The Future Of Home Entertainment ... (3D Trifle part 3)

This is one of those ideas that doesn't need any scientific explanation, and doesn't rely on non-existent technology or bad science. In short, it's one of my genuinely serious genius ideas.


Think of your favourite movie. How many times have you seen it? Ten?... twenty times? ... more than one hundred times? (seriously, give it a rest). Well you must know that film pretty well by now. Have you ever wondered what would happen if only that character didn't take that action. If only those characters hadn't gone that way or said that line. If they'd taken the blue pill instead, or had hired a bigger boat, ... then what? I'm talking about the alternative universe where the character survives. Where they still have the money, or they realise sooner that the other guy was a figment of his imagination. Or whatever. What I'm proposing, is that film makers should create their cut of the film and also film alternative scenes for if the action had taken a different direction. These wouldn't just be alternative scenes for dvd/blu-ray extras, but entirely new takes on the movie as dictated by the viewer. I'm suggesting releasing the theatrical version at the cinema, then when the blu-ray comes out, have an interactive option halfway through the film, or at the end, or in various places throughout. These options will let the viewer choose a variety of different actions or dialogue choices for certain characters to do, and in some cases they will radically alter the movie's plot. It'd be like those text adventure games or the role-playing books where at certain points you choose what happens next and turn to that page accordingly.

A crew member yells 'Iceberg! Right ahead!'.  What order do you relay to the engine room?

a. Full starboard.  Turn to page 101
b. Full astern.  Turn to page 57
c. All stop.  Turn to page 298

Decisions... decisions...

Obviously in some cases the decisions you make can make the story much less interesting. But it's nice to have the choice. Such interactive movies would only be feasible on blu-ray as a dvd would not be able to hold as much information as required in a film with multiple branches.


Where games and movies meet...

What I'm doing here is blurring the lines between movies and video games. It can still be completely movie like, but with a single choice in the 3rd act - (imagine if Ripley, Hicks, and Bishop decided NOT to rescue Newt at the end of Aliens ... The three of them would get away safely on the Sulaco. The alien queen wouldn't be with them and so Alien³ would never have happened!).
Or it can be much more interactive and more like a video game. I'm not saying shoot alternative scenes for existing movies, - although a retro-redo could be fun (somewhere George Lucas sits up and takes notes) - I'm saying new films could be shot in a way to make their home-market releases a lot more interesting. A plot could go a variety of ways but end at the same destination. Or a single line of dialogue could alter the final scene of a film. The possibilities are endless. Imagine a film shot from a character's point of view. Now if this character has a normal amount of dialogue, but say 5 of his/her lines which are pertinent to the plot are multiple choice lines for the viewer, then what you have there is an interactive POV movie.  ...but it is still a movie. It's not a game.    ....or is it? This is a concept for a movie that puts the viewer in the directors chair. But it doesn't need to be shot from a POV. The lines of dialogue don't need to be plot-oriented. They can just be alternative lines. It's an option that you could simply turn on or off in a menu setting before you watch the film. Having watched the director's cut of the film already you can then choose alternative dialogue/scenes before the film starts. This is the least interactive idea, and one that would be a fantastic extra on a blu-ray. In fact I don't know why no-one has done this already.

The plot thickens...

Now lets look at the flip side of the coin. I've talked about semi-interactive movies, now lets make video games more interactive-movie-like, and see if there is a line that can be drawn between the two.
Imagine a video game where you control the plot, where your actions and choices have a direct effect on the storyline (the Mass Effect series obviously springs to mind). Now if you minimised the actual playable part of the game and fleshed out the cut scenes to the majority of the playing time... then we're getting closer to the interactive POV movie outlined above. If this game was stereoscopic 3D and playing on a virtual reality headset with depth perception abilities (such as this one I've invented), then what we have is a 3D film with interactive game play. Now lets reel the game-play back even further. Lets say you have no control over what your character does... aside from half a dozen lines of dialogue a with multiple choices. You can't choose where you walk or what you do but the film/game is constantly interactive in that you can look around. You can turn your head 180 degrees and can choose at which depth you wish to focus (thanks to the aforementioned genius headset).  The resulting experience would be like a dream where you can't really control what's going on but everything around you is completely real. Imagine being Mr (insert colour here) in Reservoir Dogs. You'd have other character talking directly to you (or even punching/shooting you!) You could effectively watch a film from any character's point of view. Again, I'm not saying remake this film and re-shoot it from all perspectives. It's just an example of what can be done. This version of the game/film crossover can be filmed on real cameras (albeit ones with a 180 degree panorama and a large depth of field).

For the above to become a reality, the 'VR headsets in every home' dream will have to become a reality. It will be a gradual thing, but it will be the video-games market that will make this reality... err, a reality. Then we can have fun with interactive films.  Until then, films can still be 2D on a flat screen with a modicum of interaction.

Like I say, a game (or a movie) does not have to be shot from someone's point of view. It doesn't have to be completely interactive. There's a sliding scale between traditional games and traditional cinema. There is no clear dividing line. You could have a traditional movie experience in 2D, but still have decisions to make. The decisions could have been made before the film starts giving the viewer a totally passive experience again. On the other hand the 'film' could be shot with a completely virtual camera à la Avatar. It could be stereoscopic, photo realistic, 360 degree-spanning, first-person perspective at 48fps with the largest interactive depth of field, surround sound and total control over what you say and do in the virtual environment. How the hell you going to tell this from the real world? 

With the above tools, a director has more choices to make about the end product. Just when you thought that all movie plots had been done before, that every film has been sequeled, prequeled, remade and rebooted... Jon goes and puts a whole plethora of other options on the table. The possibilities for interactive movies are endless, and I predict they'll make the home entertainment industry interesting again in a way that 3D digital cinema could never imagine.

NotAGenius Interactive Stereoscope ... (3D Trifle part 2)

Finally I'm prepared to reveal to the world my genius virtual reality headset concept. It's a new VR headset that will revolutionise gaming and home cinema.... and it's so ingeniously simple, an idiot could've invented it. Ladies and gents, I give you ... the NotAGenius-Interactive-Stereoscope! 

Ok, rubbish title. But it's the idea that counts.

The new Sony* VR headset
(for illustrative purposes only - My concept is nothing like this. Probably)

The problem with existing virtual reality systems is that no matter how good the graphics and smooth the animation, it's still not quite as real as reality. One of the reasons for this is focal points. In the real world when you look at something in the distance, close up objects in your peripheral vision go out of focus. Likewise when you focus on an object close up, your distance vision is out of focus. In the virtual world either everything is in sharp focus (regardless of it's depth), or the programmer/director who created the environment has told the viewer at which level they are to look at, by forcing specific depths in to focus (you can see this in any modern 3D movie). My new interactive VR headset will remove this choice from the game/film creator and puts it back in the hands (or head) of the viewer. For example you will be able to play a first-person VR game where you can focus at any depth. The depths that you are not looking at go out of focus: This makes the users VR experience all the more realistic.

So how does it work?

It's as simple as the vacant expression that currently adorns your face. Inside the headset there are 2 little cameras looking though the screens to see each eye. Each camera can see at exactly which point on the screen the eye is looking at. From this input the system creates instantaneous meta-data that feeds into the output of the headset. The stereo picture that you see is altered instantly and accordingly to put the correct depth of field on to whatever you are viewing at the time. Not only will the system know what you're looking at by the position of an individual eye, but it will also take the position of both eyes giving convergence data that will corroborate the correct focal depth used when viewing a 3D image within the headset. These readings will be taken at least 48 times per second. Obviously everyones eyes are different, so a calibration needs to be done for each user. This only needs to be done once though, as settings can be saved and reloaded every time someone different uses the same headset.

But how can the little cameras see though the screens?

I'm glad you asked. The solution is as simple as simplicity itself, if simplicity had been personified, lobotomised, and christened Boris. The cameras doesn't actually look through the screens but through a two-way mirror. This mirror is at a 45 degree angle and the actual screens (above and perpendicular to the viewers line of vision) are reflected in the mirror. The inclusion of such a mirror in the headset (when shaped correctly) also allows for the appearance of a larger screen further away as opposed to a smaller screen close up. As people find it more difficult to view screens close up, this is another reason that makes the as yet un-patented NotAGenius Interactive Stereoscope headset more comfortable on the eye.

But that's not all!

Oh no sir. For with this new technology it will be possible to create 3D feature films where the viewer can choose what he/she is looking at.


Whatchu talkin' 'bout, genius?

Well I'll tell you. Just like this new technology will make a video gaming experience even more real and interactive, similarly it will make a movie watching experience more real and yes, interactive. Imagine a film where the main action is in the foreground. Perhaps two people are talking in a bar. If there is nothing relevant happening in the back of this shot then the director will only focus on the people talking. With my new system a viewer (having seen the film already and bored with the foreground actors dialogue) can focus on whatever that non-speaking extra is doing in the back of the shot. It'll be like you're there. You can choose what you're looking at. Obviously such films will have to be specially made with a very long depth of field in order for every depth to be viewable.


So what use is it?

A writer/director of such a movie can put hidden 'easter egg' elements in their films. Be it a passing character or vehicle in the background that turns up later in the film or perhaps there is some background action that will only occur to you to focus on from the second time that you see the film. Also if you've got one of those movies by the likes of David Lynch,... you know the ones. The movies that don't really make any sense. Well you can have more 'clues' throughout the film. More depth, more clues, more weirdness for fanboys to discover, that not everyone will get, and then argue about on internet forums for decades to come. It opens up a whole new way of creating cinema. Cinema that's 3D, viewed within a headset, interactive, with hidden elements. Not only that but the interactiveness blurs the lines further between video games and movies. But more on that at a later date.


* Incidentally, if anyone at Sony or any rival company should like to employ my genius brain and make this genius idea a genius reality, please get in touch. I am looking for a more practical outlet to hone my ideas, and there's plenty more ingenuity where this came from.

Above Us, Only Sky... (Improving the Capital - part 2)

Recently I was reminded of a conversation I had a few months back. It was a conversation with a colleague in a public house (where all good conversations take place) in London's Soho. I can't quite remember how we got onto the subject, but I was challenged with resolving the traffic jam problems of the area. Initially my thoughts were to pedestrianize the whole of Soho, thus instantly solving the problem. Why would you need cars in the area.... in the day at least? Delivery vans could have limited access to certain main roads in Soho in the early hours of the morning, and any requiring a taxi during the day can easily walk to the nearest main road that surrounds Soho; You're never more than a 5 minute stroll from either Charring Cross Road, Shaftesbury Avenue, Oxford or Regent Street.

This explanation seemed unacceptable to my fellow-worker, as he insisted that traffic would still require access throughout the day. Fair enough. And with that brief, I mulled the problem over for a couple of seconds and proposed a genius scheme that if put into practice, would drastically alter the centre of London as seen from above. My solution would be a ridiculously expensive one (to the point that it would be cheaper to demolish all the buildings of Soho and build it again with better planning), but a solution that would ultimately work, none-the-less. What is required is that all the roads become pedestrianized, and new overpass roads be built above the main thoroughfares of Soho (Berwick, Wardour, Broadwick, Dean Street, etc.). With regular temporary parking areas and pedestrian access to buildings/streets below. This would enable easy delivery of goods and people alike to the very centre of the West-End, whilst keeping the original roads traffic free (with the exception of bicycles, push-scooters and hoverboards) for the safety of tourists, London trendies, media-types and sex-workers alike.

At this point the sharper amongst you may have spotted a problem with the above proposal (as did my slightly inebriated colleague). It was pointed out to me that with half of Soho's roads having roads above them, much sunlight will be blocked from hitting the streets. The obvious solution to this is a simple yet costly one. On the underside of every flyover, there will be special optical tiles. These tiles comprise of millions of optic fibres, the end of such fibres will run through the concrete to the road above to a corresponding tile. Light will hit the road surface above and be emitted from the optic tiles below. The ones above will not actually be on the road itself (otherwise the light would be diminished every time the shadow of a vehicle goes over it) but in fact on the side and central barriers, and on the top of intermittent posts that will double as lampposts after dark. The result of which is that during daylight hours, the sky will be visible from beneath the road. The road itself will not be totally invisible to look at, but at first glance it will be totally transparent. Also there will be no sight of any vehicles (and in the future when all are electric, no sound or smell of any cars either).

You may think this all sounds implausible, but the technology already exists to make such things 'invisible' by various means. At this point, my co-drinking co-worker seemed extremely happy with the solution that I'd given him; not only was he smiling throughout my description of a possible future, but the moment I said the word 'invisible', he laughed out loud and said 'Invisible roads'. Then he continued to laugh. He couldn't stop. Only to take a breath or repeat the phase 'Invisible roads!' to himself, which would get him started again. I can only summarise that either this man is also a genius and could not contain himself at the thought that no-one had come up with such an ingeniously simple solution to one of our capitals traffic problems, or that I had vastly over-estimated his cognitive abilities; this high-concept glimpse of the future was enough to short-circuit his brain, rendering him a simpleton. I fear the latter to be the case, as I've subsequently witnessed several outbursts of uncontrollable laughter from this man. Occasionally he can be heard to repeat the phrase 'Invisible roads' to himself, before laughing some more. Thankfully his basic motor functions do not appear to be affected and he continues in is occupation with seemingly no problems. But I can't help but feel guilty for the long term damage that I may've caused. A lesson has been learnt however: Ensure those seeking ultimate knowledge are ready for such, for to impart ideas on an untrained mind can have tragic consequences.

Oh, the woes of being a visionary genius.

Gravity Part IV: The Afterthought (It's All Relative)

Gravity! What is it good for?!... Absolutely nothin'! -Say it again!

Gravity! -Oh wait... no. That's 'war' I was thinking of. Yeah. No, thinking about it, gravity's actually quite useful.

So I really didn't want to have to explain this any further, what with having explained gravity away on three different levels:

My Theory on Gravity: Part I

Part II: The Sequel

Part III: The End

And thus far you can take all the above as absolutely true, and non of it contradicts it's self. No.... Not at all. Not really. Each one is a deeper understanding of the basic principle. (Although on the face of it, Part one kind of looks like a load of bollocks, but that's not to say it definitely isn't true, and you can't prove otherwise!)

Well this section (that i imaginatively call 'Part Four' )will give the most basic underlying reason why the gravity effect happens. It is the most basic, and beautifully simplistic cause of the 'force' that we call gravity. And it only occurred to me last week:

Gravity is an effect that happens to objects because all objects in space are falling.

This may seem like a circular argument for you may think that you cannot use the effect of gravity to explain the effect of gravity. But when I say 'falling' I mean travelling in space in whatever way/direction it happens to be travelling. All objects do this. It's the law of inertia; An object will never change it's speed or direction unless it is acted upon by another object/force. So all objects are constantly falling through space... constantly.

You still with me?
Ok, so the reason these objects' trajectories are affected by other objects is all about the law of inertia. Without anything affecting it, a planet will always stay constant. ie. it will  not change direction, and (if it is moving) it will not accelerate or decelerate.

Although to say it won't accelerate or decelerate is wrong... as there is no such thing as absolute space or indeed absolute speed: If one planet goes past another there is no way to say which planet is moving or which planet is static. You can't say at what speed anything is ultimately travelling at.

At this moment, you may be sat still. ...but are you really? What if you where sat on a train, you maybe travelling at 100mph.    ...and the old lady walking up the train towards the buffet carriage might be moving faster (at 102mph?).
Even if you're not on a train, the earth is spinning which means you could be moving at about 1000mph. But this is just the speed you move on a daily basis, the earth spins (relative to the sun). What about the earth's orbit of the sun? You're actual travelling at a rough average of 66500mph. Except that's still only relative. You're often actually going faster than that, as the sun is travelling at immense speed around our galaxy. But then that is still only relative to the centre of our galaxy and the positions of the other galaxies. What about the speed at which all galaxies are travelling away from one another? That speed in itself is relative as we have no other point of reference. It is an assumption that galaxies are move at the same speed and this way we can backtrack and figure out the point in the universe where it all began. ...relative to our universe. I believe we're part of an omni-verse full of universes so far away that they're not nearly old enough for the light from their origin to even reach the outer edges of our universe. These other universes will no doubt be travelling at their own speed relative to our own in whatever direction, and again there's no way to determine how fast (if at all) each universe is travelling...

But I digress...
The idea behind my statement 'all objects in space are falling' is that the object don't deviate from their course. In fact relatively speaking, they don't necessarily have a course... or a speed. If you want to believe that you are the centre of the universe (as I do), then that's fine as there is no such thing as absolute space. Only relative space and relative motion exists. This ties in to the law of inertia. Objects keep their same relative position in space, and they keep their same relative speed that they're relatively moving at. ... relatively.

It's like water will always flow in the path of least resistance. Or to use an analogy that is unrelated to gravity: Light will travel in the path of least resistance, ie. the shortest route to it's destination. It's true that light goes in every direction, but if you were to obscure star a from direct view with a planet in the way, the light from the star can still bend around the planet to reach you. But obviously this only works to a certain point. If photons from a source can reach a destination, then they will have got there via the easiest route possible.
So... we're on a planet falling through the universe at an incredible relative speed to the rest of the universe. Luckily this speed is relatively diminished greatly by 1) being drawn to the large mass that is our sun, and thus making us seem relatively slower on a local level... and 2) our solar system is made relatively slower by moving approximately the same speed as lots of other solar systems that surround us in this spiralling whirlpool-like collection of solar-systems that we call the Milky Way.

This is what Gravity is. In actual fact, the universe isn't going at any great speed. There is just the relative differences from one thing to another. Mass affects and attracts other masses to a certain extent. But more so for masses that are travelling at a similar speed and/or in closer proximity. We don't float away when stood on the earth because of the size and proximity of the planet. It is our 'path of least resistance'. Even if we could float up in the air (and imagine if we were the size of an oxygen molecule for this) we wouldn't get beyond the stratosphere because we have a mass and still need to 'fall' in the path of least resistance. Such a path does not include leaving our atmosphere to go out into space that is relatively moving (it's not actually moving) a hell of a lot faster than we are. It'd be like joining a busy motorway via a T junction when everyone's going at 70mph in the slow lane, and you're driving a milk-float.

In short, a planet revolves around a sun because it does: It's either always been there, or has entered the sun's vicinity, and didn't have enough energy to continue it's original trajectory back into relatively-different-speed space. It would have altered it's course accordingly. Like if there was a fly in your car, and you're driving at 70mph. The fly isn't flying at 70mph. Then you open the window and if the fly leaves it doesn't continue at the same speed as the car. (though it probably goes a bit faster than it would normally fly in that direction for a short time).

To sum up...
You can call gravity a force if you want... but what is any force but an affect of some other phenomena? In this case it is caused by the relative difference between the speed you're travelling at, and the relative speed of your nearest local moon/planet/solar-system/galaxy/universe.*

*delete as appropriate.

Hooked to the Silver Screen ... (3D Trifle part 1)

There were always advantages of viewing a film at the cinema: You can see it in wide screen, in complete surround sound and in 3D (if available). Pretty much like in your living room then? Viewing the same film at home on a top-of-the-line home cinema set-up can rival a theatre experience; you can watch a film on blu-ray on an HD screen, in the correct aspect ratio, in 7.1 surround and also in 3D.

With every advance the cinema has taken, the home cinema has soon caught up. Although I will admit that regardless the size of your television, it still doesn't beat actually going to the cinema. A real cinema experience (particularly one utilising actual film projection) has always been preferential to spending a night in front of your TV.

This is why I'm slightly saddened to report that this will no long be the case. ...in the near future.

Yes, this soothsaying genius has predicted the collapse of film industry funding. Ever rising tickets prices and an increasingly better quality of home cinema will cause more and more cinema to close in the future. The film industry won't die though thanks to blu-ray and film download sales, and the video games market. (more on this later).

The clear advantage of a cinema experience over watching a film in your living room was you can see it in 3D. Well now you can do so at home, but there's still the problem that you have to wear 3D glasses to do so. This will always be the case in the cinema, but at home there are a couple of technologies for 3D television that have not yet been mass marketed to the masses. If I were cynical I would suggest that this is because the folks in the industry don't want the 3D home experience to be better than that of the cinema. Lenticular, glasses-free TVs have already been produced, some to greater success than others. I personally am holding off buying a 3DTV for the day when the 3D technology is perfected enough to warrant the extortionate price I'll inevitably have to pay. ...And that day's not far off. The 3DTV industry has to move as one though; we can't have a variety of different technologies out there... (technically we can, but why waste all that extra bandwidth and conversion technology).

There is one obvious aspect of looking at an object in real life that differs from that of a 3D object on a screen, and that is focal point. I talking about creating movies more interactive (and this is where the crossover into video games territory comes in).

In real life you look round a room and your eyes focus on something. Look at something in the foreground and then something in the background. You can bring both into focus, but you can't focus on both at once. Ever since Orson Welles popularised the effect of deep focus in Citizen Kane, films have looked amazing artistically, but less realistic compared to how we see things in real life. Wouldn't it be marvellous to view a 3D film in which your focal length changes depending on which depth you're looking at? Well I've designed just such a device to do that. It won't change the way we view films in general, but it will make the 3d home cinema experience a lot more immersive and therefore more realistic. The same technology could however completely revolutionise the games industry.

Orson Welles, showing off in sharp focus in the background. (Citizen Kane, 1941)

More details on this genius invention at a later date. For now I need to look into whether anyone else has had the same idea. Surely some other genius will have thought up the same thing independently. But that's only an assumption; therefore I wouldn't want to reveal any details too soon.

Sunflower Redux

Before

I've now tweaked the only painting I did that I wasn't completely happy with. I've changed the colour, design and texture of the pollen/seeds as well as the colour of the petals.


After

I haven't actually touched the blue/green background which just goes to show what a rubbish camera my phone has.

The newer picture was taken in better light though and more skilfully corrected to colour-match the actual painting.

Is it an improvement? ... Well there's no Ctrl Z when you're painting, so it's staying like that.