1. Round video, square frame
14 November 2017
360 photos are useful and straightforward to take. Now for the less useful end of the 360 spectrum.

2. Here’s an example of the heatmap view in YouTube Analytics, to see where people are looking on a 360 image. To star with, everyone looks at the floor

3. This was what was there: a lot of light and the camera at head height
This was what was there: a lot of light and the camera at head height. We hid behind a pew.

4. There were also binaural microphones, to mimic how sound would appear to a listener in that location.

5. A choir appears! No surprise, people turn to look.

6. Then the other choir appears!

7. Then people look at the text. Very few have turned through 180 degrees.

8. Then up at the snow as it falls…

9. Though some don’t notice.

10. Here’s another. They’re waiting in the dark for the video to fade up…

11. Their interest is drawn by a person in the car, and the logo on the side.

12. Then they’re drawn round to see where the car is going (directly behind the original view)

13. Then they get bored

14. What that might mean Takes people a while to get going
If you can’t put things in front of people, you’ll need to make them look
They’ll never see parts of the screen
Rely on theatrical tools (lighting, movement, people) to get people to look in the right place. Yes you can move the view during the film, but that’s even worse. Some things will never be seen.

15. Yuk Never seeing full resolution
Fisheye lenses emphasize detail where you don’t want it
FOMO
Editing (for pace) is virtually impossible
The viewer experience is variable
There are plenty of disadvantages.

16. So…
So, views were about half of a conventional video on the same topic.

17. Is it just us? Google commissioned an experiment:
“Surprisingly, the 360 in-stream ad underperformed the standard ad on view-through rate, across desktop and mobile.”
Is it just us? Google tried a similar experiment on the same topic and found the same thing (though were more upbeat than I’m being):

18. But aren’t we just waiting for the right tools?
Maybe this will work when we have better software, better hardware…
…but then we’ll have better things to do with the hardware!
View-optimised streaming, better codecs on the software side, glasses of some kind to be more immersed – these will help of course. But but then we’ll be better able to explore worlds: volumetric capture so you’re not stuck in a dome; decent AR to improve the world you’re in, and… more games, rather that static shows. Oxford’s successes are games in a therapeutic context: that is, worlds you can explore. There will be specific uses for dome-like 360 video but in its present form, it’s not something to take up widely.
As a bit of fun, here’s an example of some of the interface challenges VR is working through (warning of cartoon violence) :