Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How low can you go? The effect of low resolutions on shot types in mobile TV

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The advent of mobile TV which is often viewed on small screens with low resolution has made TV content producers think about refraining from using shots that depict subjects from a great distance. Shot types where the object of interest fills the screen are deemed to be more appropriate for mobile devices. This paper reports a study on how shot types used in regular broadcast television are affected when shown on mobile devices at reduced levels of resolution. Seventy-two native speakers judged the acceptability of four different content types at four resolutions (240 × 180, 208 × 156, 168 × 126, 120 × 90). The results show that acceptability of shot types depends on the content and the resolution. Extreme long shots of football content were only less acceptable than other shot types at resolutions smaller than 240 × 180. The medium shot which portrays the upper half of a subject’s body was the most acceptable for news content but for football content was judged worse than shot types that showed less detail. Our results suggest that for a young audience extreme long shots may be used with no detrimental effect for resolutions of 240 × 180 and higher. At lower resolutions and for content with a high degree of dynamism both the medium shot and the extreme long shot might render poorly for the audience. Service providers are well advised to include the results at hand to customize content in terms of shot type use for their audience that will watch the content at very low resolutions. Further research should assess older audiences and the effectiveness of cropping schemes that zoom in on part of the content for low target resolutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ankrum DR (1996) Viewing distance at computer workstations. Work Place Ergonomics 10–12

  2. Avisynth (2005) http://www.avisynth.org/

  3. Bachmann T (1991) Identification of spatially quantised tachistoscopic images of faces: how many pixels does it take to carry identity? Eur J Cogn Psychol 3:87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barber PJ, Laws JV (1994) Image quality and video communication. In: Damper R, Hall W, Richards J (eds) Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on multimedia technologies & their future applications. Pentech, London, UK, pp 163–178

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bathia S, Lakshminarayanan V, Samal A, Welland GV (1995) Human face perception in degraded images. J Vis Commun Image Represent 6:280–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell FW, Green DG (1965) Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. J Physiol 181:576–593

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dal Lago G (2006) Microdisplay emotions. http://www.srlabs.it/articoli_uk/ics.htm

  8. ETSI (2005) Digital video broadcasting (DVB); DVB-H implementation guidelines. http://webapp.etsi.org/action/PU/20050301/tr_102377v010101p.pdf

  9. Guardian (2005) Romantic drama in China soap opera only for mobile phones. Guardian Newspapers Limited Available: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-28-2005-72274.asp

  10. Gwinn E, Hughlett M (2005) Mobile TV for your cell phone. Chicago Tribune Available: http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93423&ran=38197

  11. Holmstrom D (2003) Content based pre-encoding video filter for mobile TV. Thesis: Umea University, http://exjob.interaktion.nu/files/id_examensarbete_5.pdf

  12. Horn DB (2002) The effects of spatial and temporal video distortion on lie detection performance. In Proceedings of CHI ‘02

  13. Jesty LC (1958) The relation between picture size, viewing distance and picture quality. In Proceedings of IEE, pp 425–439

  14. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Kumar VMV, Liinasuo M, Hannuksela M (2006) Acceptance of audiovisual quality in erroneous television sequences over a DVB-H channel. In Proceedings of the second international workshop in video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics

  15. Kies JK, Williges RC, Rosson MB (1996) Controlled laboratory experimentation and field study evaluation of video conference for distance learning applications (Rep. No. HCIL 96-02). Virginia Tech

  16. Knoche H, McCarthy J (2004) Mobile users’ needs and expectations of future multimedia services. In Proceedings of the WWRF12

  17. Knoche H, McCarthy J, Sasse MA (2005) Can small be beautiful? Assessing image resolution requirements for mobile TV. In ACM Multimedia ACM

  18. Lombard M, Grabe ME, Reich RD, Campanella C, Ditton TB (1996) Screen size and viewer responses to television: a review of research. In annual conf. of the assoc. for education in journalism and mass communication

  19. McCarthy J, Sasse MA, Miras D (2004) Sharp or smooth? Comparing the effects of quantization vs. frame rate for streamed video. In Proc. CHI, pp 535–542

  20. Nemethova O, Zahumensky M, Rupp M (2004) Preprocessing of ball game video-sequences for robust transmission over mobile networks. In Proceedings of the CIC 2004 The 9th CDMA international conference

  21. Odyssey Software Inc. CFCOM (2003) http://www.odysseysoftware.com/

  22. Okada K-I, Maeda F, Ichikawaa Y, Matsushita Y (1994) Multiparty videoconferencing at virtual social distance: MAJIC design. In Proc. ACM conf. on computer supported cooperative work pp 385–393

  23. Owens DA, Wolfe-Kelly K (1987) Near work, visual fatigue, and variations of oculomotor tonus. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28:743–749

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reeves B, Nass C (1998) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. University of Chicago Press

  25. Reeves B, Lang A, Kim E, Tartar D (1999) The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychol 1:49–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Silbergleid M, Pescatore M (2000) The guide to digital television, 3rd edn. Miller Freeman PSN, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Södergård C (2003) Mobile television—technology and user experiences Report on the Mobile-TV project (Rep. No. P506). VTT Information Technology

  28. Song S, Won Y, Song I (2004) Empirical study of user perception behavior for mobile streaming. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 327–330

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steeedman WC, Baker Ca (1960) Target size and visual recignition. Human Factors 2(3):121–127

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson R (1998) Grammar of the shot. Elsevier Focal

  31. Weiner R (1996) Webster’s new world dictionary of media and communications. Macmillan, New York, NY (rev. and updated ed.)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Westerink JH, Roufs JA (1989) Subjective image quality as a function of viewing distance, resolution, and picture size. SMPTE Journal

  33. Westheimer G (1992) Visual acuity. In: Hart WM (ed), Adler’s physiology of the eye: clinical application, 9th edn. CV Mosby, St. Louis, MO

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    Hendrik Knoche, John D. McCarthy & M. Angela Sasse

Authors
  1. Hendrik Knoche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John D. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Angela Sasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hendrik Knoche.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knoche, H., McCarthy, J.D. & Sasse, M.A. How low can you go? The effect of low resolutions on shot types in mobile TV. Multimed Tools Appl 36, 145–166 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0076-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0076-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation