r5rY8v)

Please note that this document is copyright of Tom Feist-Wilson and the University of Abertay Dundee.

Immersion and Presence: A study of Stereoscopic 3D in Animation

Tom Feist-Wilson

Institute of Arts, Media and Computer Games

Abstract

This study explores the issues and concepts surrounding presence and immersion; two ways of defining the effect of audio visual media on a viewer. Many studies have attempted to measure presence and immersion, all with varying degrees of success. However most of these studies have concentrated on Virtual Reality (VR). With the re-emergence of Stereoscopic 3d (S3D) film in recent years it is time to establish if S3D can be successfully defined as a more immersive, and therefore richer, media that traditional 2D film. By examining the media through a number of different research methods, including practice based research, this study hopes to investigate how S3D production techniques relate to creating effective immersion in stereoscopic Computer Generated (CG) animation.

Foreword

The author would like to recognise the contributions and expertise provided by University of Abertay Dundee staff and students.

Robin Sloan

John Harrison

Ken Scott-Brown

Lynn Love

Mark Shovman

John Isaacs

Andrew Rennie

Iain McCallum

Sonja Geracsek

Without their continued support and co-operation this project could not have been completed.

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

Research Aims and Objectives......................................................................................... 2

Research Aim......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Research Objectives............................................................................................................................................. 2

The Production and Reception of Stereoscopic 3D........................................................... 3

Academic Research.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Practical Research................................................................................................................................................ 7

Critical Reaction to Stereoscopic 3D............................................................................................................... 11

Methodology – Practice based Research......................................................................... 14

Introduction to the scenes used, materials and predictions....................................................................... 14

Example 1 – Camera Placement in S3D.......................................................................................................... 14

Example 2 – Depth and Strength of S3D effects........................................................................................... 16

Example 3 – Timing of Cuts in S3D................................................................................................................... 18

Methodology – Audience Research................................................................................. 21

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Participants.......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Experiment Design............................................................................................................................................. 21

Resources............................................................................................................................................................ 22

Ethics..................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Results........................................................................................................................... 24

Questionnaire Results........................................................................................................................................ 24

Focus Group Results........................................................................................................................................... 27

Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Discussion..................................................................................................................... 32

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A....................................................................................................................... i

Appendix B...................................................................................................................... ii

Focus Group 1........................................................................................................................................................ ii

Focus Group 2....................................................................................................................................................... ix

References...................................................................................................................... xv

Bibliography................................................................................................................. xvii

List of Figures

Figure 1 – eye tracking data examples from (Hakkinen, 2010)

a) Eye tracking on 2D

b) Eye tracking on S3D

c) Original shot

Figure 2 – compositional test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

Figure 3 – Refined compositional test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

Figure 4 – Interaxial test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

Figure 5 – S3D diagrams

a) Explaining interaxial distance

b) Explaining the effect of interaxial distance

Figure 6 – Defining areas of the interaxial test shot

Figure 7 – The cut between two shots from “Alfi’s Bike”

a) Alfi before the turn

b) Alfi after the turn

Figure 8 – example shots from the clips shown in testing

a) Clip 1

b) Clip 2

c) Clip 3

Figure 9 – Graphs of data gathered from the questionnaire

a) Results from Clip 1

b) Results from Clip 2

c) Results from Clip 3

Figure 10 – The shot that participants objected to

Introduction

Contrary to popular belief that S3D is a relatively new innovation in cinema, S3D technology was first realised in 1838. This actually pre-dates the advent of the stills camera. However by 1841 the marriage between stereoscopy and photography was realised, leading to the popularisation of the medium.

Why it has taken so long for 3D to be properly introduced to cinemas seems an obvious question when one considers that stereoscopy has existed for nearly 150 years. However, during the 1950’s there was a boom for 3D that saw more than fifty stereoscopic movies released in just 3 years (Zone, 2007). However, Hollywood’s move towards Cinemascope and the Widescreen ratio, alongside questionable 3D quality, killed off 3D filmmaking (Zone, 2007).

One of the reasons behind the current “renaissance of 3d” (Mendiburu, 2009) is the digitisation of the film making process. Any small mistakes and discrepancies between the two images required for 3D can completely destroy the effect. Digital filming and editing tools allow these mistakes to be rectified where previously, with analogue film, these problems could not be easily resolved.

Another factor in the revival of 3D is the desire of studios to compete with piracy and increasingly impressive home cinema systems. In a fight to keep people filling the seats in cinemas, the affordability of retrofitting cinemas and digitisation of the production process, make the re-introduction of 3D an obvious move. It is proven that S3D releases can bring in more than 4 times the amount of money that a 2D film can. When “UP” was released in the UK in October 2009 the 3D version brought in £4,121,890 on opening weekend, an average of £15,853 per site. The 2D version, despite being available at more cinemas, earned only £2,289,945, a site average of just £5,123 (Digital Cinema Media, 2010). This is not an isolated example as there are many other films that have produced similar turnover.

It seems that it is just a matter of time before 3D will go the way that sound did in the early 1930’s and be expected as part of any cinema experience. However there are still many consumers who are either directly opposed or sceptical of the medium. Cynics suggest that S3D is only a marketing tool, employed by studios to make more money, rather than to advance the artistic values of cinema. Although it is evident that S3D can achieve greater profits, to dismiss S3D as a pure marketing tool is rash. It is the intention of a director to transport his/her audience into the universe they have created and if S3D can better immerse and suspend the audience’s disbelief then it is a strong artistic tool.

Research Aims and objectives

Research Aim

To what extent can audience tele-presence and immersion be improved in Computer Generated (CG) animation through the addition of Stereoscopic 3D (S3D)?

This project aims to develop the relationship between stereoscopic 3D, presence and immersion particularly in the context of CG animation. In doing so it is hoped that a better understanding of S3D as an artistic tool can be achieved. If it can be proven that the addition of S3D can enhance audience immersion in animated film then it can be theorised that S3D is as relevant in film and sound and colour.

Research Objectives

To review current techniques and results from immersion and presence testing

To construct a credible audience testing section it is necessary to investigate previous attempts and methods of measuring presence and immersion.

To observe critical reaction to S3D in order to better understand consumer opinions

Understanding the best ways of using S3D needs to start with an analysis of current opinion on S3D. By exploring the professional critiques of S3D, and the different responses towards certain effects, a more effective S3D film can be produced during objective 3.

To engage in practice based research to study S3D production

Given the current lack of written resources about S3D it is necessary to include an element of practice based research in order to learn more about S3D production. The current study involved the creation of Alfi’s Bike, a short CG animation.

To assess the extent of the effect that S3D has on audience presence and immersion.

The current study used a questionnaire developed as part of objective 1 (see appendix A) and a focus group to test audience presence and immersion. The tests were designed to scrutinise the relationship between stereoscopy in a qualitative and quantitative manner.

The Production and Reception of Stereoscopic 3D

Academic Research

“Presence (a shortened version of the term “tele-presence”) is a psychological state or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individuals perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience” (Research, 2000)

This statement from the International Society for Presence Research seems to perfectly summarise the intention of using S3D within film and animation. If a director is able to make the audience forget that they are watching a film, and make them believe that what they see is actually happening, then they will have achieved their goal in the most immersive form of storytelling. If this definition of presence can be achieved with S3D then there is no doubt that it has a right to be included as a storytelling device, alongside sound and traditional cinematography techniques.

Although the research question may seem to have an obvious answer, it is actually not a foregone conclusion. It may not be the case that S3D has the effect of transporting the viewer into the director’s universe.

A study by Bracken et al.(Bracken, 2004), where participants were asked to watch a clip from “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over” and then questioned about their presence experience, actually resulted in the discovery that S3D can be less immersive and have less of a sense of presence than 2D.

“The 2-D version (of the clip) eliciting greater levels of immersion, spatial presence and perceptual realism.” (Bracken, 2004)

However, Bracken et al.’s(2004) study used anaglyph 3D (red/cyan glasses). This format does not cope with displaying full colour and is not the format which will be used in the testing phase of this study. It is also not the format currently used by cinemas. Unfortunately it is not clear from the paper if the participants viewed the film in colour or not; however it is probable that levels of presence felt by participants would have been affected if the clip had been shown in colour, which would have weakened the S3D effect. Bracken et al. also note that the quality of the glasses may have interfered with the audience’s viewing of the film.

“The use of the paper 3-D glasses may have proved more distracting than the improved sense of “being there” the 3-D version of the film segment provided.” (Bracken, 2004)

It was also noted:

“that the perceived lack of quality of the apparatus (glasses) negatively affects their opinion of the experience itself.” (Bracken, 2004)

It is evident that the equipment used was inappropriate, and does not represent the immersive potential of current S3D formats.

Although the above study was unable to prove that S3D is more immersive there are other studies of a similar nature that conflict with the findings of Bracken et al. Slater et al. (Slater, 2009) found that degrees of presence can be measured in virtual reality (VR).

“Overall, the evidence suggests that the participants in RT (Ray Traced shadows) reported a higher level of presence than those in RC (Ray Cast Shadows).” (Slater, 2009)

Although Slater et al. were testing visual realism (specifically shadowing effects) in VR and not S3D, the evidence still suggests that presence can successfully be measured, and specifically in media that are perceived to generate a better sense of presence. Due to the enhanced realism, a sense of depth, S3D is perceived to generate a better sense of presence. The evidence for this is in the popularity of S3D with the general public. Although they may not define it in this way, it could be argued that the public would not choose to go to S3D films if they thought that there was no improved sense of presence.

There have been criticisms of the use of questionnaires to measure presence, in particular questionnaires that are not fully tested prior to use. Usoh et al.(Usoh, 2000) conducted a study where participants were asked to perform tasks once in a real environment and once in a virtual environment (VE). Participants were then tested with Witmer and Singer’s existing presence questionnaire, which had been used in previous studies to measure presence within VE’s and VR in general. The authors note:

“The problem is ‘cross-environment’ comparisons (virtual to real, immersive to desktop), (...) do not seem to be valid using this approach.” (Usoh, 2000)

Usoh et al. criticise the lack of rigor employed in testing whether differences between reality and VR were detected by the questionnaire. They also believe that:

“subjects in an experiment will ‘relativise’ their responses to presence questions to the domain of their given experimental experiences only.” (Usoh, 2000)

This would suggest that to use a questionnaire as part of the current study would lead to questionable results and unfounded conclusions. However Usoh et al were able to develop their own questionnaire (the SUS) that was able to detect differences in presence felt in reality and virtual reality. In this instance it seems that although Usoh et al concluded that questionnaires were not helpful when trying to measure presence, they can actually detect differences.

There is a large enough difference between the current research question and Usoh et al.’s study that it cannot be assumed that a questionnaire, if properly assessed for its validity within the context of the current study, will fail. Usoh et al claim that test subjects “will ‘relativise’ their responses” (Usoh et al 2000) but in the current study that is fundamentally what participants are being asked to do. In its simplest form the root question of the proposed research is: relative to 2d, was the 3d more immersive? In the context of VR Usoh et al have a valid concern. Because VR is trying to emulate reality any questionnaire should be checked against reality. However, as stated above, that is not what this study is trying to measure.

Practical Research

A part of the project that has not yet been mentioned is the practical aspect and required research that surrounds this area.

“going into 3d production means leaving the well-know area of 2D movie making for the dangerous, mostly uncharted land of 3D” (Mendiburu, 2009)

It is recognised by professionals that when making a 3D film one has few resources on the subject, as a result a specific production workflow is not available. Although there are standards for certain aspects of 3D film making, such as depth charts, there are still only a few vague rules governing it’s use. As such the creation of S3D effects remains an iterative process. An aspect of trial and error will be required in the research, but by referring to the resources available, most notably Mendiburu’s “3D Movie Making”, major mistakes that would compromise the quality of “Alfi’s Bike” can be avoided.

Making sure that the S3D effect is the best it can be is critical to the success of the project.

“What you used to get away with in 2D will potentially hit you harder in 3D” (Mendiburu, 2009)

By way of example: there are cases where the compositions of a shot are not fully considered for S3D. In a study of eye tracking in stereoscopic 3D by Häkkinen et al. (Hakkinen, 2010) “What do people look at when they watch stereoscopic movies?” it seems that certain scenes can be distracting when in 3D:

“In the S3D (Stereoscopic 3D) versions (of the film) the eye movements are more widely spread. The viewers’ eye movements show them exploring the details of interesting three-dimensional structures present in the shots, and the initial preference to look at actors is slightly diminished.” (Hakkinen, 2010)

In images a and b (below) heat maps for the location of viewers eyes show clear evidence that viewers are distracted by the low wall in the S3D version of the shot. However, the same shot in 2D does not pose this problem.

2d eye track heat map

(a)

3d eye track heat map

(b)

(c)

Fig. 1 – Eye tracking data examples from (Hakkinen, 2010); (a) Eye tracking on 2D, (b) Eye tracking on S3D, (c) Original shot.

It is clear in this example that an actor/actress might not be the focal point of a shot when viewed in S3D, where once they were in the 2D version of the same shot. If the potential for this kind of distraction was not properly considered for each shot it is possible that particular story points or emotions might be missed in a film view in S3D.

Buzz Hays, the chief instructor for the Sony 3D Technology Centre in Culver City, California, recognises this effect and suggests that although 3D may be distracting in certain cases, there is no reason for the story to be lost. He suggests that audiences just need longer to “read” a scene.

“A number of visual scientists that have looked at 3D over the past ten to fifteen years have commented on this idea that when you look at a still 3D image, you brain tends to do the editing for you” (Bayon, 2010)

As proved in Hakkinen et al’s study audience members are taking more interest in extraneous aspects of a shot, and although this may take more time, it is not necessarily distracting an audience from what the shot is really trying to convey. In order for audiences to understand the shot it may have to be held for slightly longer in a 3D version of a film, due to the increased amount of time that audience members seem to spend scanning a scene.

This approach may not always be appropriate and there is still the potential for foreground objects to cause distractions in live action film. However in animation the director has ultimate control over the content of a shot due to the fact that all assets within a scene must be created. This puts animation at an advantage over live action with regard to S3D. In animation if part of a shot is distracting it can be easier to remove the distraction. In live action filming the director may not always have this luxury. This makes animation a great medium for testing presence in film, even on a low budget production like “Alfi’s Bike”.

This part of the research, which is concerned with the technical production of S3D, proved to be a vital aspect of the current study. This will be discussed in more detail in the Practice Based Research chapter.

Critical Reaction to Stereoscopic 3D

Part of the success of the project lies in creating a S3D effect that audiences respond too in a positive manner. Although S3D is an increasing popular medium, it still has many critics and so it is worth investigating what they dislike about S3D.

Many film reviews tend to skim over analysis of the S3D effect in a film so it can prove difficult to find opinion about S3D. This is not to say that reviewers do not acknowledge S3D, but when they do they tend not to critically evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. There are however some common themes in complaints and compliments of S3D.

The most hated effect is fake S3D. Reviews of “Clash of the Titans” (Leterrier, 2010), a film that was converted to S3D in post-production, describe the S3D as “a non-event” (Errigo, 2010) , a “feeble effort” (Honeycutt, 2010) and “unwatchable” (Huddleston, 2010). It is clear in this case that audiences will only accept true S3D that is shot or rendered with a 3D camera.

Although filmed with a proper S3D camera, reviews of “Piranha 3D” (Aja, 2010) deplore the director’s use of S3D, which mainly focuses on creating a “pop-out” effect, and imply that the effects have been added without thought. The S3D is described as “wonky” (Newman, 2010) and reviewers suggest that the director is “playing around with the 3D” (Moore, 2010) rather than thinking about how it might be used effectively. It seems that audiences are no longer impressed by S3D effects that simply have objects fly out of the screen, and would rather see a more subtle, artistic approach.

“Toy Story 3” (Unkrich, 2010) is one film that seems to have gained a lot of credit for its use of S3D, the effects being described as “classy” (Debruge, 2010), and “perfectly judged” (McCarthy, 2010). Reviewers talk about how the S3D has been “incorporated to heighten and enrich” (Rechtshaffen, 2010) the film and been used “to enhance the drama” (Debruge, 2010). It would seem in this case that the way forward for S3D cinematography is in employing its use carefully and deliberately, rather than using it to “wow” audiences.

Another film that is credited with a great 3D effect is Beowulf (Zemeckis, 2007). Many comments commend the use of S3D describing it as “deeply immersive” (Ambrose, 2007) and “jaw-droppingly immersive and realistic” (Levy, 2007) but also note that the S3D effect does not rely too heavily on ‘pop-out’ effects.

“Zemeckis largely resists the urge for gratuitous look-at-me compositions (only once, when a character flings coins at the camera, are we taken back to the gimmicky bad old days of Jaws 3D days) in favour of subtle choreography of action scenes that instantly embed you in the action.”(Ambrose, 2007)

It is worth noting in this case that S3D was intentionally used as a storytelling device. Buzz Hays, the S3D supervisor for the film, describes how he worked with director Robert Zemeckis.

“Because the film involves characters in constant shifting power, Bob Zemeckis made it so as people were losing their power, they’d actually start to lose some of their dimension. Conversly those who were gaining power started to become more realistic in dimension.” (Bayon, 2010)

Although this is an effect that may be too subtle to notice there are many cases where directors have used subtle ways to try and tell the story. When being interviewed about “Dial M for Murder” (Hitchcock, 1954) Hitchcock once told an interviewer

“We did an interesting colour experiment with Grace Kelly’s clothing. I dressed her in very gay and bright colours at the beginning of the picture, and as the plot thickened, her clothes became gradually more sombre.” (Bayon, 2010)

There seems to be a common element to all reviews of S3D, certain things that an audience will accept and others that it will not. Combining these more subjective viewpoints with what is what is known about 3D in an empirical context creates a base of knowledge that allows directors to make better informed artistic decisions about S3D.

Although observing professional criticisms can aid directors in their judgements about how to use S3D, there is value in practice based research. To truly understand the boundaries and best uses of S3D one must learn via the actual practice of creation, as there are important lessons can be learned only though experience.
Methodology - Practice based Research

Introduction to the scenes used, materials, and predictions

The practice based research undertaken by this project involved the creation of an original short animation called “Alfi’s Bike”. The story is about a young paper boy called Alfi and his Mum. He longs for a new bike to replace the old, pink one that was handed down to him, but he can’t afford it. The film follows Alfi’s day, and his unfortunate run of bad luck, ending in him crashing his bike and breaking it beyond repair. Utterly demoralised Alfi wanders home, but when he gets there his Mum has a surprise for him, she has bought the bike for him.

The film was created by the author with some assistance from Andy Rennie, who provided the character models. During production the author attempted to better understand how S3D is best employed, through trial and error, subjectively noting the impact of S3D on the project’s production pipeline and processes. Although not all of the scenes in the original storyboard were fully animated, in early stages of production it was still assumed that they would be included. This has lead to some shots being analysed for their 3d effect even though they appear unfinished.

Although traditional storyboarding techniques were used to carefully plan the shots for “Alfi’s Bike” a number of changes to the compositions, layouts, and general structure of certain scenes had to be made when they were created in S3D. Although some of the shots were able to cope with the transition between 2D and S3D, others provided an extra challenge. This part of production had been anticipated and it was known that the only way to resolve these issues would be through practice based research. The shots cited below are the output of that research, where conscious changes to the type of S3D effect, camera placement and even the use of the principals of animation, have been made.

Example 1- Camera Placement in S3D

Fig 2 shows a test shot from a section of the “Bag Rip” scene of “Alfi’s Bike”. In this shot Alfi cycles from round the corner in the background, along the alley towards the camera, and then turns sharply to the left (of the screen). Alfi is carrying a bag which rips on the fence post as he turns left.

3d comparison 1.1.jpg

Fig 2 – Compositional test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

In the initial storyboarded composition the fence featured prominently in the scene (seen in Fig 2) because the viewer needs see the fence before Alfi rips his bag on it. If the viewer does not see the fence before Alfi rips his bag, it would be confusing as to how he managed to rip the bag.

However when S3D effects were applied to the shot, the fence distracted the viewers eye away from Alfi (in the background). Although this meant that the viewer would defiantly see the fence they could be distracted away from the main action of Alfi cycling towards the camera. It was not possible to resolve this issue by just reducing the depth of S3D (see seen in example 2). A solution was found by adjusting the placement of the camera (seen in Fig 3). From a slightly higher position the viewer is able to see Alfi without the fence becoming a distraction at the start of the shot. When Alfi is closer to the camera and the viewer needs to see the fence, the camera is moved down leading the eye towards the fence as it becomes a more prominent feature of the shot.

3d comparison 1.2.jpg

Fig 3 – Refined compostional test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

Example 2 -Depth and Strength of S3D effect

Fig 4 is a continuation of the “Bag Rip” sequence. In this shot Alfi is propping his bike up against the alley wall and retrieving one of the newspapers that has fallen out of his bag.

fence snap copy.jpg

Fig 4 – Interaxial test shot from “Alfi’s Bike”

Initially a strong 3d effect was used, employing a wider interaxial separation to bring parts of the scene into the viewing space and pushing other elements back behind the screen. (see fig 5 below). This effect was chosen to emphasise perspective within the shot and make Alfi appear far away from the newspaper. The exaggerated perspective was also used to make Alfi seem really tall so that when he had to reach down to the newspaper it was a long way down.

interaxial distance copy.jpg

(a)

(b)

Fig 5 – S3D diagrams: (a) Explaining interaxial distance, (b) Explaining the effect of interaxail distance

However it was found that this effect confused the composition of the scene for a number of reasons. The fence became a distraction from the main action of the scene because it appeared so close to the viewer. The far wall also became a distraction as the “deepening” effect cause by the S3D lead the viewer’s eye down the alley. Both of these effects combined made the focal point of the scene very difficult to find, the eye was either distracted by the fence or lead away by the wall. Figure 6 is a diagram of the areas referred to above.

fig 1 fence distraction copy.jpg

Fig 6 – Defining areas of the interaxial test shot

It was discovered that decreasing the S3D effect, by lowering the interaxial distance, created a clearer composition. The fence was still distinct from the areas behind it, but was no longer a distraction. The alley wall had a definite depth, but not to a distracting degree. This less intrusive S3D effect made the focal point of the scene much easier to find, and the viewer could concentrate on the action being shown.

Example 3 -Timing of Cuts in S3D

Fig 7 shows the transition between two shots in the “Fall” scene of Alfi’s bike. This scene was fully animated and considerations around the timing of animation and the S3D effects had to be made. In this scene Alfi has just fallen off his bike and his mum is helping him up. Mum has realised that the basket (seen in fig 7a) of the bike is broken and Alfi is turning around to see it (seen in fig 7b ).

adjustment in time 2 copy.jpg

(a)

(b)

Fig 7 – The cut between two shots from “Alfi’s Bike”: (a) Alfi before the turn, (b) Alfi after the turn

Initially the scene was animated so that Alfi turns in Fig 7b so that he looks back in the direction of the camera. However because the basket distracts the eye away from Alfi in S3D the timing had to be changed so that the all of the anticipation of Alfi turning (and half of the turn) was viewed in Fig 7a. It was very important to anticipate Alfi’s turn before the cut to Fig 7b because once the cut had been made the viewer doesn’t see the rest of the turn.

It was also necessary to change the length of the shot in Fig 7b. In S3D the eye needs time to focus on the basket then back at Alfi and Mum. In 2D the viewer is able to see all aspects of the scene in considerably less time than in S3D.

Although the addition of S3D created problems with certain shots, when used with careful consideration, it can assist storytelling points and make certain compassions more effective. It is important to recognise that although shots can be planned carefully in a 2d drawing (in either storyboard panels or depth charts) there is limited value in this within a S3D production. Even when planning with S3D in mind compositions are likely to require some level of adjustment once viewed in S3D, especially if the production team are inexperienced in S3D (as the author was). It would appear that the decision to devote time to experimenting with planned compositions using S3D cameras, rather than traditional storyboard panels or layout drawings, was necessary and it is hoped that the final film benefited from this workflow.
Methodology - Audience Research

Introduction

The next section of the project’s research concentrated on audience response to S3D, specifically within the short film “Alfi’s Bike”. While the implications of S3D on production had been explored during practice based research, the current audience study was designed to investigate if immersion was enhanced by the addition of S3D effects. Three clips from the “Alfi’s Bike” short film were chosen for viewing in both 2D and S3D during the audience assessment and details of why these clips were chosen is detailed in the “Resources” section below.

Participants

A group of 11 student volunteers between the ages of 18-25 with as even a gender divide as possible were used in audience testing. Participants were selected because for their experience in various areas of creative media so that the clips could be viewed critically. Participants were fully informed about how they were being tested and were informed about content of the film and the fact that they would be viewing S3D at some point in the experiment.

Experiment Design

The experiment consisted of two sections, one using a questionnaire, and one using a focus group. The questionnaire (see appendix A) used was developed as part of the research regarding the success of previous questionnaires that have attempted to measure presence and immersion. None of the questionnaires analysed could be used exclusively because they all specifically attempted to measure immersion in virtual reality. As such appropriate questions from a number of different questionnaires were chosen then adapted to better fit with the aim of the experiment.

The focus group intended to provide more informal feedback and provide further insight, as participants were encouraged to discuss their views on the 3D effects. This would allow more qualitative data to be gathered, that would not have been picked up by the questionnaire. Transcripts of the focus groups are available in appendix B.

Participants were divided into two different groups (one group of 5 and one group of 6). Once participants were assigned a group they remained isolated from members of the other group for the duration of testing. Each group were shown clips from the short film “Alfi’s Bike” once in S3D and once in 2D. One group watched the S3D version first and then the 2D version, the other group was shown the 2D version first and then the S3D version. Participants were not informed which version they were viewing first so that any bias towards or against either version could be minimal. It was noted in the proposal that 3D polarised glasses would be used for both showings, but this was not possible because of a black spot created by the glasses and projection in the 2D version.

At the end of each clip participants were given the questionnaire (see appendix A) and after both versions of the selected clips had been shown, the focus group was conducted.

Resources

The HIVE projection system at the University of Abertay Dundee is where the CG animation “Alfi’s bike” was shown to participants. The film was displayed at 720HD resolution (1280x720 pixels) using Stereoscopic Player’s (Wimmer, 2010) Dual Screen Output setting. Clips were selected from the short film Alfi’s bike and were selected with consideration as to how they might represent different ways of using S3D.

Clip one (see Fig 8a below) was used because it places a character against a background with a lot of depth, challenging viewer’s ability to pick out the character in the depth of the shot. Clip two (see Fig 8b below) was a longer scene that allows the viewers to better empathise with characters. It features a range of shots that vary between a distant background and middling background. Clip three (see Fig 8c below) was selected because it formed a contrast with the previous clips. It is an indoor scene where all characters and environments were contained within a small space close to the viewer.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig 8 – Example shots from the clips shown in testing: (a) Clip 1, (b) Clip 2, (c) Clip 3

The strength of 3D effect varied with each clip in accordance with the way that 3D is used in a professional context. To maintain a strong 3d effect causes eye strain, so a variation between a strong 3d effect and a weak 3d effect was used.

Due to the relatively small size of screen available most of the action in the animation appears ‘behind the screen’. This is the standard that is used in cinemas presently as it is only possible to have all aspects of a scene appear ‘in the room’ with huge screens, as present in IMAX facilities.

All aspects of the film remain the same in the S3D version and the 2D version, including the depth of field and focus, so that the only feature that differs in the film is the effect of S3D.

Ethics

Care had been taken to ensure that the content of the film did not offend any of the audience members. In some cases S3D can cause headaches and nausea in audience members therefore participants were informed about the use of 3D and were allowed to leave the test at any point if they felt uncomfortable with the S3D effect.

Results

Questionnaire Results

Graphs representing the results from the questionnaire used in the test are displayed below in Fig 9. The y axis values represents the values from a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The x axis labels represent the questions asked: “aware” refers to question 1, “empathy” refers to question 2, and “bystander” refers to question 3 of the questionnaire (see appendix A). The blue bar represents the answers given in the 2D version, and the red bar represents the answers given in the 3D version.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig 9 – Graphs of data gathered from the questionnaire: (a) Results from Clip 1, (b) Results from Clip 2, (c) Results from Clip 3

Although the number of participants used was too small to provide a full statistical analysis, there were some noticeable differences within the results.

Questions were designed to analyse three different aspects of immersion, as immersion can be achieved in a number of ways. Question one largely deals with a feeling of suspension of disbelieve, the idea that participants are no longer in their current surroundings. Question two relates more towards an immersion in narrative, by connecting with the characters emotionally one might be more immersed in the world they are viewing. Question three deals with an experiential sense of immersion, how much did participants feel they were part of the action and part of the experience of the characters.

The first question of the test was used to judge how consciously aware participants were while watching the clips. Less awareness of the room in which a film is being watched would suggest a greater sense of suspension of disbelief. Results from clips 2 and 3 suggest more immersion in 3d version as participants were less aware of their surroundings. However in clip 1 there was less immersion, this could have been because the clip was shown first, and the participants were still transitioning into the 3D.

Question two dealt with participants feelings of empathy towards the characters in the clips. If participants were able to engage with the characters more it would suggest greater narrative immersion. Similarly with question one the results indicate that there was little difference between the S3D version and the 2D version, however in clips 1 and 3 participants responded more in the S3D version. A possible reason for the inconsistencies between clip 2 and the others could be to do with the type of 3d effect used, this will be discussed in further detail in the focus group results section.

The bystander question (question 3) was intended to evaluate a more general sense of cinematic experiential immersion and how much participants felt involved as part of the clips they were viewing. If viewers felt that they were more like an onlooker in the world of the story, rather than an audience member watching a film, then this would imply stronger immersion and presence. Responses to this question showed the largest difference between the 2D and S3D version, with participants displaying higher levels of presence and immersion in the S3d version consistently. It is noted that in clip 1 there is less of a difference between the two versions and this may, as with first question (empathy), be a result of participants adjusting to the 3D effect.

It would seem, viewing the results as a whole, that immersion was improved by the addition of S3D. However it is true that the study conducted was not large enough to provide any reliable statistical data, and that some of the differences between the two versions were minimal. It would be interesting to see if this trend towards S3D continued on a larger scale version of the same test and with a wider range of participants (ie non-critical observers).

Focus Group Results

The views expressed by participants were varied and there were a number of instances where participants disagreed on certain areas of discussion. However there were also many areas of agreement that raised some interesting points about how S3D can progress to provide a more immersive experience for audiences.

One of the main talking points around the first clip was its length. Participants explicitly felt that because the clip was too short they were not able to fully engage with it.

“The first clip was too short to really comprehend what was going on” (see Appendix B)

“You couldn’t get into the scene because it was too short” (see Appendix B)

Participant’s believed that the short length of the clip impacted on their ability to get immersed in it, which is suggested by the values present in the questionnaire results. Other participants remarked that they felt that they were not fully prepared for the first clip in 3D, and needed more time to adjust to viewing S3D. It was also noted that some participants admitted that they had allowed a bias against S3D to affect their initial judgement of the S3D, and distract them from viewing the clip critically.

“[it] was a bit distracting was the fact that [I] maybe came in with a bit of a cynical view” (see Appendix B)

Some members of the focus group did not believe that there was a lot of S3D in the first clip, this may have been because there were not enough depth cues, and may well have affected their responses. A number of participants went on to report that they preferred this clip in 2D, a possible result of the perceived lack of S3D.

Clip 2 generated debate about the extent of 3D effects, many participants felt that the S3D effect used in one shot (see Fig 10) was too intrusive and difficult to watch. Participants felt that the 3D effect was too strong, and although no elements of the shot actually crossed the screen plane, they felt that the effect was inappropriate.

adjustment in timeing copy.jpg

Fig 10 – The shot that particpants objected to

Participants went on to discuss their objections to “pop out” S3D effects that they had experienced in cinemas and rides, where elements within the film had extend into the viewing space. There was a particular objection to shots that are included specifically to show off the S3D effects in an unnecessary way in an attempt to create more narrative immersion.

“I hate those shots that you get where you can tell they were made for 3d” (see Appendix B)

Despite the definite dislike of “gimmick” S3D some participants conceded that if used appropriately, or in specific contexts, they were less opposed to it (although there remained a clash of opinion on this matter). Test subjects noted that in some cases it could be used effectively for comedy or horror, and when used judiciously, could be effective in more sensitive cases. Participants particularly responded to shots that lent themselves to an experiential sense of immersion, where S3D was used to allow audiences to better experience a certain event in a film’s narrative.

“In Tangled when they do the light thing and one comes [out] [...] that’s really cool but they could have overdone it” (see Appendix B)

Participants in both groups were able to agree that in most cases a more subtle S3D effect was more enjoyable to watch.

“I prefer the perception of depth... I think it submerges you more in the film” (see Appendix B)

It was suggested by participants that S3D should continue towards a trend of subtler effects that show depth, creating experiential immersion, rather than forcing objects towards the audience in an attempt to create more narrative immesion. However it is important to remember that a noticeable sense of depth is required, as test subjects felt that the first clip did not display enough depth.

A small number of participants commented on the video quality of the clips. One participant observed that they had difficulty seeing and focusing on faster moving objects in the third clip.

“I sometimes find it really hard to focus on...if stuff is moving [...] like when he was going up the stairs I felt like it was quite blurry as well” (see Appendix B)

Other participants said that they were more aware of the frame rate on certain shots, particularly when viewing fast moving objects. This would imply that a higher frame rate than the one used in the clips (24 frames a second) would be more appropriate when viewing S3D.

There were also comments about the quality of the film, some participants talked about how they enjoyed a higher picture quality (blu-ray) rather than 3D or even a big cinema screen.

“I preferred [Avatar] on blu-ray [rather] than at the cinema” (see Appendix B)

This might suggest that audiences want better picture quality with their cinema experience. Whether this is exclusively a demand of S3D films or more of a general statement (about 2D films) is unclear. However considering S3D’s demands on viewers eyes and the observations made by participants about noticeable frame rates it is perhaps worth considering a move to an even higher quality standard for cinema viewing.

Summary

Although many views of participants conflicted the focus groups were able to reveal data about audience perception of immersion and S3D. It is important to note that these views would not have been picked up by the questionnaire, and perhaps indicates that focus groups provide an excellent tool to advance S3D cinematic techniques.
Discussion

The aim of this project was to evaluate how much immersion could be improved in Computer Generated animation through the addition of Stereoscopic 3D. It was the intention of the author to investigate if S3D is really the best way of improving audience experience from an artistic perspective. Although the financial merits of S3D are obvious the specific storytelling and immersive benefits are relatively unknown. This study has observed the effects of S3D on immersion via a quantitative questionnaire, focus group testing and practice based research. It is important to note that all three studies, rather than one out of three, have contributed to a better understanding of the relationship between S3D and immersion.

Although it was not originally envisioned as part of the project it would seem that there is a definite advantage to including an element of practice base research in any project involving S3D. With so few resources available on the subject it is important to realise the current iterative nature of 3D production (that is even recognised by professionals). As such the inclusion of practice based research in the project has been invaluable and it is doubtful that the author would have learned as much about S3D without this aspect of the study.

The findings of the practice based research have helped illuminate areas of development for S3D in ways that could not have been revealed by audience testing alone. Had audience testing been used exclusively the study would not have recognised the importance of taking time in planning in S3D, so that a film is designed in S3D rather than for S3D. As stated it is worth including an section of practice based research in any S3D project so that the experiences of stereoscopic artists is more widely documented in an accessible format. This would lead to better S3D results for audiences and would help maintain its position within cinema where previously it has fallen out of public favour.

Despite its importance to the study the practice based research could never have revealed the data gathered by the audience studies. The audience testing section of the project was a valuable tool in revealing issues with S3D effects that had not been picked up by the practice or critical reaction research.

The success of the audience testing rested on the decision to include both a questionnaire and a focus group. The questionnaire was not able to definitively prove a general enhancement to immersion with S3D, however when compared with the focus group analysis it was able to suggest that there are multiple types of immersion that differ in effectiveness based on context.

The questionnaire showed that higher levels of experiential immersion (bystander question) were present in all three clips, suggesting that experiential immersion is improved the most with the addition of S3D. Focus group participants supported this statement agreeing that they preferred S3D that allowed them to get more immersed in the experience of the film.

Although results for questions relating to the suspension of disbelieve and narrative immersion were enhanced slightly by addition of S3D, the improvements tended to be either unsubstantial or inconsistent. This result was also supported by the responses of participants in the focus group who stated that they disliked attempts to make S3D part of the story in an effort to improve narrative immersion. This would suggest that the questionnaire was successful, it is just that audiences do not feel, consciously or sub-consciously, that S3D improves narrative immersion and suspension of disbelieve. This proves the value of the combining focus group testing with a questionnaire, as in this particular case it might have been assumed that the questionnaire was unsuccessful. In reality it is more likely that the three types of immersion (relating to the three questions) was not improved by the addition of S3D.

Results from both parts of the audience tests suggest that it is not appropriate to talk about immersion as a 1 dimensional concept, and it is theorised that immersion should be divided into more subcategories than have been discussed in this document. This could be a strong area of future development for stereoscopic artists as it is in their interest to investigate the different facets of immersion, and how they might be improved by the addition of S3D. This study has helped to show that narrative immersion and suspension of disbelief are not necessary improved by S3D but that experiential immersion can be, although it would be interesting to see if these trends continued at a larger scale.

The value of conducting both practice based and audience research was also proved by the areas of agreement in results from each aspect of the study. Practice based research found that intense 3D can create confusing compositions and focus groups analysis concurs with this. Participants found it hard to find focal points on shots with strong S3D effects justifying the findings of the practice research. Admittedly this also proves that the practice research, and to an extent the critical reaction research, which aimed to eliminate undesirable S3D effects, was not wholly successful. This however further proves the value of combining multiple types of research as it allows problems to be highlighted and targeted for future projects and studies.

Each part of the research was strengthened by the other and the calumniation of all three areas of research has lead to a better understanding of S3D uses and limitations. It has also provided some key insights into the demands of audiences, and areas in which consumers wish to see improvements to S3D. This study has also established the value in combining different types of research to provide a balanced output that is able to offer a greater depth of data about S3D than would be possible from just one line of investigation.

Conclusion

The results of this project indicate that to progress S3D as a credible tool, stereoscopic artists must better understand what their audiences want from the medium. One of the main collective discoveries from the research is that improper use of S3D has to stop if it is to be taken seriously. If S3D continues to be marred by poor effects or bad directorial decisions consumers will eventually reject it, as they have done in previous attempts to make S3D a lasting part of cinema. This is perhaps the most important area of future research: tailoring the medium to the demands of the consumer.

Although S3D is an artistic tool, and directors should be given an element of creative choice, it would seem that more specific guidelines are needed. In the same way that directors have creative choice about 2D compositions, but have rules to help viewers understand what is happening; S3D needs a similar set of conventions surrounding it use. Although there are some guides about how to use S3D it would seem that they are either not being used effectively or they are not extensive enough to help avoid mistakes that give audiences a bad S3D experience.

Despite the advances in S3D technology since it’s last attempt at become a cinema standard, it would seem that a few further key advances are needed. Professionals are already experimenting with higher frame rates with 3D (Jackson, 2011) and the removal of glasses from the medium is also being used with the Nintendo 3DS (Nintendo, 2011). These advances are no doubt good for the S3D but it is important to remember that technology should not be the only area of research and progression. Advancing artistic knowledge of how S3D can be used to bring audiences closer to cinematic stories will be vital to its lasting success.

Appendices

Appendix A

Tom’s Immersion and Presence Questionnaire

Version 1.5

Name:

General questions

How many 3D films have you seen before?

none

1-3

4-7

8-11

11+

Please circle a response to the statements below:

“I was not aware of what was going on in the room where I was watching the clip”

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

“I felt that I could empathize with the main character”

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

“I felt like I was a bystander in the environment, watching the events unfold in front of me”

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Appendix B

Focus group 1

B: was a little too short to really notice the 3D

Me: uh huh

B: the second clip, eh, actually surprisingly, cause you know what I think about 3D anyway actually felt a bit more immersed in the 3d , eh mainly because the shot where you see the bike in the shop window, like, that and when the mum runs out, the 3d on that was done really well

Me: uh huh

B: there was one shot the 3d was over the top

Me: yeah

B: was the bike on the ground in the foreground,

Me: yeah, that was kinda semi intentional

B: but when I watched it in the 2D it didn’t feel like it was there as much

Me: uh huh

B: um

G: yeah I felt that with the second clip, especially with, like, the shop window cause you can see, like, the depth of field, and the window in the shop and the wall at the back and stuff.

B: I think because we’d seen the 3d version first we were looking for that depth and it wasn’t there, um

A: maybe for your next group of people you could...

Me: I’m switching it round. I’m gonna do the 2d one first...

A: the first clip was too short to really comprehend what was going on

S: yeah, the 3d was more distracting than...you couldn’t get into the scene because it was too short

I: see I think it’s interesting, when the first questions talks about “how aware were you of what was going on in the room”

Me: uh huh

I: I kind of... I think the glasses kinda blocking my vision of you guys (points at other participants) kinda like, let me go into that (points at the screen the clips were shown on) a bit more with the 3D

Me: right, ok

I: so it’s not... I kinda not to do with the 3D it’s more like...

Me: the glasses are kinda ‘blinkering’ you in anyway

I: yeah

G: I think you’re third scene was the strongest

All: (general agreement)

Me: ok, yeah. When I talking about the discussion here I'm talking about the discussion of the 3D rather than the, like, my animation or whatnot.

G: well, like,

Me: I terms of the the way it works

G: yeah well the animation helps... like, if the animation is good then the 3d’s good. it helps to have good animation and 3d instead of, like, strong 3d but a weak animation, but I think that the 3^rd scene( clip) was really good. ‘cause that was the most immersive for me

D: there was one shot where the third one when you’re watching him (Alfi) go up the stairs, it actually felt like you were the mum, sorta watching him going up the stairs.

B: see I would say that the 2d shot of him pulling the bag (clip 1) that was more immersive...for me, than the 3d shot of, like, the third clip. I thought that was stronger...

Me: the 3d?

B: the first clip, in 2d, I thought was stronger than the last bit in 3D, so not necessarily agreeing with what gav was saying

Me: uh huh, ok, that’s fair enough, um, did you, like...when viewing the clips if you had like a favourite one, did you prefer that in 2d or 3d, or did it change between, like, so maybe int he 3d you liked the second one the best bu tin the 2d version you liked the third one the best. Did that change at all for any of you?

(some general agreement)

Me: cool, um

B: like the ,um, we’ve discussed this off record, but I'm putting it on record

Me: yeah

B: but the subtler, the more subtle the 3d the better it is. The more subtle stuff in the second clip, uh, like, just as simple as like even a bit of depth in the shot and obviously being able to see everything behind the mum, um, there is that one shot that is a bit over the top, em, but ... yeah if you take that shot out that entire second clip was really good. Like not necessarily take that shot out but..

Me: yeah, like adjust with it,

B: Yeah

Me: em, did any of you find it was easier to understand what was happening in a scene in either version? Like a 2d or 3d

D: I defiantly think the 3d helped...

Me: your understanding of what was happening?

D: yeah

Me: ... for all of them? Or just for one, or?

D: I’d probably say all of them,

A: I would say there was no real difference

Me: ok, cause some of you were saying the first one was difficult to get into? Cause it was 3d

S: for the first one, I didn’t, I didn’t get into the scene, I didn’t quite understand what was going on cause I was still adjusting to the 3d, so.

B: yeah, I think also and aspect of...i dunno if its just the way we’re doing this (the focus test) it was kinda like I’m needing to get into the mind set of watching it. cause it was the first one, the first one wasn’t getting my full attention straight away. So you might need to take that into account.

Me: yeah, I did think about that actually, of like easing you into 3d an like...

G: personally like, cause I hate 3d, cause it give me a sore heads and stuff like I barely watch it or anything or kinda refuse to, so I’ve not really had much experience.. I’ve never sat through a whole 3d movie I’ve played 3d games like once, and its like; “this is rubbish” (laughs) I wasn’t rubbish, I just didn’t like it at all

Me: when did you...what was the 3d movie that you saw? And when roughly did you see it that made you decide that you don’t like 3d

G:err, I was the start of avatar and then I played wipeout in 3d and it’s more. It’s not more because I don’t like the look of it, it’s cause it...i get... it makes me feel sick.

Me: right

G: it’s nothing to do with: “this looks rubbish”. It’s more: “this makes me feel ill” (laughs) so.

Me: is it like a motion sickness kinda thing?

G: yeah, yeah. It gives me sore heads and stuff

B: it’s kinda, it’s, you’re not just sitting, and watching a film letting yourself... like suspension of disbelief and jsut letting yourself get into it. You’re sitting aware of the fact that you’re watching a film, you’re having to put the effort in to watch it. Which kinda takes...kinda distracts from the whole thing of just sitting back and watching it

A: I really think depends on the 3d film that you’re being shown

B: uh huh

A: I mean...avatar like I don’t have the same problem of being quesy so I found it, because they use like dramatic shots and 3d for simpler things like them running through the grass or something like that, I just found that it was just easier to sort of slip into that world, but because it was basically completely like a fantasy, I think it helped. If you do 3d on like...reality as we know it I think it’s a bit more difficult and distracting to even get into.

B: is that uncanny valley sorta thing?

A: yeah I think so

I: a kinda other interesting thing I sorta noticed more in 3d was, speaking with an experience of films this as well, is that you know the flickering between frames I find I’m more aware of it.

S: uh huh (affirmative)

I: interesting to watch would be, you know the Hobbit coming out?

All: general agreement

I: They’re shooting that 48 frames a second so we could see that fixing things

Me: uh huh, cause there’s really bad...when he cycles past it on the second clip, it’s really bad isn’t it?

All: General agreement

G: really choppy

Me: yeah it just like, “what’s going on, my eyes are like: ahhhh” (laughs)

G: going back to what I said about how I don’t like have much experience of 3d but I honestly like when the first scene came up, I though“ that’s actually really good 3d”

Me: are you just saying that? (laughs)

G: no, honestly like, don’t take this the wrong way but I didn’t expect it to look as nice as it did. Like I didn’t expect it to be that 3d in my head ui thought like “oh well people who make 3d films and games have millions of pounds to spend on it and like that’s why it looks so nice, you know. I didn’t expect a student to be able to pull it off, but you...it looks nice man.

B: yeah, I was a bit...that’s another thing as well

Me: yeah, sceptical

B: that was a bit distracting was the fact that, I think, well I dunno if you’d be the same gav but maybe came in with a bit of a cynical view of that “ohh” but kinda taken aback that “oh, its actually pretty good”. my other thing was as well which you’ll need to say for the next one is that I was looking at the middle (points to the screen) that’s the middle of the two

Me: yeah waiting for it to come on there

B: so, then it started off over there so I kinda missed the first one

Me: thank you very much, um, dunno. Has anyone got any, sort of, final comments otherwise you can pretty much go.

A: previous experience with 3d would be like those rides that you get, where stuff intentionally comes out, like, to you as thought to smack you one your head or something. There’s one in Florida that was Indian Jones ride or something, so I think that that really gave me a misconception of 3d, and it really has changed quite well. In the past 10 years

Me: would you all say then that you prefer 3d when it’s kept “behind” the screen? If you know what I mean?

A: yeah

Me: like rather than popping out and appearing to come out of the screen you prefer...?

A: yeah, when it’s those adverts at the cinema

G: yeah I hate those shots that you get where you can tell they were made for 3d

B: yeah, the gimmick ones

G: like you can watch movies now and if there’s a 3d version you know there’s some scenes where a character says: “I want you!” and points to the screen and you’re like: “that obviously just done for 3d”

B: it’s like, in monster’s verses aliens when the guys got the...ball...

G: yeah the ping...paddle thingy and he’s doing it towards the screen...

Me: yeah and despicable me does it as well

A: despicable me, yeah I preferred that, I thought that was more done for comedy value than instead of: “oh no something’s gonna come smack me in the face”

S: it can be done really well though like in tangled there is not many scenes where it actually jumps out at you but it does come, you know, across that screen border

Me: uh huh

S: I prefer that. I don’t like the jumping out at your face, but...eh I did notice that with your animation it stays behind the (phone beeps) oh my god (turns phone off)

Me: it’s alright

S: it stays on the screen and extends backwards, em, I would have liked it to come out a little bit...

Me: on certain things?

S: yeah, but not like the pointing in your face.

I: I’ve a friend that’s recently developed a phobia of 3d films when I comes towards him (laughs)

Me: really? Wow

I: that’s brilliant

B: see there’s one thing I was wondering ? “A” how you were saying about how the whole avatar thing. Have you seen it on blu-ray yet? (addressing group)

(Some general disagreement)

B: no? Cause I found probably more with the Pixar films. Even just watching on blu-ray without the 3d like just the high definition textures and... all that sort of stuff is still astounding to watch...

G: yeah it’s still 10 times better

B: ...without the added thing of having to let your eyes work

Me: like work at it, yeah.

G: like as well I saw avatar in the cinema twice and then I got it on blu-ray when it came out and watched it on my PS3 blu-ray on my big tv and I preferred it on blu-ray than at the cinema

B: uh huh (affirmative)

Me: you preferred it

A: so then is 3d just a novelty thing that they’re bringing back, every 20 years

Me: is there like, it there a way you could be more specific about why you preferred just a 2d version? Was it because richer colours? Or was it because you felt as though you could relax a bit more when you were watching it? Or what kinda thing made you prefer the 2d, rather than just perhaps a “I don’t like 3d”

B: I would sorta say it is that aspect of like you’re not aware that you’re watching something, constantly your eyes are constantly...like you’ll get maybe pain in your eyes you might not get the full motion sickness or whatever but you’ll... you are aware that you’re having to work.

G: yeah your eyes are having to work harder, watching a 3d.

B: you can’t just watch it

Me: yeah, so in that scenario you would, if it was in 3d you would perhaps prefer it to be less intensive on your eyes

All: general agreement

B: I mean one of the problems with the 3d in avatar, in certain, not for the entire film, but in certain scene em is when the camera tries to do too much, like changes depth, like changes focus and stuff like that, and your eyes aren’t ready for it. Your eye’s have been...cause obviously 3d you have to be very specific about how you deep you want ther viewers vision to go into it...and then as soon as you mess with that.

A: but that could be said for 2d films, I mean it.. that’s just more the camera direction.

B: yeah but your eyes are in a specific spot not just on the screen but in the screen

G: yeah, planes like specific...how far you’re looking into in

A: I would disagree

G: I agree with brian, I’ve...i remember when I was going like ... doing 3d rides and stuff in Florida like when I was a kid and growing up and stuff and there would be points where your eyes get lost. Like it almost feels like I’m going cross eyed cause I don’t know what I'm looking at on the screen or I don’t know where to look on the screen cause it really 3d, and I’m like “ aww I better take my glasses off” and it makes you more sick cause you’re looking at those blurry images on the screen and then you’re like “god I just can’t look at it” totally.

B: where as in the Pixar films, or whatever that, the majority of the shot you can actually watch without your 3d glasses on. Cause generally the stuff that they’re wanting you to focus on is, if at all 3d, is very subtle. Where as they tend to do the background stuff which is probably why they don’t do so much of that.

Me: do you think then that in that case where it’s almost not noticeable that it’s even worth it? Would you say that it’s not?

B: not...well until... if you see it on blu-ray you’re kinda like “what was the point”

Me: yeah, that’s a totally valid opinion by the way, so please say that if you think it

A: I’ve never seen blu-ray but I think it should be just kept to a more subtle like level personally

G: there was someone who said., I think it was zero punctuation, like the way you said it: they tried it in the 70’s they tried it tin the 90’s and they’re trying it now, it’s like they’re trying to re-try it every 20years and the first two times it didn’t rub off it’s just a novelty.

B: I think what we’re doing with it now is better than they done before because the tech’s obviously caught up, and like you were saying about the frame rate changes, it’s little things like “actually yeah we’re noticing this now, so we’ll change this now”. I mean fair play to them for trying but I think the more they try it the more they’re gonna find the whole...the more subtle the better.

Me: uh huh, then it just so subtle that it might as well not be there

B: exactly

A: the the craze at the moment is like 3d films. Like that’s what they’re going for so you can see it 3d, so you can go down to Glasgow to the Imax to really go see it but I think that’ll just be too expensive and too annoying. But I think it’s a field defiantly worthwhile researching in especially and people into film are getting a phobia of it now,

All: general laughter

A: that would be interesting for your dissertation

Me : (laughs) yeah a phobia of 3D

G: I think it’s getting to the point now that technology’s going...and they’re steadily increasing that. I don’t think 3d, now, will ever go away but I think like what “B” and that were saying, it’s gonna be...if it’s still gonna be around that it’s gonna be so subtle that there’s not much point.

I: I’m looking forward to it when they do it without the glasses

All: general agreement

B: there’s the 3DS that does it really well, in that because you’re just...cause it’s just a smaller screen an it’s a handheld, so it’s only gonna be one person, that one person can suit it to their needs cause it’s got a slider on it and everything cause everyone’s eyes are different obviously. Whereas em when it comes to... there talking about using that tech to put into TVs, but I wonder if it’s gonna be a case of you need to be sat in the right place for it to work

G: yeah cause for the DS you need to have it hold a certain point like distance away from you to get the full 3d effect and then even then you can only play it for like 45 minutes or something

B: so they say

G: they say not to play it more cause it’s screw your eyes

Me: yeah

D: yeah cause that the great thing about 3ds is you’re not sitting at an angle, whereas with a film at the cinema if you sit at an angle it’s like hurt your eyes more

Me; did you guys find that when your were sitting like

D: well I went to see toy story 3 in Imax and I was sat a sorta like an angle and yeah defiantly

Me: did you find that just now

D not as much cause I’m not at as much of an angle

B: I noticed a bit on the first clip, or I dunno if...see the the bit on the second clip where the basket of the bike was in the bottom left of the screen, did you guys over that side find that really in your face or was it...?

I: I can’t comment much

G: I think it was too... I... there was one point I remember where I was going: “what is that attached too?” cause I was...i think it was like too much in your face where it was like....

B: you couldn’t put that one on again?

Me: uh huh (affirmative) although were kinda running over a bit so I might have to stop you

B: I was just wondering if it was cause there was this side looking on

Me: actually uh

Focus group 2

Me: ok first off which version did you prefer

B: difficult to answer. Cause if you put the lights off the 3d one but if you keep the lights on the 2d one, the non 3d one

Me so the lights made a big difference?

B: big difference, however a Japanese company is developing a projector that you can view perfectly in the light

Me very good

B: but...

(General laughs)

Me: I don’t really care “B”

B: I'm not used to wearing glasses and he is and she is (pointing at participants wearing prescription glasses) I dunno about you two (pointing at participants without prescription glasses ) but.

M: I still find them uncomfortable even thought I wear glasses all the time.

B: cause the’re so big and you can see the black outline, and I’m like: “I can’t watch it”

F: but that’s not really to do with the animation

P: yeah

B: that like 3d in general

Me: but you found...you found the glasses a distraction

B: in the light I did

M: yeah

B: in the dark not so much

Me: ok that’s interesting

B: I mean I would watch it light with these glasses on

F: I think your...your answers might change for the...was it the first question? Where you know you’re talking about the room, if the lights are off you know what I mean cause you know if you can see something moving in the corner that gonna be a distraction

Me: yeah

M: yeah

F: more than if it’s off you know

M: yeah I think...cause you can focus more on it when the lights are off

Me: ‘K so you think it would be better to do it with the lights off?

M: yeah

F: see the only thing I’d say... back to the animation is that I'm not quite sure what actually happened with regards to the bike... like I wasn’t quite sure what was the significance of the bike

Me: you weren’t sure what was going on?

F: it was more of a plot thing than that the actual animation itself

Me: yeah

P: he broke his bike

F: yeah... I didn’t

Me would that...on a slightly...

F: that to me... it didn’t seem to me that he’d broke it though, unless I’d missed it.

B: yeah the bike... the basket came off

Me: the...the...what you saw there is roughly liner but there’s bits missing cause I didn’t finish it off but did you find it easier or harder to understand what was going on in the 2d or 3d... Like which one did you find it easier to...?

M: well you see I’d already seen it once when you watch the 3d...so

B: see it’s difficult

M: and I already knew what bits of it were supposed to be so

B: yeah I know I kinda knew what it was supposed to be, but at the same time I kinda didn’t cause I didn’t know all the scenes but when it...when you firsts showed it the 3d one defiantly I wasn’t (shakes head)...I was more... I wasn’t... I knew what...it wasn’t so much I didn’t know what was going on in the room I just didn’t empathise with the character cause it was distracting and annoying too me.

Me: so you got distracted?

B: with the lights off I was like: “ohh” (understanding)

Me: so you got distracted because it was in 3d?

B: not so much because it was in 3d it was the fact that it wasn’t... it literally...it wasn’t... it was the fact that it was in the light meant that I can see this (points to rim/frame of 3D glasses) and it annoys the fuck out of me and the 3d effect doesn’t really come across as well

Me: ok, that’s a fair point

B: so I wouldn’t watch it

M: the bit where she gives him the bag...i don’t understand that bit?

Me: well his basket, yeah, it’s a plot hole (laughs) his basket is broken so he’s needing a new on and needs something to carry stuff in so he gets the bag, ehh

M: right that makes sense

F: she’s just being nice

Me: did you feel at any point that like there was too much 3d or too little or...?#

D: no

F: no I thought the balance was alright

B: it’ was about right

M: a bit I thought was nice was when he was lying on the ground and you could see the...down the hill behind him

D: uh hum (affirmative)

B: not at much in the first scene, I though, there did seem to be a huge amount in the first scene

Me: there wasn’t a lot in the first one?

(General agreement)

M: yeah the first one

B: no... the...the...the...when the mum was running towards him didn’t really seem to be a lot of 3d there I thought, but when he’s going past the...the shop window there was quite a lot of 3d that I quite liked.

Me: um did you ... most of the 3d was like behind the screen but ...would you have preferred it if it was “out” the screen...do you prefer, generally speaking about movies that you’ve seen as well do you prefer when it’s behind the screen or in front or a bit of both or?

B: both

F: yeah both

P: both

D: I prefer the perception of depth

B: yeah

Me: so you prefer it when its a bit more...less in your face?

P: uh huh (affirmative)

D: I think it submerges you more in the film

Me so do you guys enjoy have like sort of kind of really know that it’s in 3d and like you’ve got your money’s worth kind of thing?

F: yeah, yeah I’d say so

B: yeah like the first scene of Avatar when you have that huge amount of depth for me that literally like: “ok that’s what 3ds about”. It’s not about stuff coming at me. In tangled when they do the light thing and one comes, and that’s really cool but they could have overdone it and I don’t like when people throw stuff at you, because it becomes a game

Me: yeah

D: yeah I should only really be used more in theme parks when it’s stuff like that

B: uh hum (alternative) a bit is fine but...

M: depends on the movie really

B: like saw 5 or something with blood coming at you probably might be quite cool

(General laughs)

B: but I don’t really ...um

Me: so you think then that like basically in context like pop out 3d is kinda good but in other ways it’s can be bad as well.

M: yeah

B: if it’s an emotional film or it’s something you’re trying to get immersed in, it shouldn’t come at you but if it’s a fun sort of thing, yeah, come at you

M: yeah

B: yeah you don’t really care

Me: so sometimes it’s ok but other time you’re like: “that’s just not appropriate”

D: it depends as well what’s going on in the environment. Cause see at the start of a Christmas carol you had the snow falling down and that was in front of you and that was really nice but if it was in the back it wouldn’t work as well

Me: uh huh , cool um I already asked you about which version your preferred didn’t i? But you weren’t able to say em. Did you have a particular favourite clip and if so did that change based on whether it was in 3d, so maybe in 3d...n no well..maybe in 2d you liked the second clip the best but then in the 3d version you liked the third clip the best. Was that true for any of you? Or was it all just like..

B: I think I like the first scene in 2...can I say 2d...?

Me yeah

B: the first scene 2d em second scene 3d and the third scene probably 3d actually

F: I think for me I was just 2d for the first one and 3d for the other two

P: yeah same

Me: yeah? Ok that’s interesting

F: I think you’re...for me

Me: that’s kinda in line with what the other guys were saying as well, they didn’t like the fact that the first one had 3d

F: I think for your first scene, em, I dunno it didn’t feel like your shot lent itself to 3d like you know what I mean

M: yeah

F: causes 3d seems like you’re trying to communicate um to the viewer like just you know say the world that the character’s in but there was really much to go with., almost, if that makes sense

Me uh huh

F: and where as like when you’re looking up the hill say in the second one it’s like it’s quite interesting cause you can see up the hill and it’s steep.

Me: there’s also the...a lot of depth in... yeah ok

F: uh huh (affirmative)

Me: cool, ok does anyone else have anything they really want to say?

B: yeah, plot holes Tom Tom

(General laughter)

M: I dunno when I watch 3d I sometimes find it really hard to focus on... if stuff is moving like when the door opened and like the..it kinda goes blurry if you know what I mean and like when he was going up the stairs I felt like it was quite blurry as well

Me: did any of you like feel like you were really straining at any point to watch it?

B: I did when...I that..I harp back to it again, when the light was on it was annoying and I was straining to see it and the... either the first or the second scene in 3d... I don’t... I wouldn’t want to watch it

Me: but...ok...cool that’s fine thank you very much for your time
References

Aja. A. 2010. Piranha 3D. [Film].

Ambrose, T. 2007. Empire's Beowulf Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=11012.

Bayon, D. 2010. Why Bad 3D, not 3D glasses, is what gives you a headache: Pc Pro Blog. [online]. Pc Pro. Available from: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/08/02/why-bad-3d-not-3d-glasses-is-what-gives-you-a-headache/#ixzz1FWkgrZrM [Accessed 17/02/11].

Bracken, C. C., et al. 2004. Do 3-D movies really reach out and grab you? The case of SpyKids 3-D. Presence 2004. pp.283-286.

Debruge, P. 2010. Variety Reviews - Toy Story 3. [online]. Variety Online. Available from: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942938?refcatid=31 [Accessed 17/02/11].

Digital Cinema Media. 2010 Get Informed > Audience insights > 2D vs 3D: Box Office. [online] available from: http://www.dcm.co.uk/get-informed/audience-insight/2d-vs-3d-box-office?audience_profile=0&category=11&opportunity=3& [Accessed 10 December 2010]

Errigo, A. 2010. Empine's Clash of the Titans Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134030 [Accessed 16/02/11].

International Society for Presence Research. 2000. The Concept of Presence: Explication Statement. [online]. International Society for Presence Research. Available from: http://sct.temple.edu/blogs/ispr/about-presence-2/about-presence/ [Accessed 07/12/2010]

Jackson. P. 2011. 48 Frames Per Second. [online]. Peter Jackson. Available from: http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

Leterrier. L. 2010. Clash of the Titans. [Film].

Hakkinen, J., et al. 2010. What do people look at when they are watching stereoscopic movies? Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXI.

Hitchcock. A. 1954. Dial M for Murder. [Film]

Honeycutt, K. 2010. Clash of the Titans - Film Review. [online]. The Hollywood Reporter. Available from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/clash-titans-film-review-29449 [Accessed 16/02/11].

Huddleston, T. 2010. Clash of the Titans Review. [online]. Time Out. Available from: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88459/clash-of-the-titans.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Levy, S. 2007. Review: "Beowulf". [online]. OregonLive.com. Available from: http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/11/review_beowulf.html [Accessed 17/02/11].

McCarthy, T. 2010. Review: "Toy Story 3": Todd McCarthy's Deep Focus. [online]. Indie Wire. Available from: http://blogs.indiewire.com/toddmccarthy/archives/review_toy_story_3/ [Accessed 15/02/11].

Mendiburu, B. 2009. 3D Movie Making: Stereoscopic Digital Cinema from Script to Screen. Focal Press

Moore, R. 2010. Movie Review: Piranha 3D. [online]. Orlando Sentinel. Available from: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2010/08/movie-review-piranha-3d.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Newman, K. 2010. Empire's Piranha 3D Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133204.

Nintendo. 2011 Nintendo 3DS – Hardware Features and Overview at Nintendo. [online]. Nintendo. Available from: http://www.nintendo.com/3ds/hardware

Rechtshaffen, M. 2010. Toy Story 3 - Film Review. [online]. The Hollywood Reporter. Available from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/toy-story-3-film-review-29705 [Accessed 15/02/11].

Slater, M., et al. 2009. Visual realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual environment. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 29(3): pp.76-84.

Unkrich. L. 2010. Toy Story 3. [Film].

Usoh, M., et al. 2000. Using Presence Questionnaires in Reality. 9(5): pp.497-503.

Walters, B. 2010. Toy Story 3: Movie Review: From Time Out London. [online]. Time Out. Available from: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/87255/toy-story-3.html [Accessed 15/02/11].

Wimmer. P. 2010. Stereoscopic Player [software] Version 1.6.5. Available by download. Wankmullerhfstr, Austria. www.3dtv.at

Zemeckis. R. 2007. Beowulf. [Film].

Zone, R. 2007. Stereoscopic Cinema & the origins of 3-D film, 1838-1952. Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky

Bibliography

Aja. A. 2010. Piranha 3D. [Film].

Ambrose, T. 2007. Empire's Beowulf Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=11012.

Bracken, C. C., et al. 2004. Do 3-D movies really reach out and grab you? The case of SpyKids 3-D. Presence 2004. pp.283-286.

Bray, C. 2010. Clash of the Titans (2010): Film Reivew from Film4. [online]. Film4. Available from: http://www.film4.com/reviews/2010/clash-of-the-titans.

Corliss, R. 2010. Time's Reivew of Toy Story 3: 'An Instant Classic'. [online]. Time. Available from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993864,00.html [Accessed 15/02/11].

Debruge, P. 2010. Variety Reviews - Toy Story 3. [online]. Variety Online. Available from: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942938?refcatid=31 [Accessed 17/02/11].

Ebert, R. 2010. Roger Ebert: Why I hate 3D Movies - Newsweek. [online]. Newsweek. Available from: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html [Accessed 17/02/11].

Errigo, A. 2010. Empine's Clash of the Titans Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134030 [Accessed 16/02/11].

Floyd, N. 2010. Piranha 3D Reivew. [online]. Timeout London. Available from: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88703/piranha-3d.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Jackson. P. 2011. 48 Frames Per Second. [online]. Peter Jackson. Available from: http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

Leterrier. L. 2010. Clash of the Titans. [Film].

Hakkinen, J., et al. 2010. What do people look at when they are watching stereoscopic movies? Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXI.

Hitchcock. A. 1954. Dial M for Murder. [Film]

Honeycutt, K. 2010. Clash of the Titans - Film Review. [online]. The Hollywood Reporter. Available from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/clash-titans-film-review-29449 [Accessed 16/02/11].

Huddleston, T. 2010. Clash of the Titans Review. [online]. Time Out. Available from: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88459/clash-of-the-titans.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Levy, S. 2007. Review: "Beowulf". [online]. OregonLive.com. Available from: http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/11/review_beowulf.html [Accessed 17/02/11].

McCarthy, T. 2010. Review: "Toy Story 3": Todd McCarthy's Deep Focus. [online]. Indie Wire. Available from: http://blogs.indiewire.com/toddmccarthy/archives/review_toy_story_3/ [Accessed 15/02/11].

Mendiburu, B. 2009. 3D Movie Making: Stereoscopic Digital Cinema from Script to Screen. Focal Press

Newman, K. 2010. Empire's Piranha 3D Movie Review. [online]. Empire Online. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133204.

Nintendo. 2011 Nintendo 3DS – Hardware Features and Overview at Nintendo. [online]. Nintendo. Available from: http://www.nintendo.com/3ds/hardware

Rechtshaffen, M. 2010. Toy Story 3 - Film Review. [online]. The Hollywood Reporter. Available from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/toy-story-3-film-review-29705 [Accessed 15/02/11].

Sandhu, S. 2010. Clash of the Titans - Review. [online]. The Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/7544246/Clash-of-the-Titans-review.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Scott, A. O. 2010a. Movie Review : Toy Story 3: Voyage to the Bottom of the day Care Centre. [online]. New York. Available from: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/movies/18toy.html?ref=movies.

Scott, A. O. 2010b. Richard Dreyfuss is Back With Biting Fish. [online]. NYtimes.com. Available from: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/movies/23piranha.html [Accessed 16/02/11].

Slater, M., et al. 2009. Visual realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual environment. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 29(3): pp.76-84.

Unkrich. L. 2010. Toy Story 3. [Film].

Usoh, M., et al. 2000. Using Presence Questionnaires in Reality. 9(5): pp.497-503.

Walters, B. 2010. Toy Story 3: Movie Review: From Time Out London. [online]. Time Out. Available from: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/87255/toy-story-3.html [Accessed 15/02/11].

Wimmer. P. 2010. Stereoscopic Player [software] Version 1.6.5. Available by download. Wankmullerhfstr, Austria. www.3dtv.at

Zemeckis. R. 2007. Beowulf. [Film].

Zone, R. 2007. Stereoscopic Cinema & the origins of 3-D film, 1838-1952. Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky

Current Showreel

Friday 11 November 2011

Wednesday 2 November 2011

Tuesday 25 October 2011

Monday 17 October 2011

Wednesday 5 October 2011

Monday 3 October 2011

Wednesday 31 August 2011

This is my final 4th year Honours Project Dissertation, complete and unabridged. The web version you see here doesn't contain pictures or figures but you can download the a PDF of the document here (http://bit.ly/r5rY8v)

Please note that this document is copyright of Tom Feist-Wilson and the University of Abertay Dundee.

Please note that this document is copyright of Tom Feist-Wilson and the University of Abertay Dundee.

Immersion and Presence: A study of Stereoscopic 3D in Animation

Tom Feist-Wilson

Abstract

Foreword

Table of Contents

Research Aims and objectives

Research Aim

Research Objectives

The Production and Reception of Stereoscopic 3D

Academic Research

Practical Research

Critical Reaction to Stereoscopic 3D

Introduction to the scenes used, materials, and predictions

Example 1- Camera Placement in S3D

Example 2 -Depth and Strength of S3D effect

Example 3 -Timing of Cuts in S3D

Introduction

Participants

Experiment Design

Resources

Ethics

Results

Questionnaire Results

Focus Group Results

Summary

Appendices

Appendix A

Tom’s Immersion and Presence Questionnaire

Appendix B

Focus group 1

Focus group 2

Bibliography