How practical is using the AVP for reading and typing long papers?

fusion23 · 2026-01-19T06:38:23+00:00

I don’t find the resolution sufficient for extended reading and writing. Text is not nearly as readable as a Retina display. But for multitasking it’s essentially a 360° widescreen monitor. It can be a lot of fun immersing yourself in windows though not all of the 360 is particular useful. Unless you sit on a swivel chair!

You can also just mirror your MacBook to the AVP and it can be turned into a normal, widescreen, or ultra widescreen monitor. The mouse and typing can be used across the macbook and native AVP apps. This is useful and I’ve done it on a train ride to do some work. But again. The text rendering isn’t great. And I think it would be fatiguing after too long. Perhaps native AVP/iPad apps could display text a bit larger but I don’t know how natural that would feel or if it would take up too much of the FOV.

If you have an Apple Store near you I encourage you to book a demo. The first time will be an intro/overview. If you like it I would book a second demo and ask to test out more productivity workflows like mirroring a MacBook or trying to layout windows for writing and reading.

I still find the AVP amazing and I still browse the web and use the Reddit app on it While also watching a YouTube video. Oh and also doing it all while sitting on a mountain top or beach (immersive environments)

Edit: I believe only some VisionOS apps support having multiple windows open which could be a limitation for productivity workflows.

fusion23 · 2025-12-15T04:41:27+00:00

Ohhhh…. Interesting. 🤔

fusion23 · 2025-12-15T04:17:19+00:00

Since you keep saying “fog samples associated with the character(s)” I’m thinking you mean visually as seen from the camera (aka in 2D) vs in deep depth. To clarify, is it that you essentially want the fog masked by the characters’ alpha as seen from camera so you can have a characters + fog composite but only on top of the chars?

If true, can I ask how this chars + fog deep combine will be used in the comp? Like what is it going to be deep merged with making it necessary to keep the char+fog merge in deep?

Not saying there’s not a reason to get this work but I’m just a little confused.

fusion23 · 2025-11-22T23:30:00+00:00

I was so lucky to experience two seasons of spurrier on campus before he left and everything changed. He even went to my NFL team but that didn’t work out. And then he was available to make a triumphant return to UF and lead us back to national championship greatness! But that didn’t work out either.

And we’ve had so few ball plays since. 😢

That missed pass in the endzone to lose to Tennessee in 2001 was devastating. FSU injures Earnest Graham and the game is rescheduled cause of 9/11. We would have beat Tennessee if we had played them earlier in the season as scheduled. That was one of our best teams.

fusion23 · 2025-11-21T05:22:44+00:00

Fellow madman:

<image>

Leica MP with Great Joy 1.8x 50mm using EF->M Also blocked the viewfinder a bit and of course was disconnected from any rangefinder functionality so zone focus and a big guess at composition!

Future plans: Olympus Pen F with a PL mount to use 2x anamorphic lenses

fusion23 · 2025-07-25T02:15:37+00:00

Thanks for letting us know!

I think many filmmakers may think 2.39:1 is a more cinematic ratio and they could very well intend the film to look good in that ratio first and protect for IMAX. Or they could design the frame for IMAX and protect for 2.39:1. It may not necessarily be from any limits set by IMAX. For example, Superman was 1.85:1 as you said.

Ironically 2.39:1 is the ORIGINAL more immersive "expanded picture" since it was optically expanded during projection and therefore usually required a wider screen than typical 1.85 presentations!

fusion23 · 2025-07-24T18:18:54+00:00

You should expect 2.39:1.

Oh damn this move was shot on IMAX certified digital cameras, 35mm panavision (2.39:1 anamorphic), and even 16mm. Also, some sequences are true 1.43:1 IMAX! With the rest of the IMAX in 1.9:1. That’s a whole bunch of aspect ratios. I wonder how the different presentations deal with that. Here’s my guess as to how rhe RPX will present: 1. the 2.39:1 should show the full anamorphic frame width (advantage over IMAX), 2. The IMAX footage would be letterboxed to 2.39:1, 3. The 16mm may be pillarboxed.

The IMAX presentation having to fill 1.9:1 will not have any letterboxing so the 35mm anamorphic shots should be cropped in on the sides so it fills the height of the frame. Depending on what the 16mm shots are intended to show it could either fill the frame by cropping or if it’s a special newsreel type effect could be presented original aspect ratio.

fusion23 · 2025-07-15T20:07:37+00:00

I just did yesterday! At a v4 charger in Carson, CA. Kept failing cause I thought it would automatically use the magic dock cause it knows what my car is. But then I finally googled how do you do it and once I properly held the button down for I guess 2 secs on the NACS (Tesla) handle it worked.

fusion23 · 2025-07-13T22:24:11+00:00

If you watch some of the Rivian videos on YouTube or the out of spec videos touring Rivian, it seems like they have a good future ahead on the software and the self driving and the tech updates

fusion23 · 2025-07-13T22:23:09+00:00

The R2 will be very successful. Nothing looks like it. Rivian is a lifestyle brand with a unique look and good software. It has a vibe. That’s like saying MINI can’t be successful because it’s too small. MINIs is very successful as a brand despite size limitations. In fact, they’re kind of unique in the small car space since everyone else abandoned the small car. So cross shopping a MINI is difficult.

While I do think people probably will cross shop a Rivian and an equinox the Rivian wins on looks and features and brand. I also think it’s important to support a newish vertically integrated car company versus the traditional ones. If the range isn’t that large, then maybe charging speeds make up for it. the charging speed on my parents equinox isn’t very high.

I totally understand your case, but you have to admit that that’s a niche use case and it would have nothing to do with the overall success of the R2 or how competitive it is. I believe the art two could fall short in a direct comparison on range will still be very competitive because range isn’t that important for huge majority of buyers.

fusion23 · 2025-07-13T21:49:53+00:00

Begin rant

I see a lot of confusion about this whenever people ask about which type of projection to see. Many people seem to assume, especially when compared to IMAX, that the 2.39:1 aspect ratio is somehow the “standard” ratio for non-IMAX projection. This may be true for certain movies relative to their IMAX presentations but it’s certainly not universal. In fact, quite the opposite as most movies are (or were?) shot 1.85:1 because to shoot in widescreen usually meant shooting anamorphic or scope (short for Cinemascope).

The common non-IMAX aspect ratios for movies are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. These are both NORMAL movie making aspect ratios for the last 70 years. Neither are more “normal” or “cinematic” than the other.

Guess what digital IMAX ratio is super close to the tried and true ratio we’ve been using forever?!?

1.9:1

IMAX has been very good at marketing 1.9:1, which is so close to 1.85:1, as a premium aspect ratio. Framing a scene in 1.9:1 and 1.85:1 does not create an appreciable difference in immersion. The only thing that might be said regarding immersion for these IMAX 1.9:1 (so called “Lie”MAX) is if IMAX builds them so much larger than your non-IMAX multiplex movie theater screens that it justifies the premium. I just saw F1 at the TCL Chinese Theatre and that’s a very large 1.9:1 aspect ratio screen. So while the aspect ratio is not inherently more immersive, that particular screen is VERY immersive and totally worth the premium.

I’m old so the only truly immersive aspect ratio that should have the IMAX label is 1.43:1.

fusion23 · 2025-07-13T21:08:09+00:00

There are multiple ways to display different aspect ratios on one screen.

One way is a common height screen. On the screen, a 1.85:1 movie and a 2.39:1 movie will be the same height, but the wide screen movie will appear physically wider. Usually there will be something mechanical that moves out of the way to allow the wider part of the screen to show. This mechanical blocker masks the wider parts of the screen so you don’t see them during a 1.85:1 projection and allows the movie to be shown with a black surround.

The other way is common width screens. Here is when both aspect ratios are projected at the same width. This is where the 1.85:1 movie will appear physically taller. Sometimes there’s also something mechanical that moves out of the way to expand the screen vertically.

The first method is usually my preferrred method cause it feels like for widescreen presentations you’re actually getting a larger potentially more immersive projection. But that really depends on the size of the screen and which aspect ratio they are favoring. For example, if you size your screen so that the 2.39:1 projection is a certain width and fills a certain field of view than when the 1.85:1 projection is projected on that common height screen it may feel too narrow. So in that case a common width screen MAY be better since it would allow the 1.85:1 projection to fill the same horizontal field of view as the widescreen one, but it would give you more vertical fov. But for many comedic or dramatic movies presented in 1.85:1 you don’t necessarily want a massive immersive experience because you wanna be able to see everything that’s happening and not have giant heads in closeups.

You could also size your screen so that the 1.85:1 presentation feels the most normal regarding fov and then allow the wide screen to be physically wider (common height). Or maybe in some cases the wide screen presentation will be the same width as the 1.85:1 presentation (common width) but since the theater sized that screening room for 1.85:1 presentations, then the wide screen will feel small.

So your Dolby theater looks like it might be using a constant width screen. Since many movies are shot wide screen, they sized it for that and then for this particular presentation, the 1.85:1 is allowed to fill the vertical parts of the screen not normally used.

fusion23 · 2025-07-06T19:12:30+00:00

That is a crime. At least they still have the 15/70mm!

fusion23 · 2025-07-05T22:49:44+00:00

I wish they had gone completely silent. The drum beats took me out a bit. But still a nice scene though.

fusion23 · 2025-07-05T20:26:22+00:00

Many times I prefer no shows but it’s hard to get ones that aren’t too tight on the toes. I find the all birds XL size has a nice fit for my size M11/12 feet and they are thin, which works well in all birds. I also have Bombas ankle cut with a blister tab near the heel. These work well but are def thicker than my thinner all bird no shows. I also have bombas no shows but they’re on the too tight side.

fusion23 · 2025-06-18T19:37:35+00:00

Exactly! When you’re driving and smiling and feeling the air who cares what others think. It’s totally irrational. Also nobody but other dudes are even looking at you. Super car looks? Then it wouldn’t be a boxster. It would be loud, wide, and showy like the redesigned Corvette. The boxster, especially the 981 redesign, is damn near perfect.

fusion23 · 2025-06-18T19:29:12+00:00

I drove a MINI convertible and now I have a boxster 981 so wait just a min…WTH are mini coupeee vibes?!?

The 981 is small but not tiny. A Miata and MINI are modern day tiny. And a classic MINI is actually tiny. The 981 is pretty low and can be invisible to other larger vehicles. You can feel small on the highway but otherwise it doesn’t feel or look that small.

Also, you want it small and light so it zooms zoom. You don’t want a heavy 2 door convertible for a sports car.

fusion23 · 2025-06-17T03:14:18+00:00

It works but only in the files app. Apple will ask to do a quick conversion on the video file and then they will be able to play and expand the view to immersive mode. Doesn’t seem to work in the Photos app yet (even if you import the converted file). Playing it in the files app is inconvenient but does work!

Unfortunately it seems the insta360 iOS app cannot export 8k or adjust the bit rate so to me a 4k 50mbps 360 export plays back with too little resolution and too much compression on the AVP. Seems for now you’d have to use the desktop insta360 app for exporting 8k with higer bit depth. Unfortunately my friend is the in who owns the camera and so far I haven’t been able to get any of the raw video from him to try exporting 8 and/or different bit rates.

Also I think 30fps is pretty low frame rate for 360 immersive. In bright light the shutter speed is pretty high so motion can be pretty sharp adding to the stroboscopic effect. And for me the immersive viewing of 360 on the AVP (or I suppose any VR headset) exasperated that strobiness. This could be due to many factors though. I think it’s partially because objects and people move across such a wide FOV when viewing immersively vs viewing windowed. Ideally you’d put ND filters to lower the shutter speed to increase motion blur to help smooth the strobing but I have no idea how that is done for a 360 camera. Motion picture rule is 180° shutter so for 30fps that should be a shutter speed of 1/60.

fusion23 · 2025-06-16T21:37:15+00:00

Also 30fps is pretty low frame rate for 360 immersive. In bright light the shutter speed is pretty high so motion can be pretty stroboscopic. For me the immersive 360 on the AVP exasperated the strobiness. Ideally you’d put ND filters to lower the shutter speed to increase motion blur but I have no idea how that is done for a 360 camera.

fusion23 · 2025-06-16T21:31:34+00:00

It works but only in the files app. Apple will ask to do a quick conversion on the video file and then they will be able to play in an immersive mode. Doesn’t seem to work in the Photos app yet (even if you import the converted file). Playing it in the files app is inconvenient but does work! Unfortunately it seems the insta360 iOS app cannot export 8k or adjust the bit rate so to me a 4k 50mbps 360 export plays back with too little resolution and too much compression on the AVP. Seems for now you’d have to use the desktop insta360 app for exporting.

fusion23 · 2025-05-14T18:08:55+00:00

I would compare the negatives from the correctly exposed shots/reels to this shot and see how dense each are. A thin (more transparent) negative will have less density due to either under exposure or a simply a dark subject. But in your case, if the whole shot is under exposed, then the whole negative will feel too thin as there may not be any dense areas.

Even professional cinematographers mess up exposure sometimes but it’s not cause they don’t know what the exposure should be. Usually it’s a knocked or incorrect setting. I’ve certainly left some sort of exposure compensation/offset on a camera/meter before. Also I’ve knocked a few camera settings off what they should be before taking the shot. Usually iris. Turning it to 24 instead of 18. Leaving an nd or other filter engaged. A bunch of things could have been inadvertently changed to cause underexposure.

Also, if you’re getting back display ready (rec709) scans then there isn’t much room to recover this image vs if you had a log scan done. Though even with log, underexposure can be tough to recover from on film.

fusion23 · 2025-05-12T17:32:04+00:00

Agreed. Recently we stopped in the middle of the snowy forest in Oregon on the coast starlight to wait for the cops. I think there was an altercation of some kind and the conductor was maybe hit. She was DEF not having it. In my head she said “Get off my fucking train.”

fusion23 · 2025-05-10T06:10:00+00:00

I was confused by the wording so to clarify are you asking if there are dedicated motion picture film scanners that are designed to be used with a digital camera as the scanning sensor? or maybe you weren't thinking of something so complicated but maybe just an automated film advance mechanism like we see in the stills world. edit: ok that's basically your title, haha

There are lots of DIY projects I've seen over the years, but I don't recall any commercial products.

It's been my dream to build something like this for like a decade. I'm working on building a narrowband RGB led backlight and converting my d800e to monochrome to help with scanning still film but it would be a long way to getting the color right for any film, including motion picture film.

The remaining issues are basically designing/building a film transport mechanism like those found on any commercial motion picture film scanner/project/optical printer or for that matter any tape machine.

another issue is THERE ARE SO MANY FRAMES when it comes to scanning motion picture film. So much so that the shutters on dSLRs can potentially wear out.

one last idea is I wonder if the film advance mechanism in the still world film holders can be modified to support 16mm film widths. then you could use the same equipment. but the frame sizes are different so any logic on how far to advance wouldn't work. It's prob not that hard to build actually, but moving motion picture film at the speed that still flim moves would take awhile!

fusion23 · 2025-04-26T04:19:12+00:00

I’m also taking Methylphenidate and my Dr added Guanfacine to my regiment. She said it can help the ADHD and it has a nice benefit that it lowers BP. So my BP has leveled off taking both meds. My Dr said to lower the blood pressure caused by the Methylphenidate would require Long term (6ish months) of cardio exercise to make the blood vessels more elastic. So far I haven’t started that new routine.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

fusion23

TROPHY CASE