Angularly continuous light‐field format: Concept, implementation, and evaluation

Abstract

In this paper, we present the concept, the implementation, and the evaluation of our novel angularly continuous light-field format. We compared the subjective visual performance of our format with the perspective camera format through a series of subjective and objective tests. In our extensive subjective study, we used multiple absolute and comparative rating scales and various visual stimuli with different contents and angular resolutions. The perceived quality was assessed by a total of 36 test participants, who were separated based on their scientific expertise. The objective quality was evaluated through the degradations caused by three well-known compression methods. The obtained results indicate that our light-field format may outperform the conventional format, and it generally can provide at least equivalent visual quality. Furthermore, these findings open the way for data size optimization, without compromising the achieved level of perceived quality.

How I Met Your V2X Sensor Data: Analysis of Projection-Based Light Field Visualization for Vehicle-to-Everything Communication Protocols and Use Cases

“…Beyond power requirements and other implementation-related challenges, light field visualization comes with immense data that is to be stored, processed, and depending on the use case, transmitted. To combat this, there are significant research efforts related to compression [ 96 ], alternate formats [ 97 ], and adaptive approaches [ 98 ].…”

Beyond Perceptual Thresholds and Personal Preference: Towards Novel Research Questions and Methodologies of Quality of Experience Studies on Light Field Visualization

“…As stated earlier, the majority of research questions are centered around perceptual thresholds and personal preference. Ahar et al [18] and Kara et al [26] addressed light field reconstruction; Cserkaszky et al studied the perceivable effects of interpolation techniques [19] and the viability of a novel light field format [20,21]; Darukumalli et al investigated the Region of Interest (RoI) [22] and different zoom levels [23] of light field content; Dricot et al [24] evaluated compression artefacts; Kara et al [27][28][29][30][31]33] and Kovacs et al [37][38][39] carried out subjective tests regarding spatial and angular resolutions; the works of Kara et al also cover the Field of View (FOV) [25], viewing conditions [34], 3D viewing sensation [35] and preferred viewing distance [36]; and Tamboli et al examined the effects of spatial distortion [40,41] and view synthesis [42], and assessed the personal preference regarding content orientation [43] as well. The work of Kara et al [32] on dynamic adaptive streaming is also evaluated through personal preference.…”

“…In most cases, a single test variable is appropriate for research. Determined by the research questions, the variables in the literature are spatial resolution [28], angular resolution [19][20][21]26,27,29,31], both spatial and angular resolutions [30,[32][33][34], spatial distortion [18], viewing distance [35,36], FOV [25], symbol size [37][38][39], zoom level [22,23], content alignment [23], compression and distortion parameters [24,40,41], the number of dropped views [42], content orientation [43] and user interface attributes [16,17].…”

One step closer to a better experience: analysis of the suitable viewing distance ranges of light field visualization usage contexts for observers with reduced visual capabilities

“…These studies cover the topics of resolution, 4-12 compression, 13 spatial distortion, 14,15 field of view (FOV), 16 interaction, 17,18 interpolation, 19 light field reconstruction, 20,21 view synthesis, 22 format assessment, 23,24 system assessment, 25 quality switching, 26 content orientation, 27 region of interest (RoI), 28 zoom levels, 29 viewing conditions 30 and viewing distance. 31,32 The works on viewing distance rely on the following equation:…”