Asymmetrically Compressed Stereoscopic 3D Videos: Quality Assessment and Rate-Distortion Performance Evaluation
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
Objective quality assessment of stereoscopic 3D video is challenging but highly desirable, especially in the application of stereoscopic video compression and transmission, where useful quality models are missing, that can guide the critical decision making steps in the selection of mixed-resolution coding, asymmetric quantization, and pre- and post-processing schemes. Here we first carry out subjective quality assessment experiments on two databases that contain various asymmetrically compressed stereoscopic 3D videos obtained from mixed-resolution coding, asymmetric transform-domain quantization coding, their combinations, and the multiple choices of postprocessing techniques. We compare these asymmetric stereoscopic video coding schemes with symmetric coding methods and verify their potential coding gains. We observe a strong systematic bias when using direct averaging of 2D video quality of both views to predict 3D video quality. We then apply a binocular rivalry inspired model to account for the prediction bias, leading to a significantly improved full reference quality prediction model of stereoscopic videos. The model allows us to quantitatively predict the coding gain of different variations of asymmetric video compression, and provides new insight on the development of high efficiency 3D video coding schemes.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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