Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Assessment, Evaluation, and Optimization of Free Viewpoint Video Systems by Using Effective Sampling Density

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Connected Media in the Future Internet Era

  • 573 Accesses

Abstract

In a light field-based free viewpoint system (LF-based FVV), effective sampling density (ESD) is defined as the number of rays per unit area of the scene that has been acquired and is selected in the rendering process for reconstructing an unknown ray. The concept of ESD has been developed in last 7 years by the authors. It is shown that ESD is a tractable metric that quantifies the joint impact of the imperfections of LF acquisition and rendering. By deriving and analyzing ESD for the commonly used LF acquisition and rendering methods, it is shown that ESD is an effective indicator determined from system parameters and can be used to directly estimate output video quality without access to the ground truth. This claim is verified by extensive numerical simulations and comparison to PSNR. Furthermore, an empirical relationship between the output distortion (in PSNR) and the calculated ESD is established to allow direct assessment of the overall video distortion without an actual implementation of the system. A small-scale subjective user study is also conducted which indicates a correlation of 0.91 between ESD and perceived quality. ESD also has been applied to several problems for evaluation and optimization of FVV acquisition and rendering subsystems. This chapter summarizes an overview of the ESD and its application in evaluation and optimization of FVV systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Tanimoto M, Tehrani MP, Fujii T, Yendo T (2011) Free-viewpoint TV. IEEE Signal Process Mag 28:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tanimoto M (2012) FTV: free-viewpoint television. Signal Process Image Comm 27:555–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chai JX, Tong X, Chan SC, Shum HY (2000) Plenoptic sampling. Proc SIGGRAPH (ACM Trans Graphics) 307–318

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang C, Chen T (2003) Spectral analysis for sampling image-based rendering data. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 13:1038–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang C, Chen T (2006) Light field sampling. Synth Lect Image Video Multimed Process 2:1–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhouchen L, Heung-Yeung S (2004) A geometric analysis of light field rendering. Int J Comput Vision 58:121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. King-To N, Zhen-Yu Z, Chong W, Shing-Chow C, Heung-Yeung S (2012) A multi-camera approach to image-based rendering and 3-D/multiview display of ancient Chinese artifacts. IEEE Trans Multimed 14:1631–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Safaei F, Mokhtarian P, Shidanshidi H, Li W, Namazi-Rad M, Mousavinia A (2013) Scene-adaptive configuration of two cameras using the correspondence field function. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  9. Takahashi K, Naemura T (2006) Layered light-field rendering with focus measurement. Signal Process Image Comm 21:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Daniel NW, Daniel IA, Ken A, Brian C, Tom D, David HS et al (2000) Surface light fields for 3D photography. In: 27th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jingyi Y, McMillan L, Gortler S (2002) Scam light field rendering. In: 10th pacific conference on computer graphics and applications. pp 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shum HY, Sun J, Yamazaki S, Lin Y, Tang CK (2004) Pop-up light field: an interactive image-based modeling and rendering system. ACM Trans Graphics 23:143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen W, Jiang Zhang Z, Yao Si C, Zeng D (2010) An efficient method for all-in-focused light field rendering. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on computer science and information technology (ICCSIT). pp 399–404

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aaron I, Leonard M, Steven JG (2000) Dynamically reparameterized light fields. In: 27th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hansung K, Guillemaut JY, Takai T, Sarim M, Hilton A (2012) Outdoor dynamic 3-D scene reconstruction. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 22:1611–1622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu SX, An P, Zhang ZY, Zhang Q, Shen LQ, Jiang GY (2009) High quality virtual view synthesis based on corrected surface mapping and image fusion. Electron Lett 45:30–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ekmekcioglu E, Velisavljevic XV, Worrall ST (2011) Content adaptive enhancement of multi-view depth maps for free viewpoint video. IEEE J Selected Topics Signal Process 5:352–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Scandarolli T, de Queiroz RL, Florencio DA (2013) Attention-weighted rate allocation in free-viewpoint television. IEEE Signal Process Lett 20:359–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Qifei W, Xiangyang J, Qionghai D, Naiyao Z (2012) Free viewpoint video coding with rate-distortion analysis. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 22:875–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhun H, Qionghai D (2007) A new scalable free viewpoint video streaming system over IP network. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP). pp II-773-II-776

    Google Scholar 

  21. Adelson EH, Bergen JR (1991) The plenoptic function and the elements of early vision. In: Computational models of visual processing. Vision and Modeling Group, Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levoy M, Hanrahan P (1996) Light field rendering. Proc SIGGRAPH (ACM Trans Graphics) 31–42

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gortler SJ, Grzeszczuk R, Szeliski R, Cohen MF (1996) The lumigraph. Proc SIGGRAPH (ACM Trans Graphics) 43–54

    Google Scholar 

  24. Do MN, Marchand-Maillet D, Vetterli M (2012) On the bandwidth of the plenoptic function. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:708–717

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. ITU-T Recommendation P (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2011) Objective evaluation of light field rendering methods using effective sampling density. In: IEEE international workshop on multimedia signal processing (MMSP). pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2015) Estimation of signal distortion using effective sampling density for light field based free viewpoint video. IEEE Trans Multimed 17(10):1677–1693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shidanshidi H (2014) Effective sampling density for quality assessment and optimization of light field rendering and acquisition. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2013) A method for calculating the minimum number of cameras in a light field based free viewpoint video system. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Zamani-Farahani A, Li W (2013) Non-uniform sampling of plenoptic signal based on the scene complexity variations for a free viewpoint video system. In: IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). pp 3147–3151

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2015) Optimization of the number of rays in interpolation for light field based free viewpoint systems. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2015) Effective sampling density and its applications to the evaluation and optimization of free viewpoint video systems. IEEE COMSOC MMTC E-Lett 10(2):21–25

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2016) Optimization of free viewpoint video acquisition and rendering subsystems by using effective sampling density. IEEE Trans Multimedia TBA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Camahort E, Lerios A, Fussell D (1998) Uniformly sampled light fields. Rendering Tech 98:117–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Feng T, Shum HY (2000) An optical analysis of light field rendering. In: Fifth Asian conference on computer vision. pp 394–399

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lumsdaine A, Georgiev T (2008) Full resolution lightfield rendering. Indiana Univ Adobe Syst Tech Rep

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stewart J, Yu J, Gortler SJ, McMillan L (2003) A new reconstruction filter for undersampled light fields. In: 14th Eurographics workshop on rendering, Leuven, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wenfeng L, Jin Z, Baoxin L, Sezan MI (2009) Virtual view specification and synthesis for free viewpoint television. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 19:533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zitnick CL, Kang SB, Uyttendaele M, Winder S, Szeliski R (2004) High-quality video view interpolation using a layered representation. Proc Siggraph (ACM Trans Graphics) 600–609

    Google Scholar 

  40. Seitz SM, Curless B, Diebel J, Scharstein D, Szeliski R (2006) A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In: CVPR. pp 519–528

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kilner J, Starck J, Guillemaut JY, Hilton A (2009) Objective quality assessment in free-viewpoint video production. Image Commun 24:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2006) Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 15:430–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pons A, Malo J, Artigas J, Capilla P (1999) Image quality metric based on multidimensional contrast perception models. Displays 20:93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Winkler S (1998) A perceptual distortion metric for digital color images. In: ICIP, vol 3. pp 399–403

    Google Scholar 

  45. Brandão T, Queluz P (2006) Towards objective metrics for blind assessment of images quality. In: IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). pp 2933–2936

    Google Scholar 

  46. Seshadrinathan K, Bovik AC (2007) A structural similarity metric for video based on motion models. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, vol 1, pp I-869–I-872

    Google Scholar 

  47. Winkler S (2007) Video quality and beyond. In: European signal processing conference. pp 3–7

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13:600–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eskicioglu AM, Fisher PS (1995) Image quality measures and their performance. IEEE Trans Commun 43:2959–2965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Avcıbaş İ, Sankur B, Sayood K (2002) Statistical evaluation of image quality measures. J Electron Imag 11:206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bosc E, Pepion R, Le Callet P, Koppel M, Ndjiki-Nya P, Pressigout M et al (2011) Towards a new quality metric for 3-D synthesized view assessment. IEEE J Selected Topics Signal Process 5:1332–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bosc E, Koppel M, Pepion R, Pressigout M, Morin L, Ndjiki-Nya P et al (2011) Can 3D synthesized views be reliably assessed through usual subjective and objective evaluation protocols? In: 18th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). pp 2597–2600

    Google Scholar 

  53. Raskar R, Agrawal AK (2010) 4D light field cameras. Google Patents (ed)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Takahashi K (2012) Theoretical analysis of view interpolation with inaccurate depth information. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:718–732

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Shidanshidi H, Safaei F, Li W (2011) A quantitative approach for comparison and evaluation of light field rendering techniques. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schwarz S, Olsson R, Sjostrom M (2013) Depth sensing for 3DTV: a survey. IEEE Multimed 20:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Khoshelham K, Elberink SO (2012) Accuracy and resolution of kinect depth data for indoor mapping applications. Sensors 12:1437–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Pattinson T (2010) Quantification and description of distance measurement errors of a time-of-flight camera. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  59. (2001) Methodological framework for specifying accuracy and cross-calibration of video quality metrics. Tech. Rep. T1.TR.72-2001

    Google Scholar 

  60. Brill MH, Lubin J, Costa P, Wolf S, Pearson J (2004) Accuracy and cross-calibration of video quality metrics: new methods from ATIS/T1A1. Signal Process Image Comm 19:101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. The (new) Stanford light field archive. Stanford University Computer Graphics Laboratory, [Online]. http://lightfield.stanford.edu/lfs.Print

  62. Mantiuk RK, Tomaszewska A, Mantiuk R (2012) Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. In: Computer graphics forum, vol 31 (no. 8). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp 2478–2491

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICT Research Institute, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Hooman Shidanshidi, Farzad Safaei & Wanqing Li

Authors
  1. Hooman Shidanshidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzad Safaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wanqing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hooman Shidanshidi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Digital Technologies, Loughborough University London, London, United Kingdom

    Ahmet Kondoz

  2. Division of Computer Science and Informatics, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom

    Tasos Dagiuklas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shidanshidi, H., Safaei, F., Li, W. (2017). Quality Assessment, Evaluation, and Optimization of Free Viewpoint Video Systems by Using Effective Sampling Density. In: Kondoz, A., Dagiuklas, T. (eds) Connected Media in the Future Internet Era. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-4026-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-4026-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-4024-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-4026-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation