Literature DB >> 24107400

Factors affecting enhanced video quality preferences.

Prem Nandhini Satgunam, Russell L Woods, P Matthew Bronstad, Eli Peli.   

Abstract

The development of video quality metrics requires methods for measuring perceived video quality. Most of these metrics are designed and tested using databases of images degraded by compression and scored using opinion ratings. We studied video quality preferences for enhanced images of normally-sighted participants using the method of paired comparisons with a thorough statistical analysis. Participants (n=40) made pair-wise comparisons of high definition video clips enhanced at four different levels using a commercially available enhancement device. Perceptual scales were computed with binary logistic regression to estimate preferences for each level and to provide statistical inference of the differences among levels and the impact of other variables. While moderate preference for enhanced videos was found, two unexpected effects were also uncovered: 1) participants could be broadly classified into two groups: a) those who preferred enhancement ("Sharp") and b) those who disliked enhancement ("Smooth") and 2) enhancement preferences depended on video content, particularly for human faces to be enhanced less. The results suggest that algorithms to evaluate image quality (at least for enhancement) may need to be adjusted or applied differentially based on video content and viewer preferences. The possible impact of similar effects on image quality of compressed video needs to be evaluated.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24107400      PMCID: PMC3915306          DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2013.2282120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process        ISSN: 1057-7149            Impact factor:   10.856


  13 in total

1.  DifScal: a tool for analyzing difference ratings on an ordinal category scale.

Authors:  M C Boschman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2001-02

2.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.

Authors:  Zhou Wang; Alan Conrad Bovik; Hamid Rahim Sheikh; Eero P Simoncelli
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 10.856

3.  A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms.

Authors:  Hamid Rahim Sheikh; Muhammad Farooq Sabir; Alan Conrad Bovik
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 10.856

4.  Denoising forced-choice detection data.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Thurstone's measurement of social values revisited forty years later.

Authors:  C H Coombs
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1967-05

6.  The effect of content desirability on subjective video quality ratings.

Authors:  Philip Kortum; Marc Sullivan
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video.

Authors:  Kalpana Seshadrinathan; Rajiv Soundararajan; Alan Conrad Bovik; Lawrence K Cormack
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 10.856

8.  Effects of contour enhancement on low-vision preference and visual search.

Authors:  Premnandhini Satgunam; Russell L Woods; Gang Luo; P Matthew Bronstad; Zachary Reynolds; Chaithanya Ramachandra; Bartlett W Mel; Eli Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Digital Enhancement of Television Signals for People with Visual Impairments: Evaluation of a Consumer Product.

Authors:  Matthew Fullerton; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.140

10.  Measuring perceived video quality of MPEG enhancement by people with impaired vision.

Authors:  Matthew Fullerton; Russell L Woods; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.129

View more
  3 in total

1.  An implementation of Bubble Magnification did not improve the video comprehension of individuals with central vision loss.

Authors:  Francisco M Costela; Stephanie M Reeves; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 3.992

2.  Context-aware adaptation of mobile video decoding resolution.

Authors:  Octavian Machidon; Jani Asprov; Tine Fajfar; Veljko Pejović
Journal:  Multimed Tools Appl       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 2.577

3.  Taxonomy of Individual Variations in Aesthetic Responses to Fractal Patterns.

Authors:  Branka Spehar; Nicholas Walker; Richard P Taylor
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.169

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.