Comment by tpmoney
3 years ago
While that was an initial reaction for me too, it's also really just a reaction to different tech. Many a "special memory" was captured by dad (or mom) behind an 8mm camera or a camcorder. The entire opening to "The Wonder Years"[1] was designed to capture that "home movie" feel, which would have been conducted by a parent holding something like this[2]. Even into the 90's and 00's it would have been done with a mini-dv camcorder (and later digital), which while smaller was still a bulky device floating around infront of the image recorder's face.
It's only with the advent of proper video recording tech in a cell phone that this technology has gotten so small that it's (mostly) unobtrusive and since everyone has one on them all the time, it's not surprising when someone pulls it out and starts recording.
And many a larger family event usually has one (or more) family members dedicated to capturing on film / camera anyway, so what difference would it make what tech they were using to do it?
If this thing caught on, it would be no different from any of those others, with the two possible exceptions of
A) actually being more present for the recorder, as opposed to looking through a view finder wobbling in their hands, it's just whatever they're looking at through this thing already attached to their head. Additionally for child events, they could still be actively involved with both hands (as opposed to one or none with other camera equipment and trying to work through a view finder.
B) Being less obtrusive to the rest of the people. Sure, people "should" just enjoy the moment, but I'd rather be at a concert with a few thousand people using these to record their moment than a few thousand people holding their cellphones up trying to record it around everyone else's hands.
Another thing to consider are cases where this is used by people who are already professionally recording stuff. Sure, your wedding photographer you probably still want using a real quality camera setup, but would anyone be salty about the photographer's assistant going around and capturing 3d video and pictures of your wedding with this thing? I doubt it.
[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0bK-vUlw6M [2]:http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minolta_Autopak-8_D6
Holding a gadget is slightly different than having a HMD mounted on your face. It is different for the operator, and it is different for thoe standing around and participating. Getting used to the HMD might be possible but would be harder and also sad when it does happen.
Also to capture a 3D photo you could also use just a hand held device with stereo cameras. We dont necessarily need a HMD for it unless we are going for that precise framing where a 2D preview doesnt cut it. I wish such a device was perfected for the mass market. It could be as simple as a pair of regular cameras mounted on the back of a smartphone -- separated by the inter-ocular distance.
I agree that it would be different, but I don't agree that it would be sad to get used to. In the long run, head mounted recording means the person doing the recording can be much more involved in the goings on. With both hands free, they can be an active participant instead of off to the side holding a camera and trying to stay out of the way. I don't know if the tech is built in yet, but since it already does eye tracking, an external camera that's recording what the user is looking at, instead of what the camera is pointed at means that the user can be more engaged because they're focused on what's in front of them rather than making sure the camera is in position. The view finder goes away and literally becomes your view period.
I see your point -- but at least in the current iteration the HMD doesnt let the user view the actual outside world directly with their eyes (there is no optical pass through). What the user sees with their eyes and focusses on is whatever the HMD presents on the internal 4K displays, one for each eye.
Similarly from perspective of others around, they dont see the real eyes of the user - just a simulation of that. So any "eye-contact" -- even with the best execution of technology with high fidelity and low latency -- will still be something different from real eye-contact. I am no purist but difficult to accept at this point for in-person interactions. We have already gotten used to it for facetime / video calls.
Something like Google Glass might be easier to assimilate, maybe?