Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Comparison of Subjective Methods for Quality Assessment of 3D Graphics in Virtual Reality

Published: 31 December 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Numerous methodologies for subjective quality assessment exist in the field of image processing. In particular, the Absolute Category Rating with Hidden Reference (ACR-HR), the Double Stimulus Impairment Scale (DSIS), and the Subjective Assessment Methodology for Video Quality (SAMVIQ) are considered three of the most prominent methods for assessing the visual quality of 2D images and videos. Are these methods valid/accurate to evaluate the perceived quality of 3D graphics data? Is the presence of an explicit reference necessary, due to the lack of human prior knowledge on 3D graphics data compared to natural images/videos? To answer these questions, we compare these three subjective methods (ACR-HR, DSIS, and SAMVIQ) on a dataset of high-quality colored 3D models, impaired with various distortions. These subjective experiments were conducted in a virtual reality environment. Our results show differences in the performance of the methods depending on the 3D contents and the types of distortions. We show that DSIS and SAMVIQ outperform ACR-HR in terms of accuracy and point out a stable performance. In regard to the time-effort, DSIS achieves the highest accuracy in the shortest assessment time. Results also yield interesting conclusions on the importance of a reference for judging the quality of 3D graphics. We finally provide recommendations regarding the influence of the number of observers on the accuracy.

    Supplementary Material

    a2-nehme-suppl.pdf (nehme.zip)
    Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Comparison of Subjective Methods forQuality Assessment of 3D Graphics in Virtual Reality

    References

    [1]
    E. Alexiou and T. Ebrahimi. 2017. On subjective and objective quality evaluation of point cloud geometry. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’17). 1--3.
    [2]
    Evangelos Alexiou and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2017. On the performance of metrics to predict quality in point cloud representations. In Applications of Digital Image Processing XL, Andrew G. Tescher (Ed.), Vol. 10396. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 282--297.
    [3]
    Evangelos Alexiou, Irene Viola, Tomas M. Borges, Tiago A. Fonseca, Ricardo L. de Queiroz, and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2019. A comprehensive study of the rate-distortion performance in MPEG point cloud compression. APSIPA Trans. Signal Info. Process. 8 (2019), e27.
    [4]
    E. Alexiou, N. Yang, and T. Ebrahimi. 2020. PointXR: A toolbox for visualization and subjective evaluation of point clouds in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 12fth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’20). 1--6.
    [5]
    Kjell Brunnström and Marcus Barkowsky. 2018. Statistical quality of experience analysis: On planning the sample size and statistical significance testing. J. Electron. Imag. 27 (2018), 1.
    [6]
    ITU-R BT.1788. 2007. Methodology for the subjective assessment of video quality in multimedia applications. In Proceedings of the International Telecommunication Union.
    [7]
    ITU-R BT.500-13. 2012. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures BT series broadcasting service. In Proceedings of the International Telecommunication Union.
    [8]
    Philip Corriveau, Christina Gojmerac, Bronwen Hughes, and Lew Stelmach. 1999. All subjective scales are not created equal: The effects of context on different scales. Signal Process. 77, 1 (1999), 1--9.
    [9]
    Massimiliano Corsini, Elisa Drelie Gelasca, Touradj Ebrahimi, and Mauro Barni. 2007. Watermarked 3D mesh quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 9 (2007), 247--256.
    [10]
    Luis A. da Silva Cruz, Emil Dumic, Evangelos Alexiou, Joao Prazeres, Rafael Duarte, Manuela Pereira, Antonio Pinheiro, and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2019. Point cloud quality evaluation: Towards a definition for test conditions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience. 6. Retrieved from http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/264995.
    [11]
    EBU. 2003. SAMVIQ—Subjective assessment methodology for video quality. Technical Report BPN 056, European Broadcasting Union.
    [12]
    Michael Garland and Paul S. Heckbert. 1997. Surface simplification using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings of the ACM Siggraph. 209--216.
    [13]
    Jinjiang Guo, Vincent Vidal, Irene Cheng, Anup Basu, Atilla Baskurt, and Guillaume Lavoue. 2016. Subjective and objective visual quality assessment of textured 3D meshes. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 14 (2016), 1--20.
    [14]
    Q. Huynh-Thu, M. Garcia, F. Speranza, P. Corriveau, and A. Raake. 2011. Study of rating scales for subjective quality assessment of high-definition video. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 57, 1 (2011), 1--14.
    [15]
    Quan Huynh-Thua and Martlesham Heath. 2007. Examination of the SAMVIQ methodology for the subjective assessment of multimedia quality. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics.
    [16]
    Alireza Javaheri, Catarina Brites, Fernando Pereira, and Joao Ascenso. 2019. Point cloud rendering after coding: Impacts on subjective and objective quality. Retrieved from https://arxiv:eess.IV/1912.09137.
    [17]
    Taichi Kawano, Kazuhisa Yamagishi, and Takanori Hayashi. 2014. Performance comparison of subjective assessment methods for stereoscopic 3D video quality. IEICE Trans. Commun. E97.B, 4 (2014), 738--745.
    [18]
    Kimiko Kawashima, Kazuhisa Yamagishi, and Takanori Hayashi. 2018. Performance comparison of subjective quality assessment methods for 4k video. IEICE Trans. 101-B (2018), 933--945.
    [19]
    Joseph J. LaViola. 2000. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 32 (2000), 47--56.
    [20]
    Guillaume Lavoué. 2009. A local roughness measure for 3D meshes and its application to visual masking. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 5 (2009), 4.
    [21]
    Guillaume Lavoue, Elisa Drelie Gelasca, Florent Dupont, Atilla Baskurt, and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2006. Perceptually driven 3D distance metrics with application to watermarking. Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE’06). 6312.
    [22]
    G. Lavoué and R. K. Mantiuk. 2015. Quality assessment in computer graphics. In Visual Signal Quality Assessment: Quality of Experience. Springer, 243--286.
    [23]
    Ho Lee, Guillaume Lavoué, and Florent Dupont. 2012. Rate-distortion optimization for progressive compression of 3D mesh with color attributes. Visual Comput. 28, 2 (2012), 137--153.
    [24]
    Rafał K. Mantiuk, Anna Tomaszewska, and Radosław Mantiuk. 2012. Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. Comput. Graph. Forum 31, 8 (2012), 2478--2491.
    [25]
    Kenneth Mcgraw and S. P. Wong. 1996. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol. Methods 1, 30--46.
    [26]
    ITU-T P.910. 2009. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. In Proceedings of the International Telecommunication Union.
    [27]
    Yixin Pan, I. Cheng, and A. Basu. 2005. Quality metric for approximating subjective evaluation of 3D objects. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 7, 2 (2005), 269--279.
    [28]
    Rafal Piórkowski, Radoslaw Mantiuk, and Adam Siekawa. 2017. Automatic detection of game engine artifacts using full reference image quality metrics. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 14, 3 (2017), Article 14, 17 pages.
    [29]
    Georg Regal, Raimund Schatz, Johann Schrammel, and Stefan Suette. 2018. VRate: A Unity3D asset for integrating subjective assessment questionnaires in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’18). 1--3.
    [30]
    Bernice E. Rogowitz and Holly E. Rushmeier. 2001. Are image quality metrics adequate to evaluate the quality of geometric objects? In Photonics West 2001-Electronic Imaging. In Proceedings of International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE’01).
    [31]
    Kalpana Seshadrinathan, Rajiv Soundararajan, Alan Conrad Bovik, and Lawrence K. Cormack. 2010. Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 19 (2010), 1427--41.
    [32]
    Ashutosh Singla, Werner Robitza, and Alexander Raake. 2018. Comparison of subjective quality evaluation methods for omnidirectional videos with DSIS and modified ACR. In IS8T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2018. (2018), 14.
    [33]
    Stephane Pechard, Romuald Pepion, Patrick Le Callet. 2008. Suitable methodology in subjective video quality assessment: A resolution dependent paradigm. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Image Media Quality and its Applications (IMQA’08).
    [34]
    S. Subramanyam, J. Li, I. Viola, and P. Cesar. 2020. Comparing the quality of highly realistic digital humans in 3DoF and 6DoF: A volumetric video case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’20). 127--136.
    [35]
    T. Tominaga, T. Hayashi, J. Okamoto, and A. Takahashi. 2010. Performance comparisons of subjective quality assessment methods for mobile video. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’10). 82--87.
    [36]
    TR 26.918 V15.2.0. 2018. Virtual reality (VR) media services over 3GPP. Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects (TSG-SA) in the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).
    [37]
    Andre M. van Dijk, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Andrew B. Watson. 1995. Quality asessment of coded images using numerical category scaling, Vol. 2451. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE’95). 90--101.
    [38]
    K. Vanhoey, B. Sauvage, P. Kraemer, and G. Lavoué. 2017. Visual quality assessment of 3D models: On the influence of light-material interaction. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 15 (2017), 1.
    [39]
    David Hands and Kjell Brunnström. 2007. Multimedia Group Test Plan. Report version 1.19. Video Quality Experts Group (VQEG).
    [40]
    B. Watson, A. Friedman, and A. McGaffey. 2001. Measuring and predicting visual fidelity. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference. ACM, 213--220.
    [41]
    Krzysztof Wolski, Daniele Giunchi, Nanyang Ye, Piotr Didyk, Karol Myszkowski, Radoslaw Mantiuk, Hans-Peter Seidel, Anthony Steed, and Rafal Mantiuk. 2018. Dataset and metrics for predicting local visible differences. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 1--14.
    [42]
    Emin Zerman, Pan Gao, Cagri Ozcinar, and Aljosa Smolic. 2019. Subjective and objective quality assessment for volumetric video compression. Electron. Imag. 323 (2019), 1--7.
    [43]
    E. Zerman, C. Ozcinar, P. Gao, and A. Smolic. 2020. Textured mesh vs coloured point cloud: A subjective study for volumetric video compression. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’20). 1--6.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Remote expert viewing, laboratory tests or objective metrics: which one(s) to trust?Journal on Image and Video Processing10.1186/s13640-024-00630-72024:1Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Saliency and Depth-Aware Full Reference 360-Degree Image Quality AssessmentInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence10.1142/S021800142351022938:01Online publication date: 9-Feb-2024
    • (2024)“Discriminability–Experimental Cost” Tradeoff in Subjective Video Quality Assessment of Codec: DCR with EVP Rating Scale Versus ACR–HR2024 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS)10.1109/PCS60826.2024.10566279(1-5)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
    ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 18, Issue 1
    January 2021
    67 pages
    ISSN:1544-3558
    EISSN:1544-3965
    DOI:10.1145/3446623
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    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: 31 December 2020
    Accepted: 01 September 2020
    Revised: 01 July 2020
    Received: 01 July 2019
    Published in TAP Volume 18, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. 3D graphics
    2. SAMVIQ
    3. Visual quality assessment
    4. accuracy
    5. double stimulus
    6. single stimulus
    7. subjective methodologies
    8. time-effort

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    • rench National Research Agency as part of ANR-PISCo

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)61
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Remote expert viewing, laboratory tests or objective metrics: which one(s) to trust?Journal on Image and Video Processing10.1186/s13640-024-00630-72024:1Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Saliency and Depth-Aware Full Reference 360-Degree Image Quality AssessmentInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence10.1142/S021800142351022938:01Online publication date: 9-Feb-2024
    • (2024)“Discriminability–Experimental Cost” Tradeoff in Subjective Video Quality Assessment of Codec: DCR with EVP Rating Scale Versus ACR–HR2024 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS)10.1109/PCS60826.2024.10566279(1-5)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Comparison of Conditions for Omnidirectional Video with Spatial Audio in Terms of Subjective Quality and Impacts on Objective Metrics Resolving PowerICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10448123(8210-8214)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
    • (2023)Textured Mesh Quality Assessment: Large-scale Dataset and Deep Learning-based Quality MetricACM Transactions on Graphics10.1145/359278642:3(1-20)Online publication date: 5-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Physically-based Lighting of 3D Point Clouds for Quality AssessmentProceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences10.1145/3573381.3597231(423-426)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2023
    • (2023)The Precision and Repeatability of Media Quality Comparisons: Measurements and New Statistical MethodsIEEE Transactions on Broadcasting10.1109/TBC.2023.323652869:2(378-395)Online publication date: Jun-2023
    • (2023)Impacts of Transmission Methods on User Perception of 3D Model in Virtual Reality2023 RIVF International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies (RIVF)10.1109/RIVF60135.2023.10471796(43-47)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2023
    • (2023)A Model for Predicting the Level of Motion Sickness Caused by Virtual Reality Content by Using Attention and Effective Visual Field Mechanism2023 9th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR)10.1109/ICVR57957.2023.10169213(400-407)Online publication date: 12-May-2023
    • (2023)Recovering Quality Scores in Noisy Pairwise Subjective Experiments Using Negative Log-Likelihood2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)10.1109/ICIP49359.2023.10222071(2635-2639)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media