*stares dramatically at the camera, with dramatic background music*
[fade to commercial break]
That's one camera at one location. I never suggested it would have to capture "every possible viewpoint for every user".
Granted, this would require a new type of camera that would actually be spherical, so it could capture all the light coming at it from all directions (minus a small blind spot.) However, I think cameras like this already exist, similar to what's used for collecting Google Maps views.
I would expect about 5 different viewpoints would be sufficient. One on each side of the 50 yard line, one on each end zone, and one aerial view. This would vary based on the type of event.
You decide that the crowd is a little too loud. You pull up a virtual interface and reduce the crowd noise to 75%. Now you can hear the players and the announcers easier.
You look down. You can see your body. You're holding a beer. You take a drink from the beer. (You're actually holding a beer in your living room. Your body and the beer are superimposed on the 3D image in your viewer.)
If the Oculus can provide a near "retina" display, with low latency head tracking, and an immersive, realistic 3D image of an actual event, then the above is possible.
Now consider the financial potential. If this device is really successful, it may sell 10 million units in the first year. This is not unreasonable, when compared to console sales, which are in the tens of millions. Now, what will the market pay for a front row virtual seat at the actual Superbowl. Compared to pay-per-view costs of premium events, $50 seems likely. If they can convince half those Oculus owners to shell out that money for this novel experience, they could be looking at $50 x 5 million is $250 million revenues, from a single event.
Then expand this out to other events. UFC fights. The Olympics. Wimbledon. Music concerts. Walking through the Louvre, or the Guggenheim. Touring the ISS. The Grand Canyon. The Redwood Forest. Scubadiving a wreck in Bonaire. Skydiving.
Virtual parties with remote friends in whatever environment you can dream up. A penthouse in Manhatton. The restaurant at the Eiffel Tower. A four story cabin in Telluride. The docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer.
And of course, all the porn and the video games will also be available.
Virtual Reality advocates have been preaching these possibilities since around 1995. But what has changed since 1995? In 1995, most consumer VR sets were 320x200. Now the resolution has improved 30 times, with cheap 1920x1080 displays, and 4K displays on the horizon. The resolutions are so good, you will not be able to distinguish the individual pixels, and all that retina hype will finally have some use.
And graphics processing power? It's literally 10,000 times more advanced than 1995, which was mostly just CPU based at that time.
Much of the cost of high-end VR systems was in the optics. It appears that Oculus has solved this by simulating the optics using graphics engines, which saves hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on the VR hardware, but still achieves similar results. (This remains to be seen.)
We now are deploying reasonable bandwidth to houses, so that streaming 3D events becomes viable.
We have the technology, and all the pieces are finally coming together. If Facebook and Oculus play this right, they can start a revolution as monumental to the way we interact as the web itself.
TSA Enforcement Officer Mongo added, "Mongo like candy."
Fart 101:101 Fart Sounds
Fart Soundboard Pro
Funny Farting Noises
Silly Fart app
Whoopie Cushion new
Farting Birds 2
You read the sentence. You must now save vs. stupid or temporarily lose 1d4 intelligence.
Cars and guns should both be legal, but reasonably regulated to minimize deaths caused by their use.
I'm glad we see eye to eye on this issue cogeek.
BTW, I am a car owner, and a gun owner.
Calculators are very useful. How many people do you know (other than engineering students) who carry a calculator in their pocket?