I remember; it was created in 1995, in Montreal. There was a breathing interface (a special vest with sensors), so it was a personal immersive experience:
http://www.immersence.com/osmose/ -- Marc Le Mon, 19 May 2014 22:16:45 -0400, Matthew Palmer <[email protected]> a écrit : > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TdsoRpKRPc > > this was a great idea for virtual reality > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Schreiber > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > etienne deleflie wrote: > > > > > >> In fact, I argue that the composer's attraction to VR (or > >> ambisonics or whatever) is a kind of false route ... where there > >> is the assumption that greater verisimilitude creates greater > >> aesthetic engagement. I suggest that > >> it might be the very opposite ... greater verisimilitude might > >> actually create lesser aesthetic engagement. > >> > >> > >> > > - Technical "machinery" doesn't solve aesthetical or artistic > > problems. > > > > - < Lesser aesthetic engagement > is of course how things should < > > not > be! > > > > - The idea to use a 360º camera (in all directions) doesn't take > > away the need to have some film script, artistical concept, good > > actors etc. before you start to "take some shots". > > > > > > Best, > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think the right way to see it is that composers must > > engage > >> with the aesthetic "idea" of verisimilitude ... rather than merely > >> aiming for it. > >> > >> Etienne > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Everyone is like getting crazy because of the huge quantity of > >>> innocuous images running on our minds today. > >>> I like the way cinema is, as a collective & subjective experience > >>> on the same place. > >>> I just don´t want our kids to be addicted to isolation & > >>> depression any more. > >>> And don´t tell me it´s about us as "parents", because that´s what > >>> I´m trying to state here: > >>> We just can´t keep exploring or experimenting with our minds to > >>> see what happens, just because we want... what?. (you tell me) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 5/17/14, 8:30 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Kan Kaban wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 5/17/14, 7:28 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Kan, that was a private joke, not for the list. And the citing > >>>>> doesn't > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> make any sense if the maybe other two mails are missing on > >>>>>> sursound, because I (intentionally) sent these offlist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Sorry, it was a mistake... as VR on cinema. (maybe not for > >>>>> cinema a Hollywood wants it...) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It is very improbably that most or even many future films will > >>>>> be > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> produced in 360º form, because you lose fundamental elements > >>>> like < perspective > and any < viewing selection/direction > the > >>>> director would like to employ.. Film directors wouldn't know > >>>> exactly what kind of the scene film watchers would chose to see, > >>>> etc. IMO this is still and everywhere experimental stuff... > >>>> > >>>> Nevertheless, it is not up to me or you to decide what kind of > >>>> concepts film directors "should" have and which not. > >>>> > >>>> You could say they < try > to cross cinema and VR. This might > >>>> work or not. What is important is that the artistical result is > >>>> convincing, not the > >>>> technique per se. (I am not comfortable to judge anything I > >>>> didn't see or > >>>> experience myself. So I am kind of sceptical, but still open to > >>>> change my > >>>> mind. On the other hand I won't tell anybody that VR movies are > >>>> supposed to > >>>> be < the next big thing > if not a single movie exists. Fair > >>>> enough...) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Stefan _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
