interim report reportership r1-50 3d aspects of visual ...files.cie.co.at/642_cie r1-50 report...

CIE, All rights reserved. 1

INTERIM REPORT

REPORTERSHIP R1-50

3D ASPECTS OF VISUAL APPEARANCE

DAVID SIMMONS GB

DATE: 2011-06-14


CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4

Resume .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Zusammenfassung .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

2 3D vision .................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 3D Image Quality.............................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Importance of Monocular Zones .............................................................. 5 2.1.2 Shape distortions in 3D displays ............................................................. 5 2.1.3 The role of vertical disparities ................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Image display artifacts ........................................................................... 6

2.2 Human ocular health and performance related to 3D displays ............................... 6 2.2.1 Ocular health and 3D displays ................................................................ 6 2.2.2 Visual Performance with 3D displays vs. natural viewing conditions ............ 6

2.3 Illumination effects in 3D displays ...................................................................... 6 2.4 3D Natural Image Analysis ................................................................................ 7 2.5 3D Image Display Technology............................................................................ 7 2.6 3D Visual Aesthetics ......................................................................................... 7

3 3D Image Capture ..................................................................................................... 7

4 3D Image Storage and Display ................................................................................... 8

5 The Future of 3D Visual Appearance ........................................................................... 8

Annex A ........................................................................................................................ 9

A.1 Laboratories Specializing in 3D Image Capture ................................................... 9 A.2 Standards organisations related to 3D image storage and display ......................... 9 A.3 Other relevant web-links (not including labs heavily cited in the text) ................... 10

References .................................................................................................................. 11


REPORTERSHIP R1-50: 3D ASPECTS OF VISUAL APPEARANCE

Summary

This report presents the annual report of the reportership R1-50 “3D aspects of visual appearance”, which was established as part of the Work Programme of Technical Committee TC 1-72 “MAPNet: Measurement of Appearance Network” in CIE Division 1..


1 Introduction

This reportership was established at the Mid-Term meeting of CIE Division 1 Vision and Colour in Budapest, Hungary in 2009 with the following terms of reference:

1. To review the activity of organisations related to 3D vision, 3D image capture, 3D model storage and 3D display where these are relevant to visual appearance issues.

2. To establish a database of key research articles, technology and terminology related to 3D aspects of visual appearance.

3. To establish an international panel of experts able and willing to advise on 3D matters.

4. To liaise with other CIE divisions. Progress on points 1 and 2 has been steady and is included in this report and the report submitted to the CIE in 2010. There is no progress so far on point 3 for reasons that will be explained herein. Point 4 will hopefully be addressed via feedback from the upcoming CIE quadrennial meeting. 3D visual appearance is not really a field in itself at this stage in the same way that appearance issues related to colour, gloss, translucency and texture are. It could be argued that fine-scale variations in surface 3D structure are largely covered under the heading of texture, which is the remit of another reporter (via TC 1-72). In the last report I suggested a number of areas which I thought should make up this nascent research field, namely 3D image quality, human ocular health and performance related to 3D displays, illumination effects in 3D displays, 3D natural image analysis, 3D image capture technology, 3D image display technology and 3D visual aesthetics. Rather than separate reports on points 1 and 2 I have combined them into what I hope is a more digestible form, focusing on 3D vision, 3D image capture, 3D model storage and 3D display.

2 3D vision

The standard reference book on binocular vision and stereopsis remains Howard & Rogers (2002) which is due for a third edition in the near future. A helpful recent review on binocular vision is Blake & Wilson (2011) which covers in detail recent research on binocular vision and stereopsis. Pizlo et al (2010) have recently reviewed research on 3D shape perception.

2.1 3D Image Quality

Unless experimental participants are viewing real natural scenes in natural lighting conditions, there are inevitably going to be image quality artifacts which disrupt the interpretation of a 3D display. Many of these artifacts (e.g. those due to display temporal or spatial resolution) are shared with conventional 2D image displays, but others are unique to 3D.

2.1.1 Importance of Monocular Zones

Stereoscopic display of scenes with vertical depth edges (or, at least, edges with a vertical component) inevitably gives rise to “monocular zones” which are only visible in one eye. These monocular zones potentially cause problems for stereo matching algorithms because there is nothing for the algorithm to “match” in the other eye’s view. Recent work from a number of 3D vision laboratories has drawn attention to the potential importance of these monocular zones in the interpretation of 3D scenes (Harris & Wilcox, 2009; Ni et al, 2010; Tsirlin et al, 2010; Harris, 2010).

2.1.2 Shape distortions in 3D displays

Another well known artifact of stereoscopic display is the introduction of distortions in the shape of 3D objects which is dependent to some extent on the viewing geometry of the display. Glennerster et al (2009) have put forward a theory for why these distortions occur in


3D viewing. Dobbins & Grossman (2010) suggest that innate biases also influences how we perceive 3D objects.

2.1.3 The role of vertical disparities

Vertical disparities occur in stereoscopic displays due to the relative proximity of each of the two eyes to different parts of an extended 3D surface. There has been a long debate about the role of vertical disparities in stereoscopic vision. The latest research in this area is to be found in Read et al (2009), Serrana-Padrazo et al (2010) and Philipson & Read (2010).

2.1.4 Image display artifacts

An empirical study of the “jerkiness” artifact obtained in conventional 3D displays is to be found in Nakamura et al (2011). Hoffman et al (2011) provide an account of flicker, perceived motion and perceived depth artifacts in field-sequential stereoscopic displays.

2.2 Human ocular health and performance related to 3D displays

A controversial area in terms of 3D visual displays is the extent to which “unnatural” viewing conditions can affect optical health and compromise optimal visual performance. Given the recent proliferation of 3D displays for cinema, television, computer games and even mobile telephones, these concerns are becoming increasingly important. So much so that the 3D@Home consortium (See Annexe A.3) have set up a web-site in conjunction with the American Optometric Association (AOA) called “3D vision and eye health” (http://www.3deyehealth.org/ ). One of the arguments put forward on this web-site (by leading optometrist Prof. James Sheedy) is that if problems are experienced when viewing new 3D displays they are an indication of poor eye health which should motivate a trip to the optometrist. Another recent theme in visual ergonomics is the extent to which performance measured with 3D displays is consistent with real-world measures.

2.2.1 Ocular health and 3D displays

A helpful summary of the importance of conflicts between accommodation (i.e. focusing) and convergence (i.e. eye movements) which are inevitable in conventional stereoscopic displays is to be found in Hoffman et al (2008), which also demonstrates how these can potentially be solved with novel displays which employ multiple focal planes (see also Mackenzie & Watt, 2010a). More recent work from the same group has also demonstrated that focusing cues are helpful in interpreting 3D scenes (Hoffman & Banks, 2010; see also Vishwanath, 2008; Vishwanath & Blaser, 2010; Vishwanath et al, 2010). There is also a very recent review of the potential ocular hazards of 3D displays (Howarth, 2011). Some more experimental studies of visual fatigue and discomfort in 3D displays are to be found in Lambooij et al (2010) and Fortuin et al (2011).

2.2.2 Visual Performance with 3D displays vs. natural viewing conditions

There has been a recent trend towards measuring 3D visual performance (normally stereoacuity) in natural environments rather than relying on artifical 3D display. These include some intriguing experiments conducted at large viewing distances in a disused railway tunnel (Palmisano et al, 2010; Gillam et al, 2011). A general conclusion from these experiments seems to be that stereoscopic vision can be a useful depth cue at longer viewing distances than previously thought, and that artificial displays may not only distort but give misleading measurements of an individual’s stereoscopic abilities as applied to the real world (Allison et al, 2009a, b; Li & Durgin, 2010; McKee & Taylor, 2010). The related issue of how different cues to the distance of an object combine has been explored by Svarverud et al (2010).

2.3 Illumination effects in 3D displays

There is considerable current interest in how to extract useful information about the environment using real 3D scenes with realistically rendered surfaces. This line of research


has been motivated by the huge technical advances in computer graphics and best exemplified in recent papers by Maloney & Brainard (2010), Gerhard & Maloney (2010), and Schofield et al (2010a), together with some recent conference presentations (Harris et al, 2010; Harding et al, 2010) and a PhD thesis (Robb, 2010). Gerardin et al (2010) provide an account of the neural basis for judgements of shape from shading.

2.4 3D Natural Image Analysis

An overview of the rationale and history of the study of visual perception using natural images is given in Geisler (2008). This review paper also summarises early studies of 3D natural scene statistics. More recent studies on this area have been performed by Hibbard (2008) and Jiang et al (2010). A particularly useful resource for turther research in this area is the recently published Birmingham Object Lighting Database (BOLD: http://www.bold.bham.ac.uk/) which is a stereoscopic database of objects, faces, surfaces and outdoor scenes captured under characterized lighting conditions. This resource is freely available to researchers (Schofield et al, 2010b).

2.5 3D Image Display Technology

The Wikipedia entry for “stereoscopy” gives a useful overview of the different methodologies available for 3D display. A more authoritative account is given in Urey et al (2011). A recent interesting development, alluded to above, has been the development of displays which generate multiple focal planes (using various techniques) to overcome the well-known issues with accommodation-convergence mismatch in conventional stereoscopic displays. Examples of these are presented and evaluated in Love et al (2009), Liu & Hua (2010), Hua & Liu (2010), Mackenzie & Watt (2010b), Mackenzie et al (2010) and Kim et al (2011).

2.6 3D Visual Aesthetics

With the exception of my own study, only so far published in abstract form (Simmons & Matheson, 2005), there seems to be very little scientific activity in the world of 3D visual aesthetics. A paper by Power (2009) talks about aesthetics in the context of 3D animation. Some papers have looked at the advantage of 3D interfaces for medical education purposes (Estevez et al, 2010; Keedy et al, 2011) and for laparoscopic surgery (Feng et al, 2010).

3 3D Image Capture

There are a number of laboratories across the world which are conducting work on 3D image capture, both static and dynamic (sometimes called “4D”) image capture. One particular area of interest is the capture of faces and facial expressions either for research or medical purposes. Rather than cite publications on this it is simpler to provide links to labs working in these areas which have lists of publications and contact details. These are provided in Annexe A1. Note that the the new Microsoft “Kinect” technology (http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/kinect) is beginning to make an impact in this area (see, for example, the web-site of capture company Organic Motion for more details).


4 3D Image Storage and Display

Various organisations are working on standards for 3D image storage and display. Links to these organisations are provided in Annex A.2. Finally, links are provided to specialist research consortia and interest groups which focus on 3D display, capture, storage or vision in one way or another in Annexe A.3.

5 The Future of 3D Visual Appearance

As stated in the introduction, 3D visual appearance is not yet a well-defined field. This report provides a sifting of research in 3D vision, capture, storage and display which suggests that there are a number of interesting avenues for future research. First, it is clear that the engineering aspects of 3D computer graphics and display technology are way ahead of the vision science and psychology. In other words, whilst we can generate quite realistic simulations of 3D scenes and surfaces we are far from understanding what is going on in the brains of the viewers interpreting this information. This has resulted in technologists and artists (such as James Cameron (http://www.3dathome.org/webpage.aspx?webpage=1952)) generating their own terminology to describe effects and perceptions that arise as a result of new graphics and display technologies. One fruitful avenue might be to follow this terminology to work out scientifically what is actually being described.

I should add a slight disclaimer that in the time I have had available to perform this literature review I may have missed key studies or active research groups. For example, I only came across most of the links in Annexe A.3 the day before having to submit this report. Also, whilst I am not highly active in research in this field, I am well connected and so could act as the convenor of a larger group if the CIE thought it appropriate to expand activities in this area, along the lines of Point 3 of the Terms of Reference. Alternatively it might be more useful to keep a “watching brief” and report back annually as I have been doing since the Reportership’s inception.

.


ANNEX A

A.1 Laboratories Specializing in 3D Image Capture

Graphics and Image Processing Laboratory, Binghamton University, State University of New York, USA: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~lijun/Research/IGC.html

The Max-Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Cognitive Engineering Group, Tuebingen, Germany: http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/research/dep/bu/ce.html

Graphics and Vision Research Group, University of Basel, Switzerland: http://gravis.cs.unibas.ch/

Cognitive Systems Lab, Korea University, Seoul, Korea: http://cogsys.korea.ac.kr/Cognitive_Systems.html

The Vision Research Lab, University College London, UK: http://www.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/vision/Lab_Site/ Visual Media Research Group, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/CVSSP/VisualMedia Prof. Bob Fisher, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/ Computer Vision and Graphics Group, School of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, UK: http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/computing/research/researchgroups/computervisionandgraphics/

A.2 Standards organisations related to 3D image storage and display

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU): http://www.itu.int

The ITU is the United Nations agency for information and communication technology issues. There is currently considerable activity at ITU concerned with 3D television standardization and information dissemination. The best guide I have found to this activity is via the url: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/information/promotion/e-flash/4/article6.html and a recent press release: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/3D+Hot+Topic+At+ITU+And+MPEG+Meetings.aspx

Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) http://www.smpte.org/

This organisation exists to “advance theory and development in the motion imaging field”. They recently published a special edition of their Motion Imaging Journal on 3D and are also running a conference in New York June 2011 entitled “2nd International Conference on Stereoscopic 3D for Media and Entertainment”. The proceedings of this conference will be of interest. The SMPTE web-site is awash with enthusiasm for 3D technology, but most of the information is only available to members of the organization. From the publicity video on the web-site it appears that they are particularly concerned at the moment with human factors involved in 3D viewing, which is a major topic of their conference.

Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG): http://www.jpeg.org/

JPEG is the standards organization (formed with support from ISO and ITU) which deals with standards for digital images. From their press release database they appear to be talking about the need to establish standards for new imaging technologies such as 3D photography, but have not developed any as yet.


A.3 Other relevant web-links (not including labs heavily cited in the text)

3-D Cinema: IMAX: http://www.imax.com/

RealD: http://www.reald.com/

A recent inter-disciplinary initiative at the Centre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Canada is to look at all aspects of 3-D film production, including aesthetics: http://3dflic.ca/ 3D cinema school: http://cinema.usc.edu/

3D TV: The 3D@home consortium: : http://www.3dathome.org has been set up by a number of companies and other interest groups wishing to promote the use of 3D technologies in the home.

3D Gaming: Meant to be seen: http://www.mtbs3d.com/ is a web-site for enthusiasts of 3D gaming.

Companies specializing 3D image capture equipment or services: Dimensional Imaging (http://www.di3d.com/), 3DMD (http://www.3dmd.com/), Vicon (http://www.vicon.com/), Organic Motion (http://www.organicmotion.com/).

Stereoscopic displays and applications conference (next meeting in January 2010): http://www.stereoscopic.org/

http://www.andrewwoods3d.com/

Durham Visualisation lab: http://www.dur.ac.uk/n.s.holliman/index.html

The Merritt Group: http://www.merritt.com/

Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/research/autostereo.html

Visual Media Laboratory, University of Tsukuba, Japan: http://vmlab.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/

Intuitive Surgical: http://www.intuitivesurgical.com

Stereojet Inc: http://stereojetinc.com/

Lightspeed Design Inc: http://www.lightspeeddesign.com/

Truevision Systems: http://www.truevisionsys.com/

Digital Design Studio, Glasgow School of Art, Glasgow, UK: http://www.gsa.ac.uk/gsa.cfm?pid=12 Centre for Communication Systems Research, University of Surrey, UK: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/CCSR/research/ilab/2d3d Machine Vision Laboratory, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK: http://www.uwe.ac.uk/cems/research/groups/mvl

Dental School, University of Glasgow, UK: http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/dental/research/biotechnologycraniofacial/imaging/


References

ALLISON, R.S., GILLAM, B.J. & VECELLIO, E. 2009a. Binocular depth discrimination and estimation beyong interaction space. Journal of Vision, 9(1), Art. 10.

ALLISON, R.S., GILLAM, B.J. & PALMISANO, S.A. 2009b. Stereoscopic discrimination of the layout of ground surfaces. Journal of Vision, 9(12), Art. 8.

BLAKE, R. & WILSON, H. 2011. Binocular Vision. Vision Research, 51(7), 754-770.

DOBBINS, A.C. & GROSSMAN, J.K. 2010. Asymmetries in perception of 3D orientation. PLOS One, 5(3), e9553.

ESTEVEZ, M.E., LINDGREN, K.A. & BERGETHON, P.R. 2010. A novel three-dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(6), 309-317.

FENG, C.A., ROXENBLIT, J.W. & HAMILTON, A.J. 2010. A computerized assessment to compare the impact of standard, stereoscopic, and high-definition laparoscopic monitor diplays on surgical technique. Surgical Endoscopy and other interventional techniques, 24(11), 2743-2748.

FORTUIN, M., LAMBOOIJ, M., IJSSELSTIJN, W. et al. 2011. An exploration of the intial effects of stereoscopic displays on optometric parameters. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(1), 33-44.

GEISLER, W.S. 2008. Visual perception and the statistical properties of natural scenes. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 167-192.

GERARDIN, P., KOURTZI, Z. & MAMASSIAN, P. 2010. Prior knowledge of illumination for 3D perception in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107(37), 16309-16314.

GERHARD, H.E. & MALONEY, L.T. 2010. Estimating changes in lighting direction in binocularly viewed three-dimensional scenes. Journal of Vision, 10(9), Art. 14.

GILLAM, B., PALMISANO, S.A. & GOVAN, D.G. 2011. Depth interval estimates from motion parallax and binocular disparity beyond interaction space. Perception, 40(1), 39-49.

GLENNERSTER, A., HANSARD, M.E. & FITZGIBBON, A.W. 2009. View-based approaches to spatial representation in human vision. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5604, 193-208.

HARDING, G., BLOJ, M. & HARRIS, J. 2010. Depth perception of the chromatic Mach card (CMC): Influence of colour gradients and outline. Perception, 39(Suppl), 278.

HARRIS, J.M. 2010. Monocular zones in stereoscopic scenes: A useful source of information for human binocular vision? Proceedings of the SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 7524.

HARRIS, J.M., BLOJ, M. & LOVELL, P.G. 2010. Interactions between shading and disparity for depth perception. Perception, 39(Suppl), 69.

HARRIS, J.M. & WILCOX, L.M. 2009. The role of monocularly visible regions in depth and surface perception. Vision Research, 49(22), 2666-2685.

HIBBARD, P. 2008. Binocular energy responses to natural images. Vision Research, 48(12), 1427-1439.

HOFFMAN, D.M. & BANKS, M.S. 2010. Focus information is used to interpret binocular images. Journal of Vision, 10(5), Art. 13.

HOFFMAN, D.M., GIRSHICK, A.R., AKELEY, K. et al. 2008. Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision, 8(3), Art. 33.

HOFFMAN, D.M., KARASEV, V.I. & BANKS, M.S. 2011. Temporal presentation protocols in stereoscopic displays: Flicker visibility, perceived motion and perceived depth. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 19(13), 271-297.

HOWARD, I. & ROGERS, B. 2002. Seeing in Depth. Porteous: Ontario.

HOWARTH, P.A. 2011. Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: A review. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(2), 111-122.


HUA, H. & LIU, S. 2010. Depth-fused multi-focal plane displays enable accurate depth perception. Proceedings of the SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 7849.

JIANG, X., SCHOFIELD, A.J. & WYATT, J.L. 2010. Correlation-based intrinsic image extraction from a single image. Computer Vision-ECCV, Pt. IV, 6314, 58-71.

KEEDY, A.W., DURACK, J.C., SANDHU, P. et al. 2011. Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 4(2), 84-91.

KIM, D.W., KWON, Y.M., PARK, Q.H. et al. 2011. Analysis of a head-mounted display-type multifocus display system using a laser scanning method. Optical Engineering, 50(3), Art. 034006.

LAMBOOIJ, M., FORTUIN, M., IJSSELSTIJN, W. et al. 2010. Measuring visual fatigue and visual discomfort associated with 3-D displays. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 18(11), 931-943.

LI, Z. & DURGIN, F.H. 2010. Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: A common model from explicit and implicit measures. Journal of Vision, 10(14), Art. 13.

LIU, S. & HUA, H. 2010. A systematic method for designing depth-fused multi-focal plane three-dimensional displays. Optics Express, 18(11), 11562-11573.

LOVE, G.D., HOFFMAN, D.M., HANDS, P.J.W. et al. 2009. High-speed switchable lens enables the development of a volumetric stereoscopic display. Optics Express, 17(18), 15716-15725,

MACKENZIE, K.J. & WATT, S.J. 2010a. The relationship between accommodation and vergence responses, and visual fatigue in stereoscopic displays. Perception, 39, 108.

MACKENZIE, K.J. & WATT, S.J. 2010b. Eliminating accommodation-convergence conflicts in stereoscopic displays: can multiple-focal-plane displays elicit continuous and consistent vergence and accommodation responses? Proceedings of the SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 7524, Art 752417.

MACKENZIE, K.J., HOFFMAN, D.M. & WATT, S.J. 2010. Accommodation to multiple-focal-plane displays: Implications for improving stereoscopic displays and for accommodation control. Journal of Vision, 10(8), Art. 22.

MALONEY, L.T. & BRAINARD, D.H. 2010. Color and material perception: Acheivements and challenges. Journal of Vision, 10(9), Art. 19.

MCKEE, S.P. & TAYLOR, D.G. 2010. The precision of binocular and monocular depth judgments in natural settings. Journal of Vision, 10(10), Art. 5.

NAKAMURA, J., KOZAKO, K. & TAKAKI, Y. 2011. Evaluation of jerkiness of three-dimensional images produced by high-density directional display. Journal of the Society of Information Display, 19(6), 423-430.

NI, R., CHEN, L. & ANDERSON, G.J. 2010. Visual constraints for the perception of quantitative depth from temporal interocular unmatched features. Vision Research, 50(16), 1571-1580.

PALMISANO, S., GILLAM, B., GOVAN, D.G. et al. 2010. Stereoscopic perception of real depths at large distances. Journal of Vision, 10(6), Art. 19.

PHILIPSON, G.P. & READ, J.C.A. 2010. Stereo correspondence is optimized for large viewing distances. European Journal of Neuroscience, 32(11), 1959-1969.

PIZLO, Z., SAWADA, T., LI, Y.F. et al. 2010. New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume. Vision Research, 50, 1-11.

POWER, P. 2009. Animated expressions: Expressive style in 3D computer graphic narrative animation. Animation – An interdisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 107-129.

READ, J.C.A., PHILIPSON, G.P. & GLENNERSTER, A. 2009. Latitude and longitude vertical disparities. Journal of Vision, 9(13), Art. 11.

ROBB, M.S.A. 2010. Interactive real-time three-dimensional visualisation of virtual textiles. PhD thesis: School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University.


SCHOFIELD, A.J., ROCK, P.B., SUN P. et al. 2010a. What is second-order vision for? Discriminating illumination versus material changes. Journal of Vision, 10(9), Art. 2.

SCHOFIELD, A.J., CLEAVER, C. & JIANG, X. 2010b. The Birmingham Object Lighting Database: A stereoscopic database of objects, faces, surfaces and outdoor scenes captured under characterised lighting conditions. Perception, 39(suppl), 100.

SERRANA-PADRAZO, I., PHILIPSON, G.P. & READ, J.C.A. 2010. A specialization for vertical disparity discontinuities. Journal of Vision, 10(3), Art. 2.

SIMMONS, D.R. & MATHESON, D. 2005. Preference judgments with stereoscopic stimuli. Perception, 34, 115.

SVARVERUD, E., GILSON, S.J. & GLENNERSTER, A. 2010. Cue combination for 3D location judgements. Journal of Vision, 10(1), Art. 5.

TSIRLIN, I., WILCOX, L.M. & ALLISON, R.S. 2010. Monocular occlusions determine the perceived shape and depth of occluding surfaces. Journal of Vision, 10(6), Art. 11.

UREY, H., CHELLAPAN, K.V., ERDEN, E. et al. 2011. State of the art in stereoscopic and autostereoscopic displays. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(4), 540-555.

VISWANATH, D. 2008. The focal blur gradient affects perceived absolute distance. Perception, 39 (Suppl), 161.

VISWANATH, D. & BLASER, E. 2010. Retinal blur and the perception of egocentric distance. Journal of Vision, 10(10), Art. 26.

VISWANATH, D., BLASER, E. & DONALDSON, P. 2010. The effect of blur gradients on the perception of distance and slant. Perception, 39 (Suppl), 161.

interim report reportership r1-50 3d aspects of visual ...files.cie.co.at/642_cie r1-50 report...

Documents