Clarus XC Consumer Research

Comments

Transcription

Clarus XC Consumer Research
Project Clarus – Consumer Research
Copyright ©2014. Harkness Screens. All Rights Reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced
without Harkness Screens’ express consent (www.harkness-screens.com). Unauthorised distribution,
duplication or sale is strictly prohibited. Harkness Screens reserves the right to alter product and services
offerings, and specifications including pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for
typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document.
1
Project Clarus – product test and in
depth feedback - UK
Report of research findings
March 2014
Table of Contents
Section
Background, Objectives and methodology
Sample
MAIN FINDINGS:
Choosing a seat (exercise)
Seat selection – attitudes and process – (Qualitative)
Perception of 3D - (Qualitative)
Page
3-5
6
7-23
8
9-11
12
Analysis of screen ratings 2D and 3D (Quantitative)
13-18
Comparison of Clarus vs Spectral - (Qualitative)
19-21
Consumer vocabulary describing Clarus experience - (Qualitative)
22-23
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
24-29
Background and Objectives
Background issues
•
The global cinema industry is aware of issues affecting on-screen brightness,
uniformity and quality of presentation, which are particularly relevant with regards
3D cinema.
•
Harkness has developed new screen technology which significantly enhances
uniformity and quality of 3D presentation as well as improving 2D cinema.
•
Although the industry is aware of these presentation issues little is known about the
consumer perspective. Harkness seeks to understand consumer behaviour and
viewing perception of 2D and 3D formats comparing current Spectral Silver Screen
cinema with new Clarus 2D and 3D technology.
Objective
•
To understand from a consumer perspective the relative importance of screen
brightness levels, uniformity of projection and quality of presentation and noticeable
difference of each comparing Clarus technology with Spectral screen format.
4
Research Objectives
•
To understand if there is a difference in viewing satisfaction from seating locations
around the auditorium
−
−
•
To qualify noticeable differences in overall viewing satisfaction between Clarus
screen and Spectral screen technology at different seating locations in the auditorium
−
•
Clarus 2D versus Spectral 2D
Clarus 3D versus Spectral 3D
To specifically measure on-screen brightness levels at different locations in the
auditorium
−
−
•
Note any differences between 2D and 3D viewing satisfaction
To specifically measure uniformity in visual impact at different locations in the
auditorium
−
−
•
Clarify perceived versus actual differences
Explore reasons for seating preferences
Clarus 2D versus Spectral 2D
Clarus 3D versus Spectral 3D
To specifically measure quality of presentation at different locations in the
auditorium
5
Methodology
•
•
The approach used was qualitative which allows us to evaluate cognitive responses to
behaviour and visual stimulus – with an element of quantitative measurement.
Conducted in three stages across a 2 hour period at Empire Cinema, High Wycombe on
8 March 2014.
Stage 1 – Photographed/video’d:
•
•
Respondents invited to self-select preferred seating location in cinema auditorium
Respondents then selected seats as they would in booking cinema, in sequential
process with diminishing availability
Stage 2 – Screening of trailers:
•
•
•
Respondents viewed trailers in two auditoriums – one showing trailers on Spectral
screen and one showing on Clarus screen
The research employed three seating locations: A (central), B (side) and C (front). In
Spectral screen auditorium respondents were shown 2D and 3D trailers while seated in
each location in ABC order. Respondents then changed to Clarus screen auditorium and
viewed trailers whilst seated at locations C, B and A in that order.
At the end of each trailer break respondents completed a short questionnaire
Stage 3 – discussion groups (audio and video recorded)
•
•
Respondents divided into two groups: under 45yrs and 45yrs +
Moderators facilitated discussion covering issues such as seating choice, film
experience, presentation quality, visual impact, brightness and clarity of viewing etc.
6
Sample
•
•
40 adults recruited
35 in total attended the fieldwork
Sample
•
•
All respondents were regular cinema goers – minimum of 4 x per year
All had viewed at least one 3D film within last 12 months
Quotas set on:
•
Age: 5 age groups, recruitment spread evenly within each age group
−
−
−
−
−
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55 yrs +
•
Gender: even spread of males and females
•
Natural fallout of social class – broad spread obtained
7
Main findings
Choosing a seat (photo)
Seat selection (Qual)
Perceptions of 3D (Qual)
Analysis of screen ratings
Comparison of Clarus vs Spectral (Qual)
Consumer Vocab (Qual)
8
Seating
exercise
Choosing a seat
•
•
•
•
•
Respondents were initially asked to sit
where they would normally try to book
The vast majority selected a central
position
A proportion sitting on back row to get a
full picture.
Some opting to be further forward –
possibly due to eyesight – or prefer to be
closer to the screen
A segment preferring to be at the end of
the row for ease of access/exit
Exercise 1
Exercise 2
•
•
•
•
The second exercise was to chose a set
of three seats for self plus family/friends
Many selecting the same seat as
exercise one
Key difference was that people moved
backwards or slightly more to the side but
still in the central column.
Those preferring the front in exercise 1
stayed at the front
9
Why are some seats more important than others?
Qualitative
Availability of preferred seats critical for some, especially for the more current and important films
•
•
There were two key themes which affected peoples’ feelings about and choice of
seats at the cinema – logistics/practical and experiential
Practical reasons
−
−
−
Ability to leave theatre easily – toilets, sickness
•
End of row
•
Close to exit
•
Especially important if children in party
Legroom and Visibility
•
Choose specific seats with nothing in front of them
Space/boundaries
−
Consideration for others
−
−
•
Disruptive children
Personal space -dislike of other people being too close
Enhancing the experience – creating comfort
−
−
Vision
•
Best view for each individual – differs by character - not in your face, not too far away, not obscured
•
The larger the screen the further people sit away from it
Anywhere near
•
Head/neck position – painless and effortless – eyes, not neck do the work
the front is
Sound
uncomfortable
• Looking for a more balanced sound
• Not skewed to one area; if too close to a speaker then can drown out rest of stereo effect
The optimum position provides a relaxed, comfortable, most effective overall experience.
Many people have a ‘tolerance zone’ of acceptable positions in the theatre
10
The theory behind seat selection
Qualitative
“It’s not rocket science”
•
•
•
•
Universal agreement that the optimum seat position for the viewing
experience is 2/3rds of the way back in the centre of the screen
Practical requirements sometimes override the above – see previous chart
Optimum closeness varies by screen and theatre – people go further back
the larger the screen
The sides are a real compromise for many – distortion, screen looks
smaller, notice white edge of screen, may not get the full effect
If it’s smaller you want
to be slightly nearer
the front
Not too close – it can
be too in your face,
not cricking your neck
and looking upwards
Optimum
seat
The screen opens
up if you are in
the middle
I want to get a full
picture of the screen
The optimum position is simple for optimising viewing – centre, adequate distance back to see
whole screen without having to turn head. Practical reasons sometimes come first though
11
Booking a seat – the process
I need legroom, we
won’t come if we can’t
get those specific seats
•
•
•
•
•
•
Qualitative
XX
X
X
X
X
Very few are real planners
X
Booking can be several days up to
X
an hour before
Seat selection seldom unrestricted
X
Majority have their ‘tolerance zone’ – based on experience
As a result, many are not very open minded about alternative seats
Importance of seat varies by film and company/occasion
X
If I couldn’t sit
here (front) I
wouldn’t bother
coming
− If children demanding to go – then prepared to compromise within reason
− If film is new and aim is to see it early then compromise also made
− Some films are less visual but more plot/storyline and do not require best seats
in the house
•
Abandoning of booking is quite high – select other cinemas or dates/times
People prepared to miss a film, go to another theatre or
wait if preferred seats not available
12
Perceptions of 3D
•
•
•
It sometimes looks like 3 layers on
top of each other and you have to
work hard to bring it together as
one picture
Qualitative
3D is a relatively new phenomenon
No reference points - so accept the quality
Perception that 3D is visually duller
− Some question whether this is caused by the dark glasses
•
•
•
•
•
Some films more appropriate for 3D than others – CGI/effects, Animation, Action
Films designed to be 3D are superior in the end result
The industry creates 3D ‘for the sake of it’ in some cases – not always needed or
appropriate or effective – does not always enhance the end result
Gimmick quality still exists – due to relative newness – the effects can currently
be a distraction or a barrier to understanding the content of the story
Harder to watch – requires better sight and more visual flexibility
− Speed of brain and strength of eye muscles
•
Justification of the price – need to get more for the increased expense – do not
always feel that it is value for money
It’s only good with bright films with effects
3D delivery accepted by most but clearly not perfected – people cherry pick films or avoid
3D. Only currently appropriate for certain types of film
13
OVERALL VIEWING EXPERIENCE
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Excellent and 1= Very poor
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
10
8.89.4
3D
8.9
7.3
10
8
6.9
8.7
8.5
6.9
8.1
7
6
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
Centre Side
Front
Centre Side
Front
Clarus clearly superior in both 2D and 3D and offers a much improved viewing
experience at the front and side seats. The difference between Spectral and
Clarus screens when viewing 3D films is even greater, with Clarus offering a
better and more even viewing experience across all seat locations.
14
OVERALL BRIGHTNESS OF SCREEN
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Excellent and 1= Very poor
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
10
8.9 9.4
8.6
7.2
3D
7.8
10
8.4
8.8
8.4
6.5
8
7.3
6.2
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
Centre
Side
Front
Centre Side
Front
Clarus consistently outperforms Spectral on overall brightness of
screen, in all three areas of auditorium across 2D and 3D
15
BRIGHTNESS AT EDGES OF SCREEN
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Screen edge too bright and 1= Screen edge too dark
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
3D
10
10
5.9
6.3
6.1
5.3
5.6
6.5
6.3
6.3
5.1
6.5
4.9
4.2
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
Centre
Side
Front
Centre Side
Front
Clarus delivers a more even level of brightness across 2D and 3D and
screen edges appear brighter overall, especially viewing from front seats.
16
CLEARNESS OF OVERALL PICTURE ACROSS SCREEN
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Excellent and 1= Very poor
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
10
9.1 9.4
3D
8.7
7.4
7.6
10
8.3
8.7
8.5
6.9
7
8.1
6.5
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
Centre
Side
Front
Centre Side
Front
Clarus shows only slightly improved clarity across the screen than
Spectral when 2D film is viewed, and side seating gains the most. The
greater benefit in clarity from Clarus screen is achieved from 3D
viewing across the whole auditorium.
17
DETAIL/3D DETAIL ACROSS SCREEN & DEPTH OF 3D IMAGES
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Excellent and 1= Very poor
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
10
8.99.3
8.9
7.2
3D
10
7.9
7.1
8.3
6.9
3D depth
8.7
7
8
10
6.1
8.5
6.9
8.8
7.5
8.1
6.7
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
1
Clarus offers improved detail in 2D and 3D across all areas of the
auditorium. The 3D detail when viewing from the front is greatly
improved on the Clarus screen compared to Spectral. The 3D images
on Clarus screen are deeper
18
Overall IMAGE QUALITY
Quantitative
10 point scale - 10 = Excellent and 1= Very poor
Total sample 35 (low base)
2D
10
8.8 9.2
3D
8.7
7.3
7.6
10
8.3
8.8
8.6
6.6
7.1
8.4
6.4
Spectral
Clarus
1
1
Centre
Side
Front
Centre Side
Front
Clarus offers a better overall image quality than the Spectral screen
and this is more noticeable in 3D viewing. Clarus image quality is
consistent across the auditorium.
19
Clarus vs Spectral
Qualitative
2D
• SPECTRAL
−
−
−
−
−
Bright
Clear
Colourful
Very good picture quality
Balanced picture across
screen
To be honest they were both good for the
2D. I didn’t notice much difference at all
• CLARUS
− Similar experience to
Spectral
− Overall very pleasant and
slightly brighter
− No issues reported
− No unique strengths with
2D, unlike 3D
The definition and brightness was a
little better on that one (Clarus)
The viewing experience for 2D is VERY GOOD with both types
of screen. No clear or marked preference stated in the groups,
although Clarus said to be generally superior by most.
20
Clarus vs Spectral
Qualitative
3D
•
•
SPECTRAL
−
−
Darkness noticed in some areas of the screen
Harder work to watch
−
Trying so hard to work out what the visual
is that storyline may be missed
Harder to define details
•
−
−
−
−
Especially at the edges - blurred
3D not authentic – Slices of 3D – fragmented
Can actually see the workings/technical side of
3D – Not finished off
It feels like a technical innovation – not a
replication of reality
Makes the viewer concentrate on the main
characters and action and as a result they don’t
see the peripheries
It’s more 3D than real life
It’s like being punched in the face
by one character
It was like there was a spotlight on
them
CLARUS
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
A truer depiction of real life
Feels natural
More integrated – all in one
See more detail
More in depth – deeper 3D than Spectral
Ability to take in the whole scene/screen
Feel much more involved/engaged
Motivated to watch and concentrate
More relaxed – easier to understand and view
Better overall experience
Better resolution and rendering
Totally in focus throughout whole screen – even
at edges
(Box Trolls) – I can see the detail at
the edges, even though it’s still dark
It’s just a lot truer
Clarus is much easier to watch and more real
21
Clarus vs Spectral
Qualitative
Centre vs Side vs Front
•
SPECTRAL
−
Variations in viewing quality much more
defined in different positions
• Centre - Clearly the superior
position for both 2D and 3D
• Side – Slight compromise – full
screen visible but edges less
defined and darker
• Front – Uncomfortable, darker,
blurred elements
The first one was fine in the middle but
It went downhill at the sides and front
•
CLARUS
−
−
−
−
−
A more consistent experience
throughout the theatre
Few discernable differences from front
to back and centre to side
No dark spots
3D displaying well in all areas
Evenness of brightness a key strength
You could hardly see any difference
in any of the positions with the one
(Clarus)
Clarus is vastly superior at displaying 3D. Unanimous
preference for Clarus. Spectral becomes the poor relation.
Clarus makes 3D feel a more lifelike, flowing and engaging
experience and therefore it is easier to understand the action
22
CONSUMER VOCABULARY DESCRIBING CLARUS 3D
EXPERIENCE
Immersion
Qualitative
Deep, total depth
A single total experience, see
it all at once
More detailed, more defined
More natural, convincing,
realistic
Real not fake
Engaged
More balanced
Diving in
Motivated
Continuous
Integrated
All the way, infinite
Merged
Total, all consuming
Homogenous
Positive words used to describe the realism and far greater depth
of the 3D view with CLARUS
23
ATTRIBUTES OF CLARUS COMPARED TO SPECTRAL AND
OTHER SCREEN EXPERIENCES
Qualitative
Not consciously aware of the workings/backroom technology – just see
the end result – free to live the experience
Vastly
I felt more part
superior
of it , not just an
observer
More true to
life
Less effort to
view
Seamless 3D –
not distinct
layers on layers
Moving the
3D goalposts
Less
mechanical
and technical
You actually
entered into
the film itself
Clarus is a game changer. It makes 3D more enjoyable and more realistic to view
24
Conclusions
25
Conclusions
3D
•
Clarus is regarded as a far superior 3D cinema experience in direct comparison
to Spectral and also in comparison to the respondents’ experience of attending 3D
films.
−
−
•
The overall 3D viewing experience of Clarus versus Spectral is rated out of 10:
Viewing from the centre: Clarus 9.4 to Spectral’s 8.8
Viewing from the side: Clarus 8.9 to Spectral’s 7.3
Viewing from the front: Clarus 8.0 to Spectral’s 6.9
Previous experience of 3D is that the film is harder to watch, that the 3D enhancement is not
joined up to the rest of the film; viewing on a Clarus screen overcomes this, creating a more
integrated and natural visual experience.
The visual quality of 3D presentation on a Clarus screen exceeds that of
Spectral delivering depth and clarity of images and transforming opinions of 3D from
visually duller to totally immersive and convincing.
−
The ratings for ability to see every 3D detail supplied by respondents support this:
Viewing from the centre: Clarus 8.3 to Spectral’s 6.9
Viewing from the side: Clarus 8.7 to Spectral’s 7.0
Viewing from the front: Clarus 8.0 to Spectral’s 6.1
26
Conclusions cont’d
3D
•
The depth of 3D when viewed on a Clarus screen is greater than when viewed on
Spectral, and also delivers a much clearer picture across the screen.
−
•
Peripheral areas of the auditorium, where brightness levels and image quality
tend to be compromised is vastly improved with Clarus screen technology.
−
•
“it’s like looking through your own eyes”
At different seat locations respondents recorded similar ratings for image quality: central
position 8.6, side 8.8, front 8.4 (scores out of 10)
Clarus screen improves edge of screen brightness thereby delivering a better
clarity across the screen
−
Respondents rated brightness level at edges of the screen (1=too dark: 10=too bright)
Viewing from the centre: Clarus 6.3 to Spectral’s 5.1
Viewing from the side: Clarus 6.5 to Spectral’s 4.9
Viewing from the front: Clarus 6.5 to Spectral’s 4.2
Nb. Ratings between 6 and 7.5 = acceptable to good levels of brightness
•
Clarus screen technology has ability to overcome cinema-goers concerns about
3D quality inconsistencies, poor clarity of images, average viewing experience and
poor value for money (premium ticket price not justified)
27
Conclusions cont’d
2D
•
Clarus screen delivers a superior 2D viewing experience when compared to
Spectral although the gain is not as noticeable from the central seating area.
•
The overall viewing experience in the peripheral seats (side and front) is much
better on a Clarus screen compared to a Spectral screen.
Viewing from the side: Clarus 8.9 to Spectral’s 7.3
Viewing from the front: Clarus 8.0 to Spectral’s 6.9
•
There is improvement in brightness at the edges of the screen for viewers in
peripheral seats
Viewing from the side: Clarus 6.1 to Spectral’s 5.3
Viewing from the front: Clarus 6.3 to Spectral’s 5.6
•
Clarus screen technology delivers an overall improvement in cinema viewing
for 2D and 3D films, creating more light evenly distributed across the screen, and a
more realistic 3D experience.
28
Conclusions from qualitative groups
•
The key barriers which seem to exist in the 3D cinema world today are:
−
−
−
−
−
•
Lack of consistency of 3D film quality. People often come away slightly disappointed
3D not suitable for all subjects and genres. So, people filter their 3D viewing according to the genre
Only offers an average viewing experience – light, focus, clarity, consistency across screen. Not
revolutionary and exciting as initially hoped/expected
Fatigue - tiring to watch – need to join the dots/complete the picture mentally (An extra process
required to translate the total effect from the eyes to the brain)
Some people are just not prepared to pay a premium for the current 3D experience.
Clarus solves some of these issues and has the potential to change the mindset of people
when going to the cinema in terms of:
−
−
−
−
Expectations – a qualitatively better overall experience – ease of viewing and stronger
engagement/involvement in the film.
More desire to watch 3D films across a range of genres. The true picture makes 3D perceptually
more acceptable for more types of film subject – not just animation and high visual impact adventure
movies
Less importance placed on seating choice – due to greater consistency throughout theatre. Once in
the know, peoples’ preferred viewing area will broaden. However, Clarus screen will still not remove
the physical discomfort of sitting at the front of the cinema
Therefore the new technology and resulting experience could result in fewer LOST sales – through
greater booking of more seats across the theatre rather than the honeypot areas.
29
Recommendations
•
Harkness Screens have developed a technology in Clarus which delivers a better all
round experience to cinema-goers across 2D and 3D which can now be proved and
leveraged.
•
It’s USP is the consistency of picture quality and image across the whole
screen, the ease of viewing 3D and the more real life 3D experience which
draws the viewer in.
•
The marked difference in 3D experience, and how it addresses the concerns that our
respondents raised about their experiences of 3D provides Clarus with a strong PR
message to promote to cinema owners, operators and the cinema-going public
•
The superior technology will drive people to those cinemas/screens and will help to
introduce 3D viewing to a wider audience
•
The superior Clarus screen can help to justify the premium price for 3D viewing
30