An Investigation into Immersive Visualization

1. An Investigation into Immersive Visualization Vanessa Gertman

2. Motivation • The amount of data being collected on a daily basis is unimaginable. [Hacker and Springer 2011] sites that one single project creates up to ”15PB of data annually.” • Visualization is a tool that can be used to aide in the analysis of this vast amount of data. • Immersive visualization is designed to be an improved version of regular visualization.

3. Definition • Immersive techniques are designed to give the user the feeling that the simulated world is real. • The goal is to create a suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer. • The viewer’s position is tracked and the simulation responds to changes in the position. • It is hoped that information can be determined faster and more accurately by using this type of visualization

4. Level of Immersion • Field of View • Panorama • Viewer Centered Perspective • Representation of the body and other physical objects within the simulation • Intrusiveness [Cruz-Neira et al. 1992]

5. Qualities which determine the effectiveness of an immersive environment • Visual Acuity • Linearity • Look around • Progressive refinement • Collaboration [Cruz-Neira et al. 1992]

6. Three Environments • CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) • Tile Displays • Head Mounted Devices (HMD) https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_562000

7. CAVEs • Multiple rear projected screens • The floor and even the ceiling may serve as projection surfaces • The objects are displayed in stereo-projection • Very large • Expensive • Allows for collaboration https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_562000

8. Tile Displays • Multiple monitors are connected together • Head or wand tracking is used to make the environment immersive • Less expensive and can take up less space than other large screen displays • Areas between the screens are known as bezels http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/visualization/.

9. HMDs • Small stereoscopic displays are placed over the eyes • The position of the head is tracked and the image is redrawn to match the perspective • Poor collaboration abilities http://www.inition.co.uk/3D-Technologies/emagin-z800-3dvisor

10. Effectiveness of Immersive Environments • Bayyariand Tudoreanudid a study to determine if immersive displays improve the understanding of data during a visualization. • They asked users to count occurrences of an object on different devices. • There was a 43% increase in the error rate from the three walled CAVE to the desktop • The CAVE corresponded to a higher level accuracy and they attributed this to immersive environments supporting a better understanding of the data

11. Effectiveness of Immersive Environments • Pauschet al. also studied the usefulness of immersive environments • Users were asked to determine if an object was in a camouflaged scene • Users were not able to find the present object faster • They were able to determine that an object was not present in the scene faster using the HMD

12. Conclusion • The goal of visualization software is to bring information about data to its viewers. • Immersive visualization is designed to make this process easier and improve the quality of information that is revealed. • Immersion can greatly improve scientific investigation if used correctly.

13. References • BAYYARI, A., AND, TUDOREANU, M. 2006. The impact of immersive virtual reality displays on the understanding of data visualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1st International Conference on Broadnets Networks. Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology (VRST’06). ACM, New York, NY, 368-371. • CREAGH, H. 2003. Cave Automatic Virtual Environment. In Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing& Coil Winding Technology Conference, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, 23-25. • CRUZ-NEIRA, D, SANDIN, D., DeFanti, T, Kenyon, R. AND HART, C. 1992. The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Communications of the ACM, 35, 6, 64-72. • HACKER, T., AND, SPRINGER, J. 2011. Turning the tide of the data deluge. In Proceedings of the first annual workshop on High performance computing meets databases (HPCDB ’11). ACM, New York, NY, 21-24.

14. References • INITION. INITION: eMagin Z800 3D Visor http://www.inition.co.uk/3D-Technologies/emagin-z800-3dvisor/. • INL News Release for Immediate Release 2010. INL: Center for Advanced Energy Studies houses new 3-D research tool. https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1555&mode=2&featurestory=DA 562022 • MCNAMARA, A., PARKE, F., AND, SANFORD, M. 2011. Evaluating performance in tiled displays: navigation and wayfinding. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (VRCAI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 483-490. • Overview and Mission 2012. Duke: overview of the DiVE. http://vis.duke.edu/dive/overview/.

15. References • PAUSCH, R., PROFFITT, D., AND, WILLIAMS, G. 1997. Quantifying immersion in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAP ’97). ACMPress/Addision-Wesley Publishing Co, New York, NY, 13-18. • Texas Advanced Computing Center. Texas Advanced Computing Center: Visualization Resources. http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/visualization/. • WILLIAMS, B., NARASIMHAM, G., RUMP, B., MCNAMARA, T., Car, T., Rieser, J. AND, BODENHEIMER, B. 2007. Exploring large virtual environments with an HMD when physical space is limited. In Proceedings of the 4th symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization (APGV’07). ACM, New York, NY, 41-48. ACM