| Is your iPod screenworthy? Virtual Reality, immersion and the 5G iPod | | Date Created: 31 Oct, 2005, 12:28 PM |
 It's been interesting to watch the various debates arising from the release of the video-capable 5G iPod, and it's "screenworthiness".
Just like Seinfeld's Elaine Benis rated her prospective lovers as "spongeworthy" when she was running short of her favourite contraceptive, some are arguing that only certain types of visual media are screenworthy of the iPod. Or, to reverse the issue, the iPod is only suitable for watching certain types of visual media.
In a previous blog entry here, where I discussed the outcome of actually watching downloaded TV shows on an iPod, CRT TV, and a wide-screen HDTV Plasma (go see the Comments section), a number of readers on other blogs said I must have very low standards to describe my viewing experience as "perfectly acceptable" for disposable TV.
They argued that, a priori, it couldn't be any good and I didn't know any better. As I wrote in my blog, I wanted to see for myself. And together with two others, we all agreed that watching LOST on the plasma screen was not an unpleasant, intolerable experience. It was eminently watchable.
The same series of arguments have popped up with the release of the video-capable iPod. Many have asked, "Who would want to watch such a small screen?"
Which is really another way of asking several variations of the same inquiry:
1. What video material displays subjectively well on the 2.5" screen?
2. If the same program (e.g. Lost) can be watched on anything from 2.5" to a huge home theatre, when would you choose the former?
3. Is there some material which is better watched on such a small screen because the portablility of the package offers advantages over a stationary huge screen requiring add-ons like speakers and amplifier and a room to view?
I think you can see where I am going with this...
Those who dismiss the iPod out of hand because it falls short of their viewing desires are best not to buy a 5G iPod to view TV shows or movies. Simple.
Those who might be interested in the 5G iPod are those who can see a good match between their preferred content, their opportunities to view it in certain contexts, and their preference for media that is narrative or story or character driven.
Lost and Desperate Housewives, America's top rating TV shows (and achieved the same ratings when Season 1 of each was shown in Australia), while achieving very high production values (editing, cinematography, sound, etc.) are essentially story and character driven. When there is a visual highlight which informs the story, we see close ups, e.g. the numbers which add to 108 in Lost; the facial gymnastics of Bree in DH.
But the rest of the time it's the screenplay and directing (=story-telling) which rules, and which is why these shows are eminently watchable on the iPod.
And where might they be watched that adds to their "screenworthiness"?
Let's think about this.
You watch movies in a theatre when they are first released. There, you "share the experience" with hundreds of strangers. Some will laugh or cry with you at certain times, others will seem strangely mute when you are cracking up with laughter.
Personal example: I am old enough - and (honest enough) to recall seeing Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles ("Never give a saga an even break") in its first theatre release. There is a scene where Brooks himself plays a Native American Chief who trots up with his Braves to a lone horse-drawn wagon, takes a look at the African-American family on board, then calls out in Yiddish to the assembled warriors:
Losem Gayn! (Let them go!)
I literally rolled in the aisles at this point. It was in a theatre in a rather WASP area of Melbourne, I was one of two who cracked up, and I'm sure the audience knew they were being "overlooked" with this "in joke" so typical of Brooks.
It is rare that a bunch of strangers come together nowadays to participate in a shared experience using recorded media in the dark which could evoke a variety of emotional states.
And then leave without talking to those who are still strangers despite what they've just shared, and head off and speak with friends who haven't seen the movie to encourage to go - or not go for themselves, as the case may be.
We experience the film inside our heads. My friends who rate themselves as film buffs will only sit in a theatre in seats which allow for their entire visual field to be occupied by the screen. And get very angry at those who talk, or crunch potato crisps, which will interfere with their being immersed in the film experience.
I am interested in "immersion" following my employing virtual reality setups in my practice. I had to enter a new realm of knowledge, and understand how best to "fool" my patients when presenting them with various emotion-laden environments. That is, fool them enough to achieve a useable clinical reaction resembling what they know to experience when confronted by the real thing (commercial flight, public speaking, dogs, elevators, open shopping areas, etc.), so they get to use the techniques I teach them.
The theory is two fold:
1. much of their fear which causes them to avoid certain scenarios is related to their experiences of normal flight and fight anxiety-based physical reactions which themselves are scary. (Many first time panic attack sufferers think they are having a heart attack and about to die. They are a large percentage of attendees at hospital cardiac emergency wards).
2. By learning how to manage their physical reactions (having learnt their origins and understanding why they won't die or be harmed by them) and applying management techniques in the virtual environment so that more and more exposure decreases these reactions, they tacitly begin to acknowledge that they can also better manage the same reactions in the real environment.
That's the simple explanation. In reality, such work still requires the therapist to have a high level of specific knowledge, and be able to forge a therapeutic alliance using all the accumulated skills of years of practice. Mere enthusiasm for the technology is insufficient.
So my task incorporates a knowledge of how best to engender a sense of immersion in the virtual environment. I use real aeroplane seats, the base on which they sit rocks and vibrates, the seatback has a low frequency speaker which pushes against the occupant, the headset's earphones completely envelopes the ears so a microphone is needed to speak with the patient, and the room can be darkened so that the only visual cues are what's viewed in the head mounted display.
The equipment helps augment the immersive experience, and when the patient turns their head their visual field changes to reflect what they expect to see as if they were in the "real thing". Noises, sounds and vibrations also occur as expected.
These are all cues, but it's the patient who puts it all together in their brain. They are responsible for the immersive experience.
When the patient is fooled sufficiently, sometimes surprisingly so on their self-reports, they achieve a sense of presence:
Here's a quote I often use when I give presentations on how I use VR:
"Presence is a state of consciousness where the human actor has a sense of being in the location specified by the displays.... it's a product of the human experience not the machine."
Let's return to the 5G iPod. (Thought I'd forgotten it, didn't you? No, just me making a short story long).
While Apple's design philosophy with respect to the user experience has always been "The Power to be your best" compared to a "good enough" execution preferred by its competitors, the philosophy remains in the case of the iPod (all puns intended).
It is not aimed to offer you the best ever movie or TV watching experience, a point which seems to elude some critics.
It is about what is the best experience across a variety of viewing contexts where there is competition for your attention (your subway ride to work) or where the cognitive load factor is low (boredom/frustration) such as waiting in a queue, on board a plane or getting your bandages changed if you're a burns victim, and you need to be distracted.
An immersive experience is good enough in these circumstances. Watching a small but bright and colour-accurate screen a few inches from your face while listening to headphones which reduce exterior audio competition, help elicit an immersive experience.
Combine that with the production values I described earlier (especially so in series with a continuing overlapping of character-driven episodes) and the illusion is complete enough to make it a worthwhile experience.
Of course, this doesn't suit everybody, especially those who rate themselves as having "Golden Ears" or prefer huge screens for their immersive experiences. But it will suit many buyers of iPods, especially as the video-capability is almost an "add on" feature, and not the primary reason for purchase, unlike other mp4 or video-enabled devices.
This is a smart marketing by Apple, as is the deal with Disney ("I know these guys!") to provide not just the top-rating TV shows, but those whose rating is due to their shared capacity to engage the viewer via story-telling.
If the video experiment can't succeed with these shows, Apple will head back to the drawing board, with not much lost, pardon the pun. But with much gained in terms of learning about the marketplace and what succeeds or not.
And it will still have the best selling mp3 player. |
|
|
|
