Modern WisdomThe Future Of Virtual Reality | Dr Sarah Jones | Modern Wisdom Podcast 110
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:37
Immersive storytelling vs. “story living”: what Sarah’s PhD actually means
Chris introduces Dr. Sarah Jones and her unusual credential: the first PhD in immersive storytelling. Sarah reframes it as “story living,” where narrative is experienced and assembled by the participant rather than delivered as a fixed, directed plot.
- •Immersive storytelling as experience-first rather than plot-first
- •“Story living” implies agency and personal interpretation
- •Using any available tech as a creative medium—often by experimenting and ‘breaking’ it
- 1:37 – 2:43
From TV journalism to VR: removing the screen as a barrier
Sarah explains her background in television journalism and why it pushed her toward immersive media. The core motivation is getting audiences closer to real stories by eliminating the distance created by a flat screen.
- •10 years in TV reporting informs her approach to narrative and reality
- •Mobile filmmaking brought proximity, but the screen still separated viewer and story
- •First VR experience revealed the possibility of placing the audience inside the scene
- 2:43 – 3:12
Tools of immersion: VR, AR, 360 video, and the pull of holograms
The conversation surveys the formats Sarah works across—traditional film, AR, VR, and 360 video—with 360 positioned as the easiest experimentation entry point. Sarah highlights growing fascination with holograms as the next storytelling frontier.
- •360 video as an accessible on-ramp to immersive experimentation
- •VR/AR as different storytelling grammars rather than simple add-ons
- •Holograms as an emerging medium she’s eager to explore further
- 3:12 – 4:48
Art vs. code: why immersive work demands collaboration
Chris asks whether Sarah approaches immersive tech as a coder or as a creative director, and she firmly lands on the artistic side. She emphasizes that immersive projects require tightly integrated collaboration between storytellers, technologists, and designers.
- •Basic coding literacy helps, but specialization matters
- •Immersive production is inherently multidisciplinary
- •‘Magic’ comes from teams where no single person can do it alone
- 4:48 – 7:16
Stop copy-pasting old media: designing for the platform (Sky News VR example)
Sarah critiques the common mistake of applying old production habits to new platforms. Using Sky News’ early VR coverage as an example, she argues that 360/VR requires rethinking audience perspective and narrative structure, not re-filming the same report.
- •Repurposing flat narratives into 360 is ‘lazy’ and misses VR’s strengths
- •Audience perspective changes when viewers are ‘on the beach’ rather than watching it
- •Parallel to early online journalism: copying TV/print content without redesigning for the medium
- 7:16 – 9:46
How VR planning differs: design the feeling first (Chungking Mansions case study)
Sarah explains that VR production starts with imagining the lived experience, not story beats. She describes filming in Hong Kong’s chaotic Chungking Mansions and intentionally breaking early VR editing “rules” to evoke disorientation and intensity.
- •VR pre-production: ‘close your eyes’ and define the target experience
- •Capturing mood (smell/noise/chaos) is harder than describing events
- •Using motion, rapid cuts, and level shifts to induce unease and embodiment
- 9:46 – 12:10
No frame, no single narrative: viewer agency and rewatchability in VR
They unpack how the loss of a frame changes storytelling control: different viewers can come away with different narratives. Sarah prefers trusting the audience over forcing gaze direction with cues, and Chris notes how this invites repeated viewing from new angles.
- •VR removes framing, enabling multiple valid ‘edits’ in the viewer’s head
- •Creators can guide gaze with sound/light—but Sarah argues against over-directing
- •Rewatching VR can reveal new details depending on where you look
- 12:10 – 14:14
Oculus Quest and the accessibility leap: untethered VR + Beat Saber
Sarah calls the Oculus Quest a game changer because it reduces friction: standalone headset, controllers, and room-scale play. Beat Saber becomes the concrete example of a compelling, fun use-case that helps drive mainstream adoption.
- •Quest as a major step beyond Go/Rift for many users
- •Standalone, untethered setup lowers barriers to entry
- •Beat Saber as a ‘killer app’ combining rhythm, movement, and exercise
- 14:14 – 17:07
Why VR video looks worse: resolution spread, streaming limits, and adaptation
Chris raises the perceived drop in video quality inside headsets, and Sarah explains the pixel-distribution problem: resolution is wrapped around a 360 sphere. They discuss practical limits (download vs. stream) and how users adapt after a few minutes.
- •360 resolution is distributed across the entire sphere, reducing perceived sharpness
- •Device/bitrate constraints vary by headset and delivery method
- •User perception adjusts; immersion can outweigh lower clarity
- 17:07 – 19:52
Living in VR for 48 hours: embodiment tricks, haptics, and realism vs. cartoons
Sarah recounts a 48-hour VR immersion experiment, including practical routines and unusual activities. She describes how haptics, visual effects, and sensory cues can quickly convince the brain—even when graphics are stylized—and mentions VR’s potential for pain reduction.
- •48-hour VR challenge with scheduled breaks and varied activities
- •Haptics and sensory design can override ‘cartoon’ skepticism
- •Experiment hinting VR can reduce perceived pain (tattoo heart-rate drop)
- 19:52 – 27:07
The best VR isn’t at home: immersive theater, events, and multi-sensory design
Sarah admits she’s often bored by consumer-at-home VR content and finds the most compelling work in location-based, social experiences. War of the Worlds and other event-style productions show how actors, sets, wind/heat/scent, projections, and headsets combine into something closer to theater than cinema.
- •Commercial pressure can limit creativity in at-home VR content
- •Location-based experiences (War of the Worlds, The VOID) ‘bring tech alive’
- •Multi-sensory layers: actors, physical sets, wind/heat/scents, lighting, headsets
- 27:07 – 32:43
Interactivity, movement, and photogrammetry: what’s possible now (and what isn’t)
They discuss the constraints of 360 film (limited freedom of movement) versus interactive VR driven by tethered computing or newer headsets. Sarah explains photogrammetry as a technique for building explorable realistic spaces and notes how supporting tech like 5G and better tooling accelerates progress.
- •Tethered VR enables richer worlds and navigation than 360 film
- •360 can add interaction but not true spatial freedom
- •Photogrammetry: stitching millions of images into explorable digital environments
- •Ecosystem enablers: bandwidth (5G), storage, batteries, and better pipelines
- 32:43 – 36:11
Will we get VR blockbusters? Likely yes—but not ‘films’ as we know them
Chris asks about full-length VR movies, and Sarah says longer experiences will arrive but won’t mirror traditional 120-minute seated cinema. She references notable shorter works (like CTRL) and predicts VR will integrate more naturally with theater, galleries, and AR layers than with conventional moviegoing.
- •Current VR narratives often top out around ~8–18 minutes
- •Future ‘blockbusters’ may involve movement/activity, not passive watching
- •VR more likely to blend into theater/art spaces than replace cinemas
- •AR may scale faster due to phone-based accessibility
- 36:11 – 39:48
Holograms and AR glasses: from stage projections to HoloLens storytelling
Sarah clarifies what “holograms” mean in practice—often sophisticated projection pipelines—and how AR glasses (HoloLens, Magic Leap) shift the landscape. She describes a HoloLens experience where you interview holographic characters as an immigration officer, with their realism changing based on your choices.
- •‘Hologram’ often equals advanced projection plus motion capture or synthesized footage
- •AR glasses overlay digital characters onto the real world
- •Interactive moral/decision experiences (immigration officer scenario)
- •Visual fidelity and presence can be manipulated to reinforce narrative consequences
- 39:48 – 50:32
Always-on vision tech and privacy: Google Glass lessons and the unease of being watched
They compare Blade Runner-style companions and Pokémon Go as steps on the same continuum of convenience and constant overlay. Sarah reflects on Google Glass’s failure—comfort, UX, and social acceptability—alongside the deeper privacy and regulation challenges of wearable cameras.
- •Key barrier is not just capability but seamless, socially acceptable form factor
- •Google Glass issues: awkward interaction, discomfort, conspicuous ‘recording’ fear
- •Wearable cameras trigger stronger reactions than always-listening devices
- •Regulation and norms lag behind rapidly evolving capture technologies
- 50:32 – 1:03:49
VR as an ‘empathy machine’? Persuasion power, regulation gaps, and social VR harassment
The discussion turns to VR’s documented ability to shift attitudes and behavior (refugee, homelessness, gender perspective-taking studies) and the risks of manipulation. Sarah cites government inquiry work on immersive tech and addiction, highlights harassment in social VR, and notes emerging safety tools like personal-space ‘bubbles.’
- •Immersive media can alter perceptions and behavior more than flat media
- •Examples: refugee-camp storytelling, homelessness studies, gender-swapping research
- •Risk: subliminal persuasion/‘brain hacking’ in an underregulated space
- •Social VR problems: high reported harassment; safety bubbles as mitigation
- •Policy catching up: select committee work on immersive tech, addiction, and harms
