Stereo image quality: effects of mixed spatio-temporal resolution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the response of the human visual system to mixed-resolution stereo video-sequences, in which one eye view was spatially or temporally low-pass filtered. It was expected that the perceived quality, depth, and sharpness would be relatively unaffected by low-pass filtering, compared to the case where both eyes viewed a filtered image. Subjects viewed two 10-second stereo video-sequences, in which the right-eye frames were filtered vertically (V) and horizontally (H) at 1/2 H, 1/2 V, 1/4 H, 1/4 V, 1/2 H 1/2 V, 1/2 H 1/4 V, 1/4 H 1/2 V, and 1/4 H 1/4 V resolution. Temporal filtering was implemented for a subset of these conditions at 1/2 temporal resolution, or with drop-and-repeat frames. Subjects rated the overall quality, sharpness, and overall sensation of depth. It was found that spatial filtering produced acceptable results: the overall sensation of depth was unaffected by low-pass filtering, while ratings of quality and of sharpness were strongly weighted towards the eye with the greater spatial resolution. By comparison, temporal filtering produced unacceptable results: field averaging and drop-and-repeat frame conditions yielded images with poor quality and sharpness, even though perceived depth was relatively unaffected. We conclude that spatial filtering of one channel of a stereo video-sequence may be an effective means of reducing the transmission bandwidth.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it