Can small be beautiful? assessing image resolution requirements for mobile TV

Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 829-838

  Knoche, Hendrik ^a   McCarthy, John D ^a   Sasse, M Angela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Mobile TV; Resolution; Viewing distance

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABILITY; AUDIO QUALITY; BITRATES; MOBILE TV; RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS; VIDEO ENCODINGS; VIEWING DISTANCE;

IMAGE RESOLUTION; MOBILE DEVICES; OPTICAL RESOLVING POWER;

DIGITAL MULTIMEDIA BROADCASTING;

EID: 84883100516     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1101149.1101331     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Reimers, U. Digital Video Broadcasting IEEE Communications Magazine, 36 (6) 1998.
2. IEEE Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications (Rep. No. IEEE 802.11) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1999.
3. Narenthiran, K., Karaliopoulos, M., Tafazolli, R., Evans, B. G., Vincent, P., Selier, C. et al. S-DMB System Architecture and the MODIS DEMO in IST Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit 2003, 2003
4. ITU-T End-user multimedia QoS categories (Rep. No. G.1010), 2001.
5. Jain, R. Quality of Experience IEEE Multimedia, 11, p. 95-6, 2004.
6. Owens, D. A. & Wolfe-Kelly, K. Near Work, Visual Fatigue, and Variations of Oculomotor Tonus Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 28, p. 743-9, 1987.
7. Ankrum, D. R. Viewing Distance at Computer Workstations Work Place Ergonomics, p. 10-2 Sep/Oct 1996.
8. Weiner, R. Webster's New World Dictionary of Media and Communications (rev. and updated ed.) New York, NY: Macmillan, 1996
9. Knoche, H. & McCarthy, J. Mobile Users' Needs and Expectations of Future Multimedia Services in Proceedings of the WWRF12, 2004
10. Winkler, S. & Dufaux, F. Video Quality for Mobile Applications in Proc. of SPIE, p. 593-603, 2005
11. Winkler, S. & Faller, C. Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video in Proc. SPIE/IS&T Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, p. 139-48, 2005
12. McCarthy, J., and Sasse., M. A., Miras, D. Sharp or smooth? Comparing the effects of quantization vs. frame rate for streamed video in Proc. CHI, p. 535-42, 2004
13. Winkler, S. & Faller, C. Maximizing audiovisual quality at low bitrates in Proc. of Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics, 2005
14. Wikstrand, G. & Sun, J. Determining utility functions for streaming low bitrate football video in Proc. of IMSA 2004, 2004
15. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places University of Chicago Press, 1998
16. Lombard, M., and Grabe., M. E., Reich, R. D., Campanella, C., Ditton, T. B. Screen Size and viewer responses to television: A review of research in Annual Conf.of the Assoc.for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 1996
17. Okada, K.-I., Maeda, F., Ichikawaa, Y., Matsushita, Y. Multiparty videoconferencing at virtual social distance: MAJIC design in Proc. ACM conf. on Computer supported cooperative work, p. 385-93, 1994
18. Buxton, W. A. S. Telepresence: Integrating shared task and person spaces in Proceedings of Graphics Interface '92, p. 123-9, 1992
19. Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E., Tartar, D. The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal Media Psychology, 1, p. 49-68, 1999.
20. Horn, D. B. The effects of spatial and temporal video distortion on lie detection performance in Proceedings of CHI '02, 2002
21. Kies, J. K., and Williges., R. C., Rosson, M. B. Controlled Laboratory Experimentation and Field Study Evaluation of Video Conference for Distance Learning Applications (Rep. No. HCIL 96-02) Virginia Tech, 1996.
22. Barber, P. J. & Laws, J.V. Image Quality and Video Communication. In R. Damper, W. Hall, & J. Richards (Eds.) Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia Technologies & their Future Applications, p. 163-78, London, UK: Pentech Press, 1994
23. ITU-R Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. (Rep. No. BT.500-7), 2004.
24. Westheimer, G. Visual acuity, In W.M. Hart (Ed.), Adler's Physiology of the Eye: Clinical Application (9th ed., St. Louis, Mo: CV Mosby, 1992
25. Silbergleid, M. & Pescatore, M. The Guide To Digital Television (3rd ed.) Miller Freeman Psn Inc, 2000
26. Hands, D. S. A Basic Multimedia Quality Model IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 6 (6), p. 806-16, Dec. 2004.
27. Neumann, W. R., and Crigler., A. N., Bove, V. M. Television Sound and Viewer Perceptions in Proc. Joint IEEE/Audio Eng. Soc. Meetings, p. 101-4, 1991
28. Beerends, J. G. & de Caluwe, F. E. The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa Journal Audio Eng. Soc., 47, p. 355-62, 1999.
29. McCarthy, J., Miras, D., Knoche, H. TN01-1.1.03-UCL-MAESTRO-bandwidth- study-V02, 2004.
30. VQEG Final Report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment (Rep. No. http://www.vqeg.org), 2000.
31. Södergård, C. Mobile television - technology and user experiences Report on the Mobile-TV project (Rep. No. P506) VTT Information Technology, 2003.
32. Odyssey software inc. CFCOM, http://www.odysseysoftware.com/. 2003
33. Wilson, G. & Sasse, M.A. Do Users Always Know What's Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to Assess Media Quality. In S. McDonald, Y. Waern, & G. Cockton (Eds.) Proc. of HCI: People and Computers XIV, p. 327-39, 2000
34. Bouch, A. & Sasse, M.A. Why Value is Everything: A User-Centered Approach to Internet Quality of Service and Pricing in Proceedings of 9th International conference on Quality of Service (IWQoS'01), 2001
35. W3C-Recommendation, Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language SMIL 1.0 Specification., http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-smil-19980615. 1998