User Experience of Panoramic Video in CAVE-like and Head Mounted Display Viewing Conditions

Panoramic 360 video is a rapidly growing part of interactive TV viewing experience due to the increase of both production by consumers and professionals and the availability of consumer headsets used to view it. Recent years have also seen proposals for the development of home systems that could ultimately approximate CAVE-like experiences. The question arises as to the nature of the user experience of viewing panoramic video in head mounted displays compared to CAVE-like systems. User preference seems hard to predict. Accordingly, this study took a qualitative approach to describing user experience of viewing a panoramic video on both platforms, using a thematic analysis. Sixteen users tried both viewing conditions and equal numbers expressed preferences for each display system. The differences in user experience by viewing condition are discussed in detail via themes emerging from the analysis.

[1]  B. Glaser.  The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis , 1965 .

[2]  Blair MacIntyre,et al.  RoomAlive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units , 2014, UIST.

[3]  Martin Kraus,et al.  A comparison of head-mounted and hand-held displays for 360° videos with focus on attitude and behavior change , 2016, MindTrek.

[4]  Peter J. Passmore,et al.  Effects of Viewing Condition on User Experience of Panoramic Video , 2016, ICAT-EGVE.

[5]  Anthony Steed,et al.  Cinematic virtual reality: Evaluating the effect of display type on the viewing experience for panoramic video , 2017, 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR).

[6]  Ilona Heldal,et al.  Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: as good as being there together? , 2001, Comput. Graph..

[7]  Terrence Fernando,et al.  Investigating interaction in CAVE virtual environments , 2006, TCHI.

[8]  Maria del Carmen Juan Lizandra,et al.  Comparison of the Levels of Presence and Anxiety in an Acrophobic Environment Viewed via HMD or CAVE , 2009, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[9]  Kenny Gruchalla,et al.  Immersive well-path editing: investigating the added value of immersion , 2004, IEEE Virtual Reality 2004.

[10]  Ingrid M. L. C. Vogels,et al.  Visual Experience of 3D-TV with pixelated Ambilight , 2007 .

[11]  K. Charmaz,et al.  The sage handbook of grounded theory , 2007 .

[12]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems , 2008, Displays.

[13]  John C. Hart,et al.  The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual environment , 1992, CACM.

[14]  Kwanguk Kim,et al.  Comparison of desktop, head mounted display, and six wall fully immersive systems using a stressful task , 2012, 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW).

[15]  Bruce H. Thomas,et al.  Immersive Collaborative Analysis of Network Connectivity: CAVE-style or Head-Mounted Display? , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[16]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[17]  Umer Farooq,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Human Behavior and Performance with Different Display Devices for Virtual Environments , 2002 .

[18]  David M. Hoffman,et al.  Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. , 2008, Journal of vision.