The Big Picture: Effects of Surround on Immersion and Size Perception

Abstract

Despite the fear of the entertainment industry that illegal downloads of films might ruin their business, going to the movies continues to be a popular leisure activity. One reason why people prefer to watch movies in cinemas may be the surround of the movie screen or its physically huge size. To disentangle the factors that might contribute to the size impression, we tested several measures of subjective size and immersion in different viewing environments. For this purpose we built a model cinema that provided visual angle information comparable with that of a real cinema. Subjects watched identical movie clips in a real cinema, a model cinema, and on a display monitor in isolation. Whereas the isolated display monitor was inferior, the addition of a contextual model improved the viewing immersion to the extent that it was comparable with the movie theater experience, provided the viewing angle remained the same. In a further study we built an identical but even smaller model cinema to unconfound visual angle and viewing distance. Both model cinemas produced similar results. There was a trend for the larger screen to be more immersive; however, viewing angle did not play a role in how the movie was evaluated.

Keywords

visual perception immersion movie cinema visual angle screen size

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bellman

Schweda

Varan

(2009). Viewing angle matters—screen type does not. Journal of Communication, 59, 609–634. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.2009.01441 .x.

Bracken

C. C.

Pettey

(2007). It is really a smaller (and smaller) world: Presence and small screens. Presence, 10th International Workshop on Presence, Barcelona, Spain, 25–27 October.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Davis

Goodman

Cooley

Black

Letterman

(Director). (2010). Gulliver's travels [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox.

De Cesarei

Codispoti

(2006). When does size not matter? Effects of stimulus size on affective modulation. Psychophysiology, 43, 207–215.

Detenber

Reeves

(1996). A bio-informational theory of emotion: Motion and image size effects on viewers. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 66–84.

Friedman

(1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory of gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316–355.

Klauer

L. C.

Voss

Stahl

(2011). Cognitive methods in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Lin

Imamiya

Omata

(2007). Display characteristics affect users' emotional arousal in 3D games. In Stephanidis

Pieper

(Eds.), Universal access in ambient intelligence environments. 9th ERCIM Workshop on User Interfaces for All, Köningswinter, Germany. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4397, pp. 337–351). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

10.

Lombard

(1995). Direct responses to people on the screen: Television and personal space. Communication Research, 22, 288–324.

11.

Lombard

Ditton

T. B.

Crane

Davis

Gil-Egui

Horvath

Park

(2000). Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper- and-pencil instrument. Presented at the Third International Workshop on Presence, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://matthewlombard.com/research/p2_ab.html.

12.

Lund

A. M.

(1993). The influence of video image size and resolution on viewing-distance preferences, SMPTE Joumal, 102, 406–415.

13.

MPAA (2012). 2011 Theatrical market statistics. Motion Picture Association of America. Accessed 22 October 2014 at http://www.bumpercarfilms.com/assets/downloads/movies.pdf.

14.

Murray

S. O.

Boyaci

Kersten

(2006). The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 429–434. doi:10.1038/nn1641.

15.

Nawoj

(2012). Oscars survey: U.S. adults going to movies less. Retrieved from http://www.couponcabin.com/blog/oscars-survey-adults-going-to-movies-less.

16.

Oliva

Torralba

(2007). The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 520–527. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.009.

17.

Pratto

John

Kim

(1997). Automatic vigilance: Attention biases towards the new, the bad and the sexy. Unpublished manuscript available from the authors.

18.

Reeves

Lang

Kim

Tatar

(1999): The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1(1), 49–67.

19.

Roberts

Harris

M. G.

Yates

T. A.

(2005). The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). Perception, 34, 847–856. doi:10.1068/p5273.

20.

Troscianko

Meese

T. S.

Hinde

(2012). Perception while watching movies: Effects of physical screen size and scene type. i-Perception, 3, 414–425. doi:10.1068/i0475aap.

21.

Watts

(2011). Why do people really go to the movies? Retrieved from http://mi9.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=943909&showcomments=true.

22.

(2011). How do visual angle and physical screen size affect presence and emotional responses of game players? (pp. 4128–4131). International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet), Xianning, China, 16–18 April. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Publications.