Literature DB >> 23483111

Electronic magnification and perceived contrast of video.

Andrew Haun1, Russell L Woods, Eli Peli.   

Abstract

Electronic magnification of an image results in a decrease in its perceived contrast. The decrease in perceived contrast could be due to a perceived blur or to limited sampling of the range of contrasts in the original image. We measured the effect on perceived contrast of magnification in two contexts: either a small video was enlarged to fill a larger area, or a portion of a larger video was enlarged to fill the same area as the original. Subjects attenuated the source video contrast to match the perceived contrast of the magnified videos, with the effect increasing with magnification and decreasing with viewing distance. These effects are consistent with expectations based on both the contrast statistics of natural images and the contrast sensitivity of the human visual system. We demonstrate that local regions within videos usually have lower physical contrast than the whole, and that this difference accounts for a minor part of the perceived differences. Instead, visibility of 'missing content' (blur) in a video is misinterpreted as a decrease in contrast. We detail how the effects of magnification on perceived contrast can be measured while avoiding confounding factors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  digital zoom; interpolation; super-resolution; video scaling

Year:  2012        PMID: 23483111      PMCID: PMC3589112          DOI: 10.1002/jsid.127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp        ISSN: 1071-0922            Impact factor:   2.140


  14 in total

1.  Contrast sensitivity function and image discrimination.

Authors:  E Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Spatial frequency, phase, and the contrast of natural images.

Authors:  Peter J Bex; Walter Makous
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.129

3.  Less is more: subjective detailedness depends on stimulus size.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Michael Bach
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-08-10       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  A transducer model for contrast perception.

Authors:  M W Cannon; S C Fullenkamp
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

6.  In search of a contrast metric: matching the perceived contrast of Gabor patches at different phases and bandwidths.

Authors:  E Peli
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Texture interactions determine perceived contrast.

Authors:  C Chubb; G Sperling; J A Solomon
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The recognition and representation of edge blur: evidence for spatial primitives in human vision.

Authors:  R J Watt; M J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF VISION MULTIPLEXING DEVICES FOR VISION IMPAIRMENTS.

Authors:  Eli Peli; Gang Luo; Alex Bowers; Noa Rensing
Journal:  Int J Artif Intell Tools       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 1.208

View more
  1 in total

1.  Psychophysical contrast calibration.

Authors:  Long To; Russell L Woods; Robert B Goldstein; Eli Peli
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 1.886

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.