8.2: Factors Affecting Image Quality Preferences

Image quality plays a key role in consumer purchasing decisions. In this study we manipulated image quality of videos using a consumer product that enhances digital video images in real time. Videos were presented on two HDTVs, enhanced by varying amounts and subjects made pairwise comparisons. Our results showed two distinct preference groups “Sharp” and “Smooth” in our study subjects. Preferences for enhancement depended on the video content, particularly the presence or absence of a human face.

[1]  Eli Peli,et al.  Statistical analysis of subjective preferences for video enhancement , 2010, Electronic Imaging.

[2]  Susan J Leat,et al.  Quantitative assessment of perceived visibility enhancement with image processing for single face images: a preliminary study. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  S. Leat,et al.  Custom‐devised and generic digital enhancement of images for people with maculopathy , 2009, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[4]  Eli Peli,et al.  Image Enhancement for Impaired Vision: the Challenge of Evaluation , 2009, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[5]  G. Walsh.  Optical dispensing: the science of vision or blind faith? , 2009, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  Kees Teunissen,et al.  Introduction: Special Section on Display Characterization , 2008 .

[7]  Eli Peli,et al.  Digital enhancement of television signals for people with visual impairments: Evaluation of a consumer product , 2008, Journal of the Society for Information Display.

[8]  Eli Peli,et al.  Measuring perceived video quality of MPEG enhancement by people with impaired vision. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[9]  Martin Rubinstein,et al.  Image enhancement of real-time television to benefit the visually impaired. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Modern Image Quality Assessment , 2006, Modern Image Quality Assessment.

[11]  Ed Jernigan,et al.  Generic and customised digital image enhancement filters for the visually impaired , 2005, Vision Research.

[12]  Rosemarie Rajae-Joordens,et al.  Paired comparisons in visual perception studies using small sample sizes , 2005, Displays.

[13]  S. Lipovetsky,et al.  Thurstone scaling via binary response regression , 2004 .

[14]  Yitzhak Yitzhaky,et al.  Wideband enhancement of television images for people with visual impairments. , 2004, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[15]  Peter G. Engeldrum,et al.  A Theory of Image Quality: The Image Quality Circle , 2004, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology.

[16]  Isaac N. Bankman,et al.  Handbook of medical imaging , 2000 .

[17]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging, Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics , 2000 .

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

[19]  Lindsay William Macdonald,et al.  Colour Imaging: Vision and Technology , 1999 .

[20]  E Peli,et al.  Image enhancement for the visually impaired: the effects of enhancement on face recognition. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[21]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[22]  E. Peli,et al.  Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Image Enhancement for the Visually Impaired Simulations and Experimental Results , 2022 .

[23]  Eli Peli,et al.  Image Enhancement For The Visually Impaired , 1984 .