What the camera sees
Ron Bowles, PhD (c)

Introduction
What you see is a function of where you stand and what you look at. This project
explores what the camera sees in an immersive simulation setting. Specifically, this
li d research
h project
j t compares th
the d
data
t provided
id d b
by video
id ffrom cameras using
i
applied
differing points of view against evaluation criteria representing different types of
learning outcomes in a simulation involving paramedic, police, and fire recruits.

Findings
1)

What does the camera see?

•
•

Methods

•

No single camera angle captures all observable behaviours
Video alone is not effective as a replacement for existing simulation evaluation
model
Video is an excellent audio record of what was said/done

We staged two sets of simulations, using the JIBC Donald B. Rix Public Safety
Simulation Centre. In the first simulation, Fire and Paramedic recruits perform a
“layered response” call for a multiple trauma patient. The second scenario start with a
g a shooting.
g A Paramedic crew responds
p
to manage
g the
Police incident involving
injured suspect.

2)

How does point-of-view change what is seen?

•

Operated is better than static. Context matters. Camera operators focused on
g shots missed. The roving
g cameras
keyy activities and aspects that the wide angle
were able to move around and obtain clearer views of critical activities.
Camera functions and POVs ranked from most to least effective for evaluation:
Overhead, roving camera
Handheld, roving camera (“outside” the simulation)
Handheld, roving camera (operated by bystander who is part of
simulation)
Overhead static camera
Floor level static camera

•
The simulations were recorded using a mix of 6 static (mounted, wide angle) and
operated cameras from 3 points-of-view.
•

•

•

Overhead POV:
• Static camera (fixed, wide angle)
• Operated (handheld, camera operator zooms/changes focus to
follow activity)
Floor level
level, “external”
external to the simulation POV:
• Static camera (fixed, wide angle, from traditional evaluator POV)
• Operated (handheld, camera operator zooms/changes focus to
follow activity)
Floor level, “engaged” in the simulation POV:
• Roving (camera operator as bystander with camcorder, moving
throughout the simulation)
• Head cam (helmet camera worn by participant in the simulation)

Program evaluators were given marking forms and a video of one of the camera
angles.
l
Th
They marked
k d the
h call,
ll noting
i what
h aspects off the
h callll could
ld not b
be adequately
d
l
assessed from that perspective. The evaluators were then given a video with a
synchronized “collage” of 4 POVs and marked the call again. The evaluators
completed a questionnaire that explored their impressions and experiences in using
the various video POVs and formats to mark the simulations.

3) How do you use video
video, along with other media,
media to re-present assessment
and evaluation of a call?
•

•

Collage view was seen as extremely useful. The quad split is compelling, and it
was interesting to observe evaluators using it to evaluate students. The
evaluators would constantly change focus from one POV to another throughout
the simulation.
The evaluators using the videos provided more qualitative feedback, while “live”
evaluators focused more on quantitative issues. Feedback from video evaluation
focused on process (interaction, decision-making), while live evaluators focused
on procedure
d
((skill
kill performance).
f
)

Attendant’s POV
Helmet Cam

Overhead Static POV

Discussion
Interestingly, the static camera
Interestingly
camera, situated where live evaluators are usually located in
classroom simulations, is ranked as the least effective POV for evaluation. The
overhead, roving camera was ranked as the most useful, followed by the floor level
roving cameras. The camera operators were able to follow the flow of the calls and
zoom or move to highlight critical activities.
The helmet camera was not useful for evaluation. The narrow angle and
unpredictable movement of the operator’s head rarely showed what the various
participants in the simulation were doing. Comparison of the helmet video with widerangle video also showed that the attendants tend to “point” their head towards the
middle
iddl off th
the scene, th
then use peripheral
i h l vision
i i when
h llooking
ki att specific
ifi activities.
ti iti
Thus, the helmet cameras were also not useful for showing what the attendants were
focusing on during the calls. The helmet cameras did, however, provide the best
audio source. Several evaluators commented that the audio was more useful than the
video in some instances.
All evaluators commented that they did not think that video evaluation would work
with the existing, checklist-based evaluation model, which focuses on skill
performance and sequencing. This feedback was corroborated by analysis of the
feedback given by the evaluators. However, the evaluators noted that the video was
very useful for assessing overall performance, and particularly aspects such as
teamwork, leadership, decision-making, and time management.

Evaluator’s POV
Static Camera

Floor level POV
Roving Camera

JUSTICE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA