As the 3D setup would be very special (less than 2m and far distance/infinity with nothing in-between) I would vote for increased download frequency/content as the effect might not be worth it. Maybe you should go ahead and shoot a test in a room with some details in the foreground viewing fa distance outside a window to better demonstrate what this is all about.
I could imagine, that if you focus on shots that show as well parts of the ISS in the middle/near distance 3D might be impressive (have you seen Gravity or IMAX Hubble 3D?). So, again a question of the content-focus ;-)
Frank Vlassenbroeck - 9 years ago
I've got a strong preference for the 3D version as I would like the 'wow' effect. I do not yet own a VR helmet, but I plan to buy one in 2016, and these 3D videos would be one of the main reasons why I would get one.
I think the more people that buy VR gear, the more they'll want to see things in 3D.
Paul - 9 years ago
Regarding the effectiveness of 3D at large distances, it's true that things close to the viewer appear far more "solid" than further away things. But it's the relation between the two that generates the impact of spatial awareness - when something nearby moves position relative to something far away.
So if part of the spaceship can be seen near the camera, that's what will make the 3D effect immersive. If the camera was simply pointed down at the Earth but with no close objects in view, then there would certainly be a very much smaller effect.
Paul - 9 years ago
To feel the experience of "being an astronaut" we need 3D. That's the attraction of 3D - you feel like you're really there.
Without it, the feeling is more like being in a room with a large photo wrapped around your head. There just isn't that fully immersive "wow factor" - there's still a sense of separation.
I also very much agree with Patrick that 3D would likely attract new people's interest more.
Wayne G. - 9 years ago
3D content is important and frequency is equally important. I could potentially spend hours looking through a window in space and I'm very much looking forward to it. Though ideally we can raise enough money not to cut corners. Though if it comes between the two install the hardware needed because it's not like you're going to be able to receive this camera from space to upgrade it later. Not yet anyway.
Patrick Love - 9 years ago
I understand the business argument to put out more content for the extra income, but I feel that the wow factor of 3D content may be more important. There is only so much you can show on the ISS and with frequent content, people may lose interest faster. I think 3D content would also align better with your goal to make everyone experience being an astronaut. I think that people may have more interest the more realism you can add to the experience. Also, if you initially launch a 2D camera, if you want to expand to 3D you will need to pay the launch costs all over again, while downlink capability requires no additional launches (as I understand it).
Also I just want 3D content myself.
spacevr - 9 years ago
We get a lot of varying opinions on the effectiveness of 3D at large distances. Most seem to think that 3D won't matter for far away shot like the Earth, but will be important for the things close to the camera. All objects inside the ISS are close - Less than 2 m (6.56 feet)
Leo - 9 years ago
3D can easily be overlayed onto the content. From the ISS your eyes would not perceive in 3D anyway: it is too far, 3d by parallax works on objects that are close.
Martin List-Petersen - 9 years ago
When filming 3D, 2D obviously is avaiable also as you only need the feed for one eye (cam) in each direction for that.
So people that have problems viewing 3D can always opt for 2D versions of the footage.
The issue is, that increased content frequency is nice to have, but if the footage is not recorded in 3D from day one, then that can not be undone for past footage.
As the 3D setup would be very special (less than 2m and far distance/infinity with nothing in-between) I would vote for increased download frequency/content as the effect might not be worth it. Maybe you should go ahead and shoot a test in a room with some details in the foreground viewing fa distance outside a window to better demonstrate what this is all about.
I could imagine, that if you focus on shots that show as well parts of the ISS in the middle/near distance 3D might be impressive (have you seen Gravity or IMAX Hubble 3D?). So, again a question of the content-focus ;-)
I've got a strong preference for the 3D version as I would like the 'wow' effect. I do not yet own a VR helmet, but I plan to buy one in 2016, and these 3D videos would be one of the main reasons why I would get one.
I think the more people that buy VR gear, the more they'll want to see things in 3D.
Regarding the effectiveness of 3D at large distances, it's true that things close to the viewer appear far more "solid" than further away things. But it's the relation between the two that generates the impact of spatial awareness - when something nearby moves position relative to something far away.
So if part of the spaceship can be seen near the camera, that's what will make the 3D effect immersive. If the camera was simply pointed down at the Earth but with no close objects in view, then there would certainly be a very much smaller effect.
To feel the experience of "being an astronaut" we need 3D. That's the attraction of 3D - you feel like you're really there.
Without it, the feeling is more like being in a room with a large photo wrapped around your head. There just isn't that fully immersive "wow factor" - there's still a sense of separation.
I also very much agree with Patrick that 3D would likely attract new people's interest more.
3D content is important and frequency is equally important. I could potentially spend hours looking through a window in space and I'm very much looking forward to it. Though ideally we can raise enough money not to cut corners. Though if it comes between the two install the hardware needed because it's not like you're going to be able to receive this camera from space to upgrade it later. Not yet anyway.
I understand the business argument to put out more content for the extra income, but I feel that the wow factor of 3D content may be more important. There is only so much you can show on the ISS and with frequent content, people may lose interest faster. I think 3D content would also align better with your goal to make everyone experience being an astronaut. I think that people may have more interest the more realism you can add to the experience. Also, if you initially launch a 2D camera, if you want to expand to 3D you will need to pay the launch costs all over again, while downlink capability requires no additional launches (as I understand it).
Also I just want 3D content myself.
We get a lot of varying opinions on the effectiveness of 3D at large distances. Most seem to think that 3D won't matter for far away shot like the Earth, but will be important for the things close to the camera. All objects inside the ISS are close - Less than 2 m (6.56 feet)
3D can easily be overlayed onto the content. From the ISS your eyes would not perceive in 3D anyway: it is too far, 3d by parallax works on objects that are close.
When filming 3D, 2D obviously is avaiable also as you only need the feed for one eye (cam) in each direction for that.
So people that have problems viewing 3D can always opt for 2D versions of the footage.
The issue is, that increased content frequency is nice to have, but if the footage is not recorded in 3D from day one, then that can not be undone for past footage.
Just my 2c.