Perceptual quality assessment of 3D videos with stereoscopic degradations

  • Alessandro R. SilvaEmail author
  • Mylène C. Q. Farias


In the last decade, several aspects of the 3D video technology have been improved, including the 3D content production, distribution, and display. Still, the level of acceptability and popularity of 3D video applications are strongly correlated to the user Quality of Experience (QoE). Since research in this area depends heavily on data acquired in psychophysical experiments, public databases with typical stereoscopic degradations are considered important tools to researchers. Although currently there are number of available public 3D video quality databases, most of them contain only compression and transmission degradations. In this work, our first goal was to build a database (UnB-3D) that contains stereoscopic distortions. We created a set of Computer Graphics Imaging (CGI) scenes and rendered it using different parameters, generating 3D videos containing stereoscopic degradations at different strengths. Our second goal is to understand how these stereoscopic degradations are perceived by viewers. So, we performed a psychophysical experiment to analyze the perceived quality and comfort of these videos. Finally we conducted the statistical analysis and model generation. Results shows that users that have little familiarity with 3D content have difficulties identifying stereoscopic distortions. Also, the source content has a great influence on the user’s comfort. Similarly, the 3D quality is affected by the spatial and temporal information of the content, specially when the disparity is high.


3D video quality Psychophysical experiments Stereoscopic degradations Quality databases 



  1. 1.
    Alatan AA, Yemez Y, Gudukbay U, Zabulis X, Muller K, Erdem cE, Weigel C, Smolic A (2007) Scene representation technologies for 3DTV. A survey. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 17(11):1587–1605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boev A, Hollosi D, Gotchev A (2008) Classification of stereoscopic artefacts. Accessed 06 jun 2019
  3. 3.
    Corrigan D, Pitié F, Morris V, Rankin A, Linnane M, Kearney G, Gorzel M, O’Dea M, Lee C, Kokaram A (2010) A video database for the development of stereo-3d post-production algorithms. In: 2010 Conference on visual media production (CVMP). IEEE, pp 64–73Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumić E, Grgić S, Šakić K, Rocha PMR, da Silva Cruz LA (2017) 3d video subjective quality: a new database and grade comparison study. Multimed Tools Appl 76(2):2087–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farias M (2019) Unb-3d video quality database. Accessed 06 Jun (2019)
  6. 6.
    Fontaine DB, Cesson-sévigné CS (2010) Video quality assessment: from 2D to 3D – challenges and future trends. In: IEEE International conference on image processingGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldmann L, Lee JS, Ebrahimi T (2010) Temporal synchronization in stereoscopic video: influence on quality of experience and automatic asynchrony detection. In: 2010 IEEE International conference on image processing. IEEE, pp 3241–3244,
  8. 8.
    ITUJ.341 (2011) Objective perceptual multimedia video quality measurement of hdtv for digital cable television in the presence of a full reference. Accessed: 06 Jun (2019)
  9. 9.
    ITUR.1788 (2007) Recommendation ITU-R BT. 1788 Methodology for the subjective assessment of video quality in multimedia applications. Accessed 06 Jun (2019)
  10. 10.
    Lebreton P, Raake A, Barkowsky M, Le Callet P (2012) Evaluating depth perception of 3D stereoscopic videos. IEEE J Selected Topics Signal Process 6 (6):710–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lipton L (1982) Foundations of the stereoscopic cinema: a study in depth, 1st edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meesters L, IJsselsteijn W, Seuntiens P (2004) A survey of perceptual evaluations and requirements of three-dimensional TV. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 14(3):381–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seuntiens P (2006) Visual experience of 3D TV. Eindhoven University Press Facilities, Eindhoven NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seuntiens P, Vogels I, van Keersop A (2007) Visual experience of 3DTV with pixelated ambilight. In: 10th Annual international workshop on presenceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smolic A, Mueller K, Stefanoski N, Ostermann J, Gotchev A, Akar GB, Triantafyllidis G, Koz A (2007) Coding algorithms for 3DTV—a survey. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 17(11):1606–1621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Staelens N, Casier K, Broeck WVD, Vermeulen B, Demeester P (2012) Determining customers willingness to pay during in-lab and real-life video quality evaluation. In: International workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics - VQPMGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Urey H, Chellappan KV, Erden E, Surman P (2011) State of the art in stereoscopic and autostereoscopic displays. Proc IEEE 99(4):540–555. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Urvoy M, Barkowsky M, Cousseau R, Koudota Y, Ricordel V, Le Callet P, Gutierrez J, Garcia N (2012) NAMA3DS1-COSPAD1: subjective video quality assessment database on coding conditions introducing freely available high quality 3D stereoscopic sequencesGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woods A, Docherty T, Koch R (1993) Image distortions in stereoscopic video systems. Proc SPIE:Stereoscopic Dispalys Appl IV(1915):36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Federal de GoiásAnápolisBrasil
  2. 2.University of BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations