“High dynamic range display systems” by Seetzen, Heidrich, Stuerzlinger, Whitehead, Trentacoste, et al. …

The dynamic range of many real-world environments exceeds the capabilities of current display technology by several orders of magnitude. In this paper we discuss the design of two different display systems that are capable of displaying images with a dynamic range much more similar to that encountered in the real world. The first display system is based on a combination of an LCD panel and a DLP projector, and can be built from off-the-shelf components. While this design is feasible in a lab setting, the second display system, which relies on a custom-built LED panel instead of the projector, is more suitable for usual office workspaces and commercial applications. We describe the design of both systems as well as the software issues that arise. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two designs and potential applications for both systems.

1. ASHIKHMIN, M. 2002. A tone mapping algorithm for high contrast images. In Proc. of Eurographics Workshop on Rendering 2002, 145–156. Google ScholarDigital Library
2. BARTEN, P. 1992. Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. In Proc. SPIE, vol. 1666, 57–72.Google ScholarCross Ref
3. BARTEN, P. 1993. Spatio-temporal model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its temporal aspects. In Proc. SPIE, vol. 1913-01.Google Scholar
4. CHIU, K., HERF, M., SHIRLEY, P., SWAMY, S., WANG, C., AND ZIMMERMAN, K. 1993. Spatially nonuniform scaling functions for high contrast images. In Proc. Graphics Interface ’93, 245–253.Google Scholar
5. CHOUDHURY, P., AND TUMBLIN, J. 2003. The trilateral filter for high contrast images and meshes. In Proc. of the Eurographics Symposium on Rendering, 186–196. Google ScholarDigital Library
6. DEBEVEC, P., AND MALIK, J. 1997. Recovering high dynamic range radiance maps from photographs. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH ’97, 369–378. Google ScholarDigital Library
7. DICOM. 2001. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). http://www.medical.nema.org/dicom/2001.html, ch. Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function.Google Scholar
8. DURAND, F., AND DORSEY, J. 2002. Fast bilateral filtering for the display of high-dynamic-range images. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2002) 21, 3, 257–266. Google ScholarDigital Library
9. FATTAL, R., LISCHINSKI, D., AND M. WERMAN. 2002. Gradient domain high dynamic range compression. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2002) 21, 3, 249–256. Google ScholarDigital Library
10. FISEKOVIC, N., NAUTA, T., CORNELISSEN, H., AND BRUININK, J. 2001. Improved motion-picture quality of AM-LCDs using scanning backlight. In IDW 2001 Proceedings, 1637–1640.Google Scholar
11. GARDNER, A., TCHOU, C., HAWKINS, T., AND DEBEVEC, P. 2003. Linear light source reflectometry. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2003) 22, 3, 749–758. Google ScholarDigital Library
12. KANG, S. B., UYTTENDAELE, M., WINDER, S., AND SZELISKI, R. 2003. High dynamic range video. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2003) 22, 3, 319–325. Google ScholarDigital Library
13. LARSON, G. W., RUSHMEIER, H., AND PIATKO, C. 1997. A visibility matching tone reproduction operator for high dynamic range scenes. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics 3, 4, 291–306. Google ScholarDigital Library
14. MANN, S., AND PICARD, R. 1994. Being ‘undigital’ with digital cameras: Extending dynamic range by combining differently exposed pictures. Tech. Rep. 323, M.I.T. Media Lab Perceptual Computing Section. Also appears, IS&T’s 48th annual conference, Cambridge, MA, May 1995.Google Scholar
15. MARK, W. R., GLANVILLE, R. S., AKELEY, K., AND KILGARD, M. J. 2003. Cg: A system for programming graphics hardware in a C-like language. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2003) 22, 3, 896–907. Google ScholarDigital Library
16. MITSUNAGA, T., AND NAYAR, S. K. 1999. Radiometric self calibration. In Proc. of IEEE CVPR, 472–479.Google ScholarCross Ref
17. MOON, P., AND SPENCER, D. 1945. The visual effect of non-uniform surrounds. Journal of the Optical Society of America 35, 3, 233–248.Google ScholarCross Ref
18. MUKA, E., AND REIKER, G. 2002. Reconsidering bit depth for radiological images — is eight enough? In Proc. SPIE, vol. 4686, 177–188.Google Scholar
19. OHTSUKI, H., NAKANISHI, K., MORI, A., SAKAI, S., YACHI, S., AND TIMMERS, W. 2002. 18.1-inch XGA TFT-LCD with wide color reproduction using high power led-backlighting. In Proc. Society for Information Display International Symposium, 1154–1157.Google Scholar
20. PATTANAIK, S. N., FERWERDA, J. A., FAIRCHILD, M. D., AND GREENBERG, D. 1998. A multiscale model of adaptation and spatial vision for realistic image display. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH ’98, 287–298. Google ScholarDigital Library
21. REINHARD, E., STARK, M., SHIRLEY, P., AND FERWERDA, J. 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. ACM Trans. Graph. (special issue SIGGRAPH 2002) 21, 3, 267–276. Google ScholarDigital Library
22. ROBERTSON, M., BORMAN, S., AND STEVENSON, R. 1999. Dynamic range improvements through multiple exposures. In Proc. of International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) ’99, 159–163.Google ScholarCross Ref
23. SCHLICK, C. 1994. Quantization techniques for visualization of high dynamic range pictures. In Proc. of Eurographics Workshop on Rendering ’94, 7–20.Google Scholar
24. SEETZEN, H., WHITEHEAD, L., AND WARD, G. 2003. A high dynamic range display using low and high resolution modulators. In Society for Information Display Internatiational Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 1450–1453.Google ScholarCross Ref
25. TUMBLIN, J., AND RUSHMEIER, H. 1993. Tone reproduction for realistic images. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 13, 6, 42–48. Google ScholarDigital Library
26. TUMBLIN, J., AND TURK, G. 1999. LCIS: A boundary hierarchy for detail-preserving contrast reduction. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH ’99, 83–90. Google ScholarDigital Library
27. VOS, J. 1984. Disability glare – a state of the art report. CIE Journal 3, 2, 39–53.Google Scholar