Literature DB >> 21552429

Using Blur to Affect Perceived Distance and Size.

Robert T Held1, Emily A Cooper, James F O'Brien, Martin S Banks.   

Abstract

We present a probabilistic model of how viewers may use defocus blur in conjunction with other pictorial cues to estimate the absolute distances to objects in a scene. Our model explains how the pattern of blur in an image together with relative depth cues indicates the apparent scale of the image's contents. From the model, we develop a semiautomated algorithm that applies blur to a sharply rendered image and thereby changes the apparent distance and scale of the scene's contents. To examine the correspondence between the model/algorithm and actual viewer experience, we conducted an experiment with human viewers and compared their estimates of absolute distance to the model's predictions. We did this for images with geometrically correct blur due to defocus and for images with commonly used approximations to the correct blur. The agreement between the experimental data and model predictions was excellent. The model predicts that some approximations should work well and that others should not. Human viewers responded to the various types of blur in much the way the model predicts. The model and algorithm allow one to manipulate blur precisely and to achieve the desired perceived scale efficiently.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21552429      PMCID: PMC3088122          DOI: 10.1145/1731047.1731057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ACM Trans Graph        ISSN: 0730-0301            Impact factor:   5.414


  23 in total

1.  Ordinal depth information from accommodation?

Authors:  M Mon-Williams; J R Tresilian
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Blur discrimination and its relation to blur-mediated depth perception.

Authors:  George Mather; David R R Smith
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.490

3.  Gravity as a monocular cue for perception of absolute distance and/or absolute size.

Authors:  J S Watson; M S Banks; C von Hofsten; C S Royden
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  Focus cues affect perceived depth.

Authors:  Simon J Watt; Kurt Akeley; Marc O Ernst; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  The effects of atmospheric scattering on binocular depth perception.

Authors:  G A FRY; C S BRIDGMAN; V J ELLERBROCK
Journal:  Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom       Date:  1949-01

6.  A new sense for depth of field.

Authors:  A P Pentland
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 6.226

7.  A computational approach to edge detection.

Authors:  J Canny
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 6.226

8.  Occlusion edge blur: a cue to relative visual depth.

Authors:  J A Marshall; C A Burbeck; D Ariely; J P Rolland; K E Martin
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.129

9.  Accommodation and apparent distance.

Authors:  S K Fisher; K J Ciuffreda
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.490

10.  Effects of brightness, hue, and saturation on perceived depth between adjacent regions in the visual field.

Authors:  H Egusa
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 1.490

View more
  20 in total

1.  Optimal defocus estimation in individual natural images.

Authors:  Johannes Burge; Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Focus information is used to interpret binocular images.

Authors:  David M Hoffman; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Crossed-uncrossed projections from primate retina are adapted to disparities of natural scenes.

Authors:  Agostino Gibaldi; Noah C Benson; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Creating correct blur and its effect on accommodation.

Authors:  Steven A Cholewiak; Gordon D Love; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Simulated disparity and peripheral blur interact during binocular fusion.

Authors:  Guido Maiello; Manuela Chessa; Fabio Solari; Peter J Bex
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  The vertical horopter is not adaptable, but it may be adaptive.

Authors:  Emily A Cooper; Johannes Burge; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Stereoscopy and the Human Visual System.

Authors:  Martin S Banks; Jenny C A Read; Robert S Allison; Simon J Watt
Journal:  SMPTE Motion Imaging J       Date:  2012-05

8.  Blur and disparity are complementary cues to depth.

Authors:  Robert T Held; Emily A Cooper; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Visual discomfort and depth-of-field.

Authors:  Louise O'Hare; Tingting Zhang; Harold T Nefs; Paul B Hibbard
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2013-05-16

10.  The (In)Effectiveness of Simulated Blur for Depth Perception in Naturalistic Images.

Authors:  Guido Maiello; Manuela Chessa; Fabio Solari; Peter J Bex
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.