“Binocular tone mapping” by Yang, Zhang, Wong and Heng

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.

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 Scholar
2. Blake, R., and Boothroyd, K. 1985. The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 37, 2, 114–124.Google Scholar
3. Carter, R., and Huertas, R. 2010. Ultra-large color difference and small subtense. Color Research & Application 35, 1, 4–17.Google 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 Scholar
5. Daly, S. 1993. The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. Digital images and human vision 11. Google ScholarDigital 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 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 ScholarDigital 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 ScholarCross 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 ScholarDigital Library
10. Howard, I., and Rogers, B. 2002. Seeing in Depth, vol. 1. I Porteous.Google Scholar
11. Kooi, F., and Toet, A. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25, 2-3, 99–108.Google ScholarCross 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 ScholarCross 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 ScholarDigital Library
14. Lei, L., and Schor, C. 1994. The spatial properties of binocular suppression zone. Vision research 34, 7, 937–947.Google Scholar
15. Levelt, W. 1965. Binocular brightness averaging and contour information. British journal of psychology 56.Google 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 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 ScholarCross 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 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 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 ScholarDigital 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 ScholarDigital 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 Scholar
23. Norton, T., Corliss, D., and Bailey, J. 2002. The psychophysical measurement of visual function. Butterworth Heinemann.Google 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 Scholar
25. O’Shea, R. 1983. Does stereopsis have a fusional component? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 34, 6, 599–603.Google Scholar
26. Reinhard, E. 2006. High dynamic range imaging: acquisition, display, and image-based lighting. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
27. Steinman, S., Steinman, B., and Garzia, R. 2000. Foundations of binocular vision: A clinical perspective. McGraw-Hill Medical.Google Scholar
28. Treisman, A. 1962. Binocular rivalry and stereoscopic depth perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 14, 1, 23–37.Google ScholarCross Ref
29. von Helmholtz, H. 1962. Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics, vol. 3. The Optical Society of America.Google 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 ScholarDigital 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 ScholarDigital 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 ScholarCross Ref