Open Journal Systems

Frameless cinema: Proposed scale of narrative involvement in virtual reality

Diego Bonilla, Helena Galán Fajardo

Article ID: 1781
Vol 1, Issue 1, 2020

VIEWS - 232 (Abstract)

Abstract

The possibility of recording in 360° has aroused the interest of entrepreneurs and researchers in the potential narrative powers of virtual reality in different fields. However, there are still some questions that have not been sufficiently confirmed, such as the higher level of narrative involvement of the viewer in this new form of storytelling. In order to make up for this lack, this research presents the design of an experimental analysis in different phases. It is a quantitative-qualitative pilot project based on the MNEQ scale^[1] that allows us to evaluate and compare the viewing experience of a narrative story through virtual reality presentation and different types of two-dimensional screens to a minimum of 100 people divided into experimental groups. Under the assumption that each treatment or each technology (independent variable) has different impacts on the viewer’s narrative involvement (dependent variable), the aim is to analyze empathy (EP), sympathy (S), cognitive perspective taking (CP), loss of time (LT), loss of self-awareness (LS), narrative presence (NP), narrative involvement (NI), distraction (D), ease of cognitive access (EC) and narrative realism (NR). Four different types of analysis (statistical, variance, observational, open-ended) are included. We offer a new model of self-developed analysis for complete Spanish-language cinematic virtual reality works. The experimental design seeks to establish a comprehensive research model in order to discuss whether virtual reality offers, as it is believed, greater engagement.

Keywords

virtual reality; 360º cinema; spectator identification; engagement; framing

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Busselle R, Bilandzic H. Measuring Narrative Engagement. Media Psychology 2009; 12(4): 321–347.

2. Kjær T, Lillelund CB, Moth Poulsen M, et al. Can you cut it: An exploration of the effects of editing in cinematic virtual reality. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. Gothenburg, Sweden: ACM Press; 2017. p. 1–4.

3. Mateer J. Directing for cinematic virtual reality: How the traditional film director’s craft applies to immersive environments and notions of presence. Journal of Media Practice 2017; 18(1): 14–25.

4. Sutherland IE (editor). A head-mounted three-dimensional display. Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I on – AFIPS; 1968 Dec 9–11.

5. Burch N. Praxis du cinema (French) [Cinema practice]. Paris: Gallimard; 1969.

6. Zunzunegui S. Thinking the image. Madrid: Cátedra; 1998.

7. Truffaut F. The cinema according to Hitchcock. 5th ed. Madrid: Editorial Alianza; 2010.

8. Ding N, Zhou W, Fung AYH. Emotional effect of cinematic VR compared with traditional 2D film. Telematics and Informatics 2018; 35(6): 1572–1579.

9. Appel M, Gnambs T, Richter T, Green MC. The Transportation Scale-Short Form (TS-SF). Media Psychology 2015; 18(2): 243–266.

10. Green MC, Brook TC, Kauffman GF. Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory 2004; 14(4): 311–327.

11. Keshavarz B, Hecht H, Lawson B. Visually induced motion sickness: Causes, characteristics, and countermeasures. In: Hale K, Stanney K (editors). Handbook of virtual environments. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. p. 648–697.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/met.v1i1.1781
(232 Abstract Views, 0 PDF Downloads)