High Frame Rates and the Visibility of Motion Artifacts

Video frame rates, higher than those in conventional use today, have been shown to lead to an increase in perceived quality due to a reduction in the visibility of motion artifacts, specifically motion blur and temporal aliasing. Despite this, frame rates used in television and cinema have remained constant for many years. Although not currently in widespread use, the most recent ultrahigh-definition television (UHDTV) video standard (International Telecommunications Union-Radiocommunication (ITU-R) Recommendation BT. 2020) specifies a higher spatial resolution and a wider dynamic range than its predecessor; it also supports frame rates up to 120 Hz. In this context, we investigate the influence of temporal sampling rate on the visibility of aliasing artifacts. Our results show that impairments in motion quality can be tolerated to a degree, and that it is acceptable to sample at frame rates 50% lower than the critical frame rate (CFR)—the point at which motion artifacts become perceptible. Based on real-world data related to median viewing distances and screen sizes, we make the recommendation that frame rates should be at least 100 Hz in future immersive video formats. Two further experiments show how the CFR is dependent on both stimulus size and luminance. With respect to luminance dependence, our results indicate that the CFR for a bright high-dynamic range display may be 30% higher than that for a conventional low-dynamic range display.

[1]  Robert S. Allison,et al.  Evidence that Viewers Prefer Higher Frame-Rate Film , 2015, ACM Trans. Appl. Percept..

[2]  Masaki Emoto,et al.  P‐30: Temporal Sampling Parameters and Motion Portrayal of Television , 2009 .

[3]  Kai Kunze,et al.  In the Eye of the Beholder: The Impact of Frame Rate on Human Eye Blink , 2016, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[4]  Scott Daly,et al.  Engineering observations from spatiovelocity and spatiotemporal visual models , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[5]  M. Emoto,et al.  Critical Fusion Frequency for Bright and Wide Field-of-View Image Display , 2012, Journal of Display Technology.

[6]  Jean Lorenceau,et al.  Psychophysical Assessment of Perceptual Performance With Varying Display Frame Rates , 2016, Journal of Display Technology.

[7]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[8]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[9]  Tom R. Scherzer,et al.  Occlusion improves the interpolation of sampled motion , 2012, Vision Research.

[10]  Scott Daly,et al.  A Psychophysical Study Exploring Judder Using Fundamental Signals and Complex Imagery , 2014 .

[11]  Yoshihiko Kuroki,et al.  A psychophysical study of improvements in motion‐image quality by using high frame rates , 2007 .

[12]  Charles A. Poynton,et al.  Motion Portrayal, Eye Tracking, and Emerging Display Technology , 1996 .

[13]  Jennifer Gille,et al.  41.2: Judder-Induced Edge Flicker in Moving Objects , 2001 .

[14]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its e ects on image quality , 1999 .

[15]  Katy C. Noland,et al.  High Frame Rate Television: Sampling Theory, the Human Visual System, and Why the Nyquist–Shannon Theorem Does Not Apply , 2016 .

[16]  Douglas Lanman,et al.  Put on your 3D glasses now: the past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality , 2014, SIGGRAPH '14.

[17]  Albert J. Ahumada,et al.  The pyramid of visibilty , 2016 .

[18]  Joyce E. Farrell,et al.  The visible persistence of stimuli in stroboscopic motion , 1990, Vision Research.

[19]  G F Harding,et al.  The Effect of Television Frame Rate on EEG Abnormalities in Photosensitive and Pattern‐Sensitive Epilepsy , 1997, Epilepsia.

[20]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Window of visibility: a psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays , 1986 .

[21]  Zhan Ma,et al.  Perceptual Quality Assessment of Video Considering Both Frame Rate and Quantization Artifacts , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[22]  Masaki Emoto,et al.  High-Frame-Rate Motion Picture Quality and Its Independence of Viewing Distance , 2014, Journal of Display Technology.

[23]  David R. Bull,et al.  The visibility of motion artifacts and their effect on motion quality , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[24]  J. Robson.  Spatial and Temporal Contrast-Sensitivity Functions of the Visual System , 1966 .

[25]  Peter J. Bex,et al.  MULTIPLE IMAGES APPEAR WHEN MOTION ENERGY DETECTION FAILS , 1995 .

[26]  Jeff B. Pelz,et al.  Spatio-velocity CSF as a function of retinal velocity using unstabilized stimuli , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[27]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  The pyramid of visibility , 2016, HVEI.

[28]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  High Frame Rates and Human Vision: A View through the Window of Visibility , 2013 .

[29]  M. Armstrong,et al.  High FrameRate Television , 2008 .

[30]  Fan Zhang,et al.  A study of subjective video quality at various frame rates , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[31]  John W. Woods.  Multidimensional Signal, Image, and Video Processing and Coding, Second Edition , 2011 .

[32]  Gillian S. Barbieri-Hesse,et al.  Motion sharpening and contrast: Gain control precedes compressive non-linearity? , 2003, Vision Research.

[33]  Martin S Banks,et al.  Temporal presentation protocols in stereoscopic displays: Flicker visibility, perceived motion, and perceived depth , 2011, Journal of the Society for Information Display.