Working Late

A thesis project a VR experience animation named “Working Late”. This project consists in a 3D VR Animation, in which it was evaluated what was the best way for the spectator to be focus in the narrative, and also what was the best perspective for the user to feel more present and immersed in the animation.

Research Problem

Nowadays, VR technologies have presented us with breakthrough innovations, particularly with 3D RV technology. As this technology is more complete and accessible, offers the possibility of entering an alternative world, with great stimuli that facilitate to approach a new dimension, in an approximate way, as we experience in the world real.

Initially, one of the aspects that would be addressed was the aspect that the user had the option to change the view between characters, thus obtaining a different perspective and a more specific narrative within the same story. But what happened, according to the author that this approach might not be plausible. Therefore, defined focus only on the views and the focus, the part of the plot narrative), and in the style part (non-diegetic forms of representation) and not so much in the fable (content of the story itself).

“… the conclusions of this convergence point more to an” illusion of interactivity “with history through access to representation and less to the much-publicized
Interactive co-authoring of the message.”(Zagalo 2007)

With this, the author concluded that cinema in virtual reality, should take a
The level of interactive representation rather than interactivity with history, ie a interaction in which the stories are different, on the part of each person that interacts with them, will not be the best way forward, since this interaction may jeopardize the reception of the story by the viewers.

In this dissertation two research problems were raised. The first, part of the
Hypothesis that there is a lack of sense of presence in traditional cinema, referred to as in the introduction and how will this presence in virtual reality. And the second, the difficulty of focus, that these systems of reality virtual reality present us with regard to the creation of films in virtual reality.

“The results showed that actors experienced higher presence and realism, and enjoyed the VR experience more than observers did. Observers, on the other hand, experienced that external events distracted from their attention more than actors did.” (Larsson, Västfjäll, and Kleiner 2001)

In other words, the exploration of a 360º space can be somewhat more enriching, but at the same time causing difficulties in the accompaniment of the narrative.

Research Questions

Involvement of the user as a viewer, in virtual reality, has to provoke sufficient stimuli so that it feels more involved and sense of presence in history comparatively to traditional cinema.

With a greater involvement and greater freedom in these systems, it is also necessary to consider whether will be able to attend to the narrative, without losing parts or crucial moments of the same one. With this the following research questions:

• Is the involvement sufficient, so that the spectator can attend to the current story, without there being any breaks in the narrative?
• Will the focus have to be highlighted or even limited, compared to traditional cinema?

Hypotesys

• Is it possible to give a greater sense of presence in 3D animation stories through specific camera views;
• It is possible to gain a greater focus on the 3D animation stories presented in these systems, through focus suggestions.

Goals

• Greater sense of presence;
  • Positive conjugation between the various thematic elements of the story;
  • Greater involvement in the virtual world.

• Greater focus on the narrative.
  • There is a greater interest from the part the spectator;
  • Continuous and fluent narrative;

The main goal of this work is to develop an approach that is capable of promoting this positive conjugation between the various thematic elements of the story, without there being disinterest on the part of the spectator, combining a continuous and fluent narrative with a greater legitimacy in the virtual world In which we find ourselves inserted and thus make them more effective in the multidimensional context of RV cinema.

Thus, a brief review of the literature on the effect of emotion, focus, creation and communication of cinema and virtual reality will be presented, in order to hypothesize to interweave these two areas and create an even greater or similar immersion in VR.

In order for this knowledge to be useful, for potential creators of new stories in RV, a set of guidelines and good practices have also been created. These can be used, according to the paths outlined as possible of storytelling, which will be evaluated later by the director.

Investigation Methodology

Regarding the scientific approach, a study was made of the various artefacts between cinema and virtual reality, in order to study the best user experience in VR movie viewing. In this approach, the theoretical study had a greater incidence in the Techniques / aesthetics of each medium, to become possible to achieve a convergence of the different strands.

Initially, one of the aspects that would be addressed was the fact that the user had the option to change the view between characters, thus obtaining a different perspective and a more specific narrative within the same story. But what has happened, according to the author mentioned later, was that this approach might not be plausible. Thus, it was defined to focus only on the visualisations and the focus, the part of the plot (structure of events of the narrative), and the part of the style (non-diegetic forms of representation) and not so much in the fable (content of the story itself).

“… the conclusions of this convergence point more to an” illusion of interactivity “with history through access to representation and less to the so-called interactive co-authorship of the message” (Zagalo 2007)

With this, the author concluded that the cinema in virtual reality, should have an approach more at the level of interactive representation and not of interactivity with history, that is, an interaction in which the stories are different, on the part of each person that interacts With them, will not be the best way forward, since this interaction may put in question the reception of history by the spectators.
Test suites have been created and specified with users, through the prototype, to validate and delineate the quality of the techniques used and to determine the satisfaction of the users according to the different visualization / focus proposals. This evaluation was based on the evaluation of (Zagalo 2007), in it’s analysis of the second convergence and was carried out through three strands:

1. As an observer, by the access in the third person, with a linear narrative, without any recognition of the spectator as present nor any clues of focus of attention, for the part of the scenario in which the story is going;

2. As an observer, by the access in the third person, with a linear narrative, focused through style, with some clues for the follow-up of the narrative;

3. As a single actor, with an interactive narrative, through the manipulations of the interaction with the Direct user control method, which influences the event structure of the same, serving as a stimulus to the focus of his attention.

These evaluations were performed using a visualisation metric and a questionnaire, which was divided into two parts. The first one, in order to evaluate the role of the subject in the surrounding history, if it feels more present and involved in history, acting as an observer or as an actor; And the second to evaluate the viewer’s focus on the narrative, whether or not there will be narrative breaks during their viewing

The visualisation metric was used to identify where the users were looking at a certain moment of the narrative and what the deviation of attention in relation to the space in which the narrative was developed, thus verifying if the spectator lost it or not, in some time in space.

The validation of the study of the presented solution was made through a case study. Sampling was analysed using statistical methods to support the research carried out.

Conclusion

Cinema has not only seized the VR as it promises a greater involvement of the spectators in the stories. What distinguished cinema from Virtual Reality from the other is interactivity.
Technology is no longer a tool in which the user connects to a specific reality, it has become a reality in which the spectator will live.

• The interpretation of a character allows a greater involvement of the spectator at the level of presence;
  • But we still need to take into account the problems that still exist. Like the exorcist effect where you can turn more than your head should.
• The interaction allows a good conjugation with the animation in the virtual reality;
  • Some aspects to improve:
    • Optimize target visualization.
    • An interactive narrative optimizes your potential.
• Match the experiences to what the director intends to convey.

Thank you

If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading. I hope this gave you a peek into my design thinking and how I rationalize my decisions, as well as the way I work. Please leave a like or share to show your appreciation.