A survey on computational displays: Pushing the boundaries of optics, computation, and perception

Masiá, Belén; Wetzstein, Gordon; Didyk, Piotr; Gutiérrez, Diego

doi:10.1016/j.cag.2013.10.003

Cited by 103 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 257 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed discussion can be found in the reviews by Wetzstein et al a[2012a] and Masia et al [2013]. Below we give a brief overview, emphasizing accommodative effects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

Optimal presentation of imagery with focus cues on multi-plane displays

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducing a real-world scene on a multi-plane display. Given a focus stack consisting of images of a scene focused at different distances, we use optimization to determine images to show on the presentation planes of the multi-plane display so that the image seen through the display when focusing at different distances matches the corresponding image of the input scene. The presentation planes combine additively in the viewer's eye to produce an image with realistic focus cues. AbstractWe present a technique for displaying three-dimensional imagery of general scenes with nearly correct focus cues on multi-plane displays. These displays present an additive combination of images at a discrete set of optical distances, allowing the viewer to focus at different distances in the simulated scene. Our proposed technique extends the capabilities of multi-plane displays to general scenes with occlusions and non-Lambertian effects by using a model of defocus in the eye of the viewer. Requiring no explicit knowledge of the scene geometry, our technique uses an optimization algorithm to compute the images to be displayed on the presentation planes so that the retinal images when accommodating to different distances match the corresponding retinal images of the input scene as closely as possible. We demonstrate the utility of the technique using imagery acquired from both synthetic and real-world scenes, and analyze the system's characteristics including bounds on achievable resolution.

show abstract

“…A detailed discussion can be found in the reviews by Wetzstein et al a[2012a] and Masia et al [2013]. Below we give a brief overview, emphasizing accommodative effects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

Optimal presentation of imagery with focus cues on multi-plane displays

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both cues are reminiscent of the way people experience 3D in the real world, and it is unclear if one cue is preferable to another, even though most existing light field editing tools have chosen so far to rely on the multiview approach. Furthermore, they do not require specialized viewing hardware [Wetzstein et al 2012;Masia et al 2013] and do not intrinsically necessitate additional data such as scene depth. We also test whether the use of depth information is helpful during editing.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do people edit light fields?

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a thorough study to evaluate different light field editing interfaces, tools and workflows from a user perspective. This is of special relevance given the multidimensional nature of light fields, which may make common image editing tasks become complex in light field space. We additionally investigate the potential benefits of using depth information when editing, and the limitations imposed by imperfect depth reconstruction using current techniques. We perform two different experiments, collecting both objective and subjective data from a varied number of editing tasks of increasing complexity based on local point-and-click tools. In the first experiment, we rely on perfect depth from synthetic light fields, and focus on simple edits. This allows us to gain basic insight on light field editing, and to design a more advanced editing interface. This is then used in the second experiment, employing real light fields with imperfect reconstructed depth, and covering more advanced editing tasks. Our study shows that users can edit light fields with our tested interface and tools, even in the presence of imperfect depth. They follow different workflows depending on the task at hand, mostly relying on a combination of different depth cues. Last, we confirm our findings by asking a set of artists to freely edit both real and synthetic light fields.

show abstract

“…With the exception of [Maimone et al 2013], none of these technologies is demonstrated to support accommodation. A recent survey of computational displays can be found in Masia et al [2013].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyeglasses-free display

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Figure 1: Vision correction with computational displays. On a conventional screen, people with optical aberrations see a blurred image (center left). Current approaches to aberration-correcting display use multilayer prefiltering (center) or light field displays (center right). While the former technology enhances perceived image sharpness, contrast is severely reduced. Existing light field-based solutions offer high contrast but require a very high angular sampling density, which significantly reduces image resolution. In this paper, we explore the convergence of light field display optics and computational prefiltering (right), which achieves high image resolution and contrast simultaneously. AbstractMillions of people worldwide need glasses or contact lenses to see or read properly. We introduce a computational display technology that predistorts the presented content for an observer, so that the target image is perceived without the need for eyewear. By designing optics in concert with prefiltering algorithms, the proposed display architecture achieves significantly higher resolution and contrast than prior approaches to vision-correcting image display. We demonstrate that inexpensive light field displays driven by efficient implementations of 4D prefiltering algorithms can produce the desired vision-corrected imagery, even for higher-order aberrations that are difficult to be corrected with glasses. The proposed computational display architecture is evaluated in simulation and with a low-cost prototype device.

show abstract

A survey on computational displays: Pushing the boundaries of optics, computation, and perception

Cited by 103 publications

References 257 publications

Optimal presentation of imagery with focus cues on multi-plane displays

Optimal presentation of imagery with focus cues on multi-plane displays

How do people edit light fields?

Eyeglasses-free display

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About