But with Gear VR not being compatible with Samsung’s newest flagship phone, and with Google announcing in May that the Pixel 3A wouldn’t support Android’s built-in Daydream platform, it’s hard not to think that phone-based VR may be on the decline.
I have three friends that are professional VR film makers, and one that has built a VR product for the dental industry. I get the dental product business model but do not get 2 of the 3 filmmakers’ business models.
A very few places are projecting VR video on to theater domes – this makes sense versus having everyone wear a large headset. But this is a far smaller market than was 3D.
I shoot VR myself, mostly still photos, that can be easily panned on Flickr or Facebook for 360 viewing without VR headsets.
VR was fading at CES 2019 – and it sort of seems that this might presage a collapse in 2020, similar to the path that was followed by consumer 3D (I shoot both 3D stills and video). VR remains stuck in gaming and is not being adopted by a wider consumer community. Proponents think it just needs better, new tech headsets.
While many reviews provide useful information about camera features and capabilities, behind the scenes, many, if not most, are now motivated by increasing sales revenue of everyone involved.
Youtube camera enthusiast review “channels” are frequently tied to affiliate marketing programs. Watch the review, click on the link to one of the online retailers helpfully included with the review, and the reviewer sees a sales commission if you make a purchase (of any product on the web site, not just the camera).
Further, everyone is caught up with the idea that the next camera model with 20% more pixels will somehow make one a better photographer. Granted, there are some photographers and especially professionals and the semi-professional (wants to be a pro) for whom new features can improve efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and quality. But for the rest of us, the latest and greatest is often for bragging rights and showing off.
DPReview.com emailed a summary of new items on their web site with this interesting wording:
Everything is oriented towards not only having you salivate over the latest and greatest but to shame you in spending more money. No one wants to be seen in public with a camera for which you have not spent enough money! And geesh, only spending $900 – what sort of photo wimp are you?
Cameras have become the 21st century sports car, generally impractical but certainly a tool to impress others! We need not go far to see people hiking on trails with $10,000 worth of camera gear – the same price as a decent used car.
In the past two weeks I’ve had 2 photos selected and highlighted in the Flickr “Explore” photo collection, receiving thousands of views.
What’s my secret? I used discontinued, cheap Nikon 1 cameras, one of which cost me about US $200 🙂 Because photography isn’t about how much money you’ve spent on your camera!
Airport exclusion zones will be enlarged to 5 km (3 miles) (in the U.S., its already 5 miles). Additional exclusion zones will be added.
All users must be licensed and their model aircraft registered. (Like Mexico, this may end up prohibiting non-UK permanent residents or citizens from flying drones in the U.K.)
Police can order any drone flyer at any time to land the drone. Failure to land a drone or show your license and registration will be a fine-able offense.
Police will be allowed to “search premises and seize drones – including the electronic data stored within the device”.
This is done in the aftermath of the invisible drones at Gatwick Airport. At this time, the only provable drones in the air over Gatwick Airport were those operated by the Sussex Police, which they admit, were unmarked and were likely many of the reported sightings. After they admitted this, there have been no further updates on the investigation.
The police chief insists that in spite of this, he’s still certain that there was an illegal drone flight because … well, he has no reasons other than he believes. Ok, fair enough, many of us believe he is an idiot, therefore, this must be true.
The broken drone they found in a field (at unknown location and unknown distance from the airport) – and a second one too – are acknowledged as having no involvement with Gatwick Airport.
The story of the bicyclist seen packing up two drones several miles from the airport? That story has vanished.
The innocent couple they arrested because they lived less than 3 miles from the airport and once flew model aircraft? Oh sorry, they are totally innocent – our bad, oopsie.
140,000+ people at Gatwick on the first day, 21,000 staff, plus police, military and media stakeouts all looking for drones – and not one photo or video clip.
67 or 93 people reported seeing drones? Where are the interviews of these people by the media? Mysteriously, there are none.
During this mass hysteria, some in the media and politics demanded more regulations, and some demanded a ban on all model aircraft – based on hysteria induced paranoia. Will any of the media retract their previous speculation – de facto fake news – reports? Doubtful. And they are shocked when people call them fake news.
I had the pieces in place for some time but I neglected to update a server file and continued to have some linked images reference without using https. You should no longer see any Chrome browser warnings about some items on this page not being secure.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.