No abstract

Subjective assessment methods have been used reliably for many years to evaluate video quality. They continue to provide the most reliable assessments compared to objective methods. Some issues that arise with subjective assessment include the cost of conducting the evaluations and the fact that these methods cannot easily be used to monitor video quality in real time. Furthermore, traditional, analog objective methods, while still necessary, are not sufficient to measure the quality of digitally compressed video systems. Thus, there is a need to develop new objective methods utilizing the characteristics of the human visual system. While several new objective methods have been developed, there is to date no internationally standardized method.The Video Quality Experts Group (VQEG) was formed in October 1997 to address video quality issues. The group is composed of e xperts from various backgrounds and affiliations, including participants from several internationally recognized organizations working in the field of video quality assessment. The majority of participants are active in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and VQEG combines the expertise and resources found in several ITU Study Groups to work towards a common goal. The first task undertaken by VQEG was to provide a validation of objective video quality measurement methods leading to Recommendations in both the Telecommunications (ITU-T) and Radiocommunication (ITU-R) sectors of the ITU. To this end, VQEG designed and executed a test program to compare subjective video quality evaluations to the predictions of a number of proposed objective measurement methods for video quality in the bit rate range of 768 kb/s to 50 Mb/s. The results of this test show that there is no objective measurement system that is currently able to replace subjective testing. Depending on the metric used for evaluation, the performance of eight or nine models was found to be statistically equivalent, leading to the conclusion that no single model outperforms the others in all cases. The greatest achievement of this first validation effort is the unique data set assembled to help future development of objective models.

International audienceTraditionally, audio quality and video quality are evaluated separately in subjective tests. Best practices within the quality assessment community were developed before many modern mobile audiovisual devices and services came into use, such as internet video, smart phones, tablets and connected televisions. These devices and services raise unique questions that require jointly evaluating both the audio and the video within a subjective test. However, audiovisual subjective testing is a relatively under-explored field. In this paper, we address the question of determining the most suitable way to conduct audiovisual subjective testing on a wide range of audiovisual quality. Six laboratories from four countries conducted a systematic study of audiovisual subjective testing. The stimuli and scale were held constant across experiments and labs; only the environment of the subjective test was varied. Some subjective tests were conducted in controlled environments and some in public environments (a cafeteria, patio or hallway). The audiovisual stimuli spanned a wide range of quality. Results show that these audiovisual subjective tests were highly repeatable from one laboratory and environment to the next. The number of subjects was the most important factor. Based on this experiment, 24 or more subjects are recommended for Absolute Category Rating (ACR) tests. In public environments, 35 subjects were required to obtain the same Student.s t-test sensitivity. The second most important variable was individual differences between subjects. Other environmental factors had minimal impact, such as language, country, lighting, background noise, wall color, and monitor calibration. Analyses indicate that Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) are relative rather than absolute. Our analyses show that the results of experiments done in pristine, laboratory environments are highly representative of those devices in actual use, in a typical user environment

Stereoscopic 3D viewing provides greater immersion, but it can also lead to heightened visual and motion sickness symptoms. Viewers with prior symptoms in viewing TV and computer screen are not more likely to have increased ocular and physical symptoms in 3D viewing. Young viewers incurred higher immersion but also greater visual and motion sickness symptoms in 3D viewing; both will be reduced if a farther distance and a wider viewing angle are adopted.

No abstract