Measuring and predicting visual fidelity

ABSTRACT

This paper is a study of techniques for measuring and predicting visual fidelity. As visual stimuli we use polygonal models, and vary their fidelity with two different model simplification algorithms. We also group the stimuli into two object types: animals and man made artifacts. We examine three different experimental techniques for measuring these fidelity changes: naming times, ratings, and preferences. All the measures were sensitive to the type of simplification and level of simplification. However, the measures differed from one another in their response to object type. We also examine several automatic techniques for predicting these experimental measures, including techniques based on images and on the models themselves. Automatic measures of fidelity were successful at predicting experimental ratings, less successful at predicting preferences, and largely failures at predicting naming times. We conclude with suggestions for use and improvement of the experimental and automatic measures of visual fidelity.

REFERENCES

• Bart76: Bartram, D.J. (1976). Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks. Memory and Cognition, 4, 593-602.
• Boli98: Mark R. Bolin , Gary W. Meyer, A perceptually based adaptive sampling algorithm, Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.299-309, July 1998 [doi>10.1145/280814.280924]
• Cign98: Cignoni, P., Rocchini, C. & Scopigno, R. (1998). Metro: measuring error on simplified surfaces. Computer Graphics Forum, 17, 2, 167-174. Available at: http://vcg.iei.pi.cnr.it/ metro.html.
• Cosm93: Cosman, P., Gray, R. & Olshen, R. (1993). Evaluating quality of compressed medical images: SNR, subjective rating and diagnostic accuracy. Proc. IEEE, 82, 6, 919-932.
• Daly93: Scott Daly, The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity, Digital images and human vision, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993
• Edel99: Shimon Edelman, Representation and recognition in vision, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• Garl97: Michael Garland , Paul S. Heckbert, Surface simplification using quadric error metrics, Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.209-216, August 1997 [doi>10.1145/258734.258849]
• Garl99: Garland, M. (1999). Multiresolution modeling: survey and future opportunities. Eurographics '99, State of the Art Report (STAR).
• Gers92: Allen Gersho , Robert M. Gray, Vector quantization and signal compression, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1991
• Giro93: Bernd Girod, What's wrong with mean-squared error?, Digital images and human vision, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993
• Hink93: Paul Hinker , Charles Hansen, Geometric optimization, Proceedings of the 4th conference on Visualization '93, October 25-29, 1993, San Jose, California
• Hump88: Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlin, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67-103.
• Hump95: Humphreys, G. W., Lamote, C., & Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (1995). An interactive activation approach to object processing: Effects of structural similarity, name frequency, and task in normality and pathology. Memory, 3, 535-586.
• Joli85: Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
• Joli89: Jolicoeur, P., & Milliken, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 200-210.
• Lueb97: David Luebke , Carl Erikson, View-dependent simplification of arbitrary polygonal environments, Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.199-208, August 1997 [doi>10.1145/258734.258847]
• Lind00: Peter Lindstrom , Greg Turk, Image-driven simplification, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.19 n.3, p.204-241, July 2000 [doi>10.1145/353981.353995]
• Lind96: Peter Lindstrom , David Koller , William Ribarsky , Larry F. Hodges , Nick Faust , Gregory A. Turner, Real-time, continuous level of detail rendering of height fields, Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.109-118, August 1996 [doi>10.1145/237170.237217]
• Lind99: Peter Lindstrom , Greg Turk, Evaluation of Memoryless Simplification, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, v.5 n.2, p.98-115, April 1999 [doi>10.1109/2945.773803]
• Lubi93: Lubin, J. (1993). A visual discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. In Peli, E. (ed.). Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition, World Scientific, New Jersey, 245-283.
• Mart93: Martens, W. & Myszkowski, K. (1993). Psycho-physical validation of the visible differences predictor for global illumination applications. IEEE Visualization '93, Late Breaking Topics, 49-52. Also available at: http://wwwsv1.u-aizu. ac.jp/labs/csel/vdp/.
• Palm81: Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddelay (Eds.), Attention & Performance IX, Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum, 135-151.
• Pell00: Fabio Pellacini , James A. Ferwerda , Donald P. Greenberg, Toward a psychophysically-based light reflection model for image synthesis, Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.55-64, July 2000 [doi>10.1145/344779.344812]
• Rama99: Mahesh Ramasubramanian , Sumanta N. Pattanaik , Donald P. Greenberg, A perceptually based physical error metric for realistic image synthesis, Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.73-82, July 1999 [doi>10.1145/311535.311543]
• Redd98: Reddy, M. (1998). Specification and evaluation of level of detail selection criteria. Virtual Reality: Research, Development and Application, 3, 2, 132-143.
• Ross93: Rossignac, J. & Borrel, P. (1993). Multi resolution 3D approximations for rendering complex scenes. In Falcidieno, B. & Kunii, T. (eds.), Geometric Modeling in Computer Graphics. Springer Verlag, 455-465.
• Rush00: Rushmeier, H., Rogowitz, B. & Piatko, C. (2000). Perceptual issues in substituting texture for geometry. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, Bernice E. Rogowitz, Thrasyvoulos, N. Pappas, Editors, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 3959, 372-383.
• Ryan56: Ryan, T., & Schwartz, C. (1956). Speed of perception as a function of mode of representation. American J. Psychology, 69, 60-69.
• Turk92: Greg Turk, Re-tiling polygonal surfaces, Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.55-64, July 1992
• Vitk95: Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrell, L. (1995). Sources of name disagreement in object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 822-848.
• Vole00: Valdimir Volevich , Karol Myszkowski , Andrei Khodulev , Edward A. Kopylov, Using the visual differences predictor to improve performance of progressive global illumination computation, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.19 n.2, p.122-161, April 2000 [doi>10.1145/343593.343611]
• Wats00: Benjamin Watson , Alinda Friedman , Aaron McGaffey, Using naming time to evaluate quality predictors for model simplification, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.113-120, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332414]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS

General Terms:
Experimentation, Performance

Keywords:
human vision, image quality, model simplification, naming time, perception, visual fidelity