Quality assessment of auto-stereoscopic rendering depending on positioning accuracy of multi-view capture systems’ components

  • Mohamed Ali-Bey
  • Noureddine Manamanni
  • Saïd Moughamir


This paper concerns the quality assessment of the 3D rendering in a production process of auto-stereoscopic images using a multi-view camera with parallel and decentring configuration. The 3D rendering quality problem for such process is related to the coherence of the captured images of different viewpoints. This coherence depends, among others, on a rigorous respect of the shooting and rendering geometries. Assuming perfect rendering conditions, we are rather interested in the shooting geometry and image sensors positioning. This latter must be accurate enough to produce images that are quite coherent with each other and that contribute fully to achieve a quality 3D content. The purpose of this paper is precisely to study the positioning accuracy of the different geometrical parameters of shooting based on a quality assessment of auto-stereoscopic rendering. For the assessment of the 3D rendering quality and in order to determine a positioning accuracy of the different components of the considered multi-view camera, two different approaches are proposed. The first one is based on visual assessment tests of the 3D rendering quality by human observers. The second one is based on the acquired scientific knowledge on human visual acuity. Finally, some simulation and experimental results and their repercussion on the positioning accuracy of the shooting parameters are presented.


3D quality assessment Multi-view capture accuracy Dynamic 3D scene capture Auto-stereoscopic visualization Visual servoing 


  1. Ali-Bey, M., Manamanni, N., & Moughamir, S. (2010a). Dynamic Adaptation of Multi View Camera Structure. In 3DTV-conference: The true vision—capture, transmission and display of 3D video (3DTV-CON’10), Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  2. Ali-Bey, M., Moughamir, S., & Manamanni, N. (2010b). Towards structurally adaptive multi-view shooting system. In 18th Mediterranean conference on control and automation (MED), Marrakesh, Morocco.Google Scholar
  3. Benoit, A., Le Callet, P., Campisi, P., & Cousseau, R. (2008). Quality assessment of stereoscopic images. Hindawi, EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing. doi:10.1155/2008/659024.
  4. Blach, R., Bues, M., Hochstrate, J., Springer, J., & Fröhlich, B. (2005). Experiences with multi-viewer stereo displays based on lc-shutters and polarization. In Proceedings of IEEE VR workshop: Emerging display technologies.Google Scholar
  5. Dodgson, N. A. (2002). Analysis of the viewing zone of multi-view autostereoscopic displays. In Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems IX, vol. 4660 of Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 254–265.Google Scholar
  6. Dubois, E. (2001). A projection method to generate anaglyph stereo images. In Proceeding of IEEE international conference acoustics, speech, and signal processing (ICASSP ’01), vol. 3, pp. 1661–1664, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  7. EBU Project Group B/VIM Video in Multimedia. (2003). SAMVIQ: Subjective assessment methodology for video quality.Google Scholar
  8. Graham, J., Delman, L., Nicolas, H., & David, E. (2001). Controlling perceived depth in stereoscopic images. In Proceeding of SPIE stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems VIII (Vol. 4297, pp. 42–53).Google Scholar
  9. Güdükbay U., Yilmaz T. (2002) Stereoscopic view-dependent visualization of terrain height fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 8(4): 330–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IJsselsteijn W. A., de Ridder H., Vliegen J. (2000) Subjective evaluation of stereoscopic images: Effects of camera parameters and display duration. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 10: 225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kilner J., Starck J., Guillemaut J. Y., Hilton A. (2009) Objective quality assessment in free-viewpoint video production. Signal Processing: Image Communication 24(1–2): 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meesters L. M. J., IJsselsteijn W. A., Seuntiëns P. J. H. (2004) A survey of perceptual evaluations and requirements of three-dimensional TV. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 14(3): 381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Müller, K., Smolic, A., Dix, K., Merkle, P., Kauff, P., & Wiegand, T. (2008). View synthesis for advanced 3D video systems, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing.Google Scholar
  14. Perlin, K., Paxia, S., & Kollin, J. S. (2000). An autostereoscopic display. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM annual conference on computer graphics (SIGGRAPH ’00) (Vol. 33, pp. 319–326).Google Scholar
  15. Prévoteau, J., Chalençon-Piotin, S., Debons, D., Lucas, L., & Remion, Y. (2010). Multi-view shooting geometry for multiscopic rendering with controlled distortion. International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2010, 1–11. doi:10.1155/2010/975674.
  16. Sanders, W., & McAllister, D. F. (2003). Producing anaglyphs from synthetic images. In Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems X, Vol. 5006 of Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 348–358.Google Scholar
  17. Zanlonghi, X., & Sander, M.-S. (1999). Validation théorique d’une planche logarithmique d’acuité visuelle de loin pour enfant. J. Fr. d’Orthoptique.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Ali-Bey
    • 1
  • Noureddine Manamanni
    • 1
  • Saïd Moughamir
    • 1
  1. 1.CReSTIC—EA3804Université de Reims Champagne-ArdenneReimsFrance

Personalised recommendations