Subjective evaluation of an active crosstalk reduction system for mobile autostereoscopic displays

The Quality of Experience (QoE) provided by autostereoscopic 3D displays strongly depends on the user position. For an optimal image quality, the observer should be located at one of the relevant positions, called sweet spots, where artifacts reducing the QoE, such as crosstalk, are minimum. In this paper, we propose and evaluate a complete active crosstalk reduction system running on an HTC EVO 3D smartphone. To determine the crosstalk level at each position, a full display characterization was performed. Based on the user position and crosstalk profile, the system first helps the user to find the sweet spot using visual feedback. If the user moves away from the sweet spot, then the active crosstalk compensation is performed and reverse stereo phenomenon is corrected. The user preference between standard 2D and 3D modes, and the proposed system was evaluated through a subjective quality assessment. Results show that in terms of depth perception, the proposed system clearly outperforms the 3D and 2D modes. In terms of image quality, 2D mode was found to be best, but the proposed system outperforms 3D mode.

[1]  Hyungki Hong Simple method of characterizing the spatial luminance distribution at the user position for autostereoscopic 3‐D display , 2012 .

[2]  Robert S. Allison,et al.  Crosstalk reduces the amount of depth seen in 3D images of natural scenes , 2012, Electronic Imaging.

[3]  David M. Hoffman,et al.  Perceptual Issues in Stereoscopic Signal Processing , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[4]  M. Glickman Parameter Estimation in Large Dynamic Paired Comparison Experiments , 1999 .

[5]  Marja Salmimaa,et al.  Optical characterization and measurements of autostereoscopic 3D displays , 2008, SPIE Photonics Europe.

[6]  Karen O. Egiazarian,et al.  Optimized visualization of stereo images on an OMAP platform with integrated parallax barrier auto-stereoscopic display , 2009, 2009 17th European Signal Processing Conference.

[7]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures , 1995 .

[8]  Neil A. Dodgson On the number of viewing zones required for head-tracked autostereoscopic display , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[9]  Robert L. Brott,et al.  Optical characterization of autostereoscopic 3D displays , 2011, Electronic Imaging.

[10]  Sang-Yi Yi,et al.  Moving Parallax Barrier Design for Eye-Tracking Autostereoscopic Displays , 2008, 2008 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video.

[11]  P. Boher,et al.  A new way to characterize autostereoscopic 3D displays using Fourier optics instrument , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[12]  Karen O. Egiazarian,et al.  Optimized single-viewer mode of multiview autostereoscopic display , 2008, 2008 16th European Signal Processing Conference.

[14]  Subjective methods for the assessment of stereoscopic 3DTV systems , 2015 .

[15]  Pierre Boher,et al.  Optical characterization of different types of 3D displays , 2012, OPTO.

[16]  Marja Salmimaa,et al.  Optical characterization of autostereoscopic 3-D displays , 2008 .

[17]  Adi Abileah 3-D displays — Technologies and testing methods , 2011 .

[18]  Yi-Ping Hung,et al.  Video-based eye tracking for autostereoscopic displays , 2001 .

[19]  Yi-Ping Hung,et al.  Evaluation of an Eye Tracking Technology for 3D Display Applications , 2008, 2008 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video.

[20]  Seung-Hyun Lee,et al.  Three-dimensional display system using a variable parallax barrier and eye tracking , 2011 .