Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

"You'll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!" Processes, Challenges, and Opportunities of Creating Animated Virtual Reality Stories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Animated VR story creation can be described as ten recurring stages — idea generation through evaluation — that combine into story-driven or visual-driven workflows, with nine challenges unique to this medium.

desk verdict A careful, transparent qualitative study that gives the first holistic map of animated VR story creation, but the 'ten common stages' label is stronger than the data support. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08513 v1 pith:2DZL7IBO submitted 2025-02-12 cs.HC cs.GRcs.MM

Lin-Ping Yuan , Feilin Han , Liwenhan Xie , Junjie Zhang , Jian Zhao , Huamin Qu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.GRcs.MM
keywords animatedVRstoriesanimationstorytellingnarrativescinematicimmersivecreationworkflowsqualitativeinterviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to give the first holistic, domain-specific account of how creators make animated virtual reality stories, from the first idea to the final audience test. Based on interviews with 21 creators, it claims that the craft can be described by ten recurring stages, combined into story-driven or visual-driven workflows. It further claims that seven challenges, containing seventeen issues, recur across these stages, and that nine of those issues are peculiar to animated VR stories rather than general XR applications. If the account holds, it gives tool builders and design researchers a shared map of the creative process and a target list of unsolved problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ten-stage process model (idea generation through evaluation) paired with a nine-issue challenge taxonomy that isolates what is unique to animated VR stories. The stage model organises the interview data into comparable units — each stage has inputs, outputs, and typical practices — while the workflow classification (story-driven vs visual-driven) explains why the stages are not a fixed pipeline. The challenge taxonomy does the analytical work of separating issues already documented for general XR applications from the ones that arise specifically from merging narrative intention with VR's spatial, temporal, and interactive affordances.

What would settle it

A large-scale survey or replication interview study with a different creator population — for instance, non-artists, hobbyists, or seasoned filmmakers without VR backgrounds — that finds a substantial share of creators who do not recognise the ten stages, or who report additional recurring challenges outside the seventeen issues, would weaken the claim that the model is holistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is an empirically grounded process model and issue catalogue. It identifies ten common stages — idea generation, story creation, scriptwriting, storyboarding, previs, visual/audio/interaction design, asset development, scene assembly, story integration, and evaluation — and shows that creators order and omit these stages in diverse ways that cluster into two workflow archetypes: story-driven, which puts narrative coherence first (16 of 21 interviewees), and visual-driven, which lets visual experimentation shape the story (5 of 21). It then reports seven challenges covering seventeen issues, nine of which it argues are unique to animated VR stories, including balancing narrative intent with viewer autonomy, the lack of references for multi-element plots, difficulty planning visuals under real-time performance constraints, and missing integrated building blocks for core VR story experiences. The claims are presented as a domain-specific complement to prior studies of general XR creation, and are validated by questionnaire responses from the original interviewees and 15 additional creators.

Load-bearing premise

The 21 interviewees, all Chinese, mostly aged 22 to 33, all with formal art training and nine recruited from the authors' personal network, are representative enough for the ten stages and nine issues to be described as general properties of animated VR story creation — a caveat the paper itself raises.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future authoring tools can be designed to slot into specific stages — such as story integration or scene assembly — rather than trying to support the whole pipeline at once.
  • The nine unique issues, rated above 4 on a 7-point scale for uniqueness, difficulty, and importance, offer a ranked test list for any proposed VR storytelling authoring system.
  • The distinction between story-driven and visual-driven workflows suggests that tools and guidelines may need two modes: one that protects narrative coherence and one that supports visual-led experimentation.
  • The absence of post-production stages in the ten-stage model points to evaluation and revision being tightly coupled with production in VR story creation, unlike traditional film workflows.
  • Since both original interviewees and additional creators endorsed the ten stages and found no missing stages, the model is offered as a shared vocabulary for describing the craft.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to survey a geographically and experientially broader creator sample, especially non-artists and hobbyists, to see whether the ten-stage model and nine issues hold outside the paper's cohort.
  • The paper's finding that creators struggle to describe multi-element plots suggests a natural next step for design research: a structured representation language for VR plot segments, similar to what storyboards did for film.
  • The VRChat-based shooting strategy described under C5-1 implies that off-the-shelf social VR platforms may already provide some of the missing building blocks for story coordination; a comparative study of such workarounds could inform dedicated tool design.
  • If viewer autonomy is the central tension, an implicit design goal is to build authoring tools that simulate viewer exploration behaviour during previs, which current tools do not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study with 21 animated VR story creators. Through semi-structured interviews, the authors derive a ten-stage model of animated VR story creation, ranging from idea generation to evaluation, and describe two workflow types (story-driven and visual-driven). A thematic analysis of challenges yields seven challenges comprising seventeen issues, nine of which are claimed to be relatively unique to animated VR stories. The findings are validated through a survey with 36 respondents (the 21 original interviewees plus 15 additional creators), and the paper concludes with a comparison to general XR creation and proposals for future research opportunities.

Significance. If the central claims are appropriately calibrated, this is a useful and timely contribution. The paper adds a domain-specific, holistic account of animated VR story creation to a literature that has largely focused on general XR applications. The qualitative methodology is transparent: stage extraction was cross-checked by multiple authors, thematic analysis included 20% double-coding with codebook refinement, and a member-checking survey was conducted. The detailed descriptions of stages and challenges, with concrete examples from creators, are valuable for designing future authoring tools. However, the strength of the central 'ten common stages' claim currently exceeds what the data support, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 4.1, Sec. 4.2] The paper's central claim of 'ten common stages' is not fully supported by the paper's own usage counts. Sec. 4.2 states that only nine, ten, eleven, and sixteen of the 21 interviewees were involved in scriptwriting, storyboarding, previs, and evaluation, respectively. Thus four of the ten stages were used by a minority (or, for previs, a bare majority) of the sample. Under the usual meaning of 'common' as 'used by most creators,' these stages are not common even within this sample. The validation survey (Sec. 6.1) asks respondents to select the three most important stages and to indicate missing stages, but it does not ask which stages respondents actually used; therefore it does not resolve this issue. Please either report per-stage usage frequencies and reword the claim (for example, 'ten recurring stages that form diverse workflows'), or provide an explicit definition under which a stage used by fewer than half of the participants still counts as common.
  2. [Figure 1, Sec. 4.1, Sec. 6.1] Figure 1's caption reads 'An illustration of 9 stages,' and its panels A–I depict only nine stages (Idea Generation, Story Creation, Scriptwriting, Storyboarding, Design, Asset Development, Scene Assembly, Story Integration, Evaluation). The stage 'Previs,' which is described as one of the ten stages in Sec. 4.1.5, is missing from this figure. Because the same figure is shown to validation respondents as a visual depiction of the ten stages (Sec. 6.1), the omission could affect how respondents understood the stage set. Please add the missing previs panel and correct the caption.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Abstract, Sec. 8] The generalizability of the 'ten common stages' and 'nine unique issues' is presented more strongly than the sampling warrants. The interviewees are all Chinese, 14 of 21 are aged 22–27, all have formal art training, and 9 of 21 were recruited from the authors' personal network (Sec. 3.2). Sec. 7.3 acknowledges limitations regarding age and art background but does not discuss the single-country composition or the network-recruited subsample. The Abstract and Conclusion nonetheless present the findings as general. Please temper the framing in the Abstract and Conclusion, or add a prominent scope statement, and discuss how the network-recruited subsample may affect saturation and the diversity of workflows captured.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5, Table 2] Table 2 lists Challenge C4, but the narrative in Sec. 5 jumps from C3 to C5 because only the nine newly identified issues are elaborated. Adding one sentence explaining that C4 is among the eight issues echoing previous XR studies would help the reader follow the structure.
  2. [References] References [18] and [19] are identical (Gupta et al., CHI 2020, 'Investigating roleplaying and identity transformation in a virtual reality narrative experience'); please deduplicate.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The sentence 'Only nine, ten, eleven, and sixteen interviewees were involved in scriptwriting, storyboarding, previs, and evaluation' is easy to misread; please add 'respectively' or restate each stage with its count.
  4. [Sec. 6.2] In the comprehensiveness check, the statement that no respondent reported additional stages is presented as strong evidence that the ten stages describe the process well. Since respondents were shown the ten stages, this check may be subject to anchoring; please acknowledge this limitation.
  5. [Sec. 3.1 and Figure 14] The labels A1–A4 and B1–B4 in Figure 14 are used for survey respondent groups, while A1–A5 are used for author identifiers in Sec. 3.1. Renaming the figure panels (e.g., 'Original interviewees' and 'Additional creators') would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Qualitative interview study with no derivation-to-input reduction; minor self-referential member checking is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative interview study, not a formal derivation, so the circularity detector patterns (self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems imported from self-citations) do not directly apply. The central claims—ten common creation stages and nine unique challenges—are grounded in thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews (Sec. 3.4, Sec. 4.1, Sec. 5), not in any fitted parameter or author-imposed model. The validation (Sec. 6) asked the original 21 interviewees plus 15 additional creators to rate the importance, difficulty, and uniqueness of the derived stages and issues, and to report missing stages/challenges. This is a member check, a standard qualitative practice, and it does not make the taxonomy true by construction: the taxonomy would stand or fall on the interview analysis regardless of the validation ratings. The paper's own self-citations (e.g., AniCraft, GeoCamera, Creating Emordle, VR stroke gesture data, Jump Cut Effects, reader-to-experiencer) appear in related-work and future-opportunity contexts and are not load-bearing for the interview findings. The skeptic's concern that four of the ten stages were used by fewer than half of interviewees (Sec. 4.2: scriptwriting 9/21, storyboarding 10/21, previs 11/21, evaluation 16/21) is an internal-consistency or framing critique of the word 'common', not a circularity: the stage set is reported from the data, and the data also transparently reports the usage counts. Thus no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced. The ten stages and nine issues are analytic constructs grounded in interview data, not postulated causal entities. The analysis relies on standard qualitative assumptions about self-report validity, coder convergence, saturation, and the sufficiency of the cited comparison literature.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semi-structured interview self-reports reliably reflect actual creation processes.
    The entire process model rests on retrospective self-descriptions by 21 creators; no observational or log data was collected (Sec 3.3, Sec 4).
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis with three coders over 20% of transcripts and one coder for the remainder yields valid, unbiased categories.
    Coding was performed by authors A1, A2, and A4, who also designed the study; inter-rater reliability statistics are not reported, and convergence was reached through discussion (Sec 3.4).
  • domain assumption The uniqueness of the nine issues is judged relative to the cited XR literature, and that cited set is complete enough for the comparison.
    Uniqueness in Sec 5 and Sec 6 is asserted against Ashtari et al., Krauß et al., and Liu et al.; if relevant empirical XR studies were missed, the novelty claim for these issues would weaken.
  • domain assumption Stopping recruitment at 21 interviews once insights converged indicates saturation.
    No formal saturation analysis is reported; convergence is asserted in Sec 3.2.
  • domain assumption Merging modeling, texturing, and rigging into 'asset development' and introducing 'scene assembly' and 'story integration' preserves the creators' process structure.
    The ten-stage model depends on these analytic merging and naming decisions made by the authors in Sec 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "You'll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!" Processes, Challenges, and Opportunities of Creating Animated Virtual Reality Stories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2DZL7IBO

@misc{pith2026250208513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "You'll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!" Processes, Challenges, and Opportunities of Creating Animated Virtual Reality Stories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2DZL7IBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08513}
}
read the original abstract

Animated virtual reality (VR) stories, combining the presence of VR and the artistry of computer animation, offer a compelling way to deliver messages and evoke emotions. Motivated by the growing demand for immersive narrative experiences, more creators are creating animated VR stories. However, a holistic understanding of their creation processes and challenges involved in crafting these stories is still limited. Based on semi-structured interviews with 21 animated VR story creators, we identify ten common stages in their end-to-end creation processes, ranging from idea generation to evaluation, which form diverse workflows that are story-driven or visual-driven. Additionally, we highlight nine unique issues that arise during the creation process, such as a lack of reference material for multi-element plots, the absence of specific functionalities for story integration, and inadequate support for audience evaluation. We compare the creation of animated VR stories to general XR applications and distill several future research opportunities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of 9 stages in creating an animated VR story ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Various practices and purposes in storyboarding. (A) A high-fidelity storyboard for post-hoc refinement ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of previs to assess scenes and the functionality of interactions before developing high-fidelity models. (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of interaction design while connecting both the story plots and scenes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Key considerations in the scene assembly stage. (A) Optimizing the coherence of 3D spatial relationships amongst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Practices of within-scene integration that synchronizes multiple story elements temporally. (A) Listing by-plot set-ups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Practices of between-scene integration that concern how a scene transits to another ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Typical workflows for crafting animated VR stories. (A) Story-driven workflow: prioritizing narrative coherence with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of different types of references. (A) Online images for the visual design of a character ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of scenes that suffer from performance failure and relevant remedies. (A) A high-fidelity scene exceeding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the main characters (©Menghui) from sketches (A), to designs (B), intermediate failed assets (C), and final successful assets (D). Building 3D models in Quill may require a mindset shift from using 3D strokes (C) to 3D shapes (D) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An innovative production strategy that leverages VRChat to simulate the live-action filmmaking process for spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An example of creator-intended exploration path (A) and POIs (B-E) ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Summary responses from our 21 original interviewees (A1-A4) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tanja Aitamurto, Andrea Stevenson Won, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, Byungdoo Kim, Yasamin Sadeghi, Krysten Stein, Peter G Royal, and Catherine Lynn Kircos. 2021. From FOMO to JOMO: Examining the fear and joy of missing out and presence in a 360 video viewing experience. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [3]

    Sojung Bahng, Ryan M Kelly, and Jon McCormack. 2020. Reflexive VR storytelling design beyond immersion: Facilitating self-reflection on death and loneliness. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 455, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831. 3376582

    doi:10.1145/3313831 2020

  3. [4]

    Andy Beane. 2012. 3D animation essentials. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2012

  4. [5]

    Samantha W Bindman, Lisa M Castaneda, Mike Scanlon, and Anna Cechony

    work page

  5. [6]

    Ingo Börsting, Markus Heikamp, Marc Hesenius, Wilhelm Koop, and Volker Gruhn. 2022. Software engineering for augmented reality-A research agenda. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, EICS, Article 155 (2022), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532205

    doi:10.1145/3532205 2022

  6. [7]

    Melissa Bosworth and Lakshmi Sarah. 2018. Crafting stories for virtual reality . Routledge

    work page 2018

  7. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597. https: //doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

    arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    Wolfgang Büschel, Anke Lehmann, and Raimund Dachselt. 2021. MIRIA: A mixed reality toolkit for the in-situ visualization and analysis of spatio- temporal interaction data. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 470, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445651

    arXiv 2021

Show all 78 references
  1. [10]

    Seunghoon Cha, Jungjin Lee, Seunghwa Jeong, Younghui Kim, and Junyong Noh. 2020. Enhanced interactive 360 ° viewing via automatic guidance. ACM Transactions on Graphics 39, 5, Article 154 (2020), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3183794

    2020

  2. [11]

    Larry Cutler, Eric Darnell, Nathaniel Dirksen, Michael Hutchinson, Scott Peterson, Robert Schiewe, and Wei Wang. 2019. Making you matter: Creating interactive VR narratives through experimentation and learning. InProceedings of the Digital Production Symposium. ACM, New York, ...

    2019

  3. [12]

    Eric Darnell and Michael Hutchinson. 2016. Invasion! Exploring empathy and agency in VR. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 VR Village . ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2929490.2929494

    2016

  4. [13]

    Kath Dooley. 2021. Cinematic virtual reality: A critical study of 21st century approaches and practices. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Germany. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-72147-3

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    Iliana Franklin, HILL Austin, Anastasia Gurova, Stevie Stedman, TP Leroy, and Molly Babington. 2021. From fairy tales to smart concepts: Storytelling for VR. Smart Cities and Regional Development 5, 3 (2021), 77–102. https://doi.org/10. 25019/scrd.v5i3.112

    2021

  6. [16]

    Jeff Gipson, Lauren Brown, Ed Robbins, Jose Gomez, Mike Anderson, Jose Ve- lasquez, Jorge Ruiz, and Dan Cooper. 2018. VR story production on Disney animation’s “cycles”. InACM SIGGRAPH Talks. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 65, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214745.3214818

    2018

  7. [17]

    Michael Gödde, Frank Gabler, Dirk Siegmund, and Andreas Braun. 2018. Cine- matic narration in VR–Rethinking film conventions for 360 degrees. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Applications in Health, Cultural Heritage, and In- dustry. Springer, Cham, Germany, 184–201. h...

    2018 doi

  8. [19]

    Saumya Gupta, Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, Meena Devii Muralikumar, and Apara- jita S Marathe. 2020. Investigating roleplaying and identity transformation in a virtual reality narrative experience. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Ne...

    2020

  9. [20]

    Feilin Han, Ying Zhong, and Minxi Zhou. 2022. Evaluating the effect of cin- ematography on the viewing experience in immersive environment. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo . IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME52920.2022.9859864

    2022

  10. [21]

    Jeremy Hartmann, Stephen DiVerdi, Cuong Nguyen, and Daniel Vogel. 2020. View-dependent effects for 360 virtual reality video. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 354–364

    2020

  11. [22]

    Rorik Henrikson, Bruno Araujo, Fanny Chevalier, Karan Singh, and Ravin Bal- akrishnan. 2016. Multi-device storyboards for cinematic narratives in VR. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technol- ogy. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 787–796. https:...

    2016

  12. [23]

    Rorik Henrikson, Bruno De Araujo, Fanny Chevalier, Karan Singh, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2016. Storeoboard: Sketching stereoscopic storyboards. In Proceed- ings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4587–4598. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2016

  13. [24]

    Teresa Hirzle, Florian Müller, Fiona Draxler, Martin Schmitz, Pascal Knierim, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2023. When XR and AI meet-A scoping review on extended reality and artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New Y...

    2023

  14. [25]

    Ping Hu, Qi Sun, Piotr Didyk, Li-Yi Wei, and Arie E Kaufman. 2019. Reducing simulator sickness with perceptual camera control.ACM Transactions on Graphics 38, 6, Article 210 (2019), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3355089.3356490

    2019

  15. [26]

    Sebastian Hubenschmid, Jonathan Wieland, Daniel Immanuel Fink, Andrea Batch, Johannes Zagermann, Niklas Elmqvist, and Harald Reiterer. 2022. ReLive: Bridg- ing in-situ and ex-situ visual analytics for analyzing mixed reality user studies. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference o...

    2022

  16. [27]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Jaryung Kim, Shane Neil Lobo, Yingyi Shu, and An- drea Stevenson Won. 2022. Being there to learn: Narrative style and cross- platform comparison for 360-degree educational videos. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2, Article 278...

    2022 doi

  17. [28]

    VES Jeffrey Okun and VES Susan Zwerman. 2020. The VES handbook of visual effects: industry standard VFX practices and procedures . Routledge

    2020

  18. [29]

    Veronika Krauß, Alexander Boden, Leif Oppermann, and René Reiners. 2021. Current practices, challenges, and design implications for collaborative AR/VR application development. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2021

  19. [30]

    Veronika Krauß, Michael Nebeling, Florian Jasche, and Alexander Boden. 2022. Elements of XR prototyping: Characterizing the role and use of prototypes in augmented and virtual reality design. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New...

    2022

  20. [31]

    Assem Kroma. 2022. The technical dilemmas of creative design and rapid proto- typing for immersive storytelling. In Proceedings of the Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3527927.3533730

    2022

  21. [32]

    Adam Kvisgaard, Sune Øllgaard Klem, Thomas Lund Nielsen, Eoin Ivan Rafferty, Niels Christian Nilsson, Emil Rosenlund Høeg, and Rolf Nordahl. 2019. Frames to zones: Applying mise-en-scene techniques in cinematic virtual reality. In Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality. IEEE, Pi...

    2019

  22. [33]

    Fabrizio Lamberti, Alberto Cannavo, and Paolo Montuschi. 2020. Is immersive virtual reality the ultimate interface for 3D animators? Computer 53, 4 (2020), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2019.2908871

    2020

  23. [34]

    Benjamin Lee, Dave Brown, Bongshin Lee, Christophe Hurter, Steven Drucker, and Tim Dwyer. 2020. Data visceralization: Enabling deeper understanding of data using virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visalization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2020), 1095–1105. https://doi.org/1...

    2020

  24. [35]

    Boyu Li, Linping Yuan, Zhe Yan, Qianxi Liu, Yulin Shen, and Zeyu Wang. 2024. AniCraft: Crafting everyday objects as physical proxies for prototyping 3D char- acter animation in mixed reality. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology ...

    2024

  25. [36]

    Changyang Li, Wanwan Li, Haikun Huang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2022. Interactive augmented reality storytelling guided by scene semantics. ACM Transactions on Graphics 41, 4, Article 91 (2022), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3528223. 3530061

    2022 doi

  26. [37]

    Changyang Li and Lap-Fai Yu. 2023. Generating activity snippets by learning human-scene interactions. ACM Transactions on Graphics 42, 4, Article 136 (2023), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3592096

    2023 doi

  27. [38]

    Chenghao Li, Chaoning Zhang, Atish Waghwase, Lik-Hang Lee, Francois Rameau, Yang Yang, Sung-Ho Bae, and Choong Seon Hong. 2023. Generative AI meets 3D: A survey on text-to-3D in AIGC era . arXiv Preprint. arXiv:2305.06131

    2023 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Wenchao Li, Zhan Wang, Yun Wang, Di Weng, Liwenhan Xie, Siming Chen, Haidong Zhang, and Huamin Qu. 2023. GeoCamera: Telling stories in geographic visualizations with camera movements. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, N...

    2023

  29. [40]

    Qing Liu, Gustavo Alves, and Jian Zhao. 2023. Challenges and opportunities for software testing in virtual reality application development. In Graphics Interface. Open Review, Online, 10 pages. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=akc8f5ampp

    2023

  30. [41]

    Sean J Liu, Maneesh Agrawala, Stephen DiVerdi, and Aaron Hertzmann. 2019. View-dependent video textures for 360° video. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347887

    2019

  31. [42]

    Zixiao Liu, Shuo Yan, Yu Lu, and Yuetong Zhao. 2022. Generating embodied storytelling and interactive experience of China intangible cultural heritage “Hua’er” in virtual reality. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York...

    2022

  32. [43]

    You’ll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!

    Karthik Mahadevan, Qian Zhou, George Fitzmaurice, Tovi Grossman, and Fraser Anderson. 2023. Tesseract: Querying spatial design recordings by manipulating worlds in miniature. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Ar...

    2023

  33. [44]

    2022 Cannes XR x VeeR Future A ward Now Announced! Marché du film

    Marché du film 2022. 2022 Cannes XR x VeeR Future A ward Now Announced! Marché du film. Retrieved Sep 1, 2023 from https://www.marchedufilm.com/ news/2022-cannes-xr-x-veer-future-award-now-announced/

    2022

  34. [45]

    Liang Men, Nick Bryan-Kinns, Amelia Shivani Hassard, and Zixiang Ma. 2017. The impact of transitions on user experience in virtual reality. In IEEE Virtual Reality. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 285–286. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2017. 7892288

    2017 doi

  35. [46]

    Julián Méndez, Weizhou Luo, Rufat Rzayev, Wolfgang Büschel, and Raimund Dachselt. 2025. Immersive Data-Driven Storytelling: Scoping an Emerging Field Through the Lenses of Research, Journalism, and Games. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2025). https:/...

    2025 doi

  36. [47]

    Michael Nebeling, Katy Lewis, Yu-Cheng Chang, Lihan Zhu, Michelle Chung, Piaoyang Wang, and Janet Nebeling. 2020. XRDirector: A role-based collaborative immersive authoring system. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, ...

    2020

  37. [48]

    Michael Nebeling, Maximilian Speicher, Xizi Wang, Shwetha Rajaram, Brian D Hall, Zijian Xie, Alexander RE Raistrick, Michelle Aebersold, Edward G Happ, Jiayin Wang, et al. 2020. MRAT: The mixed reality analytics toolkit. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2020

  38. [50]

    Nahal Norouzi, Gerd Bruder, Austin Erickson, Kangsoo Kim, Jeremy Bailenson, Pamela Wisniewski, Charlie Hughes, and Greg Welch. 2021. Virtual animals as diegetic attention guidance mechanisms in 360-degree experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27...

    2021

  39. [51]

    Amy Pavel, Björn Hartmann, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2017. Shot orientation controls for interactive cinematography with 360 video. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1145/31265...

    2017

  40. [52]

    Vanessa C Pope, Robert Dawes, Florian Schweiger, and Alia Sheikh. 2017. The geometry of storytelling: Theatrical use of space for 360-degree videos and virtual reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4468–447...

    2017 doi

  41. [53]

    Lev Poretski and Anthony Tang. 2022. Press A to jump: Design strategies for video game learnability. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 155, 26 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517685

    2022

  42. [54]

    Kasra Rahimi, Colin Banigan, and Eric D Ragan. 2018. Scene transitions and teleportation in virtual reality and the implications for spatial awareness and sickness. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 6 (2018), 2273–2287. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2...

    2018

  43. [55]

    Shwetha Rajaram, Franziska Roesner, and Michael Nebeling. 2023. Reframe: An augmented reality storyboarding tool for character-driven analysis of security & privacy concerns. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, New York, N...

    2023

  44. [56]

    Hannes Rall and Emma Harper. 2022. Pericles VR: Insights into visual develop- ment and gamification of a lesser-known Shakespeare play. InIEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops . IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2022

  45. [57]

    Sylvia Rothe, Daniel Buschek, and Heinrich Hußmann. 2019. Guidance in cinematic virtual reality-taxonomy, research status and challenges. Multi- modal Technologies and Interaction 3, 1, Article 19 (2019), 23 pages. https: //doi.org/10.3390/mti3010019

    2019 doi

  46. [58]

    Sylvia Rothe, Pascal Pothmann, Heiko Drewe, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. Interaction techniques for cinematic virtual reality. In IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces . IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1733–1737. https: //doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798189

    2019

  47. [59]

    Anastasia Schmitz, Andrew MacQuarrie, Simon Julier, Nicola Binetti, and An- thony Steed. 2020. Directing versus attracting attention: Exploring the effec- tiveness of central and peripheral cues in panoramic videos. In IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces ...

    2020

  48. [60]

    Ana Serrano, Vincent Sitzmann, Jaime Ruiz-Borau, Gordon Wetzstein, Diego Gutierrez, and Belen Masia. 2017. Movie editing and cognitive event segmentation in virtual reality video. ACM Transactions on Graphics 36, 4, Article 47 (2017), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073668

    2017

  49. [61]

    Jae-eun Shin, Hayun Kim, Callum Parker, Hyung-il Kim, Seoyoung Oh, and Woon- tack Woo. 2019. Is any room really OK? The effect of room size and furniture on presence, narrative engagement, and usability during a space-adaptive augmented reality game. In IEEE International Symp...

    2019 doi

  50. [62]

    Jae-Eun Shin and Woontack Woo. 2023. How space is told: Linking trajectory, narrative, and intent in augmented reality storytelling for cultural heritage sites. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 241, 14...

    2023 doi

  51. [63]

    Jae-eun Shin, Boram Yoon, Dooyoung Kim, and Woontack Woo. 2023. The effects of spatial complexity on narrative experience in space-adaptive AR storytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2023), 5137–

    2023

  52. [64]

    Vincent Sitzmann, Ana Serrano, Amy Pavel, Maneesh Agrawala, Diego Gutierrez, Belen Masia, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2018. Saliency in VR: How do people explore virtual environments? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1633–1642. https://doi.org/1...

    2018

  53. [65]

    Evgeny Stemasov, David Ledo, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2023. Immersive sampling: Exploring sampling for future creative practices in media- rich, immersive spaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 212–22...

    2023 doi

  54. [66]

    Baobab Studios. 2020. A Screenshot of Baba Yaga . https://www.imdb.com/title/ tt13050556/mediaviewer/rm4111454465/ Accessed: 2025-02-10

    2020

  55. [67]

    Lingwei Tong, Robert W Lindeman, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2021. Viewer’s role and viewer interaction in cinematic virtual reality. Computers 10, 5, Article 66 (2021), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10050066

    2021 doi

  56. [68]

    Lingwei Tong, Robert W Lindeman, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2022. Adaptive playback control: A framework for cinematic VR creators to embrace viewer interaction. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2, Article 798306 (2022), 17 pages. https: //doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.798306

    2022

  57. [69]

    Wai Tong, Kento Shigyo, Linping Yuan, Mingming Fan, Ting-Chuen Pong, Huamin Qu, and Meng Xia. 2024. VisTellAR: Embedding data visualization to short-form videos using mobile augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Vi- sualization and Computer Graphics 31, 3 (2024), 1862–1874. ...

    2024

  58. [70]

    Daniel Vogel, Paul Lubos, and Frank Steinicke. 2018. AnimationVR–Interactive controller-based animating in virtual reality. In IEEE Workshop on Animation in Virtual and Augmented Environments . IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1109/ANIVAE.2018.8587268

    2018

  59. [71]

    Cheng Yao Wang, Qian Zhou, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2022. VideoPoseVR: Authoring virtual reality character animations with online videos. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, ISS (2022), 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567728

    2022 doi

  60. [72]

    Lou Ward, Cristopher David, and Lara Bucarey. 2021. Designing for storyliving experiences: Tinker, A case study. In ACM SIGGRAPH Immersive Pavilion. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450615.3464534

    2021

  61. [73]

    2021.Virtual reality cinema: Narrative tips and techniques

    Eric R Williams, Carrie Love, and Matt Love. 2021.Virtual reality cinema: Narrative tips and techniques. Routledge, New York, NY, USA

    2021

  62. [74]

    Liwenhan Xie, Xinhuan Shu, Jeon Cheol Su, Yun Wang, Siming Chen, and Huamin Qu. 2024. Creating Emordle: Animating Word Cloud for Emotion Expression. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 8 (2024), 5198–5211. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3286392

    2024

  63. [75]

    Tong Xue, Abdallah El Ali, Tianyi Zhang, Gangyi Ding, and Pablo Cesar. 2021. CEAP-360VR: A continuous physiological and behavioral emotion annotation dataset for 360 VR videos. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 25 (2021), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2021.3124080

    2021

  64. [77]

    Junjie Zhang, Lik-Hang Lee, Yuyang Wang, Shan Jin, Dan-Lu Fei, and Pan Hui

  65. [78]

    Lei Zhang, Doug A Bowman, and Caroline N Jones. 2019. Exploring effects of interactivity on learning with interactive storytelling in immersive virtual reality. In International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications . IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 8 page...

    2019 doi

  66. [79]

    Zhenjie Zhao and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020. ShadowPlay2.5D: A 360-degree video authoring tool for immersive appreciation of classical Chinese poetry. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 13, 1, Article 5 (2020), 20 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3352590

    2020 doi

  67. [80]

    You’ll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!

    Qian Zhu, Linping Yuan, Zian Xu, Leni Yang, Meng Xia, Zhuo Wang, Hai-Ning Liang, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. From reader to experiencer: Design and evaluation of a VR data story for promoting the situation awareness of public health threats. International Journal of Human-Computer ...

    2024

  68. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Am I a bunny? The impact of high and low immersion platforms and viewers’ perceptions of role on presence, narrative engagement, and empathy during an animated 360 video. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Artic...

  69. [2024]

    InIEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces

    Jump Cut Effects in Cinematic Virtual Reality: Editing with the 30-degree Rule and 180-degree Rule. InIEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces. IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR58804.2024.00029

  70. [5148]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3201934

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.