@incollection{Aishwarya-Sudhama:2017jk,
	abstract = {Advances in high-dynamic range, wide-colour-gamut displays have created unparalleled opportunities for improving image quality, but have also driven rapid expansion of data bandwidth requirements. To meet these needs, there is increasing demand for low-impairment display stream compression (DSC). The goal of low-impairment DSC is to ensure that the final product meets demanding compression targets, while being perceptually identical to the original image. Objective approaches, based on error metrics, are useful to a point, but cannot reliably predict the visibility of artefacts near the limits of detection.  Thus, subjective assessments are required to confirm that compression is visually lossless, a task that is is made more complex by the fact that the benchmarks (e.g., what is visually lossless) are not well defined, and by a lack of theory linking these perceptual outcomes to objective error metrics. Subjective quality measures can be dramatically affected by choice of methodology, content and participant experience. Here we will discuss this issue in the context of our recent experiments in which we evaluated leading low impairment algorithms using a common image set, and a side-by-side flicker detection paradigm (ISO/IEC 29170-2).  In follow-up trials we evaluated these same codecs using a modified motion-based paradigm and show that in this more realistic viewing scenario, viewers are often less sensitive to compression-related artefacts.


},
	annote = {Toronto June 2017},
	author = {Sudhama, A. and Deas, L. M. and Goel, J and Allison, R. S. and Wilcox, L. M.},
	booktitle = {Centre for Vision Research International Conference on Vision in the Real World},
	date-added = {2017-06-08 17:40:28 +0000},
	date-modified = {2017-09-03 18:24:20 +0000},
	keywords = {Image Quality},
	pages = {33},
	title = {Subjective evaluation of image quality},
	year = {2017}}

{"_id":"zKoiJATRJQaDDCMYu","bibbaseid":"sudhama-deas-goel-allison-wilcox-subjectiveevaluationofimagequality-2017","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-11-16T15:32:55.626Z","title":"Subjective evaluation of image quality","author_short":["Sudhama, A.","Deas, L. M.","Goel, J","Allison, R. S.","Wilcox, L. M."],"year":2017,"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/network/files/ibWG96BS4w7ibooE9","bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","abstract":"Advances in high-dynamic range, wide-colour-gamut displays have created unparalleled opportunities for improving image quality, but have also driven rapid expansion of data bandwidth requirements. To meet these needs, there is increasing demand for low-impairment display stream compression (DSC). The goal of low-impairment DSC is to ensure that the final product meets demanding compression targets, while being perceptually identical to the original image. Objective approaches, based on error metrics, are useful to a point, but cannot reliably predict the visibility of artefacts near the limits of detection. Thus, subjective assessments are required to confirm that compression is visually lossless, a task that is is made more complex by the fact that the benchmarks (e.g., what is visually lossless) are not well defined, and by a lack of theory linking these perceptual outcomes to objective error metrics. Subjective quality measures can be dramatically affected by choice of methodology, content and participant experience. Here we will discuss this issue in the context of our recent experiments in which we evaluated leading low impairment algorithms using a common image set, and a side-by-side flicker detection paradigm (ISO/IEC 29170-2). In follow-up trials we evaluated these same codecs using a modified motion-based paradigm and show that in this more realistic viewing scenario, viewers are often less sensitive to compression-related artefacts. ","annote":"Toronto June 2017","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sudhama"],"firstnames":["A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Deas"],"firstnames":["L.","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Goel"],"firstnames":["J"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Allison"],"firstnames":["R.","S."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wilcox"],"firstnames":["L.","M."],"suffixes":[]}],"booktitle":"Centre for Vision Research International Conference on Vision in the Real World","date-added":"2017-06-08 17:40:28 +0000","date-modified":"2017-09-03 18:24:20 +0000","keywords":"Image Quality","pages":"33","title":"Subjective evaluation of image quality","year":"2017","bibtex":"@incollection{Aishwarya-Sudhama:2017jk,\n\tabstract = {Advances in high-dynamic range, wide-colour-gamut displays have created unparalleled opportunities for improving image quality, but have also driven rapid expansion of data bandwidth requirements. To meet these needs, there is increasing demand for low-impairment display stream compression (DSC). The goal of low-impairment DSC is to ensure that the final product meets demanding compression targets, while being perceptually identical to the original image. Objective approaches, based on error metrics, are useful to a point, but cannot reliably predict the visibility of artefacts near the limits of detection. Thus, subjective assessments are required to confirm that compression is visually lossless, a task that is is made more complex by the fact that the benchmarks (e.g., what is visually lossless) are not well defined, and by a lack of theory linking these perceptual outcomes to objective error metrics. Subjective quality measures can be dramatically affected by choice of methodology, content and participant experience. Here we will discuss this issue in the context of our recent experiments in which we evaluated leading low impairment algorithms using a common image set, and a side-by-side flicker detection paradigm (ISO/IEC 29170-2). In follow-up trials we evaluated these same codecs using a modified motion-based paradigm and show that in this more realistic viewing scenario, viewers are often less sensitive to compression-related artefacts.\n\n\n},\n\tannote = {Toronto June 2017},\n\tauthor = {Sudhama, A. and Deas, L. M. and Goel, J and Allison, R. S. and Wilcox, L. M.},\n\tbooktitle = {Centre for Vision Research International Conference on Vision in the Real World},\n\tdate-added = {2017-06-08 17:40:28 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2017-09-03 18:24:20 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {Image Quality},\n\tpages = {33},\n\ttitle = {Subjective evaluation of image quality},\n\tyear = {2017}}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Sudhama, A.","Deas, L. M.","Goel, J","Allison, R. S.","Wilcox, L. M."],"key":"Aishwarya-Sudhama:2017jk","id":"Aishwarya-Sudhama:2017jk","bibbaseid":"sudhama-deas-goel-allison-wilcox-subjectiveevaluationofimagequality-2017","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Image Quality"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{"allison, r":"https://percept.eecs.yorku.ca/bibase%20pubs.shtml"}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["subjective","evaluation","image","quality","sudhama","deas","goel","allison","wilcox"],"keywords":["image quality"],"authorIDs":["5458111c2abc8e9f37000a4d","5e596c1656d60ade0100014f","vnY8GQ5AKXHNi7dqd"],"dataSources":["kmmXSosvtyJQxBtzs","BPKPSXjrbMGteC59J","MpMK4SvZzj5Fww5vJ","YbBWRH5Fc7xRr8ghk","szZaibkmSiiQBFQG8","DoyrDTpJ7HHCtki3q","JaoxzeTFRfvwgLoCW","XKwRm5Lx8Z9bzSzaP","AELuRZBpnp7nRDaqw"]}