Perceived quality of compressed stereoscopic images: Effects of symmetric and asymmetric JPEG coding and camera separation

ABSTRACT

JPEG compression of the left and right components of a stereo image pair is a way to save valuable bandwidth when transmitting stereoscopic images. This paper presents results on the effects of camera-base distance (B) and JPEG coding on overall image quality, perceived depth, perceived sharpness, and perceived eye strain. In the experiment, two stereoscopic still scenes were used, varying in depth (three different camera-base distances: 0, 8, and 12 cm) and compression ratio (4 levels: original, 1:30, 1:40, and 1:60). All levels of compression were applied to both the left and right stereo image, resulting in a 4 × 4 matrix of all possible symmetric and asymmetric coding combinations. The observers were asked to assess image quality, sharpness, depth, and eye strain. Results showed that an increase in JPEG coding had a negative effect on image quality, sharpness, and eye strain, but had no effect on perceived depth. An increase in camera-base distance increased perceived depth and reported eye strain, but had no effect on perceived sharpness. Results on asymmetric and symmetric coding showed that the relationship between perceived image quality and average bit rate is not straightforward. In some cases, image quality ratings of a symmetric coded pair can be higher than for an asymmetric coded pair, even if the averaged bit rate for the symmetric pair is lower, than for the asymmetric pair. Furthermore, sharpness and eye strain correlated highly and medium, respectively, with perceived image quality.

REFERENCES

• 1: Berthold, A. 1997. The influence of blur on the perceived quality and sensation of depth of 2D and stereo images. Tech. rep., ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories.
• 2: Boschman, M. 2000. ThurcatD: A tool for analyzing ratings on an ordinal category scale. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32, 379--388.
• 3: Dodgson, N. 2004. Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. In Proceedings of the SPIE 5291. 36--46.
• 4: Freeman, J. and Avons, S. 2000. Focus group exploration of presence through advanced broadcast services. In Proceedings of the SPIE 3959. 530--539.
• 5: IJsselsteijn, W. 2004. Presence in Depth. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
• 6: IJsselsteijn, W., de Ridder, H., Hamberg, R., Bouwhuis, D., and Freeman, J. 1998. Perceived depth and the feeling of presence in 3DTV. Displays 18, 207--214.
• 7: IJsselsteijn, W., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., and Avons, S. 2000. Presence: Concept, determinants and measurement. In Proceedings of the SPIE. 252--255.
• 8: IJsselsteijn, W., de Ridder, H., and Vliegen, J. 2000. Effects of stereoscopic filming parameters and display duration on the subjective assessment of eye strain. In Proceedings of the SPIE 3957. 12--22.
• 9: International Telecommunication Union. 2000. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Recommendation BT.500-10.
• 10: Mathias Johanson, Stereoscopic Video Transmission over the Internet, Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Internet Applications (wiapp '01), p.12, July 23-24, 2001
• 11: Julesz, B. 1971. Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
• 12: Kooi, F. and Toet, A. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25, 99--108.
• 13: Levelt, W. 1965. On Binocular Rivalry. Royal VanGorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.
• 14: Meegan, D. V., Stelmach, L. B., and Tam, W. J. 2001. Unequal weighting of monocular inputs in binocular combination: implications for the compression of stereoscopic imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 7, 143--153.
• 15: Mitsuhashi, T. 1996. Evaluation of stereoscopic picture quality with CFF. Ergonomics 39, 1344--1356.
• 16: Okoshi, T. 1980. Three-dimensional displays. In Proceedings of the IEEE 68. 548--564.
• 17: Okuyama, F. 1999. Evaluation of stereoscopic display with visual function and interview. In Proceedings of the SPIE 3639. 28--35.
• 18: Pastoor, S. and Wöpking, M. 1997. 3-d displays: A review of current technologies. Displays 17, 100--110.
• 19: Perkins, M. G. 1992. Data compression of stereopairs. IEEE Transactions on Communications 40, 684--696.
• 20: Sexton, I. and Surman, P. 1999. Stereoscopic and autostereoscopic display systems. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 85--99.
• 21: Stelmach, L. B. and Tam, W. J. 1998. Stereoscopic image coding: effect of disparate image-quality in left- and right-eye views. Signal Processing: Image Communications 14, 111--117.
• 22: Stelmach, L., Tam, W. J., Meegan, D., and Vincent, A. 2000. Stereo image quality: Effects of mixed spatio-temporal resolution. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 10, 188--193.
• 23: Tam, W., Stelmach, L., and Corriveau, P. 1998. Psychovisual aspects of viewing stereoscopic video sequences. In Proceedings of the SPIE 3295. 226--235.
• 24: Thurstone, L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273--286.
• 25: Westheimer, G. and McKee, S. 1980. Stereoscopic acuity with defocused and spatially filtered retinal images. J. Optical Soc. Am. 7, 772--778.
• 26: Yamanoue, H., Ide, S., Okui, M., Okano, F., Bitou, M., and Terashima, N. 2002. Parallax distribution for ease of viewing in stereoscopic hdtv. Tech. rep., NHK Laboratories Note No. 477.
• 27: Yano, S. and Yuyama, I. 1991. Stereoscopic HDTV: Experimental system and psychological effects. J. SMPTE 100. 14--18.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.7 Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism
  I.4 IMAGE PROCESSING AND COMPUTER VISION
        I.4.10 Image Representation

General Terms:
Human Factors

Keywords:
Asymmetric/symmetric JPEG coding, depth, eye strain, image quality, sharpness, stereoscopic images