Evaluation of subjective image quality with the square-root integral method

Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 1990, Pages 2024-2031

  Barten, Peter G J ^a  

^a Barten Consultancy ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001048440     PISSN: 10847529     EISSN: 15208532     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.7.002024     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. E. M. Granger and K. N. Cupery, “An optical merit function (SQF), which correlates with subjective image judgments,” Photog. Sci. Eng. 16, 221-230 (1972).
2. H. L. Snyder, “Modulation transfer function area as a measure of image quality,” presented at the Visual Search Symposium of the Committee on Vision, National Academy of Sciences, Wash-ington, D.C., 1970.
3. A. van Meeteren, “Visual aspects of image intensification,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Nether-lands, 1973).
4. G. C. Higgins, “Image quality criteria,” J. Appl. Photogr. Eng. 3, 53-60 (1977).
5. H. L. Task, A. R. Pinkus, and J. P. Hornseth, “A comparison of several television display image quality measures,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Displ. 19,113-119 (1978).
6. C. R. Carlson and R. W. Cohen, “A simple psycho-physical model for predicting the visibility of displayed information,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Displ. 21,229-246 (1980).
7. R. J. Beaton, “Quantitative models of image quality,” presented at the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting, 1983.
8. P. G. J. Barten, “The SQRI method: a new method for the evaluation of visible resolution on a display,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Displ. 28,253-262 (1987).
9. P. G. J. Barten, “Evaluation of CRT displays with the SQRI method,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Displ. 30, 9-14 (1989).
10. P. G. J. Barten, “The effects of picture size and definition on perceived image quality,” IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev. 36,1865-1869 (1989).
11. P. G. J. Barten, “The square root integral (SQRI): a new metric to describe the effect of various display parameters on perceived image quality,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digi-tal Display, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 1077,73-82 (1989).
12. C. R. Carlson, “Sine-wave threshold contrast-sensitivity func-tion: dependence on display size,” RCA Rev. 43, 675-683 (1982).
13. F. L. van Nes, “Experimental studies in spatiotemporal contrast transfer by the human eye,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1968).
14. J. H. D. M. Westerink and J. A. J. Roufs, “A local basis for perceptually relevant resolution measures,” Soc. Inf. Display Digest 19, 360-363 (1988).
15. S. H. Baker and M. E. Carpenter, “Correlation of spot charac-teristics with perceived image quality,” IEEE Trans. Commun. Electron. 35,319-324 (1989).
16. E. van der Zee and M. H. W. A. Boesten, “The influence of luminance and size on the image quality of complex scenes,” in IPO Annual Progress Report (Institute for Perception Re-search, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 1980), pp. 69-75.
17. J. H. D. M. Westerink and J. A. J. Roufs, “Subjective image quality as a function of viewing distance, resolution and picture size,” SMPTE J. 98,113-119 (1989).
18. T. Hatada, H. Sakata, and H. Kusaka, “Psychophysical analysis of the ‘sensation of reality’ induced by a visual wide-field dis-play,” SMPTE J. 95, 560-569 (1980).
19. T. Mitsuhashi, “Scanning specifications and picture quality,” in “High-definition television,” NHK Tech. Monograph (Japan Broadcasting Corporation, Tokyo, 1982), pp. 21-32.
20. L. C. Jesty, “The relation between picture size, viewing distance and picture quality,” Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng. Part B 105, 425-439 (1958).