skip to main content
10.1145/3196709.3196753acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Display Shapes Affect 360-Degree Panoramic Video Communication

Published:08 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Field-of-view limitation has been a long-standing issue in video communication systems. With the advancement of omnidirectional panoramic technology, the omnidirectional camera, which can provide a 360° field of view, has become increasingly popular in the last few years. Previous research indicated that one-way video communication systems with a wider field of view improve task efficiency. Therefore, we propose to utilize omnidirectional cameras in a symmetrical video communication system and study how this configuration affects remote collaboration. In this study, we conducted experiments based on two conditions, which are an omnidirectional camera with a spherical display and an omnidirectional camera with a horizontally placed 2D flat display. Under these conditions, we analyzed how the display types affected remote collaboration. Our results show that participants marginally preferred the spherical display to the 2D flat display. We also show the advantages and disadvantages of each display. The findings contribute to our understanding of how to design an environment for remote collaboration that captures and shows a 360° panoramic view of a remote site.

References

  1. Hrvoje Benko and Andrew D. Wilson. 2010. Multi-point Interactions with Immersive Omnidirectional Visualizations in a Dome. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Hrvoje Benko, Andrew D. Wilson, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2008. Sphere: Multi-touch Interactions on a Spherical Display. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 77--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gakken Sta:Ful Co. 2013. WORLDEYE Spherical Display. (2013). http://www.gakkensf.co.jp/worldeye/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. F. Ferreira, M. Cabral, O. Belloc, G. Miller, C. Kurashima, R. de Deus Lopes, I. Stavness, J. Anacleto, M. Zuffo, and S. Fels. 2014. Spheree: A 3D Perspective-corrected Interactive Spherical Scalable Display. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2014 Posters (SIGGRAPH '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 86, 1 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, and Barbara L. Chalfonte. 1990. The VideoWindow System in Informal Communication. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '90). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Susan R. Fussell, Robert E. Kraut, and Jane Siegel. 2000. Coordination of Communication: Effects of Shared Visual Context on Collaborative Work. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. William W. Gaver. 1992. The Affordances of Media Spaces for Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '92). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. William W. Gaver, Abigail Sellen, Christian Heath, and Paul Luff. 1993. One is Not Enough: Multiple Views in a Media Space. In Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 335--341. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. William W. Gaver, Gerda Smets, and Kees Overbeeke. 1995. A Virtual Window on Media Space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '95). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 257--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Markus Gross, Stephan Würmlin, Martin Naef, Edouard Lamboray, Christian Spagno, Andreas Kunz, Esther Koller-Meier, Tomas Svoboda, Luc Van Gool, Silke Lang, Kai Strehlke, Andrew Vande Moere, and Oliver Staadt. 2003. Blue-c: A Spatially Immersive Display and 3D Video Portal for Telepresence. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July 2003), 819--827. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2017. The Naturalistic Experiment: Video and Organizational Interaction. Organizational Research Methods (2017), 1094428117747688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David Holman and Roel Vertegaal. 2008. Organic User Interfaces: Designing Computers in Any Way, Shape, or Form. Commun. ACM 51, 6 (June 2008), 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Global Imagination. 2008. Magic Planet spherical display. (2008). http://globalimagination.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pufferfish Itd. 2012. Puffersphere touch spherical display. (2012). https: //pufferfishdisplays.com/solution/puffersphere-touch/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Steven Johnson, Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2015. Can You See Me Now?: How Field of View Affects Collaboration in Robotic Telepresence. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2397--2406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Brennan Jones, Anna Witcraft, Scott Bateman, Carman Neustaedter, and Anthony Tang. 2015. Mechanics of Camera Work in Mobile Video Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 957--966. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shunichi Kasahara and Jun Rekimoto. 2015. JackIn Head: Immersive Visual Telepresence System with Omnidirectional Wearable Camera for Remote Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 217--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zhengqing Li, Shio Miyafuji, Toshiki Sato, and Hideki Koike. 2016. OmniEyeball: Spherical Display Embedded With Omnidirectional Camera Using Dynamic Spherical Mapping. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '16 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 193--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Christian Licoppe, Paul K. Luff, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Naomi Yamashita, and Sylvaine Tuncer. 2017. Showing Objects: Holding and Manipulating Artefacts in Video-mediated Collaborative Settings. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5295--5306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. JK Imaging Ltd. 2016. Kodak PIXPRO SP360 4K camera. (2016). https: //kodakpixpro.com/Americas/cameras/vrcamera/sp3604kGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Paul Luff, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Jon Hindmarsh, Keiichi Yamazaki, and Shinya Oyama. 2003. Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 18, 1 (June 2003), 51--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paul K. Luff, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Christian Heath. 2015. Flexible Ecologies And Incongruent Locations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 877--886. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tamotsu Machida. 2002. GEO-COSMOS: World's First Spherical Display. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference Abstracts and Applications (SIGGRAPH '02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 189--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Shio Miyafuji, Masato Sugasaki, and Hideki Koike. 2016. Ballumiere: Real-Time Tracking and Spherical Projection for High-Speed Moving Balls. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces (ISS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. James Norris, Holger M. Schnädelbach, and Paul K. Luff. 2013. Putting Things in Focus: Establishing Co-orientation Through Video in Context. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1329--1338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. EXPRESS DECOR SP. Z O.O. 2016. Smart Wall Paint. (2016). http://www.smartwallpaint.com.pl/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Oyewole Oyekoya, William Steptoe, and Anthony Steed. 2012. SphereAvatar: A Situated Display to Represent a Remote Collaborator. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2551--2560. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ye Pan and Anthony Steed. 2012. Preserving gaze direction in teleconferencing using a camera array and a spherical display. In 3DTV-Conference: The True Vision-Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON), 2012. IEEE, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ye Pan, William Steptoe, and Anthony Steed. 2014. Comparing Flat and Spherical Displays in a Trust Scenario in Avatar-mediated Interaction. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1397--1406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Revove Robotics. 2015. Kubi TelePresence Robot. (2015). https://www.revolverobotics.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. LTD SHIBUYA OPTICAL CO. 2016. Glomal350 Ballscreen Projector. (2016). http://glomal.jpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Anthony Tang, Omid Fakourfar, Carman Neustaedter, and Scott Bateman. 2017. Collaboration with 360° Videochat: Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1327--1339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Bin Xu, Jason Ellis, and Thomas Erickson. 2017. Attention from Afar: Simulating the Gazes of Remote Participants in Hybrid Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 101--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Naomi Yamashita, Keiji Hirata, Shigemi Aoyagi, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Yasunori Harada. 2008. Impact of Seating Positions on Group Video Communication. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Naomi Yamashita, Katsuhiko Kaji, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Keiji Hirata. 2011. Improving Visibility of Remote Gestures in Distributed Tabletop Collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How Display Shapes Affect 360-Degree Panoramic Video Communication

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        DIS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference
        June 2018
        1418 pages
        ISBN:9781450351980
        DOI:10.1145/3196709

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 June 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        DIS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate107of487submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

        Upcoming Conference

        DIS '24
        Designing Interactive Systems Conference
        July 1 - 5, 2024
        IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader