skip to main content
research-article

Binocular tone mapping

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 July 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

By extending from monocular displays to binocular displays, one additional image domain is introduced. Existing binocular display systems only utilize this additional image domain for stereopsis. Our human vision is not only able to fuse two displaced images, but also two images with difference in detail, contrast and luminance, up to a certain limit. This phenomenon is known as binocular single vision. Humans can perceive more visual content via binocular fusion than just a linear blending of two views. In this paper, we make a first attempt in computer graphics to utilize this human vision phenomenon, and propose a binocular tone mapping framework. The proposed framework generates a binocular low-dynamic range (LDR) image pair that preserves more human-perceivable visual content than a single LDR image using the additional image domain. Given a tone-mapped LDR image (left, without loss of generality), our framework optimally synthesizes its counterpart (right) in the image pair from the same source HDR image. The two LDR images are different, so that they can aggregately present more human-perceivable visual richness than a single arbitrary LDR image, without triggering visual discomfort. To achieve this goal, a novel binocular viewing comfort predictor (BVCP) is also proposed to prevent such visual discomfort. The design of BVCP is based on the findings in vision science. Through our user studies, we demonstrate the increase of human-perceivable visual richness and the effectiveness of the proposed BVCP in conservatively predicting the visual discomfort threshold of human observers.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Baker, D., Meese, T., Mansouri, B., and Hess, R. 2007. Binocular summation of contrast remains intact in strabismic amblyopia. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 48, 11, 5332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake, R., and Boothroyd, K. 1985. The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 37, 2, 114--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter, R., and Huertas, R. 2010. Ultra-large color difference and small subtense. Color Research & Application 35, 1, 4--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, H., and Wang, S. 2004. The use of visible color difference in the quantitative evaluation of color image segmentation. In Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2004. Proceedings.(ICASSP'04). IEEE International Conference on, vol. 3, IEEE, III-593.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Daly, S. 1993. The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. Digital images and human vision 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Drago, F., Myszkowski, K., Annen, T., and Chiba, N. 2003. Adaptive logarithmic mapping for displaying high contrast scenes. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 22, Wiley Online Library, 419--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Durand, F., and Dorsey, J. 2002. Fast bilateral filtering for the display of high-dynamic-range images. In Proceedings of the 29th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, ACM, 257--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ehrenstein, W., Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, B., and Jaschinski, W. 2005. Eye preference within the context of binocular functions. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 243, 9, 926--932.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fattal, R., Lischinski, D., and Werman, M. 2002. Gradient domain high dynamic range compression. ACM Transactions on Graphics 21, 3, 249--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Howard, I., and Rogers, B. 2002. Seeing in Depth, vol. 1. I Porteous.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kooi, F., and Toet, A. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25, 2-3, 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Lambooij, M., IJsselsteijn, W., Fortuin, M., and Heynderickx, I. 2009. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereo-scopic displays: a review. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 53, 030201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Larson, G., Rushmeier, H., and Piatko, C. 1997. A visibility matching tone reproduction operator for high dynamic range scenes. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on 3, 4, 291--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lei, L., and Schor, C. 1994. The spatial properties of binocular suppression zone. Vision research 34, 7, 937--947.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Levelt, W. 1965. Binocular brightness averaging and contour information. British journal of psychology 56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin, M., and Jane, S. 2009. Analysis of color difference in digital proofing based on color management system. Journal of Communication and Computer 6, 10, 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, L., Tyler, C., and Schor, C. 1992. Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process. Vision Research 32, 8, 1471--1479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. MacMillan, E., Gray, L., and Heron, G. 2007. Visual Adaptation to Interocular Brightness Differences Induced by Neutral-Density Filters. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 48, 2, 935.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mantiuk, R., Daly, S., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H. 2005. Predicting visible differences in high dynamic range images: model and its calibration. In Proc. SPIE, vol. 5666, SPIE, 204--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mantiuk, R., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H. 2006. A perceptual framework for contrast processing of high dynamic range images. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 3, 3, 286--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mantiuk, R., Kim, K., Rempel, A., and Heidrich, W. 2011. Hdr-vdp-2: A calibrated visual metric for visibility and quality predictions in all luminance conditions. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 30, ACM, 40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Myszkowski, K. 1998. The visible differences predictor: Applications to global illumination problems. In Rendering techniques' 98: proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop in Vienna, Austria, June 29-July 1, 1998, Springer Verlag Wien, 223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Norton, T., Corliss, D., and Bailey, J. 2002. The psychophysical measurement of visual function. Butterworth Heinemann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ono, H., Angus, R., and Gregor, P. 1977. Binocular single vision achieved by fusion and suppression. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 21, 6, 513--521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. O'Shea, R. 1983. Does stereopsis have a fusional component? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 34, 6, 599--603.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Reinhard, E. 2006. High dynamic range imaging: acquisition, display, and image-based lighting. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Steinman, S., Steinman, B., and Garzia, R. 2000. Foundations of binocular vision: A clinical perspective. McGraw-Hill Medical.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Treisman, A. 1962. Binocular rivalry and stereoscopic depth perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 14, 1, 23--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. von Helmholtz, H. 1962. Helmholtz's treatise on physiological optics, vol. 3. The Optical Society of America.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., and Simoncelli, E. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on 13, 4, 600--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Watson, A. 1987. The cortex transform: rapid computation of simulated neural images. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 39, 3, 311--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wopking, M. 1995. Viewing comfort with stereoscopic pictures: An experimental study on the subjective effects of disparity magnitude and depth of focus. Journal of the Society for Information Display 3, 3, 101--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Binocular tone mapping

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 31, Issue 4
        July 2012
        935 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/2185520
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 July 2012
        Published in tog Volume 31, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader