MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050024115 · doi:10.1109/icme.2012.42

Perceived Picture Quality of Frame-Compatible 3DTV Video Formats

2012· article· en· W2050024115 on OpenAlexaff
Filippo Speranza, Ron Renaud, A. Vincent, Wa James Tam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFrame (networking)High-definition televisionBandwidth (computing)Broadcasting (networking)Quality (philosophy)Video qualityHigh-definition videoMultimediaComputer visionTelecommunicationsComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the stereoscopic high-definition (HD) frame-compatible formats, the separate left and right views are reduced in resolution and packed to fit within the same video frame as a conventional two-dimensional high-definition signal. Since they do not require additional transmission bandwidth and entail limited changes to the existing broadcasting infrastructure, these formats have been suggested for 3DTV. However, the convenience of frame-compatible formats comes at the expense of lower picture quality of the 3D signal. In this study, we evaluated the loss in picture quality of two frame-compatible formats: 1080i Side-by-Side and 720p Top/Bottom, using a subjective assessment experiment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207