skip to main content
article

Exploring visual and automatic measures of perceptual fidelity in real and simulated imagery

Published:01 July 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper introduces a new psychophysical experiment developed to enable observers to judge the quality of computer graphics imagery with respect to the real scene it depicts. This new framework facilitates perceptual judgment of images against a real scene. Unlike previous work, which examined primitive objects under basic illumination, this experiment examines complex geometry illuminated using a calibrated light source. To ensure valid results, a commercial lighting booth containing rapid prototyped three-dimensional (3D) objects serves as the real scene. For comparison, a series of representative images, of varying quality, were rendered using the physically based Radiance lighting simulation software. Results from these experiments show that higher parameter settings, which lead to longer processing times, do not necessarily lead to higher quality images. To demonstrate that there is only modest benefit to setting parameters higher, images are subjected to further testing using two different visual quality discrimination operators; the Visual Differences Predictor (VDP) and the Structural SIMilarity (SSIM) for image-quality assessment. The results from the automatic operators correspond well with each other, in addition to yielding comparable outcomes as the psychophysical experiment. Although, a single scene was considered in the experiment, several scenes are tested using the image-quality metrics to lend further reliability to the assertion that higher parameter settings, which lead to extended processing times, do not necessarily lead to superior quality results.

References

  1. Ahumada, A. and Beard, B. 1998. A simple vision model for inhomogeneous image quality assessment. International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers 6, 1, 40--41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. CIE. 1924. CIE Proceedings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. CMB. 2005. The gti colormatcher series. http://www.gtilite.com/colormatcher-series.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Coolican, H. 1999. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Daly, S. 1993. The visible differences predictor: An algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In Digital Images and Human Vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 179--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Devlin, K., Chalmers, A., Wilkie, A., and Purgathofer, W. 2002. Star: Tone reproduction and physically based spectral rendering. In State of the Art Reports, Eurographics 2002, D. Fellner and R. Scopignio, Eds. The Eurographics Association, Vienna, 101--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. FDM. 2005. Slu product realization lab. http://parks.slu.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferwerda, J., Pattanaik, S., Shirley, P., and Greenberg, D. 1997. A model of visual masking for computer graphics. ACM SIGGRAPH '97 Conference Proceedings 31, Annual Conference Series. 143--152. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilchrist, A. 1996. Lightness, Brightness and Transparency. Lawerence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilchrist, A. and Jacobsen, A. 1984. Perception of lightness and illumination in a world of one reflectance. Perception 13, 5--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gilchrist, A. L. 1979. The perception of surface blacks and whites. Scientific American 240, 3 (Mar.), 88--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Goral, C. M., Torrance, K. K., Greenberg, D. P., and Battaile, B. 1984. Modelling the interaction of light between diffuse surfaces. Proceedings ACM Siggraph 18, 3 (July), 213--222. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson, G. W., Rushmeier, H., and Piatko, C. 1997. A Visibility matching tone reproduction operator for high dynamic range scenes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 3, 4 (Oct.), 291--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Maamari, F. and Fontoynont, M. 2003. Analytical tests for investigating the accuracy of lighting programs. Lighting Research and Technology 35, 225--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Mania, A. 2001. Fidelity metrics for virtual environment simulations based on human judgements of spatial memory awareness states.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. McNamara, A. 2000a. Evaluating image quality metrics vs. human evaluation. ACM SIGGRAPH 2000 Sketches Program.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. McNamara, A. 2000b. Image quality metrics. In SIGGRAPH 2000 Image Quality Metrics Course Notes. ACM SIGGRAPH, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. McNamara, A., Chalmers, A., Trocianko, T., and Gilchrist, I. 2000. Comparing real & synthetic scenes using human judgements of lightness. In Proceedings of the 11th Eurographics Rendering Workshop, B. Peroche and H. E. Rushmeier, Eds. Springer-Verlag, Brno, Czech Republic, 207--218. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, G. W., Rushmeier, H. E., Cohen, M. F., Greenberg, D. P., and Torrance, K. E. 1986. An Experimental Evaluation of Computer Graphics Imagery. ACM Transactions on Graphics 5, 1 (Jan.), 30--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Morvan, Y. and McNamara, A. 2003. Assessing the visual perception impact of indirect lighting. In Proceedings of the 2005 Eurographics Ireland Workshop. Eurographics Ireland, Queens University, Belfast, Ireland, 87--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Rademacher, P., Lengyel, J., Cutrell, E., and Whitted, T. 2001. Measuring the perception of visual realism in images. In Proceedings of the 12th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering Techniques. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 235--248. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. RADIANCE. 2005. Radiance lighting simulation. http://radsite.lbl.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Reinhard, E., Stark, M., Shirley, P., and Ferwerda, J. 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. In SIGGRAPH '02: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 267--276. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Reinhard, E., Ward, G., Pattanaik, S., and Debevec, P. 2005. High Dynamic Range Imaging: Acquisition, Display and Image-Based Lighting. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, USA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanford. 2005. The stanford bunny. http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Szirmay-Kalos, L., Kovacs, L., and Abbas, A. M. 2001. Testing monte-carlo global illumination methods with analytically computable scenes. Ninth International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Interactive Digital Media (WSCG 2001) 1, 419--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Travis, D. 1991. Effective Color Displays. Academic Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulbricht, C., Wilkie, A., and Purgathofer, W. 2005. Verification of physically based rendering algorithms. In STAR Proceedings of Eurographics 2005, Y. Chrysanthou and M. Magnor, Eds. Eurographics Association, Geneva, Switzerland, 95--112. Eurographics 05 STAR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Usoh, M., Arthur, K., Whitton, M. C., Bastos, R., Steed, A., Slater, M., and Frederick P. Brooks, J. 1999. Walking, walking-in-place, flying, in virtual environments. In SIGGRAPH '99: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 359--364. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., and E. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 600--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Watson, A. B. 2000. Visual detection of spatial contrast patterns: Evaluation of five simple models. Optics Express 6(1), 12--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Exploring visual and automatic measures of perceptual fidelity in real and simulated imagery

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
      ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 3, Issue 3
      July 2006
      180 pages
      ISSN:1544-3558
      EISSN:1544-3965
      DOI:10.1145/1166087
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2006 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 July 2006
      Published in tap Volume 3, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader