viewing these videos on a phone without the aid of Cardboard, so creators should keep those people in mind as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N24BFBEPMKc

The amateur video I watched was a video from Burning Man 2016. I simply searched for 360 video and sorted by most recently uploaded to find this one. I think that it served its purpose, which was to capture the scenery of Burning Man, but the problem with this video was that it was three minutes long and nothing really happened in it. There just was not much to look at. The video captures some people wandering around the Burning Man site, as well as some of the sculptures and structures set up. There was not any narrative, and the only audio was a repetitive instrumental piece. At one point a dust storm starts, which makes the video very hard to see.

I think what I learned from watching these two videos was that 360 video really only works if there is something very interesting to look at. 360 doesn’t afford the video creator the ability to shoot mundane things from interesting angles to make it interesting. The actual thing itself needs to be something worth looking at. These videos also highlighted the importance of audio. Narration helped the NYT to mask scene changes and to provide a story, while the repetitive music of the second video simply made the visuals feel repetitive as well. On a technical note, I noticed the tripod was visible in the Burning Man video but not in the NYT one for the most part. The hiding of equipment did help me feel more immersed. The narrative structure of the first video and the focus on large, expansive visuals helped that story maintain my interest in a way that the second did not.

[gracerenCia]

https://youtu.be/FYP95WJmW3o

The professional product I watched was Climbing 1 World Trade Center: Man on Spire shot by Jimmy Chin for the NY Times. The main story that Jimmy wanted to express through the video is an intense feeling to be above the needle of 1 World Trade Center and the immense feeling of looking over New York City. Although the topic itself is very interesting, I feel that the storytelling is a little weak. I don't feel like the product does a good job executing those specific kinds of emotions the photographer wanted expressed. What I liked about it, though, was that it was separated into two parts, one is the final video, the other is the climbing and the shooting. I think the video would have been better if Chin chose another story in his narration, or change the tone of the entire product to communication a different emotion.

https://youtu.be/h8mwhm0PoKc

The small house production I watched is ENTER THE BLACKHOLE IN 360 - Space Engine by Anton Petrov. I think this one does a lot better job in story telling even though the topic and production are both very simple. I do feel like I missed something in between due to the messiness of the timeline design in the beginning, and I feel like maybe Petrov should add some explanation for people that don't have sufficient scientific knowledge. On the other hand, he chose a very good background music that fitted well with the video, and I think at the end where he drags the video back out of the black hole is a really cool bit.

Comparing the two, I think I liked the second video a lot more than the first one. Even though both videos are about a certain scenery, the second one captured the side of the scene where it is mysterious and make people want to explore more about the story behind it, while the first one was kind of board and I didn't really find anything that was intriguing about it. I felt a lot more immersed in the second video since the first one was shot from a high vintage point overlooking the city.

[hansharlacher]

Isle of Jaws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0hVLEe5mU

The first video was produced by Discovery. It follows a team of divers exploring shark-infested waters off the coast of Australia. The camera shifts between several different positions aboard the boat and inside the underwater cage, which allows you to simulate the adventure and freely look around at everything occurring around you. Although the production value of the video was quite high, I wasn’t immersed because I thought it felt awkward to have to readjust the focus every time the camera switched positions, which happened very frequently. Although it was quite neat to observe each crew member performing different jobs on the boat or to look around and see multiple sharks swimming right next to you, all too often it was ruined by the camera angle abruptly shifting causing you look away from the action. I would aim the camera so that it was tracking a Great White merely feet away, but after only a few seconds of watching this fascinating creature, I’d suddenly find that the shark had vanished and I was left staring into a boring abyss. Although the 360 video is generally a cool feature, I don’t believe it adds anything to this video since you have to be facing a specific direction most of the time in order to see any action. If there was a higher level of visibility underwater and perhaps more abundant fish activity, I think the 360 video aspect of this video would be amazing.

Star Wars 360 Virtual Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uG9vtckp1U

This 3D animated video was created by a YouTuber named Felipe Costa. The camera follows the perspective of a droid exploring an Imperial Star Destroyer and it features iconic characters like Darth Vader and his stormtroopers. The video is set up sort of like an interactive video game, in which the creator hid a variety of objects throughout the video and it is your job to locate all of them. You can clearly tell that the video was not made by a big-budget production company, but there’s still something that’s very charming about the environment and the animations. There isn’t any overarching story to be found in this video, but I had a fun experience watching it multiple times to try and locate all of the hidden objects. In this sense, I think the 360 video really enhanced this video, making it seem like a virtual scavenger hunt of sorts. Since the droid was moving around, it made me feel like I was in control, which was a big reason why I became immersed in this video as I would in a video game. Overall, I think this video could be improved if there was just more to look at. At first it’s cool to see all of the stormtroopers, but it quickly becomes boring if you focus on them since they are all just standing there motionless. Despite this simple environment, I think the video achieves its goal of being a fun, interactive game.

Comparison

These two videos were radically different. The first one shows a real environment with genuine events, while the second depicts an entirely fabricated and scripted world. The shark video has an educational documentary feel to it, whereas the Star Wars video was meant purely for entertainment. The former establishes a story but the latter does not. Overall, the shark video was much more interesting, in my opinion, because sharks are exciting and this video is observing them in their natural habitat. However, I found the Star Wars video to be much more immersive because the camera moved throughout the environment in a fluid motion. Every time the camera switched positions in the shark video, I broke from the immersion and made myself dizzy trying to refocus on the action. These two videos both incorporate 360 videos in very different ways, but each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses.

[nicholaseb]

“360° ALIEN ABDUCTION VR - The Harvest”

https://youtu.be/GWIieAKk7JI

Nicholas Byrne

The plot of this horror themed 360 video revolves around a director who is working on a 360 video project about a serial killer. Before the actors are able to give a convincing performance, the recording session is interrupted by an alien abduction!

The real creators of the video decided to write a story within a story from the perspective of the 360 camera. It makes sense to the viewer why there is a tripod present and why the story is told using 360 footage rather than just regular video.

The direct references the cameras presence during the film and the female lead actor even comes up close to the camera to blow smoke into the lens. The acting and style is very reminiscent of Paranormal Activity films.

This video feels very amateur, and the audio/special effects definitely stand out as needing improvement. Several times, the characters approached the camera and parts of their faces and hands were cut out because they were too close. This definitely interrupted the immersion. However, I did like how there were no noticeable cuts in the video; it appeared to be one continuous take. The story was uninterrupted and it felt like it was actually a recording done by the director.

Despite some technical imperfections I still had fun watching the film. However, I’m not quite sure if it was the video itself that I enjoyed or the novelty of 360 videos.

New York Times VR - Run The Jewels “Crown”

This studio 360 music video was obviously very high budget, and the well produced and bass driven music allowed the video experience to be especially immersive. The viewer is surrounded by repeating members of the rap duo for the duration of the video; each clone of the Killer Mike and El-P made unique movements, and make the video interesting to watch multiple times. Like many music videos, this video was certainly more of an art piece than it was narrative driven. For this piece, emotions like fear dominate the viewer’s experience.

Technically, I think that this video was created by stitching together footage that was lit professionally; this allowed them to bring subjects so close to the viewer. At one point in the video several darkly dressed and intimidating figures pointing large guns come very close to the viewer. While this is a 360 video and not a true VR experience, I think that by bringing the subject of the video into the viewer’s “bubble” is a type of interaction that pushes into the realm of VR. By pointing guns close to the head of the viewer, the watching experience becomes something more than just a “fly on the wall” and passive kind of consumption. It was definitely engaging, and I found myself dancing while watching.

Comparison

The primary difference between the professional and the amateur video was how they were shot. The amateur video was shot on a 360 camera, but I believe that the New York Times piece was shot using other cameras and then stitched and embellished on the computer.

While the quality of Google Cardboard itself leaves something to be desired, the production values of the two pieces were definitely still evident. The sound in the NYT piece was far more immersive than the Alien Abduction video, and it allowed me to forget about imperfections that exist with Google Cardboard. One thing that was great about the Abduction video is that it was 50 frames per second; this made it a lot more smooth than other 360 videos I've seen (the frame rate of NYT was unclear).

The NYT piece was able to invoke emotions because of how close the characters were able to get to my head. This was not the case with the amateur video; when characters got too close they “disappeared” from view and it made me aware of reality.

[dottieblyth]

NYTimes — “Smile More”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBxhNz2dG4

The major news organization 360º video I watched was “Smile More: The Journey Of A Song” on the NY Times VR app, which followed the production of a song by Syd & The Internet, from the pre-recording stage all the way to a live performance at the end. I chose this video mainly because the story description intrigued me and I thought it would be interesting to learn more about the music production from an “inside” view. I felt very immersed throughout the video and thought that their transitions were really good — I didn’t get too dizzy. I definitely noticed the high-quality production of the video, and not only visually as the audio also helped play a big part in the storytelling. When I was in the recording room I could focus on one instrument (visually and auditory) and with each scene/cut, I felt like I had a feeling of what they wanted to show (ex: different band members). Another interesting thing they added in the video was that they also showed the band just hanging out and having fun, which felt cool in VR. I was interested throughout the entire video and was waiting for the live performance, which was a big motivator to continue watching it. It led me wanting to know more about the band too (i.e. looking them up on Spotify), which I feel like was their goal.

Mo Vlogs — “360º Dubai House Tour” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL4Dwui-w1s

I watched 360º Dubai House Tour by Mo Vlogs, a YouTube vlogger with over 1.5 million subscribers. This video was just added last week and was his first 360º video he’s filmed. The video is a tour of his house and neighborhood, a ride in his Mustang and going to the grocery store. I found myself having to look away a lot as I got really dizzy — the main challenge was that since it was his first time using 360, he was overly-excited and kept moving his camera everywhere (as if it were a regular camera). The video was also filmed with a hand held selfie stick which didn’t offer any stabilization. Some parts weren't really necessary, for example around 9:12, the clip of them driving facing the sun doesn’t really offer anything — it made me feel like there was no thought put into the actual 360 production of the video.

Comparison: The first difference between the two videos is the editing itself: the YouTube vlog was filmed with very few cuts (the house tour was one cut) yet the NY Times video was filmed in multiple cuts/scenes, which made a huge effect in the end. Having the camera on the tripod like it was for “Smile More” helped the VR experience — it made you focus more on the subjects rather than the fact that it is in 360, which I found way more immersive. Something I noticed in the NY Times video is that when they changed scenes, they also picked the "landing" or starting spot of each video strategically. The sound was better in the professional video (it felt like documentary-type story telling) whereas the vlog felt like a normal vlog but in 360. I found the overall experience a lot better with the NY Times video than the Dubai House Tour.

[ZhenweiZhang1995]

The Harbor That Never Sleeps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-UmBQ9szaU

The first video I watched is made by Discovery VR. It is a video about the tugboat Captain Glen Miller who works at New York Harbor. To be honest, this is the first 360 Video I have ever watched wih a google cardboard and It is amazing. As can be seen from the title, the video is shot on both day and night. And it look so real. Although the video is just two minutes long, I feel like I am really sitting in the boat all day with Captain Glen Miller,listening to his story and travelling through those famous waterways with specular view. Without the 360 video, it would be hard for me to imagine why he said he loves New York and why he loves his job. But now, feeling immersed in the same enviroment as he did, I think I can easily understand the reason he keeps doing this job for forty years. In my opinion, 360 video can could be much more popular in the future because it introduced a brand new way for storytelling. People don't need to stick at a certain angle when watching an interview or a tour video. Instead, they can look around, watching the whole video like they are really on the scene.

360° RollerCoaster at Wanda Cultural Tourism City Nanchang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw4Dg9AgjeY

The second video I watched is made by an individual who is sitting on a RollerCoaster with his 360 Camera. It makes me feel so excited. I can't even tell what's the difference of watching a rollercoaster 360 video and sitting on the rollercoaster for real. When I am watching the video for the second time, I turned my head and kept focusing on the two people sitting next to me. They laughed and they screamed, just like everyone else did in on a RollerCoaster. I think this video is even better than then rollercoaster vr game I played last semester. The biggest difference is that when I was playing the game, I am sitting alone. However, when I am watching the 360 Video , I can see people sitting next to me. It helps me feel more immersed.

Compare

Overall, both of the two videos have been well made. Due to the fact that it is shot by Discovery, the Habor Never Sleep has higher video quality than the rollercoaster one. And the background music make me feel relaxed and comfortable. And obviously, this video has been editted and cut in a good way so viewers are able to learn the whole story efficiently. Although the rollercoaster video is not as good as the first one in quality, that doesn't really matter beacuse as a rollercoaster video, I am not expecting there to be background music at all. It can be a good video as long as it makes me feel real when watching it.

[YongweiZ]

What happens inside your body by Life Noggin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FyN5_-njAU • This video presents a 360° journey through the human body, which introduces the mechanics of human-body systems and some organs. The narrative goes very well with the video that makes scientific facts vivid and easy to follow (just like a guided journey). The immersion effect is not as good as expected, partly because it is animation so the feeling is not as real. However, it is very interesting that at one point the focus gets switched to the real-world to bring in some reality when it introduces how the eye and brain function. The immersion effect is more apparent when the circulatory system is analogized to a roller coaster. The sound coordinates smoothly with the video as well to make the scene transition more natural.

Walking the tight rope by Discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtAzMFcUQ90 • This video leads the audience to walk the tight rope hundreds of feet above the canyon floor in the deserts of Moab, Utah. I found it very immersive and interesting. It's very smart of the producer to include the other rope in the scene next to the main one to make the audience feel like as if they were experiencing the walk themselves. When the person walking the rope near fell, the video actually made me sweat, both for myself and for the person that shares the same angel of view with me. The heart pumping sound and gasping in the background makes the immersion effect even stronger. It makes rope walking appealing to me. As a side note, it's very impressive that the video is so steady while the producer made it while walking the rope. Perhaps one thing missing is that more narratives can be added to guide the audience to move to different angels. For example, something like "oh boy you don't ever want to look down" when the height meters pops up.

Comparison: • It hard to say which one is more interesting since the things that they are trying to render and deliver are quite different in that the scientific one is very factual itself while the concept of walking the tight rope itself is breathtaking enough, not to mention with the 360° effect. But I think both do a pretty good job in utilizing 360° as a tool to make a story/narrative much more catching.

[bpho]

360° Flying with Swans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBDMyjBJRY&index=4&list=PLtra-MWzIvZGqw-b-T5mTK16WtpnhvDaN

The professional video I chose to review was a 360 driving video done on what seems to be an airplane runway off the grid somewhere. It was created by BBC as a way to showcase what it feels like to fly with swans. What I've noticed with this video and BBC's few other 360 videos as well is the fact that they provide informative subtitles/captions for a more educational perspective rather than just entertainment. This is a great feature to add since 360 videos have the ability to cover a wider range of content. The video also had music as well which emphasizes how grand the experience is. The production value seems to be pretty low as the only equipment really needed was the vehicle and probably getting their hands on swans that were trained to fly with the recorders. The ability to film such a shot is pretty easy to come by since the flight was done near ground level, but if it was a few miles above surface level it would've improved the experience significantly. The quality of the video was also subpar; I didn't feel completely immersed as the swans themselves didn't feel as realistic as I expected them to be, along with the overall environment.

Giroptic : Eagle 360 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW5SSFOR8L8

After watching the professionally filmed 360 video suggesting a simulation of “Flying with Swans”, I attempted to find another 360 short showing an actual flight from the point of view of a bird. Fortunately I was able to come across one that was independently shot without any sponsors or other support. The 1:20 minute recording simply shows an eagle taking flight in a beautiful landscape with hills and rivers surrounding it. It seems the 360 camera was placed on the eagle’s back just like a GoPro would be placed. There is a lot more potential in storytelling with a 360 shot in this point of view versus the previous video where everything about the experience seemed artificial. The production cost is even lower compared to the swan video since no vehicle had to be used, and instead of a flock of birds that needed to be trained to film the experience, a single eagle was enough to capture the immersion. With that being said, everything about this 360 video beats the first one, even the quality. Because the camera was attached onto the eagle you were able to see almost every individual feather blow in the wind, whereas the creatures in the swan video seemed almost CGI in a sense since the movements and detail were poorly produced. To add to the immersive experience, there was also a portion in the video where the eagle encountered and was attacked by another creature. It can be seen briefly around 0:56, and thanks to the 360 viewing capability, you can actually see when the bird was approaching the eagle far into the distance. Just thought it was something interesting to point out.

Final Comparison The goal of the BBC 360 video and most of their videos is to provide a more educational and informative experience, where some even provide narration which adds a little story to the video, while the second video provided a more entertaining and immersive feel to it. I personally prefer the latter since most viewers are able to enjoy the experience and sense the storytelling without the help of actual narration or text. The second video gave a much more realistic experience for what both videos advertised to simulate.

[stephanielamm]

Blowing up a Postal Van by Mythbusters (Discovery Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0x5SdIgbBg This video is high quality and is unique in its use of frame-by-frame in 360-view. The frame-by-frame makes it much easier to see the details of the explosion. The narration directs viewers to specific parts of the video, which I found extremely useful, since one of my biggest gripes about 360 is that I get overwhelmed by places to look. However, I questioned the usefulness of the 360-degree view. Action is only happening in one part of the video, while the rest of the area is a desert. It's helpful to look down at the ground, but a high-definition wide frame video would offer that as well.

Bridge Jumping by Jeremy Sciarappa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yarcdW91djQ While this video is 4K quality, it is produced by an individual hobbyist. The stitching isn't perfect and there are several glitches in the video. The story is told through the person holding the camera rig, which makes you feel like you are a part of the action. He interacts with other people in the video and talks to the viewer, directing them where to look. He also reacts to the action, letting you know when something is about to happen. The 360 is useful here, because there is action or scenery to look at on all sides of the camera.

Comparison: To me, the most important aspect of a 360 video is the subject. Even the best quality video is boring or confusing if a 360-degree view isn't adding anything to the video. In the Mythbusters video, the shot would have been just as interesting and informational if it wasn't 360. The bridge jumping video works because there are things to look at all around the scene, while the Mythbusters video doesn't utilize the 360-effect well.

[sjyan]

6x9: A Virtual Experience of Solitary Confinement (The Guardian)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcsxUbVyZA The video begins against a backdrop of ambient noises typical to a prison environment in the distance and voices seemingly in the distance belittling you, telling you about your stay, and other seemingly random thoughts all coming from correctional officers, fellow inmates, and even your psychologist. Text flashes on the walls to reflect those same voices as the lights begin flickering - it's almost like something out of a horror trailer or a mental clinic than a prison cell. You start floating in the air as the voices start describing the supposedly common hallucination and the walls begin cracking. You hear the sounds of water and the lights start to flash more erratically - you're seemingly going insane, but everything is then followed by darkness and silence. The room becomes lit again and you are still floating, but there is only a single voice this time that narrates a conclusive remark about how this sort of prolonged deprivation of human and social contact results in only brainwash and damage as it forces us to transform into something else entirely. Before diving into it, it seemed like it would have been informational but instead you are given the perspective of someone descending into madness from the prolonged confinement. Production value seems standard - everything was filmed in one room but there are likely some effects added in like the lights and the text and cracking of the walls. I understand that having everything done in the one room is supposed to give the feel of solidarity, but I think to fully convey the brutality and mental effects of confinement, interaction in the facility would have been good to show.

Coyote: A 3D VR Ghost Story (Movie Cult)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2wK277ZiQQ Someone in the distance calls for you. Quickly ascertain that she's strange but she's hospitable. Ominous ambient sounds. Narration ensues - quickly cut to inside strange house with strange man by fireplace. Turns dark and there's an array of bokeh. More perspective of a man presumably her guardian offering reassurance and then quickly pan back to the inside of house where he's doing ritualistic, creepy things. Another cut to panorama, one image of crying baby - man in house is shown to aggressively get crazier - constant baby crying in background, man begins yelling inside house. Now you're outside of the house. Now it's dark and there's a reassuring mother's voice. In the distance there's a human-looking figure in the distance with glowing eyes, the girl you first met.

The short film begins in the middle of the desert as a woman in the distance calls to you - she asks for your name and you actually vocally respond for one of the only times in the entire film. As you follow her along as she leads you to a strange house, you quickly ascertain that she's very strange - but at least she's hospitable. You are shown visions of a baby girl (most likely the girl who led you to where you are) as she tells you why she comes here often followed by darkness and an array of fireflies. You're then suddenly in the strange house she led you to, and there are ominous ambient sounds. There's a man by the fireplace just resting - it's probably her "father." You're coaxed into staying the night as she tells you more about her story and shown more visions about her father probably when he was younger (and saner) offering reassurance. Then again you are suddenly inside the strange house where he's doing ritualistic, strange things with a mask on. The film keeps interleaving with visions of the crying baby girl as the man is shown to get aggressively crazier. There's now a constant backdrop of a baby crying, and the man begins yelling indiscernibly inside the house. You're roaming outside of the house now and it's dark and there is a reassuring mother's voice, likely the girl's. In the distance, there's a part-human-looking figure in the distance with glowing eyes, the girl you first met surrounded by fireflies.

The storytelling is clearly much more immersive given the genre of the film. Because it is also a short film, there is a lot of ambiguity and room for interpretation. The film is lower-budget but still manages to capture your curiosity and leave you on edge the whole way through.

Comparison

There is a very obvious similarity between these two projects and that is the purpose of pandering to the audience's fear, albeit for different reasons. The ghost story wants to tell a unique story with narration while the project on solitary confinement means to enlighten its audience on the harshness of incarceration in the United States. In a similar vein there are many differences apart from their genres: The ghost story draws on a few key scenes and even tries to utilize a panorama view of multiple visions simultaneously. The video on solitary confinement tries to accomplish its purpose all in the same room.

[samlin01]

Discovery - Mythbusters Shark Shipwreck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQd41nbQM-U This 360 video was taking the audience behind the scenes of an experiment they were looking at about sharks for the show. The narrator was separate (even mentioned so) from the video (voice-over) as the diving crew went far underwater to a shipwreck with a shiver of sharks. Just from the videos, I could see the large number of crew members there to provide support, partially because of the danger of the filming, but also just to support a large production company. The quality was excellent, at the top of the water, you could see the ripples clearly and even as you advanced in the water (which can sometimes be murky), you could see the detail of the algae and corals growing on the shipwreck. The narrator would direct the audience with his voice saying "look straight here" or "on your right", which was sometimes tough to determine which direction without visual guidance. The editing in terms of stitching of videos together was seamless, parts of the video they used motion technology to keep texts on moving sharks. I felt immersed in the ocean and felt like I was there - definitely a cool use of 360 video with sharks around me.

Casey Neistat - 360 Electric Skateboard Crash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0lkYRiV0fI This video was Casey Neistat (a vlogger/YouTube personality) who was filming himself on his electric skateboard. This video, while great, you could tell the distinct differences. The video felt more static instead of connected - the stitching felt like I was in Google Maps or a navigation application instead of feeling like I was there. Because he was on the board itself, he was holding the pole that held the cameras (visual to the audience), which hurt the immersion. However, the sound of being there helped, everything sounded like I was there in person. Casey Neistat was able to direct what he was talking about visually by pointing, which helped the audience understand the sequence of events - a narrative was definitely told here. This was definitely a cool use of tech, but quality of the shark video was much higher.