Advertisement

Fidelity of Graphics Reconstructions: A Psychophysical Investigation

  • Ann McNamara
  • Alan Chalmers
  • Tom Troscianko
  • Erik Reinhard
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)

Abstract

In this paper we develop a technique for measuring the perceptual equivalence of a graphical scene to a real scene. Ability to compare images is valuable in computer graphics for a number of reasons but the main motivation is to enable us to compare different rendering algorithms and to bring us closer to a system for validating lighting simulation algorithms against measurements. In this study we conduct a series of psychophysical experiments to assess the fidelity of graphical reconstruction of real scenes. Methods developed for the study of human visual perception are used to provide evidence for a perceptual, rather than a mere physical, match between the original scene and its computer representation. Results show that the rendered scene has high perceptual fidelity compared to the original scene, which implies that a rendered image can convey albedo. This investigation is a step toward providing a quantitative answer to the question of just how “real” photo-realism actually is.

Keywords

Human Visual System Real Scene Graphical Scene Contrast Sensitivity Function Human Visual Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alias/Wavefront. OpenAlias Manual, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Cataliotti & A. Gilchrist. Local and global processes in lightness perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 57(2), 125–135, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Daly. The visible difference predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In A. B. Watson Editor, Digital Images and Human Vision, pp 179–206, MIT Press, 1993Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Ferwerda, S. Pattanaik, P. Shirley, D. P. Greenberg. A Model of Visual Adaptation for Realistic Image Synthesis. SIGGRAPH’ 97, pp 143–152, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.J. Gervais, L.O. Harvey, Jr., and J.O. Roberts. Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), pp 655–666, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Gilchrist. Lightness, Brightness and Transparency. Hillsdale: Lawerence Er-libaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Gilchrist. Lightness contrast and failures of lightness constancy: a common explanation. Perception and Psychophysics, 43(5), 125–135, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.I. Mannos and D.J. Sakrison. The effects of a visual fidelity criterion on the encoding of images. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-20(4):525–536, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Rushmeier et al. Comparing Real and Synthetic Images: Some Ideas About Metrics. 6th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering, pp 213–222, 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Travis. Effective Colour Displays, Theory and Practice. Academic Press, 1991Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Meyer, H. Rushmeier, M. Cohen, D. Greenberg, K. Torrence. An Experimental Evaluation of Computer Graphics Imagery ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol.5, No. 1, pp 30–50, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. L. Ward. The RADIANCE lighting simulation and rendering system. Computer Graphics, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyszecki & Stiles. Colour Science: concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae (2nd edition) New York: Wiley Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann McNamara
    • 1
  • Alan Chalmers
    • 1
  • Tom Troscianko
    • 2
  • Erik Reinhard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of BristolUK

Personalised recommendations