[MUSIC] So we talked about the technical setup for VR, but the example you kind of gave I think would work best with motobased VR, but I've also had experience of 360 embodiment illusion. Can you maybe just give us some of the comparison you feel in that area? >> Yeah so with using 360 degrees virtual reality with or without stereo one thing that's immediately different is that of course it all looks more real. So if I'm in 360 degrees stereo, 360 degrees VR whether it's stereo or not, as I look around of course, what I'm seeing looks super real, because it's just video. And if I look down I'll see a body, and of course it will look really real. Now personally I've tried the 360 stereo VR types of system. Be another body was a group who were doing this, they are out of Barcelona, but I've seen it in various different places. One thing that I have not seen that's been correct, is the position of the body. Somehow the stereo isn't quite right, so the body kind of looks far away. But okay, apart from that it's nevertheless, it can look quite good. But there's one problem, which is this. If I move my real body, that body that you see down there is recorded, it's stereo, it doesn't move with you. So you can't have the same kind of multi sensory stimulation that you can with model-based VR because in 360, everything is just video recorded, so what you see is what's been recorded. No matter what I do, it doesn't make any difference. So it could be used, for example, you could do a nice version of the rubber hand illusion like we did before, but using 360 VR. And this would work because the rubber hand illusion, you don't move your hand. But as soon as it comes to anything to do with movement or any additional kind of multi-sensory stimulation, it becomes very difficult to use that. There's one other thing about the whole issue of 360 VR. As I was saying before, 360 VR is used a lot by, for example news rooms, because it's very good to capture large spaces and you can, for example, watch a demonstration or some kind of big public event and you can look around. And this is very good. It's very good especially for things that are far away. Because when things are far away, if you go like that, if you move your head, that doesn't really change much. You don't notice the missing translational head tracking. But a few weeks ago I experienced a whole series of demonstrations with 360 VR and they were super good, in the sense of the storyline was good, the narrative was good, the production values are really high. And what happens is that when I go in model base VR, when I come out of it, I always have this feeling I have visited somewhere. So I have the feeling I visited that place. It sticks in my mind like it's something real. But when I do 360 VR, I don't have that feeling. And I think it's something to do with the fact that we're really aware of video. It's so much a part of our lives, we know video doesn't see us. We know it doesn't answer back. We know we don't exist for the video it exists for us. When you're in VR model based VR everything is a much more ambiguous situation that we don't really know. So you see a virtual character, it kind of looks human, doesn't really look exactly human. The brain doesn't know what to expect so it just learns something new and takes it on. When you see a 360 video person, you know it can't see you, you know it's just video and some help is down the whole illusion from my point of view. So, l think 360 video and model base VR they are not competitors, they're different, each one has it's own different uses and possibilities >> Mm-hmm. >> And I've never thought it really right to say one is better than the other- >> Mm-hmm. >> They're not, they're just different. [MUSIC]
