Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An experimental study on the impact of cinema theater reflections on users’ perceived intra-frame dynamic range

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Quality and User Experience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to rapid technological progress in high dynamic range (HDR) video capture and display, perceived contrast by users of HDR technology is becoming increasingly important in the visual signal processing chain. More specifically, when considering a higher contrast and brightness range in cinema, it is essential to understand the limits of visual perception under specific viewing conditions and brightness levels. A field experiment was conducted to test the effect of light scattering and reflections from the cinema theater on users’ perceivable dynamic range. We investigated how the perceivable dynamic range evolves with various background levels and different strengths and shapes of local highlights. Results showed a significant effect of image composition and the average picture level on the perceivable near black dynamic range. In addition to the limitations of the human visual system, one needs to consider the limitations of a theatrical projection setup where bright elements in the image via reflections on the walls, ceiling, floor, seats, and audience contaminate the black elements of the image.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alvarez E (2016) Netflix is going all in on HDR and more original content. http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/23/netflix-hdr-original-content-mwc-2016/. Accessed 23 Feb 2016

  2. Rempel AG, Heidrich W, Li H, Mantiuk R (2009) Video viewing preferences for HDR displays under varying ambient illumination 1:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ledda P, Santos LP, Chalmers A (2004) A local model of eye adaptation for high dynamic range. In: proc. 3rd int. conf. comput. graph. virtual reality, vis. interact. Africa. Association for computing machinery (ACM), pp 151–160

  4. Stiles WS (1939) The directional sensitivity of the retina and the spectral sensitivities of the rods and cones. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 127:64–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Watson AB, Yellott JI (2012) A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size. J Vis 12:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Daly S, Kunkel T, Sun X, Farrell S, Crum P (2013) Preference limits of the visual dynamic range for ultra high quality and aesthetic conveyance. In: SID symp. dig. tech. pap. p 8651

  7. Kunkel T, Reinhard E (2009) A reassessment of the simultaneous dynamic range of the human visual system. 17–24

  8. Tydtgat C, Maes D, Stojmenovik G, Grillet A (2015) Modelling of achievable contrast and its impact on HDR projection in commercial cinema environments. In: SMPTE 2015 annu. tech. conf. exhib. abstr. pp 1–14

  9. Schuck M, Lude P (2015) An analysis of system contrast in digital cinema auditoriums. In: SMPTE 2015 annu tech conf exhib 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5594/M001667

  10. Houston J, Beck W (2014) Design considerations for cinema exhibition using RGB laser illumination. In: SMPTE 2014 annu tech conf exhib 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5594/M001586

  11. Farrell BS, Kunkel T, Daly S (2015) A cinema luminance range by the people, for the people : viewer preferences on luminance limits for a large-screen environment. SMPTE Motion Imaging J 2:56–61. https://doi.org/10.5594/j18577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mantiuk R, Myszkowski K, Seidel H, Informatik MPI (2004) Visible difference predicator for high dynamic range images. In: 2004 IEEE int. conf. syst. Man Cybern. The Hague, Netherlands, pp 2763–2769

  13. Yeganeh H, Wang Z (2013) Objective quality assessment of tone-mapped images. IEEE Trans Image Process 22:657–667

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Gilchrist A, Kossyfidis C, Bonato F, Agostini T, Cataliotti J, Li X, Spehar B, Annan V, Economou E (1999) An anchoring theory of lightness perception. Psychol Rev 106:795–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kremkow J, Jin J, Komban SJ, Wang Y, Lashgari R, Li X, Jansen M, Zaidi Q, Alonso J-M (2014) Neuronal nonlinearity explains greater visual spatial resolution for darks than lights. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:3170–3175. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310442111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Nes FL, Koenderink JJ, Nas H, Bouman MA (1967) Spatiotemporal modulation transfer in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am 57:1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.57.001082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Recommendation I, BT.500-13 I-RR (2012) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures BT Series Broadcasting service. Int Telecommun Union 13:1–48. http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.500/en

  18. Wang D, Wang T, Gong Y (2014) Stereoscopic visual fatigue assessment and modeling. pp 901110–901122

  19. Choi M, Sharma D, Zafar F, Cheng WC, Albani L, Badano A (2012) Does veiling glare in the human eye hinder detection in high-dynamic-range displays? IEEE/OSA J Disp Technol 8:273–282. https://doi.org/10.1109/JDT.2011.2179636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Murdoch MJ, Heynderickx IEJ (2012) Veiling glare and perceived black in high dynamic range displays. J Opt Soc Am A 29:559. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.29.000559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Holladay LL (1926) The fundamentals of glare and visibility. J Opt Soc Am 12:271–319. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.12.000271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moon P, Spencer DE (1945) The visual effect of non-uniform surrounds. JOSA 35:233–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

HD2R is a project co-funded by imec, a digital research institute founded by the Flemish Government. Project partners are Barco, Grass Valley, Limecraft, VRT, and Grid. We would like to thank Kinepolis Belgium for letting us use their infrastructure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group for Media and ICT (imec-mict), Ghent University, Korte Meer 7-9-11, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Tine Vyvey & Jan Van Looy

  2. Department of Data Analysis, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Research Group for Media and ICT, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, Korte Meer 7-9-11, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Elena Núñez Castellar

  3. Barco, Beneluxpark 21, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium

    Dirk Maes & Bruno Vandevelde

Authors
  1. Tine Vyvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Núñez Castellar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Maes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruno Vandevelde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Van Looy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tine Vyvey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vyvey, T., Castellar, E.N., Maes, D. et al. An experimental study on the impact of cinema theater reflections on users’ perceived intra-frame dynamic range. Qual User Exp 3, 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-017-0014-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-017-0014-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation