Premium
Characterization of crosstalk in stereoscopic display devices
Author(s) -
Zafar Fahad,
Badano Aldo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of the society for information display
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.578
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1938-3657
pISSN - 1071-0922
DOI - 10.1002/jsid.279
Subject(s) - stereoscopy , stereo display , luminance , computer science , computer vision , artificial intelligence , display device , led display , crosstalk , depth perception , viewing angle , image quality , perception , liquid crystal display , optics , physics , neuroscience , image (mathematics) , biology , operating system
Many different types of stereoscopic display devices are used for commercial and research applications. Stereoscopic displays offer the potential to improve performance in detection tasks for medical imaging diagnostic systems. Due to the variety of stereoscopic display technologies, it remains unclear how these compare with each other for detection and estimation tasks. Different stereo devices have different performance trade‐offs due to their display characteristics. Among them, crosstalk is known to affect observer perception of 3D content and might affect detection performance. We measured and report the detailed luminance output and crosstalk characteristics for three different types of stereoscopic display devices. We recorded the effect of other issues on recorded luminance profiles such as viewing angle, use of different eye wear, and screen location. Our results show that the crosstalk signature for viewing 3D content can vary considerably when using different types of 3D glasses for active stereo displays. We also show that significant differences are present in crosstalk signatures when varying the viewing angle from 0 degrees to 20 degrees for a stereo mirror 3D display device. Our detailed characterization can help emulate the effect of crosstalk in conducting computational observer image quality assessment evaluations that minimize costly and time‐consuming human reader studies.