MGMLaboratory
Back

Menu

01Home
02About Us
03Projects
04Publications
05Member
06Articles
07Contact

Let's Talk

Open in Mail app

Socials

Malang (ID) --:--Privacy PolicyTerms of Service

October 24, 20232 min read

When a 360 Degree Tour Beats a Campus VideoWhen a 360 Degree Tour Beats a Campus Video

A study compared a YouTube walkthrough with a WebVR tour of the same faculty building.

  • Conference
  • Publications

Written by

  • SRShirasaka RenIT & Infrastructure · Student Member

In this article

  1. 01How the two versions were built
  2. 02What the team found
  3. 03The limits

Universities struggle to reach prospective students who live far away. Videos help, but a video only shows what its creator chose to film. If a student wants to see the laboratory benches or the walk from the gate to the lecture hall, a fixed edit rarely answers the question.

A study from Universitas Brawijaya put two media head to head for exactly this job: a two dimensional YouTube video and a 360 degree WebVR tour, both describing the Faculty of Public Health at Universitas Airlangga in Surabaya.

01/03

How the two versions were built

The video team shot with digital cameras and edited in Wondershare Filmora, mixing panoramic, tracking and aerial shots with a presenter walking viewers through each spot. The WebVR version used a dual lens camera to capture photo spheres, then stitched them into seamless panoramas in PTGui. Both covered four areas of the faculty, with two to five spots in each.

A phone based VR viewer. Credit: Bert Niehaus, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.
Fig. 01A phone based VR viewer. Credit: Bert Niehaus, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

Respondents were smartphone users aged 18 to 35 who had never visited the campus but were interested in studying in Surabaya. The comparison ran in Google Chrome.

02/03

What the team found

The WebVR tour gave users more control over what they looked at, and that control translated into access to more detailed information. A video viewer follows the camera. A WebVR viewer decides where to look, and keeps looking until the question is answered.

A stitched panorama, the raw material of a WebVR scene. Credit: Alexandre Duret-Lutz, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Fig. 02A stitched panorama, the raw material of a WebVR scene. Credit: Alexandre Duret-Lutz, CC BY-SA 2.0.

The authors frame this as the core difference between the two media. Video is efficient at delivering a scripted message. WebVR is better at answering questions the script did not anticipate, because the viewer sets the order.

03/03

The limits

The finding is qualitative: more control over what is seen, and more detail available to the viewer. It is also tied to a single campus tour. A WebVR build costs more to produce, since photo spheres need stitching, and the result depends on a browser that renders them smoothly.

Source

  1. Pratama et al. (2023). Improving Information Delivery Effectiveness and Efficiency Using WebVR Technology. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology, 657-663.

    DOI10.1145/3626641.3626951 (opens in a new tab)

Next articleReading the Warning Signs Before Burnout Hits Study Time(Keep scrolling)(Read it next)(Loading)