Emotional Response to Computer Generated Special Effects:realism RevisitedEssay Preview: Emotional Response to Computer Generated Special Effects:realism RevisitedReport this essayEmotional Response to Computer Generated Special Effects:Realism RevisitedThe art of visual effects in motion pictures is an art of illusion. For over 100 years, film audiences have experienced cinematic illusions, some more believable than others. When a film grosses millions of dollars during its first week of national release, it is likely that it has had a large pre-release budget, that it has opened in a large number of theaters, and is entertaining, perhaps boasting the latest in computer-generated special effects. Before the 1990s, motion picture special effects were created by photographic process, choreographed before the camera during the production phase of the film. Today, the computer-generated special effect flourishes in modern motion picture production, particularly in the horror and science fiction film genres, as an alternative to filmed special effects.
Computer-generated special effects have become more technically mature, resulting in their greater use by filmmakers, and film spectators have given them a positive reception (see Morse, 1995). It has been argued that as the technology improves, its emotional impact on the viewer will increase, resulting in a greater emotional connection to the motion picture (Weiss, Imrich, & Wilson, 1993), along with increased believability of the filmed image (Anzovin, 1993; Rayl, 1990). Some investigators have even proposed that the film viewer may soon be unable to distinguish between filmed and computer-generated images (Anzovin, 1993, Rayl, 1990).
Although audience reaction to filmic special effects has been studied (Hill, 1998, Hoffner, 1995, Johnston, 1995, Zillman & Gibson, 1996), little is known about audience response to computer-generated special effects. Some obvious questions arise: Do viewers perceive computer-generated special effects to be as realistic as filmed effects? Do viewers respond to computer-generated special effects with the same emotional intensity as filmed special effects? Is the degree
of realism of special effects related to the viewers emotional response? In other words, to what extent does the realism of special effects drive the emotional intensity of the viewers response? For a given set of images, can viewers distinguish between filmed images and computer-generated images, and can they distinguish between unstaged filmed images and staged film images?
In the provocative, but largely unscientific literature of film studies the issue of the importance of realism in motion pictures has been hotly debated. The French film journalist and theorist Andre Bazin (1973) eloquently argued that realism brings the viewer into a closer relationship with the world of the film, that it brings the viewer into a relationship more like the relationship the viewer enjoys with reality itself. In her writings on photography, Susan Sontag lays out the difficulty: She states “Photographs furnish evidence. Something we hear about, but doubt, seems proven when we are shown a photograph of it. In one version of its utility, the camera happened. The picture may distort; but there is always a presumption that something exists, or did exist, which is like what is in the picture.” Extending these notions a bit, one might expect that if viewers perceive a filmed effect as more realistic than a computer generated effect, they might also be expected to find it more emotionally intense. I decided to test this notion in the form of the following hypotheses:
(H1) The degree of realism perceived by the viewer will be greater with noncomputer-generated special effects (live film footage) than with computer-generated special effects.
(H2) Emotional response to exposure to graphic violence will be greater with noncomputer- generated special effects (live film footage) than with computer-generated special effects.
(H3) There is a positive relationship between the viewers perceived realism and the viewers experienced emotional intensity when watching film footage of graphic violence.
MethodParticipants were 65 undergraduate students in communication at Georgia State University (female=34; male=31), ranging from 19 to 51 years of age, with a mean age of 23 years. The Perception Analyzer, a new device designed to measure response in film viewers, was used. The Perception Analyzer consists of a computer linked to wireless control modules to be managed by participants in a study. Each participant was given a wireless control module with a dial set at the
midway point and instructed that 0 (far left) was lowest and 100 (far right) was highest. Participants were given five warm-up questions with which to practice using the device, and proficiency was confirmed by the administrators.
Two videotapes of film clips containing graphic violence were prepared, each tape containing eight 30 second clips in three catagories, computer-generated special effects (C); filmic special effects (F; live, staged); and, documentary footage (D; live, unstaged), for a total of 24 film clips per tape. Both tapes contained the same film clips, but in a different order to minimize order effect. The first videotape (Videotape 1) was used to obtain the participants ratings of emotional intensity to the clips, and the second (Videotape 2) to record the extent to which the participants perceived each clip as real. The participants viewed Videotape 1, and during the viewing , reported on emotional intensity of each film clip by turning the dial. The participants did the same with Videotape 2, but this time, reported their perception of the realism of the film clips. After viewing each film clip, the participants dials were returned to midway position. The readings from the Perception Analyzer modules were collectively recorded on computer for analysis.
ResultsThe mean scores for each type of footage, computer-generated special effects (C ), filmic special effects (F; live, staged), and, documentary footage (D; live, unstaged), support the first hypothesis, that viewers perceived the film clips with noncomputer-generated special effects (F and D) as more real than film clips with computer-generated special effects (C) (see Table 1). The mean scores for each type of footage support the second hypothesis, that film clips with noncomputer-generated special effects (F and D) would receive higher ratings of emotional intensity than film clips with computer-generated special effects (C). Preliminary analyses of the data indicate support for the third hypothesis: There is a significant positive
in the positive correlation (p < 0.02). The first and second analyses also showed a significant
F>
[
.02]
.
Discussion The recent study evaluated 4,863 video clips captured at 12 different locations from the U.S. in three broad categories, namely, theater (4,849), broadcast (4,695), documentary (4,741), and in-person interviews (2,908). The data show that viewers perceived the 2,994 clips that featured the nonpornographic elements of computer-generated video as more emotionally engaging, but not to the extent of computer-generated special effects. Because the film clips were of such little impact, these results suggest that video clips do not represent anything like “real” scenes. The film clips in this study were from several locations, including Washington, D.C., and the United Kingdom, all of which are subject to different law on the safe release of illegal and noncomputer-generated material. Thus, they were the least relevant to the question of whether the clips depicted a significant amount of emotional content. Our findings indicate that the 3,935 clips that appeared in the “newscast” categories were the same as those seen elsewhere, and the film clips depicted significantly more emotional content than did the ones without those clips. Those were significantly more violent than the clips that featured the characters from these other locations and movies, but less violent than those made by these 3.5 to 8% of those who watched them elsewhere. Our results suggest that people see computer-generated clips as more realistic—and thus, as realistic as the scenes depicted in the film clips. A large majority of people who watch these videos say they enjoy them as much as the scenes in the real world. For example, an analysis of the following images showed that people in the United States actually viewed more violent, more personal and emotionally engaged clips, even if the images were not shot in any manner. Because they are so similar, these images are likely to elicit the best reactions of the viewer. Such an analysis suggests that we should not dismiss or discount the emotional content of the video clips we are considering. Although some of the same effects of computer stimulation can be expected when we are in the real world, our results suggest that we should not dismiss videos as anything but real. It is important for us to say that we feel comfortable telling people who watch computer-generated images what they like. We feel comfortable telling them about videos with “real” content when viewing them out of context. Whether or not videos with “real” content can be considered “real” content is a matter of public policy. Nevertheless, our data provide a good demonstration of how video-reaction can influence the views people make after viewing a video. There was no evidence of viewers having a bias toward violence. This suggests that the emotions of video-reaction participants can be predicted through the content