Decision 2016: Virtual reality vs. 360-degree video

Posted on by CMSU Reflections

Today’s tough choices aren’t like those that captivated audiences of the past: Pepsi vs. Coke? McDonald’s vs Burger King? Peanut M&Ms vs plain?

Choosing sides was fine, but the implications were not so all-consuming.

In 2016, options are a lot more life-changing, course-charting: Trump vs. Clinton? Democrat vs. Republican? Virtual reality vs. 360-degree video?

The last question is the one I’m grappling with after my recent introduction to both worlds, and I’m definitely torn.

Virtual reality puts me right in the center of a new world, able to immerse myself completely in it. But it requires a bit of awkward head gear that may leave me connected to a computer. It makes me a bit dizzy and it still doesn’t feel as real as it proponents promise.

360 video, for now, is more of what I like. I see the panoramic world from all new perspectives, and it’s real, not created or “staged” for the experience. A camera does the work and I’m not harnessed into any gear that causes the effect.

I tried a few simulated experiences on YouTube — jet-flying, skydiving and roller-coaster riding never seemed so thrilling. But without the VR head gear, I’ve still not felt fully immersed. But it’s piqued my curiosity.

I’m looking for authenticity and control, and I’m leaning toward the option that gives me both for now. But I’m certain, as with the classic decisions of the past and present, the debate over the future will never be resolved.    

1st trip into 3D world leaves me stranded

Posted on by CMSU Reflections
The Unity 3D game-development program took me on an exciting new journey, but I got stuck along the way.

The Unity 3D website promises that the “game development program” gives users “everything you need to succeed” to build a sensory-stimulating, immersive experience.

I apparently need more than it can give.

I sat down to create a “simple scene” in Unity 3D at the request of an instructor whose enthusiasm about playing around with three-dimensional landscapes and skies piqued my interest.

But I never achieved a finished creation.

I started off OK. It was frustrating learning Unity’s tools, but with the help of a tutorial,  I managed to get some grass, sand and mountains in my virtual world. I even uploaded some “whispy clouds” into my environment.

But at the height of my creation — the introduction of a “person” to take users on a birds-eye view of my ‘scape — the program crashed. Repeatedly.

The computer ate my homework.

I’m not blaming Unity. I’m sure users with less education than I have created full-scale 3D games with this program without problem.

But I have not succeeded … yet.

Still, take a peek how at far into this brave new world I traveled.

Smartphones disrupted journalism, for better or worse

Posted on by CMSU Reflections

The newspaper industry — and a journalist’s job — has been completely disrupted by smartphone cameras.

In the print-first era, photojournalism was a vital component in publishing. Compelling photography was one of the ways to attract readers to newspapers and magazines on the newsstand. Many publications prided themselves on its provocative visual photography.  Top-tier photography was the hallmark of many newspapers and magazines such as National Geographic.

A standout news photographer was considered an essential newsroom staff member who brought a reporter’s story to life in ways that attracted and impacted audiences who wanted to know more but may not have wanted to read an entire story. In fact, images were considered “entry points” into stories, especially on a newsstand, where potential buyers could only scan the photos and “big type” like headlines and photo captions before deciding if they’d purchase a publication.

Disruption 1/Digital Era: Digital photography made quicker work of shooting and transmitting images for photojournalists faced with the more urgent deadlines of the internet age. Newsrooms transformed their “dark rooms” into storage spaces, and photographers stayed out on the beat without having to come into the office to develop their images. These visual journalists could remain focused on capturing compelling pictures with even higher-quality digital cameras.

Disruption 2/Smartphones: Then smartphones changed the game for telephones. And while journalists readily took up these new mobile tools of the trade to assist with reporting/writing stories (using the phones’ digital recording apps and email/text transmissions), its impact on photojournalism was even more profound.

As cameras in smartphones improved, each writer became his own photographer. He had a powerful, effective storytelling tool in his hand that allowed him to become a proficient visual journalist, too.

With its ubiquity, the smartphone’s unintended consequence was that it made all journos photographers. And despite the loss of expertise and quality in images taken by untrained shooters, audiences appeared just as satisfied with cell phone images as they’d been with pro photography.

Highest quality vs. good enough: Professional photography taken with expensive equipment isn’t essential for the reader, newspapers found. A much less expensive smartphone camera produces good (enough) quality photos for readers, especially in the digital-first environment that finds most readers accessing newspaper stories online.

Also, arming reporters/writers with smartphones also allowed them to shoot video. With the advent of social media, video is among those platforms’ most shareable content, and news organizations want their content to be shareable. So the smartphone camera became important for two kinds of digital content — and some newspapers believe that it cut the need for professional photojournalists and videographers, which would save the companies a lot of money.

Speed and accessibility trumped quality and training, and major newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times traded in its award-winning photo staff for smartphones’ multimedia capabilities.

Innovation transformed the news industry. And for some, the gains have far outweighed the losses.

VR journalism is in my future right now

Posted on by CMSU Reflections

There is nothing virtual about it — VR is the next frontier in journalism. It’s here, now, and I’m embracing it.

It’s not the first disruption in media I’ve faced head on.

When I landed my first job at a professional newspaper, the industry was moving from a “cut-and-paste,” jigsaw puzzle design method to a digital production process called pagination. As a recent college grad, I was ecstatic to be among the first to test this technology in a pro newsroom. Besides, I’d never learned the old paper-and-pencil layout method in college — and I was surprised that it still existed in the real world.

As more and more “pagination terminals” were placed in the newsroom, I’d find my way over to them between deadlines to get more training and practice.  I noticed my mostly middle age colleagues did not follow suit. Pagination was an unwelcome new resident to most of them, and many refused to learn it. That left more work — an opportunity — for me.

That’s the way I view change, as a chance to expand my knowledge and, perhaps, help lead our industry into the future.

Virtual-reality journalism is the future, and it’s here.

The New York Times already takes its audience into this world with daily VR stories that give users an immersive experience. The Associated Press recently shared its discoveries after spending a year testing VR content for its audiences.  And though the challenges of awkward head gear and eyewear (that make some users nauseous) haven’t been fully overcome yet, the audience wants more. And potential audience members in the coveted younger demographic use it anyway in gaming apps. They’re already over the hump, and we journalists must get over it also.

Or better yet, get into it. Let’s immerse ourselves in this dynamic new way of storytelling. Because it’s here, now. So let’s embrace it.