On comparing different codec profiles of coding methods for mobile 3 D television and video

The paper describes the results of a large-scale user study on comparing simple and complex codec profiles for mobile 3D television and video. Four different coding methods – Simulcast, Multiview Video Coding (MVC), Mixed Resolution Stereo Coding (MRSC), and Video+Depth were evaluated at two codec profiles. Baseline profile, using IPPP and CAVLC, and high profile, enabling hierarchical B-frames and CABAC, were under assessment. Our results show that MVC and Video+Depth provide the best overall quality for both coding profiles. In overall, perceived quality of both codec profiles is at the same level. However, the high profile provides the same quality at a lower bit rate.

[1]  Thomas Wiegand,et al.  Mixed resolution coding of stereoscopic video for Mobile devices , 2009, 2009 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video.

[2]  Namho Hur,et al.  Asymmetric Coding of Stereoscopic Video for Transmission Over T-DMB , 2007, 2007 3DTV Conference.

[3]  Dominik Strohmeier,et al.  Designing for user experience: what to expect from mobile 3d tv and video? , 2008, UXTV '08.

[4]  Atanas Gotchev,et al.  Mobile 3D television: development of core technological elements and user-centered evaluation methods toward an optimized system , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[5]  Dominik Strohmeier,et al.  Sharp, bright, three-dimensional: open profiling of quality for mobile 3DTV coding methods , 2010, Electronic Imaging.

[6]  Y. Wang,et al.  Video plus depth compression for mobile 3D services , 2009, 2009 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video.

[7]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  A survey of perceptual evaluations and requirements of three-dimensional TV , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[8]  Shinichi Uehara,et al.  1-inch diagonal transflective 2D and 3D LCD with HDDP arrangement , 2008, Electronic Imaging.