360 Video Critique

[steven-king]

After you have your Google Cardboard headset, find and watch two different 360 video projects. One must be from a major news organization like CNN, NYTimes, Discovery, Weather Chanel, Washington Post, Huffington Post (RYOT) etc.. The second should NOT be a major organization. It should be independent or a small production house.

Write a one-page critique paper about two 360 video and then conclude by comparing the two. Here are some things to consider: What was interesting? Assess the production value. Were your immersed? Was it storytelling? Were you board or interested? Do you feel you missed something? What would have made it better? How are they different? How are they similar? Which was more interesting and why?

Post your work with a link and screenshots as a comment below.

Your post is due at 11:59 p.m. Monday Jan 15th.

[cpa18]

https://youtu.be/f0-89v4Fk-M

https://youtu.be/QKm-SOOMC4c

There is promise for the future of virtual reality, but as it stands right now, it risks being only a fad. I watched a virtual tour of New York City produced by the New York Times and another VR mashup video from an online production company.

The NYT video was, expectedly, more detailed and of greater quality than the other one, which was simulated and animated. The quality of Google Cardboard also made the video quality rather poor. What kept me most immersed in both videos was the audio when I listened with Bluetooth ear buds; the world around me seemed to disappear.

There is a thrill in being able to look wherever you want to obtain a more immersive experience than traditional video, but once that novelty fades, what remains most interesting to me is the ability to put meaning in small details. For example, in the NYT video, I thought it was interesting to see small details such as a discarded soda cup on a city sidewalk or the works in progress of the artist in his studio. The other simulation video, which included a waterslide built in the middle of a city, took advantage of putting titles and credits on the peripheries of the 360-degree video, which helped keep me immersed in my experience without being pulled out.

I found both videos interesting, but I think that this technology risks fading out of public intrigue if it does not find more of a concentrated market. Right now, news companies, production companies and others use 360 video mostly to showcase the technology.

I think that VR shows the most promise in the future of video gaming; it captures the fun and entertaining essence of virtual reality. Further, using VR for storytelling could be difficult and ultimately redundant. News organizations concentrate on telling stories with as little important detail left out as possible, and in an increasingly distracted world, they want to get that information to as many people as efficiently as possible. A news organization, then, would not see much value in convincing their subscribers to strap on a VR headset to get their news.

Similarly, entertainment companies want their customers to experience everything that they create; when the viewer of, say, a movie misses an important detail, that costs the entertainment company because it takes away from the work as a whole. Further, movie and TV watching is often a group experience. I don’t expect families to gather in the living room and feel like they’re spending time together when they’re all wearing their own individual headsets.

Video gaming is different; its main purpose is to take gamers to new worlds. It is one of the best ways to tell new stories. Experiences in video games are generally individual and unique, which tells me that video game producers should take advantage of the potential to input more details into their products.

[peytonchance]

Fly on a Resupply Mission, USA Today https://littlstar.com/videos/463993df

This video takes the viewer through the process of resupplying the USS Eisenhower with food and other necessary materials. The day-long process requires up to 200 people to be successful. The video was immersive and the image quality was quite high. One scene include a flapping strap on the 360 tripod, which was a snafu I wouldn’t expect from USA Today. The video had a clear beginning (explaining the task at hand), middle (several scenes of people working on the resupply) and end (a helicopter takes off and the narrator concludes).

Southwest Airlines Heart Cabin Interior - in Virtual Reality VR 360, SubVRsive https://youtu.be/8hC4_bt1amM

This video was commissioned by Southwest Airlines to provide a preview of their new look and new seating. This is particularly interesting because the video is entirely composed of 3D renderings produced by SubVRsive. The story of the advertisement follows the new planes from the outside in to show new branding and new, more spacious seating options. According to SubVRsive’s website, 360 ads drive 41% more consumer interactions than standard video advertisements. I was impressed by this entirely computer-generated 360 experience. I think this piece points in the right direction when it comes to 360 agencies producing advertising content. Instead of telling customers that new seats are coming, the ad allows them to walk right onto the soon-to-come planes.

Both of these videos were strong in their production quality and the immersiveness of the storytelling. Obviously, the USA Today video had a stronger storyline because it was a piece of journalism and not an advertisement. Whereas in the USA Today video a flapping strap was visible, the entirely created environment in the SubVRsive video prevents distracting mistakes. I think there are merits to both approaches to 360 video experiences. I am interested to see if, in the future, 3D rendering will be leveraged to insert media consumers into recreations of newsworthy events. Further, what ethical discussions will arise when we are able to provide 360 recreations of the location of crimes. For example, major media outlets quickly produced explainer graphics in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting. Would a 360 environment explaining the same geography risk upsetting the audience in a way that static images do not?

[yujie-tao]

Walking New York by the New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0-89v4Fk-M

The first video gives a behind-the-scenes look at why and how the French artist JR created a large-scale pasting of a new immigrant’s photograph in the heart of Manhattan for the Walking New York issue of The New York Times Magazine.

What interesting about this video was that the main characters tried to connect with the audiences. The artist JR directly talked to camera about why he picked immigration as main theme for the project in his studio. It made me feel like he was directly talking to me, like a casual conversation. There was also one shot when everybody in the video came to hug the camera after they completed the pasting; from my view, it made me feel like they were I was part of their team and celebrating with them.

I think this video has high production value. The whole story flows well. The visuals captured every key steps of the creation and was edited with corresponding audios, which made audiences see what they heard. The video also provided audiences with different angles to see JR’s work, including from the street, from a building and even from a helicopter.

I was immersed in the story. It made me feel like I was part of JR’s working team and watched them building up the project from sketch. Even if the image was gone, the 360 video could give audiences a compressive experience of being in New York and standing on the image.

I don’t think miss anything in watching this video. Since there were a clear storyline in audio, I knew where to look at. I think this video could be made better if there is more background information provided, such as Walking New York issue, prior work of RJ.

360 VR timelapse footage of the Aurora Borealis over Kashwitna Lake, Alaska by William Briscoe Photography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehJg_OlcjpE

The second video is a time-lapse footage Aurora Borealis in Alaska. Setting the camera in front of Kashwitna Lake, what interesting about this video was that it captured not only Aurora Borealis, but also highway traffic, formation and movement of fog on the water, and reflections.

The production value of this video is also very high. With photographic effect and post processing, audiences could experience the most exciting parts of northern lights within a minute. Instead of using natural sounds, the author used background music to complement the time-lapse visual experience, which added more emotions into the video.

There is no storytelling in this video but I still found it very interesting. The beauty of Aurora Borealis captured my eyes. I was totally immersed in the video. I have never been to Alaska in person, but I felt I was there when I watched the video.

Since there are so many things happened at the same time in this video, I do felt that I missed a lot of things happened behind me. Probably providing an introduction of the place as narrative or background audios would make audiences much clearer about what they are looking at and where to look.

The most different point between two videos is that the first video tells a whole story while the second one does not have a story. The first video flows with the narrative of main character and has different framings. The second video just set the camera at the same place and heavily relies on post processing. They are similar in the use of time-lapse, which helps audiences to see the full development process but within a smaller amount of time. I think the first video is more interesting because there is a storyline there, which pushes me to watch more. The second one is beautiful but the scenery is similar from beginning to end.

[spaisley]

360 Video Critique.docx

[RCPlaneguy]

Discovery VR’s “Isle of Jaws”, published in 2016, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0hVLEe5mU)

Discovery Channel’s VR branch produced “Isle of Jaws”, which takes the viewer on a trip to a rumoured Great White Shark hotspot off the coast of Australia. The production value seems on par with what you would expect Discovery Channel to produce, with vibrant imagery of underwater predators, although the image quality could have been improved a bit. The cameras used by the crew are composed of six underwater cameras assembled in a cube shaped. It should be noted that there was a visual disconnect at some moments where the feed from two different cameras didn’t join up perfectly, making half an object disappear for example. This broke immersion from time to time, but never enough as to completely ruin the effect and my interest in the video. Another slight problem, and this I would actually qualify as personal taste, is that because the cameras were arranged in a cube, some underwater shots allowed the viewer to clearly see the “seams”, “edges” and angles of the various feeds, and gives the effect of being in a room of screens, rather than on location. I believe one fix would be to use a camera rig with either better joined up feeds or more feeds, so as to reduce the “room” effect. However, I feel Discovery VR did a good job of immersing the viewer in shark infested waters, as the curious beasts roamed up close to the camera and nudged it a few times, giving almost a little jump-scare effect, especially when one is looking the other way.

Andy Front Films’ Pac-Man in 360°, published in 2015, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9h3ZqJa1iA)

Andy Front Films is a personal CGI and VFX channel on Youtube. It’s Pac-Man video places the viewer as Pac-Man itself, running through the corridors of its famous virtual maze. While the effects of this entirely CGI scene are good, given that they were worked on by a single person, the fact that the video turned with respect to Pac-Man’s orientation was very destabilising and could make someone queasy. The viewer can turn and look around, but whichever way they’re facing, their view will not stay fixed when pac man turns. I feel a better option would have been to keep the camera’s rotation wholly separate from Pac-Man, so as to avoid any queasiness. Apart from that, it was very fun to find myself in Pac-Man’s maze, watching as he runs down corridors and eats ghosts when the occasion presented itself.

Both videos used VR in very different ways, but both were interesting insights into how people might approach creating in this medium. I think an interesting thing to note would be that while the shark video was published in 2016, and therefore in the middle of the commercial VR revival, the Pac-Man video was published in 2015, when VR was still only beginning anew. The idea that uncontrollable camera movement with no physical movement feedback might destabilise a viewer and make them seasick may not have occurred to the creator of the video. This could be because a lack of experience, combined with a lack of widespread and easily accessible documentation on VR and creating in the medium, may have kept this information from him. I would say that Discovery VR’s video was more interesting. It used the medium of VR to further immerse viewers in the expedition’s discoveries, whereas the Pac-Man video would have worked better, I felt, were it a full game. Of course, that requires a lot more work, but I feel some of the fun is lost when one cant control the character, and especially when the one thing they think they can control (camera angle), is revealed to be rotationally locked to something uncontrollable.

[brianbatista]

Videos:

GoPro VR: The Fourth Phase in 360 – Snowboard with Travis Rice By GoPro

https://youtu.be/mcwP16h2rF4

DO NOT Push The Red Button! (Rube Goldberg Machine) By Putty Studios

https://youtu.be/oU9jkMLwAlI

---

Watching videos in 360º might just be the new way we will watch videos in the future. From learning to reporting, there's something about not watching just a "static" 2D screen but actually being immersed into a 360º environment while still being in 2D that makes the experience feel refreshing and interactive at the same time. While mainstream sports TV shows and documentaries bring seemly the same point of view, being brought to the inside of the action has this new approach to it, and as a new take on "viewing videos", it can become a standard way of watching videos in a few years.

The first video is from GoPro, Travis Rice snowboarding down a mountain in Alaska. While the video is gorgeous in quality, as you can notice at the beginning by looking on the helicopter's pilot helmet reflection, and the snow details while boarding down the mountain, there are also some points that break from the immersion in the video; Of the most notable ones, one is the camera angle changing multiple times mid-video, and the second part is how the background seems to flicker on some points of the video. Other than that, the video works very well, especially storytelling wise, as the video starts from the drop from the helicopter and ends at the base of the mountain, after the snowboard adventure.

The second video is from Putty Studios, a British company created in 1999 by Peter Spance. The video runs through a Rube Goldberg Machine, an automated contraption that requires only its first action to be started manually, as the rest of the machine runs on the consequences of the first action. It makes a brand-new take on watching how a Rude Goldberg machine works, as you can follow the action on your own pace, without being stuck to the same view that a regular video would force you to follow. Issues with the video arise when some of the machines actions happen too fast for your field of vision to follow it.

Although the headgear might be at fault, the second video seemed much less functional with the cardboard VR set than the first one, as both eyes field of view seemed to overlap strangely, not producing a clear image. Despite that, both video had a different take of the use of 360º view: For the Rude Goldberg machine, the viewers are immersed into the whole environment of the video, because they have to actively follow the contraption around them while it is running, whereas on the snowboarding video, the viewer's attention wasn't "stuck" to anything, but rather they have the liberty to view the scene as it appealed to them.

As for what could have been done differently, I wish that the GoPro video didn't have as many camera angle changes and there was the possibility to change between snowboarders during the video, so that you could have a bigger interaction with the video. For the Rude Goldberg machine, it borders into Augmented and Virtual Reality, but the experience could be made better by having the viewer actively walk in the environment, and watch the machine function around him, while being able to go closer or further away from it at will.

Although the videos use different takes on video producing, the first being a live sports film and the second being an animation, some of the different possibilities of 360º video use are displayed. So, whether it's a documentary approach or educational one, 360º videos can be used for different purposes if you use the correct technique. All that's left is that the technology is refined and made more available.

[jackmolloy]

James Harden in 360 Be Like… | BdotAdot5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg7mTKf4h6w

The James Harden in 360 video created by viral video publisher Bdot (@BdotAdot5) offered users a unique experience to join him and NBA All-Star James Harden in a gym together. The use of background music and humor created a relaxed environment that appealed to younger users, especially those already familiar with Bdot’s previous work. The story being told was a continuation of the creator’s previous videos, where he imitated James Harden in satirical ways; because the video never recapped older videos for unfamiliar users, it was not very effective storytelling.

With that said, this video created an incredibly immersive experience. By constantly having James Harden and Bdot on opposite sides of the camera, the user must constantly turn 180 degrees to see who is talking. Though this could be annoying for some, I enjoyed it because it made me feel like I was really there, rather than just looking at a wide angle shot in a gym. The video could have added more content to tell a more comprehensive story. For example, it could have posted James Harden stats next to him in the first scene to better introduce him, or it could have used popup videos to show in-game examples of the moves they were mimicking. Overall, the video did a great job utilizing the power of 360 video.

Mosul: Fight against ISIS from the Sky | BBC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKseZzSL2jM

BBC News’ Mosul video took a more professional approach to 360 video. By replacing background music with the actual sound of the helicopter, users felt like they were sitting in the helicopter, rather than just watching a video; this helped immerse users into the story. The narrator spoke clearly and concisely, only reciting facts about what users were seeing and the situation in Mosul as a whole. The video did a great job utilizing popup windows including photos, text and video over certain areas to educate users on specifics of the war.

One downside to the video was that the camera stayed stationary for the entire video. Though the helicopter was moving to different areas, it still made the experience feel a bit static because it was obvious that it was just a camera attached to the side of a helicopter; such lack of perspectives hindered the video’s ability to make users feel immersed. Also, the video made me feel nauseous due to the shakiness of the shots. Overall, the video effectively told the story it was trying to tell and succeeded in its goal of objective news telling.

Conclusion Though both videos offered high-quality experiences, each was clearly tailored to different audiences. With one made for entertainment and the other for education, the two videos utilized visual and audio in different ways. In my opinion, Bdot’s James Harden video did a better job at taking advantage of 360 video because it invited people to look around, making them actually feel like they were there. But overall, both videos were well-made and successful in creating their desired experience.

[plindenmuth]

The Fight for Falluja, The New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ar0UkmID6s This video offers an in-depth exploration of the many battles that Iraqi forces fought against ISIS to retake the city of Falluja. The 360 video does not have the highest quality video resolution, but the ability to freely look around the war torn space more than makes up for this. The use of 360 video adds greater immersion to the story by making you feel as if you are truly walking around the streets of Falluja. The use of narration helps you make sense of the scenery and why it is being shown without sacrificing a sense of immersion. At times the sense of immersion could be a bit jarring, such as when an outgoing missile is heard off-screen when you are sitting with a group of Iraqi soldiers or when you are put into the perspective of an Iraqi prisoner in a glorified dog cage in an abandoned ISIS safe house. Though it may not be perfect visually, the use of 360 video to explore Falluja alongside Iraqi forces helps to better present the intangible elements of the story while offering a more visceral sense of the day-to-day life of soldiers during war.

360 | Slender Man, BlackBoxTV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYJgTFkCNYU I am familiar with the Slender Man lore and have played Slender Man videogames so this video caught my attention. The production quality was relatively high for an animated 360 video, but there were some textures that were so unrealistic they detracted from the immersion of the experience. The ambient sounds of birds and the rustling of leaves helped to draw me into the experience and made the scary moments even scarier. The first time you see slender man he blends in with the peaceful green house scenery and is barely noticeable. If you look away and look back however, Slender Man appears in all his horrific glory accompanied by horrifying sounds and flashes of red. Watching this video with Google Carboard made me feel like I was more immersed than I would be watching it without VR, especially because of the ability to look around, but I still felt this video was more of a novelty experience. It was impressive for what it was, but for it to be more interesting, I would have liked a greater ability to interact with the environment and make decisions.

I thought that both videos were well done for what they were, but the New York Times video exploring the fighting and environment in Falluja was more compelling than the Slender Man video. The ability to look around using my Google Carboard headset immersed me further in the war torn environment of Falluja and the use of narration combined with this made every scene feel like a living, breathing moment. In comparison, the ability to look around and the use of immersive audio in the Slender Man video was interesting and certainly added to my experience, but it didn’t feel as meaningful or as impactful.

There is definitely a future for 360 video and VR in storytelling that transcends simple novelty. Videos like “The Fight for Falluja” show the more impactful side of using 360 video and VR for storytelling and as the technology continues to improve I can see 360 video becoming a compelling way to tell stories if properly combined with other elements like sound and narrative structure.

[jmwerden]

CNN - Surviving Santacon http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/vr/santacon-NYC-2017-vr/index.html The CNN “Surviving Santacon” video showcased an event where people dressed up as Santa and paraded together in New York City. It was an informative video with narration in the background. The video was fully immersive and 360 degree. It was evident that it had a high production value because there were so many different 360 locations utilized during the production. The story-telling was on par with the CNN video. It was rather brief (less than 2 minutes), but it made me feel as if I was actually in New York attending the festival. The narration also matched with the content that was displayed rather well. CNN displayed a lot of confrontations that occurred during the festival and used interview content of Manhattanites feelings about the festival. This way, it connected you with the emotion and energy of those attending the festival. This video was definitely the more upbeat of the two I watched. I think they did a great job with their production budget and built a nice story on top of the footage they received.

SMART News Agency - The Battle for Northern Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTTzKwLPqFw The second video I watched by Smart News Agency called “The Battle for Northern Syria” had narration as well. The story absolutely was not meant to be upbeat for the city, Jisr al-Shughur, had absolutely been ravaged by war and you could literally hear bombing and artillery shots in the background. While the video was not happy, the narration provided insight regarding the situation and Syria and what life was like for those still on the ground. They interviewed several locals on a 360 camera mounted to the back of a truck. This video definitely made me take in the dire scenery which had an emotional effect on me certainly.

[DeanELovett]

360° Barracuda Tornado #OurBluePlanet - Earth Unplugged- BBC Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGj8vJAnd0&index=50&list=PLU8wpH_LfhmsSVRA8bSknO4-2wXvYXS4C

Out of the Blue - 360 VR Video- Kaleidoscope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iL0c5zPoac&index=53&list=PLU8wpH_LfhmsSVRA8bSknO4-2wXvYXS4C

After looking at two 360 videos, I thought about the immense possibilities of VR. The first video I watched was produced by BBC Earth where it featured a diver filming for Blue Planet Two in the middle of a Barracuda tornado. The only way to capture all aspects of this special moment was by using a camera that captured 360 degrees. I was fully immersed when I look around. I could see different parts of the tornado. This was crucial because not every part was the same. Some parts had large parrot fish in the crowds. This unique ability to have a narrator explain the significance of what you may be viewing as well as having complete control of what you want to look at is a fantastic way of storytelling. I liked that the video was short and sweet. It was only about 3 minutes long and I was interested throughout.

The second video I saw was produced by Kaleidoscope, an independent production house which specializes in VR entertainment. The story is about a family looking for food after fishing struggles. It was an interesting video. The video and VR capabilities were complimented by the narrator telling a compelling story. I wasn’t as immersed in this video as I was in the Barracuda Tunnel because it ran a little long and got boring at times. The video was 9 minutes compared to BBC Earth’s 3 minute video. They were similar in that both featured quality footage of the ocean’s wonders. They were different though in that the second video wasn’t primarily focused on anything in the ocean but too aid the story and move it along. The first video’s focus was to show a phenomenon in the ocean. I thought this was more interesting because it captured a natural wonder and allowed you to witness an event that you might not ever have the opportunity to in reality. I think VR is most effective in storytelling when it is taking you on a journey most people will never have the opportunity to experience. I had the feeling when viewing the first by BBC but didn’t when I was watching the second by Kaleidoscope.

[jtizon001]

Inside North Korea VR | ABC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnEACysvsI8&t=1s This video produced by ABC News VR takes its viewers into North Korea during the 70th anniversary of the Worker's Party.

I found the video very interesting, as it provided insight into a country that so few people have had the opportunity to visit. The video progressed in the form a short documentary in which ABC's Bob Woodruff played the role of a "narrator" of sorts. I think it was informative, given the fact that they could only film what the North Korean officials in charge of the crew allowed. Bob Woodruff makes sure that his audience is aware of this, and points out that the officials are always seen mixed in with the crowds, in order to make sure that he toes the party line. Knowing this, I found myself ignoring what he said and investing all my attention into the people and special locations, such as the populated square and a subway station. It was truly fascinating to observe an actual, real-life, demifunctional personality cult and party system so strikingly Orwellian in aspect.

Dreams of Dali by The Dali Museum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1eLeIocAcU This video, made by the Dali Museum, plunges the viewer into one of Salvador Dali's paintings. It starts off by showing two massive structures and the user feels as if he/she is drifting through the landscape toward the towering structures. It was easy to lose yourself while you were being dragged around the painting. What I especially enjoyed about it was that, because you were able to move the camera in a full 360 degrees, you were able to see things that one would not be able to see in a mere picture of 2-dimensional artwork. For example, when one nears the Archeological Reminiscence Millet's Angelus one can turn the camera 180 degrees to observe how far the the shadows stretch out - certainly not something visible in the original painting.

Both videos aim to accomplish a specific and different goal. The first was informative, while the second one simply provided an immersive experience. Despite this they were both very well made, and show well the potential for 360 VR technology. I personally found the Dali video more appealing, though as I stated earlier, both were well-crafted, though ABC's video of North Korea felt more like a regulated and staged propaganda tour than a tech demo. Nevertheless, it was an interesting experience, and I enjoyed seeing the Worker's Party Parade and having the freedom to look around the subway station whenever I chose, even if it was limited by the political realities of North Korean life. If I had seen either of these in 2016, I would not have been surprised at all by all the traction that VR technology is gaining in our cultural zeitgeist - especially in the video game industry (the re-release of Skyrim in VR serving as a popular example, aside from those referenced and treated herein).

[robmsul]

Lions 360, National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPyAQQklc1s Nat Geo made a captivating video by choosing something visually good enough for 360 video and telling a story with the footage. The video gave a story about Gibson, a male lion cub, who doesn't have a father, putting his life at risk in the competitive pride. The mother was forced to raise Gibson outside the pride - the only way to preserve her son's life. Each element, the visuals and the narrated story, were interesting on their own, but both combined to be much better. There was a good variety of shots considering the camera was stationary. I think that a 360 drone clip would be a nice wide, establishing shot and would improve the video overall.

360° VR VIDEO - DRUGS EFFECT, 360 VR - Adventure Studios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrRn05PIBxk I chose this video because I think the idea behind it is interesting and worth investigating. It uses VR for health education purposes. In this case, showing the effects of different drugs. There was a story to follow as it appeared to show the same character using multiple drugs, experiencing the effect, and suffering the consequences. Additionally, the health risks associated with each drug were shown. One note is that it's really a 180 VR POV video. The viewer could look around using a headset, but the 180 degrees where the main character should have been was blacked out. I believe this is a more useful technique for this particular video, but think the title/label of 360 is misleading. I believe a couple changes could make the video more effective/higher quality. First, is simply detail clean-up. The audio at the beginning of different "chapters" was inconsistent. There is also a glaring typo at the very end of the video, automatically taking away from any authority and validity the video has. A second is the overall storyline. While the effects of each drug are similar and seem unrealistic, the focus is the negative effects. I think the video should have gone more in depth with the negative effects and avoided the quick-scare method that I perceived.

Both videos tell a story and I believe are somewhat effective at doing so. The Nat Geo video is produced at a much higher quality and is probably the most entertaining and interesting of the two. The visuals are stunning and it does have a narrative that I found myself wanting to listen to. However, I think the idea of the 360 VR - Adventure Studio video is better and puts the capabilities of 360/VR to better use with an educational video. As most would expect, the small studio did not have as product as polished and shiny as a big name like Nat Geo.

[bhdang18]

Destroyed in Tsunami, a Temple Is Reborn | 360 Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lsy5nX2VnM

Red Bull F1 VR / 360° Video Experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNvZwN87Hg

The first video I watched was the Formula 1 racing video created by VIEMR, a Virtual Reality & Augmented Reality company, followed by a video by the NY Times on the reconstruction of a Temple located in Japan. Both videos offered me the same things, an immersive experience that I otherwise would have never had the opportunity to encounter; however, they were quite different in few distinct characteristics. The NY Times video provided me with information structured in a story-like narrative. As for the VIEMR video, I would go on to categorize the video as a personal journey. The focus of the video was for me to experience what its like to be in a Formula 1 race car.

Personally, for me, the VIEMR was interesting because I enjoy NASCAR and it was enjoyable to get somewhat of an inside perspective of a race car driver. So it was something that I already had an interest in. As for the NY Times video, it was the first video to catch my eye but I ended up watching the entire video because of the detailed scenes within the video. The images were stunning and the little storyline of the video was of high-caliber production. I would imagine the video from the NY Times was much more expensive to produce compared to VIEMR, a much smaller company. So if I had to choose one video over the other, then it would be the video from the NY Times because of the production value and the storytelling aspects.

I would say I was immersed in both videos but in different ways than I mentioned above. VIEMR offered me an experience and the NY Times captured me with their storytelling. The videos were also fairly short so I didn’t really get a chance to get bored of the content. VR offers a whole another dimension for lack of better words for content creators so what is there to miss? The only thing the might be applicable to this question is that at times I was constantly spinning around because I wanted to absorb everything that was being offered, which is probably something that all new VR users will have to adjust to.

I was able to use my housemate’s VR headset for this assignment and I believed that this further enhanced my experience because I was able to connect my phone to the built-in headphones and secured the phone to the headset itself without my hands. I’ve used the Google cardboard headset before and this headset presented me with an overall better experience by being able to adjust the lenses to my eyes and blocking out all other sounds when watching.

On more of a particular rant, I see VR being more compatible in the world of education and rather than entertainment. As VR and AR become more commonplace in our world, I think it has the ability to be incorporated into people’s everyday lives, but for me, it has yet to reach the level of convenience that I would necessitate to be used in my everyday life. Putting on the headset was a unique and awesome experience but I’m not sure if the experience itself was enough of an incentive for me to watch more 360 videos for my leisure.

[gabriellepalacio]

Snow leopards in 360° Planet Earth II, BBC One

https://youtu.be/BwKytZ-SJ7s

This video shows the journey of videographers as they try to capture snow leopards in during the filming of the recently released Planet Earth II. The video had some really cool features too it that enhanced the 360-video experience. The mountain ranges and nearby towns had markers to show their names and locations as well as their significance to the project. Further, they added in footage of what the videographers were filming to help show more than just one perspective of the action. If it weren’t for the low quality of my five-dollar VR goggles, I am sure I would have been fully immersed in the video and its story. It was high quality and had good story value. As someone who has seen the new Planet Earth, I was very interested to see the behind the scenes making of it, and I think it was a smart move on their part to make it an interactive 360-video experience so that the viewer felt more connected to the story.

“The Wait”, Lakshmi Sarah and Melissa Bosworth – University of California, Berkely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=181&v=VKw6MoluTv8

This project zooms in on refugees in Europe and focuses in on one person, Osnabrueck Ayham, while he applies for political asylum in Germany. I appreciated the story behind the video, and I think they did a good job of communicating the issue. However, I don’t know that the fact that it was 360-video made any sort of impact on the telling of the story. It seemed to me that it could have easily been in regular video format without taking anything away from the project. Also, since the video was all voiceover, I think it would have been helpful to choose more interesting scenery than what they did. I did not feel that I was being immersed in a story, just that I was seeing random scenes in Germany.

Conclusion

The difference in funding between the two projects was clear. Obviously BBC was able to spend more money on the project and hire different specialists who could work on the project to round it out with different elements. They both used text in some way to identify locations within the video, which I think was very helpful tool. The story value of Planet Earth was more concise and clear-cut. However, the refugee story had a lot of potential, but perhaps not the right level of execution, which was probably a result of limited resources.

[sivonne]

“What's It Like to Hear Colors? - A VR 360° Synesthesia Experience” by Discovery VR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obrBAysVef0&feature=youtu.be

For the first video I watched, a narrator voiced a story over video of her playing the violin on a hill overlooking a town. This story gave visuals to something I’d only ever heard about– people hearing colors, a kind of synesthesia. In order to demonstrate this, layered over the musical scene were spots of colored lights matching the violin’s notes, matching what the violinist herself sees when she plays.

Although there wasn’t a lot of moving around, I appreciated that. The story was simple, and if there was an even better visual quality, it would have been breathtaking. It reminded me of fireworks, the awe of combined light and sound and landscape.

The videographers did a good job of making her voice conversational, friendly, and clear, so it matched well with the music and gave it context. I thought it was neat that they switched between night and day and while they mainly had the viewer watching the violinist, they eventually directed us to see what she sees and step into her viewpoint, giving a reason for 360° visuals.

“What Happens Inside Your Body? - VR 360°” by Life Noggin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FyN5_-njAU&feature=youtu.be

The second video I watched was educational, and instead of only using real-time 360° video footage, it was animated, using 360 as a way to bring the viewer into the human body. This video sent me back to middle and high school science classes, flashbacks of the Magic School Bus, and definitely would have been a neat learning tool back then.

Although the video didn’t have the best production value, I think the concept is really entertaining and could be done in a more immersive way so that students could learn even more from it. My issue with the video was mainly in execution, as there were many scenes that, instead of showing everything the narrator spoke of, repeated one scene multiple times until he finished talking and moved to another repeated scene.

There was also an element of abstract style to the video, which I enjoyed, however, it made the video visuals at times too simplistic. For example, when exploring the circulatory system, there is a replayed clip of a sort of “light at the end of the tunnel” graphic which wasn’t very accurate anatomically or very interesting to look at over and over again. They needed the animated equivalent to “b-roll,” ultimately having just a lack of visuals to meet the narrator’s words. There was also not enough to look at for most of the video, with one main focus where the viewer was meant to look, but not much else if they chose to look around.

Comparison

Both videos dealt with completely different subject matter, and they both caught my attention for different reasons. The first video was more about the experience of hearing colors, of seeing what the violinist sees, about the story the narrator weaved. The narrator kept your interest with fascinating, contextual information befitting the music.

However, I chose the second video because the age-old dream of exploring the human body and being able to see it at all angles is a really exciting concept. However, the execution was not as well-done as the first video. Due to the animation style, I wasn’t as immersed or personally-invested in the story (there wasn’t really much of one) and I was pretty aware of the nonrealistic environment, while the other story was more of a fantastical view of a normal scene.

Although they were both very different stories, they both strived to share an experience with the viewer, the first showing the audience what it is like to live with synesthesia, and the second showing what it is like to navigate the human body. The first was more interesting because the story was clear, the visuals were compelling, and the composition was enjoyable, but the second will do a great job for its market age group and will be a great visual introduction to human anatomy.

[lucysiluhu]

National Geographic: 360° Kamchatka Volcano Eruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3a1fkLsNS4 Fresh Wave Production: RIO DE JANEIRO 360 VR VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=122&v=PbtEiUx4oM4

The two 360 videos I chose both target at the natural surroundings. As for the first one, Kamchatka Volcano Eruption produced by the National Geographic, the overall quality of the video is in a high-level standard. It started with the helicopter flying from the ground to the sky, looking at the mountains and volcano from the air. Therefore, it gives the 360 video a better-rounded perspective and more interesting angle, because it shows both the sky, the mountains in the middle, and the ground in a big picture. Also, since the camera is moving with the helicopter, every scene that went into my eyesight is consistent, and when I spotted the eruption of the volcano it came really natural and within my expectation. Except for it, one thing I really love about this 360 video piece is the combination of different views, both in and out of the helicopter, within a very short period of time (about 2 minutes), and successfully telling a complete story. All in all, this is a wonderful piece showing the natural phenomena of volcano eruption from the air, and I was really immersed into it with the soothing music and explanational text.

The second one is about a collection of scenes that try to come up with the full picture of a great place, Rio de Janeiro, produced by an independent production Fresh Wave. My first impression of this video is down-to-earth, for the opening scene it chose to capture and the tourists-looking people that get involved. The random people that appeared in the video clip leaves an impression of immature edit and loss of focus. With the scenes keep changing, I’m a little confused about the inner logic that connects the different pieces all together. Even though the variety of scenes give the audience a wide range of angles into the diverse look the city has, the not-so-good quality of video pieces and abrupt transition from one piece to another made me lost. Also, the music sounds a little bit too intense while the scenes seem relaxing. I kind of wish the producer puts more efforts into thinking about what time of the day should I make the video, what kinds of scenes do I want to include in the 2-minute city promotion video, and more importantly, what story I want to tell and what information I hope the audience take away with them through my video.

To compare the two videos, though both of them are about the natural scenes, the first one focuses on the progress of one natural phenomena while the second one is the collection of different natural scenes that happened in a same place. The first one is more interesting to me because I could easily tell the development of the story and go with the flow. Also, the perspective is breath-taking and takes great advantage of the freedom of angles 360 video can offer. Therefore, the story of volcano eruption is a successful piece to me. The second one is less successful because I cannot see the focus and connection on the pieces of natural scenes that being put together, and I get lost in the quirky music and boring angle. If I were the producer for the second one, I would think over the city, choose the best pieces that the city could possibly offer, diversify the angles, and connect the pieces with a storyline.

[tfrahm]

The New York Times L.A. Noir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6RWfxIKMMQ

I really loved this video. It was actually a series of short films in the style of film noir, and featured some really great celebrities. Each one was set up like a pivotal scene from a mystery film, and I was placed in the center as another character. It was really interesting to experience this as a retro-meets-futuristic film. The use of lighting and shadows was an important part of the set, and added to the feeling of immersion and the air of mystery. I was thrown into a body mid-scene, spoken to, argued with, and even shot. I found the experience to be very immersive and captivating, and I enjoyed the format of the film as several short scenes because each one lasted only a few minutes and held my attention well.

Five Nights at Freddy’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0wbVfpOCvI

Okay, this was terrifying. I don’t know why I decided it would be a good idea to experience a 3D VR horror movie. That said, it was super immersive, and I actually kept pulling the Cardboard away from my face because I was too scared and wanted to be reminded I wasn’t in the house. Five Nights at Freddy’s is a quick film that takes place in several rooms all over an empty house that’s being haunted by a costume character. The film blips you from room to room as things get increasingly more unsettling and as the “evil presence” encroaches more and more into your space. It's simple, yet effective.

I felt that both films were very immersive, although they achieved that in different ways. In the Film Noir, the immersion was created through storytelling, by the characters played by some of the world’s greatest actors interacting with me emotionally; whereas in Five Nights at Freddy’s, the immersion was mostly built through the fear I felt, no great acting required.

[sumnerpark]

1. Mosul: Fight against ISIS from the sky in 360 video- BBC News

This video is a live helicopter combat mission of Iraqi soldiers flying over and attacking ISIS in Mosul. The VR experience centers from the perspective of the helicopter's flight from the base camp to its journey across Iraq into Mosul. The narrator keeps the video engaging by speeding up the footage in intervals in between brief dialogue. He also immerses the audience by pointing out visuals that require a 180˚ shift in the camera angle, including a second helicopter in the wake, on the same mission. Furthermore, he notes that the particular helicopter he points out is made by Americans and less armed, and many of the same type have been taken down. He adds that "the same helicopter was taken down days after completing this video. The helicopter you are looking at might have been the one...though we can't be certain. Two pilots died." This element of novelty urges the viewer to pin point the trailing helicopter in the video, which makes this story more engaging. The VR experience then moves across Iraq from the East, where ISIS has taken over, to the West- where battle is currently taking place. He points out wreckage from past takeovers, including the abandoned airport and bridges. However, the distance between the video camera and the ground makes it hard to see in detail. There are highlighters marking the areas he is addressing with more detailed, up close footage to accompany what's taking place on ground. I think the most fascinating part of this VR experience is when you can see the bullets shooting out of the helicopter followed by flashes of explosion on the ground. The camera gets close enough to the end of the gun, allowing you to clearly see the shells fall.

2. http://www.airpano.com/360Degree-Video.php?3D=Video-Plitvice-Lakes

This video journeys through the Plitvice Lakes National Park in Croatia. Though the video does not have narration, as it is not intended to be a news story, it is accompanied by music. Therefore, the story telling differentiated in a way that relied more heavily on quality of the visuals and footage. In this video, the camera gets closer and the graphics are more crisp. The camera also glides through transitions rather than abrupt shifts as the Mosul video.

[easanportman]

Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TvLC1lFwP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmGYDq5V3U&t=66s

Power Ranger Video In the Power Ranger video, it took me to the home base of the power rangers from the newest power ranger movie that came out a year ago. In this video, I was introduced to Zordon and all of the rangers as well as their Zords. Having watched Power Rangers when I was a little kid, this was very nostalgic for me and it was a really cool experience.

Shanghai Disneyland Video Two summers ago I worked in Shanghai and was lucky enough to go to the Shanghai Disneyland Park and being a huge Disney fan this video was really able to bring me back. It was really cool to feel like I was back in the castle or on one of the many rides that I actually went on when I was there. My favorite part of this video was when it took me back on the Tron rollercoaster, Which was my favorite ride when I was there, and really brought me back to being on the rollercoaster and I could almost feel like I was riding the rollercoaster because it was so similar to my time on the actual roller coaster.

Conclusion The two videos that I watched were pretty different. One was recorded with a 360 camera in a real location, while the other was created in a digital environment for promotional purposes. In the Shanghai Video, I felt completely immersed because I have actually been to Shanghai Disneyland and it felt almost as if I was back in China riding the rides in Disneyland. In the Power Rangers video, I almost felt less immersed because it was not a real environment and the graphics were not as good as some video games I have played. I believe that both of these were great forms of storytelling, with the Power Rangers putting me into a story that I am familiar with, and the Shanghai Video putting me into my own story in Shanghai Disneyland. In both of these videos, I was extremely interested and didn't feel like I missed anything at all. In the end, I probably liked the Shanghai Disneyland video better because it was taking me back to a place that I really enjoyed and because it was a place that I had been and it really brought back good memories.

[pakaplace]

Brain Hearts and Heroin addiction, New York Times

This video demo’d the use of of VR for recreating addiction-stimulating environments for recovering heroin addicts as well as it’s use in educating medical students on the anatomy of body parts. In each instance, the viewer took the patient/student’s point of view. I liked the combination of a student-facing and patient-facing application, because it demonstrated how you can use VR to recreate experience that stimulate the same brain activity as in real life and using the measured acitivity to display the brain’s activity to students in 3D. IWhile a standard 2D video could have demo’d the re wordings they played, 360 video allowed me to more closely experience what using the application is like. To me, it was an immersive story telling experience to the extent that I could see how patients and students interacted with VR applications from their POV, but since the video were screencasts of recorded usage, the video fell short of a truly 360, user-guided experience. The producers could have made it better had they recreated the full 360 viewing ability of the applications they discussed.

Go North | VR “Go North” was half a tour of Detroit ruin porn, half a trailer for a Hunger Games-esque movie. I suppose it’s purpose is to drive interest for the movie shot in 2D. This presented some dissonance between the 360 video and what it was representing. Normally, trailers include scenes from the movie that give viewers a sense of the plot. Instead, “Go North’s” VR experience was limited to independent shots filmed in VR that largely focused on the cinematography of the ruin porn and the lone actions of the main character. To recreate elements of the plot, the trailer would have to include scenes from the 2D movie re-shot or re-represented in 3D. Starting with a 2D movie and only afterwards creating an adhoc representation in 3D, limited the experience. The trailer could have made up for it’s deficiency in plot hints through the narration, instead the producer chose to use the subject’s voice describing the presence of a mysterious internal voice telling him to “go north.” Despite it’s shortcomings, the production value of the trailer was very high. The producer, an experienced documentary filmmaker, clearly had a good sense of cinematography. Interestingly, the frames were much longer than a 2D movie since shifting frames every 2 seconds, I suppose, would not allow a viewer sufficient time to look around and feel immersed in the scene. I was highly engaged despite the lack of plot details because the cinematography was so interesting that I used the frame-times to explore the viritual-physical setting.

Comparison The two videos I watched were of two starkly different genres/types. While the NYT video immersed me in a first-person POV of a user using a VR application, in the latter I was a third person observer to scenes of a lone teenager exploring empty, desolate ruins. The former’s immersive drawl came from its narration and demonstration of technology, while the latter’s beautiful cinematography and truly 3D experience made it memorizing. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that the NYT’s video narration was better, but it’s hard to compare the two experiences since the first is purposed as news while the second tries to tell a story and entice viewers in the plot of a longer feature film. For a new viewer of VR, I appreciated the differing POV’s between the two videos as they demonstrated two different ways VR could be immersive. If I could seamlessly use the applications described in the NYT VR video, I would have had more freedom as a viewer to explore my surroundings like with in the second video. I think it’ll take e a little while for the 360-VR entertainment industry to develop practices/techniques that make for a more seamless, entertaining user experience. Demoing a screencast on the other hand, simply involves recording the user experience so it’s production value lied mainly in the stitching of narration and recording, not filming a 360 VR experience.

[amygtownsend]

Video 1: Basking in Butterflies | The Daily 360 | The New York Times https://youtu.be/mRHx_XcQM-A

Video 2: Young the Giant: Silvertongue (Official Music Video) https://youtu.be/gnYFL_OB7qs

The first video I watched was filmed in a monarch butterfly reserve in Mexico and produced by The New York Times. The second video I watched, a music video, was filmed at a colorful glow-in-the-dark Young the Giant concert and produced by Two Bit Circus VR.

The New York Times video was set in an ideal location for a 360 perspective. Movement is an important element to capture within 360 video, and what better place to film movement than a butterfly reserve? The video was short and consisted of multiple scenes recorded at different parts of the reserve. Within each different scene, there was a main focal point where the majority of the butterflies had congregated, but you could also look around and see butterflies at every turn.

Using the VR gear, it really felt like I was there in the reserve with butterflies fluttering all around me. At the same time, the scenes lost visual interest for me after a few seconds because of the predictable nature of the butterflies' movement. At each point that I lost interest, however, the video recaptured my attention with text added to the scene, displaying snippets of educational information about monarch butterflies. These bits of information evoked a sense of storytelling throughout the video, transforming each scene into an engaging experience.

The Young the Giant music video was also a very interesting experience, with colorful, glow-in-the-dark makeup and a fun concert scene. The video's use of its 360 perspective was unconventional to say the least. The scenes within the video changed rapidly so there wasn't much time to look around, but there also wasn't really a need to do so. Instead of letting the viewer take in the whole scene by themselves, the video producer added in effects that rotated the view for you. During my first attempt at watching the video with VR gear, I faced the same direction the whole time and thoroughly enjoyed the viewing experience. The second time, I attempted to look in different directions, but it made the experience a bit too dizzying.

Overall, I would say that the two videos are great examples of traditional versus unconventional styles of 360 videography. The New York Times video allows the viewer to explore on their own, while the Young the Giant video takes the viewer through a journey of the producer's creation. Both videos were high-quality and visually interesting with no stitching errors.