Post on 17-Jan-2016
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT), Japan
Taichi Kawano
Conducted subjective quality assessment for ACR, DCR, and DSCQS to compare their stabilities in 3D video
Experimental results showed that ACR is suitable in terms of its stability and assessing time
ACR
0.22
0.26
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.42
0.46
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
MC
I
M
3D2D
MCI of ACR for 3D video was larger than that for 2D video.
DCR
0.220.260.300.340.380.420.46
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
MC
I
M
3D2D
456789
10
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
MC
I
M
3D2D
DSCQS
No significant difference in MCI of DCR and DSCQS between 2D and 3D videos.
In DCR and DSCQS, it might be easy for participants to evaluate 3D video quality because there is a reference video
In ACR, it might be difficult for participants to evaluate 3D video quality because they do not have a criterion for evaluating 3D video quality due to lack of viewing experience
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Nor
mal
ized
MC
I
M
ACRDCRDSCQS
minmax MOSMOS
MCI MCI Normalized
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Nor
mal
ized
MC
I
M
ACRDCRDSCQS
Normalized MCI of ACR with 24 participants for 2D video
Normalized MCI of ACR with 24 participants for 2D video
To satisfy the criterion (Normalized MCI < 0.09)
28 people must participate in ACR
23 people must participate in DCR
36 people must participate in DSCQS
DCR is suitable in term of MHowever, the assessing time of DCR is twice as long as that of ACR
Assessing time of ACR per participant is T
If “Normalized MCI < 0.09” is neededACR requires 28T (T * 28 people)DCR requires 46T (2T * 23 people)DSCQS requires 144T (4T * 36 people)
ACR is suitable in term of its stability and assessing time.
Propose using ACR with more than 28 participants for 3D video
Scores of 42 participants
P1 : Score=4P2 : Score=5
P42 : Score=5
Scores of M participants
P1 : Score=4P2 : Score=5
P42 : Score=5
Randomly select
CalculateMCI
MCI
Selection and calculation were repeated 15 times
MCI in graph plots average of 15 MCIs