Sinemada Seyir Deneyiminin Sanal Gerçeklik Teknolojisiyle İlişkisini Sorgulamak

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesini oluşturan ana eksen, sinemanın başlangıcından bugüne kadar ortaya çıkan yeni iletişim teknolojileri bağlamında sinemanın gelişimiyle ilişkili seyir deneyimini tartışmaya açmaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, sinema izleyicisinin sinema perdesindeki iki boyutlu seyir deneyimi ile sanal gerçeklik gözlükleriyle izlenebilen 360 derece görüntü sunan üç boyutlu film anlatılarındaki seyir deneyimi pratiğini karşılaştırmalı incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışma, iki aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk aşamada kesitsel desen ile veri toplanarak nicel bir araştırma yöntemi tercih edilmiş katılımcılara (N=214) çevirim içi olarak Katılımcı Bilgi Formu ile Sinema Alışkanlıklarını Değerlendirme Anketi uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın ikinci aşamasında ise, odak grup çalışması (N=42) yürütülerek nitel bir araştırma yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Odak grup katılımcılarına aynı kısa metraj film, iki boyutlu sinema perdesi ve sanal gerçeklik gözlükleri ile 360° görüntünün sunduğu üç boyutlu film formatı olmak üzere iki farklı boyutta izletilmiş ve ardından çalışmanın amacına yönelik oluşturulan yapılandırılmış araştırma soruları derinlemesine görüşme yöntemlerine uygun olarak sorgulanmıştır. Çalışmanın her iki aşamasından elde edilen bulgular, sinemada seyir deneyiminin yeni iletişim teknolojileriyle teoride ve pratikte değişimin ve dönüşümün gerçekleşebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda, mevcut çalışma sinema sahasında seyir deneyim pratiğine ilişkin değişim öngörüsü ile sinema teorilerinde güncel tartışmaların da yapılmasının önünü açmaktadır.

Keywords

• 360° VR film
• Seyir deneyimi
• Sanal gerçeklik teknolojisi
• Özdeşleşme
• Orada bulunma

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK 3005 DESTEK PROGRAMI

Project Number

123K328

Ethical Statement

Araştırma için etik onay İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından alınmıştır.

Thanks

*Bu çalışma, Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK) tarafından 123K328 numaralı proje ile desteklenmiştir. Projeye verdiği destekten ötürü TÜBİTAK’a teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Questioning the Relationship Between the Cinema Viewing Experience and Virtual Reality Technology

Abstract

The central theme forming the theoretical framework of this study examines the viewing experience associated with the development of cinema in the context of new communication technologies that have emerged from the inception of cinema to the present day. The aim of the research is to conduct a comparative analysis of the viewing experience of cinema audiences—specifically, the two-dimensional viewing experience on the cinema screen versus the viewing experience in three-dimensional film narratives that offer 360-degree imagery viewable through virtual reality headsets. In line with this objective, the study consists of two phases. In the first phase, a cross-sectional design was employed to collect data, utilising a quantitative research method. In this phase, participants (N=214) were administered the Participant Information Form and the Cinema Habits Assessment Questionnaire online. In the second phase of the study, a qualitative research method was adopted, involving a focus group study (N=42). Focus group participants were shown the same short film in two different formats: a two-dimensional cinema screen and a three-dimensional film format presented via virtual reality goggles offering a 360° view. The findings from both phases of the study indicate that the cinema-going experience may undergo change and transformation, both in theory and in practice, as a result of new communication technologies. In this regard, the prospect of change in the practice of the cinema-going experience paves the way for current debates within cinema theory.

Keywords

• 360° VR film
• Viewing experience
• Virtual reality technology
• Identification
• Tele- presence

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK 3005 - Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye

Project Number

123K328

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Istanbul University.

Thanks

This study was supported by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TUBITAK) under Grant Number 123K328. The authors thank TUBITAK for their support.

References

1. Arshad, I., De Mello, P., Ender, M., McEwen, J. D., & Ferré, E. R. (2021). Reducing cybersickness in 360-degree virtual reality. Multisensory Research, 35(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10066
2. Binark, M. (2014). Yeni medya çalışmalarında araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri. Ayrıntı Yayınları.
3. Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2012). Film sanatı: Bir giriş (E. Yılmaz & E. Suat Onat, Çev.). Deki Yayınları.
4. Carpio, R., Baumann, O., & Birt, J. (2023). Evaluating the viewer experience of interactive virtual reality movies. Virtual Reality, 27, 3181–3190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00864-2
5. Casetti, F. (2011). Sutured reality: Film, from photographic to digital. Digital Art, 138, 95–106. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41417909
6. Casetti, F., & Pinotti, A. (2020). Post-cinema ecology. İçinde D. Chateau & J. Moure (Ed.), Post-cinema: Cinema in the post-art era (ss. 193–218). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048551941-013
7. Castells, M. (2001). La Galaxia internet. Plaza & Janés.
8. Ceuterick, M. (2021). Post-cinematic spectatorship in virtual reality: Negotiating 3DoF and 6DoF in Queerskins: Ark. NECSUS_European Journal of Media Studies, 10(1), 325–337.

9. Corbin, A. (2014). Travelling through cinema space: the film spectator as tourist. Continuum, 28(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.900880
10. Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2015). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
11. Delle, F. A., Bente, G., Jahn, N., & Wu, J. (2025). Watching movies in VR: A research ecosystem for the study of screen media effects. Behavior Research Methods, 57, 238.
12. Dokuz Boyutlu (9D) sinema salonu, 30 Mart 2026 tarihinde https://www.thesphere.com/shows/wizard-of-oz-experience
13. Erkuş, A. (2013). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Feiersinger, L. (2018). Spatial narration. Film scenography using stereoscopic technology. İçinde L. Feiersinger, K. Friedrich, & M. Queisner (Ed.), Image –action – space: Situating the screen in visual practice. (ss. 69–78). Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/12199.
14. Grundström, H. (2018). What digital revolution? Cinema-going as practice. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 15(1), 5–22. https://www.participations.org/15-01-02-grundstrom.pdf
15. Hanchard, M., Merrington, P., & Wessels, B. (2020). Being part of an audience: Patterns of contemporary film audience experience. Participations, 17(2), 115–132.
16. Hanich, J. (2012). Cinematic shocks: Recognition, aesthetic experience, and phenomenology. Amerikastudien / American Studies, Tocqueville's Legacy: Towards a Cultural History of Recognition in American Studies, 57(4), 581–602.
17. Hanich, J. (2014). Watching a film with others: Towards a theory of collective spectatorship. Screen, 55(3), 338–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hju026
18. Haywood, N., & Cairns, P. (2006). Engagement with an interactive museum exhibit. İçinde T. McEwan, J. Gulliksen, & D. Benyon (Ed.), People and computers XIX: The bigger picture (ss. 113–129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-249-7_8
19. Horowitz, M., & Wilner, N. (1976). Stress films, emotion, and cognitive response. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(11), 1339–1344.
20. Jones, N. (2015). There never really is a stereoscopic image: A closer look at 3-D media. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 13(2), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2015.1007264
21. Kerrebrock, H., Brengman, M., & Willems, K. (2017). Escaping the crowd: An experimental study on the impact of a Virtual Reality experience in a shopping mall. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.019
22. Kerrigan, S. (2016). The spectator in the film-maker: re-framing filmology through creative film-making practices. Journal of Media Practice, 17(2–3), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2016.1248172
23. Kim, J., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality technology on spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 346–356.
24. Lasko-Harvill, A. (1992). Identity and mask in virtual reality. Discourse, Performance Issue(s): Happening, Body, Spectacle, Virtual Reality, 14(2), 222–234.
25. Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: from the mass audience to the interactive media user. İçinde A. Valdivia (Ed.), Companion to media studies (ss. 337–359). Blackwell.
26. Manovich, L. (1995). To lie and to act: Potemkin’s villages, cinema and telepresence. Notes around Checkpoint ’95 project, Ars Electronica 1995 Catalog, http://manovich.net/TEXT/Checkpoint.html
27. McHugh, K. E. (2015). Touch at a distance: toward a phenomenology of film. GeoJournal, Special Issue on Media Geography in the 21st Century, 80(6), 839–851.
28. Nold, C. (2009). Emotional cartography: Technologies of the self. İçinde Emotional Cartography: Technologies of the Self, Nold, C. (Ed.), www.emotionalcartography.net.
29. Pollmann, I., & Hediger, V. (2011). Film experience and the formation of illusion: The spectator as surrogate body for the cinema. Cinema Journal, 50(4), 136–150.
30. Popat, S. (2016). Missing in action: Embodied experience and virtual reality. Theatre Journal, 68(3), Digital "Issues": Rethinking Media in/and/asPerformance, 357–378. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26367336
31. Rebenitsch, L., & Owen, C. (2014). Individual variation in susceptibility to cybersickness. İçinde Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (ss. 309–317). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647394
32. Roberts, D. S., Cowen, P. S., & MacDonald, B. E. (1996). Effects of narrative structure and emotional content on cognitive and evaluative responses to film and text. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14(1), 33–47.
33. Ryan, M.-L. (1999). Immersion vs. interactivity: Virtual reality and literary theory. SubStance, 28(2), 110–137. https://doi.org/10.2307/3685793
34. Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012
35. Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions The Royal Society, 364(1535), 3549–3557. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
36. Stam, R. (2014). Sinema teorisine giriş (S. Selman & Ç. Asatekin, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
37. Stephens, E. (2012). Sensation machine: Film, phenomenology and the training of the senses. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 26(4), 529–539.
38. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
39. Szita, K., Moss-Wellington, W., Sun, X., & Ch’ng, E. (2024). Going to the movies in VR: Virtual reality cinemas as alternatives to in-person co-viewing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 181, 103150.
40. Swami, V., Graf, H. M., Biebl, S., Schmid, T., Siebenhandl, A., Willinger, D., Galeazzi, F., & Stieger, S. (2024). Exposure to simulated nature promotes positive body image irrespective of the presentation modality: A comparison of images, 2-dimensional film, and 360° immersive film. Body Image, 51, 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101803 Wu, H., Cai, T., Luo, D., Liu, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Immersive virtual reality news: A study of user experience and media effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 147, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102576