Quality metric for approximating subjective evaluation of 3-D objects

Many factors, such as the number of vertices and the resolution of texture, can affect the display quality of three-dimensional (3-D) objects. When the resources of a graphics system are not sufficient to render the ideal image, degradation is inevitable. It is, therefore, important to study how individual factors will affect the overall quality, and how the degradation can be controlled given limited resources. In this paper, the essential factors determining the display quality are reviewed. We then integrate two important ones, resolution of texture and resolution of wireframe, and use them in our model as a perceptual metric. We assess this metric using statistical data collected from a 3-D quality evaluation experiment. The statistical model and the methodology to assess the display quality metric are discussed. A preliminary study of the reliability of the estimates is also described. The contribution of this paper lies in: 1) determining the relative importance of wireframe versus texture resolution in perceptual quality evaluation and 2) proposing an experimental strategy for verifying and fitting a quantitative model that estimates 3-D perceptual quality. The proposed quantitative method is found to fit closely to subjective ratings by human observers based on preliminary experimental results.

[1]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Are image quality metrics adequate to evaluate the quality of geometric objects? , 2001, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[2]  Benjamin Watson,et al.  Measuring and predicting visual fidelity , 2001, SIGGRAPH.

[3]  Mel W. Siegel,et al.  Just enough reality: comfortable 3-D viewing via microstereopsis , 2000, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol..

[4]  Gary W. Meyer,et al.  A perceptually based adaptive sampling algorithm , 1998, SIGGRAPH.

[5]  David J. Sakrison,et al.  The effects of a visual fidelity criterion of the encoding of images , 1974, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[6]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  Perceptual distortion metric for digital color video , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  Irene Cheng,et al.  Optimal adaptive bandwidth monitoring for QoS based retrieval , 2003, IEEE Trans. Multim..

[8]  Scott J. Daly,et al.  Visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[9]  Paolo Cignoni,et al.  A comparison of mesh simplification algorithms , 1998, Comput. Graph..

[10]  Lewis E. Hitchner,et al.  Psychophysical Rating Of Image Compression Techniques , 1989, Photonics West - Lasers and Applications in Science and Engineering.

[11]  Paul S. Heckbert,et al.  Survey of Polygonal Surface Simplification Algorithms , 1997 .

[12]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Perceptual issues in substituting texture for geometry , 2000, Electronic Imaging.

[13]  John O. Limb,et al.  Distortion Criteria of the Human Viewer , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[14]  Jay Torborg,et al.  Talisman: commodity realtime 3D graphics for the PC , 1996, SIGGRAPH.

[15]  Anup Basu,et al.  Enhancing videoconferencing using spatially varying sensing , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[16]  Donald P. Greenberg,et al.  A model of visual masking for computer graphics , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[17]  Stephen D. Voran,et al.  Objective video quality assessment system based on human perception , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[18]  Paolo Cignoni,et al.  Representation and visualization of terrain surfaces at variable resolution , 1997, The Visual Computer.

[19]  Patrick C. Teo,et al.  Perceptual image distortion , 1994, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Image Processing.

[20]  Michael Deering,et al.  Geometry compression , 1995, SIGGRAPH.

[21]  Olivier Verscheure,et al.  Perceptual quality measure using a spatiotemporal model of the human visual system , 1996, Electronic Imaging.