Category: Uncategorised

Timeline reconstruction

We decided to use two Insta360 cameras to shoot simultaneously in order to create a 3D effect. We measured the data ourselves, built the model in Rhino, and printed the camera mount at the 3D workshop.

VR 360 VS VR 180

1. Reduced Resolution: VR360 splits resolution across a larger field of view (FOV), effectively halving the resolution compared to VR180. This exacerbates the already low resolution of VR content, making it less tolerable for viewers..
2. No Place to Hide Equipment: Unlike VR180, VR360 makes it difficult to conceal crew, equipment, or staging elements. This often leads to unnatural setups or compromised visuals.
3. Uninteresting Rear Views: Much of the 360° FOV is often wasted, as there’s usually little or no action behind the camera. This leads to sections of the video being filler, detracting from overall engagement.
4. Navigation Fatigue: Users often need to constantly scan around to find the interesting parts of the content in VR360. This can quickly become frustrating and detract from the viewing experience, especially given the limited FOV of most VR headsets (~90°).

Why Not just shoot 2D?

1. Lack of Depth and Realism in 2D:

• Breaks Immersion: VR thrives on immersion, and 2D fails to deliver the depth required for a convincing VR experience. Without stereoscopic 3D, objects appear flat, and the sense of scale is lost, which diminishes the emotional and physical engagement of the viewer.
• Unnatural Scale: In 2D VR, the size and spatial relationship of objects feel “off.” The brain expects depth cues in a VR environment, and their absence disrupts the illusion, making the experience feel artificial.

1. No True First-Person Perspective: In VR, users often seek experiences that mimic real-life perspectives. 2D doesn’t replicate how humans naturally perceive the world, making the experience feel more like watching a flat screen than being present in the moment.
2. Immersive Experience: Better performance on expressive force.

Comparison of the user experience of two different 180 VR film formats:

Version1

In this format, the viewing distance is fixed. When zooming in or out near the edges of the image, significant distortion occurs, which can lead to visual discomfort. The edges remain visible at all times, and the 3D effect is relatively weak, resulting in a flatter image with reduced comfort and immersion.

Version2

From a distance, this format presents a protruding, roughly 45° “block-like” spatial effect. However, when viewers actively zoom in or move closer, they can effectively pass through a “portal” into the 3D space. This transition makes the boundary far less noticeable, prevents scene distortion, and offers a perceptible sense of entering a new spatial environment. As a result, the Version2 provides a significantly stronger feeling of immersion and is less likely to cause dizziness or motion sickness.

Compared to Version1, the second demonstrates a more immersive and comfortable experience, highlighting the importance of flexible viewing distances and portal-like transitions in immersive 180 VR film design.

This week we traced the path of the Great Fire of 1666 based on documentaries, books, and historical records. This included identifying the fire’s route on historical maps, mapping it onto modern-day maps, and locating key sites along the way.

VR 360 VS VR 180

1. Reduced Resolution: VR360 splits resolution across a larger field of view (FOV), effectively halving the resolution compared to VR180. This exacerbates the already low resolution of VR content, making it less tolerable for viewers..
2. No Place to Hide Equipment: Unlike VR180, VR360 makes it difficult to conceal crew, equipment, or staging elements. This often leads to unnatural setups or compromised visuals.
3. Uninteresting Rear Views: Much of the 360° FOV is often wasted, as there’s usually little or no action behind the camera. This leads to sections of the video being filler, detracting from overall engagement.
4. Navigation Fatigue: Users often need to constantly scan around to find the interesting parts of the content in VR360. This can quickly become frustrating and detract from the viewing experience, especially given the limited FOV of most VR headsets (~90°).

Why Not just shoot 2D?

1. Lack of Depth and Realism in 2D:

• Breaks Immersion: VR thrives on immersion, and 2D fails to deliver the depth required for a convincing VR experience. Without stereoscopic 3D, objects appear flat, and the sense of scale is lost, which diminishes the emotional and physical engagement of the viewer.
• Unnatural Scale: In 2D VR, the size and spatial relationship of objects feel “off.” The brain expects depth cues in a VR environment, and their absence disrupts the illusion, making the experience feel artificial.

1. No True First-Person Perspective: In VR, users often seek experiences that mimic real-life perspectives. 2D doesn’t replicate how humans naturally perceive the world, making the experience feel more like watching a flat screen than being present in the moment.
2. Immersive Experience: Better performance on expressive force.

Comparison of the user experience of two different 180 VR film formats:

Version1

In this format, the viewing distance is fixed. When zooming in or out near the edges of the image, significant distortion occurs, which can lead to visual discomfort. The edges remain visible at all times, and the 3D effect is relatively weak, resulting in a flatter image with reduced comfort and immersion.

Version2

From a distance, this format presents a protruding, roughly 45° “block-like” spatial effect. However, when viewers actively zoom in or move closer, they can effectively pass through a “portal” into the 3D space. This transition makes the boundary far less noticeable, prevents scene distortion, and offers a perceptible sense of entering a new spatial environment. As a result, the Version2 provides a significantly stronger feeling of immersion and is less likely to cause dizziness or motion sickness.

Compared to Version1, the second demonstrates a more immersive and comfortable experience, highlighting the importance of flexible viewing distances and portal-like transitions in immersive 180 VR film design.

Concept:

 What if you could stand in the middle of a modern-day London street and watch history unfold around you? This project takes you on a journey that blends the past and present into one immersive experience.

 It begins with a 360-degree video, combining live-action footage of today’s iconic London locations with stunning point-cloud animation. The animation, derived from scans of the actual places, overlays fragments of history onto the present, creating a dreamlike mix of what once was and what is now. Imagine standing on Tower Hill, seeing the vibrant modern city around you while ghostly outlines of the ancient Roman wall rise up in point-cloud form, hinting at the past lives of this space.

 Then comes the second part: a fully interactive VR experience where you step directly into history. Picture this—Pudding Lane during the Great Fire of London, or the Globe Theatre as actors rehearse one of Shakespeare’s plays. This isn’t just a static scene: you can walk around, explore, and interact with objects or characters to uncover hidden stories. The VR portion doesn’t just show you history—it places you right at its heart.

 This dual approach—mixing video and animation to set the scene, and VR immersion to dive deeper—makes history not only educational but deeply personal. Whether we explore the fire, the Blitz, or something else, this experience transforms London into a living, breathing storybook.

Structure of the Experience

1. 360-Degree Video with Point-Cloud Animation
2. A combination of:
3. 360-degree live-action footage of iconic modern London locations.
4. Point-cloud overlays to visualize historical fragments of the same places.
5. Example: Standing at Tower Bridge today, with point-cloud representations of it’s structure.
6. Virtual Reality (VR) Historical Immersion
7. Fully interactive and explorable historical scenes tied to the locations introduced in the 360 video.
8. Example: After seeing the modern-day Pudding Lane, you step into 1666 to witness the Great Fire of London firsthand.
9. Features interaction, such as picking up objects, exploring surroundings, or triggering story elements.

Target Audiences:

History and Documentary Lovers

• Why: Fans of historical documentaries, especially those with a modern twist, would appreciate a new take on learning about history through interactive media.
• What they’d love: The dual-layered approach of mixing live footage with historical overlays and VR interactions would appeal to those who enjoy rich, layered storytelling.

Global Museum and Cultural Institutions

• Why: Museums and cultural centers abroad, particularly those focusing on British or European history, could partner with the project to offer a more innovative way of engaging their audiences.
• What they’d love: Using the VR experience as an extension to their exhibitions or digital experiences, providing an international audience with a new method of exploring London’s rich history.

Tourists and Visitors to London

• Why: People visiting London who want to experience the city beyond traditional walking tours.
• What they’d love: A deeper, more personal connection to the city’s history, especially if they can do it from the comfort of their home before visiting or while exploring the city.

Educators and Students

• Why: Teachers, students, and educational institutions could use this as a fun and engaging tool to bring history lessons to life.
• What they’d love: A dynamic learning tool that offers both a visual and interactive approach to understanding British history.

International Fans of London’s Pop Culture and Literature

• Why: London has a global cultural influence—especially in literature (Shakespeare, Dickens, etc.), film (Harry Potter, James Bond), and music (The Beatles, Bowie).
• What they’d love: A chance to interact with the historic roots of London’s literary, artistic, and pop-cultural significance. For example, exploring the Globe Theatre or stepping into London’s literary past could be a huge draw for overseas fans.

What’s the genre?

Educational VR focuses on recreating the timeline of the Great Fire of London, emphasizing the events and locations while educating people about the historical facts.

Time Period: 1666

The fire began in the early hours of September 2 and burned uncontrollably for four days, finally being contained on September 6.

Location:

Pudding Lane, City of London

The fire started in a bakery owned by Thomas Farriner and quickly spread across the densely populated area of central London, devastating homes, businesses, and landmarks.

Historical Significance:

The Great Fire of London was a transformative event in the city’s history. It destroyed over 13,000 homes, 87 parish churches, and iconic structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral. It marked the end of medieval London and paved the way for modern urban planning and fire safety measures, including the widespread use of brick and stone in rebuilding efforts. Sir Christopher Wren’s redesign of St. Paul’s Cathedral became a symbol of the city’s resilience and rebirth.

Visual Potential:

This event offers dramatic visual storytelling possibilities:

1. The spread of flames taking down timber-framed buildings.
2. Detailed recreations of 17th-century London’s architecture and street life before or after the fire.
3. etc.

Interactive Opportunities

1. Allow users to explore Pudding Lane as the fire begins and spreads.
2. Interact with historical figures like Samuel Pepys or King Charles II, learning about their roles during the disaster.
3. Discover how firebreaks were created and experience the challenges of containing the fire.
4. Offer a chance to rebuild parts of the city, pass a brick to the worker, etc.

Challenges or Constraints:

1. Creating realistic and immersive fire animations that can run smoothly in VR.
2. Accurately convey this historical events with engaging storytelling.
3. Representing the scale and intensity of the events within the given timeframe.
   
   Event Summary (What Happened)
4. The Great Fire of London was a catastrophic event that began in a bakery on Pudding Lane. It spread rapidly across the city, fueled by strong winds and the densely packed timber-framed buildings. Over the course of four days, the fire destroyed thousands of homes, businesses, and iconic landmarks, including the original St. Paul’s Cathedral. The disaster reshaped the city, leading to significant changes in urban planning and fire safety regulations, as well as the construction of new buildings in stone and brick.
5. This event offers immense visual potential for an immersive experience, featuring dramatic flames, smoke-filled skies, and the chaotic evacuation of residents. Users could interact with historical figures like Samuel Pepys, explore the unfolding disaster in real-time, and learn about the containment efforts. However, the project would need to address challenges such as creating realistic fire animations, maintaining historical accuracy, and handling the sensitive aspects of the destruction. Primary sources like Samuel Pepys’ diaries, historical maps, and Museum of London archives provide invaluable resources for accurate storytelling.