skip to main content
research-article

The big picture on small screens delivering acceptable video quality in mobile TV

Published:14 August 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Mobile TV viewers can change the viewing distance and (on some devices) scale the picture to their preferred viewing ratio, trading off size for angular resolution. We investigated optimal trade-offs between size and resolution through a series of studies. Participants selected their preferred size and rated the acceptability of the visual experience on a 200ppi device at a 4:3 aspect ratio. They preferred viewing ratios similar to living room TV setups regardless of the much lower resolution: at a minimum 14 pixels per degree. While traveling on trains people required videos with a height larger than 35mm.

References

  1. Odyssey software inc. 2003. CFCOM 2003. http://www.odysseysoftware.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ankrum, D. R. 1996. Viewing distance at computer workstations. In Work Place Ergonomics, 10--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Apteker, R. T., Fisher, A. A., Kisimov, V. S., and Neishlos, H. 1994. Distributed multimedia: User perception and dynamic QoS. In Proceedings of SPIE, 226--234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardito, M. 1994. Studies on the influence of display size and picture brightness on the preferred viewing distance for HDTV. SMPTE 103, 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardito, M., Gunetti, M., and Visca, M. 1996. Influence of display parameters on perceived HDTV quality. In IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron., 42, 1, 145--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Assfalg, J., Bertini, M., Colombo, C., and Del Bimbo, A. 2003. Automatic extraction and annotation of soccer video highlights. In Proceedings of the Conference on Image Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Barten, P. G. J. 1990. Evaluation of subjective image quality with the square-root integral method. J. Optical Soc. Amer. 7, 10, 2024--2031.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Birkmaier, C. 2000. Understanding digital: Advanced theory. In The Guide to Digital Television, M. Silbergleid and M. Pescatore, Eds. (United Entertainment Media).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Boff, K. R. and Lincoln, J. E. 1988. Visual acuity: Effect of viewing distance and luminance level. In Engineering Data Compendium, Human Perception and Performance (Ohio: AAMRL: Wright-Patterson AFB).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Chuang, S. L. and Haines, R. F. 1993. A study of video frame rate on the perception of compressed dynamic imagery. In International Symposium on Society for Information Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Corey, G. P., Clayton, M. J., and Cupery, K. N. 1983. Scene dependence of image quality. Soc. Photographic Sci. Eng. 27, 1, 9--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamant, L. 1989. The Broadcast Communications Dictionary (3rd Ed.) Greenwood Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Frieser, H. and Biedermann, K. 1963. Experiments on image quality in relation to the modulation transfer function and graininess of photographs. Photographic Sci. Eng. 7, 28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghinea, G. and Thomas, J. P. 1998. QoS impact on user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia Conference '98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Guardian. 2005. Romantic drama in China soap opera only for mobile phones. Guardian Newspapers Limited. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-28-2005-72274.aspGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwinn, E. and Hughlett, M. 2005. Mobile TV for your cell phone. Chicago Tribune: http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93423&ran=38197Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hands, D. S. 2004. A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 6, 6, 806--816. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Harper, R., Regan, T., and Rouncefield, M. 2008. Taking hold of TV: Learning from the literature. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments, 79--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hatada, T., Sakata, H., and Kusaka, H. 1980. Psychophysical analysis of the 'sensation of reality' induced by a visual wide-field display. In SMPTE 89, 560--569.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. ITU-R. 2004. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Rep. no. BT.500-11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. ITU-T. 1999. Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Rep. no. ITU-T Recommendation P.911.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jesty, L. C. 1958. The relation between picture size, viewing distance and picture quality. In Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng., 425--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Jumisko-Pyykkö, S. and Hannuksela, M. 2008. Does context matter in quality evaluation of mobile television. In Proceedings of the Mobile HCI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kato, S., Boon, C. S., Fujibayashi, A., Hangai, S., and Hamamoto, T. 2005. Perceptual quality of motion of video sequences on mobile terminals. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, 442--447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kingslake, R. 1963. Lenses on Photography. Barnes & Co., New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Knoche, H. and McCarthy, J. 2004. Mobile users' needs and expectations of future multimedia services. In Proceedings of the Wireless World Research Forum (WWRF12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Knoche, H. and McCarthy, J. 2005a. Design requirements for mobile TV. In Proceedings of Mobile HCI, 69--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Knoche, H., McCarthy, J., and Sasse, M. A. 2005b. Can small be beautiful? Assessing image resolution requirements for mobile TV. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2005, 829--838. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Knoche, H., McCarthy, J., and Sasse, M. A. 2006a. A close-up on mobile TV: The effect of low resolutions on shot types. In Proceedings of the EuroITV - Beyond Usability, Broadcast and TV, 359--367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Knoche, H., McCarthy, J., and Sasse, M. A. 2006b. Reading the fine print: The effect of text legibility on perceived video quality in mobile TV. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, 727--730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Knoche, H., Papaleo, M., Sasse, M. A., and Vanelli-Coralli, A. 2007. The kindest cut: Enhancing the user experience of mobile TV through adequate zooming. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2007, 87--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Kopf, S., Lampi, F., King, T., and Effelsberg, W. 2006. Automatic scaling and cropping of videos for devices with limited screen resolution. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 957--958. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lloyd, E., Maclean, R., and Stirling, A. 2006. Mobile TV - Results from the BT Movio DAB-IP pilot in London Rep. no. tech. Rev. EBU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lund, A. M. 1993. The influence of video image size and resolution on viewing-distance preference. In SMPTE 102, 406--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Luther, A. C. 1996. Principles of Digital Audio and Video. Artech House Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Mason, S. 2006. Mobile TV - Results from the BT Movio DAB-IP trial in Oxford EBU Technical Review.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Masoodian, M., Apperley, M., and Frederikson, L. 1995. Video support for shared workspace interaction: An empirical study. Interact. Comput. 7, 3, 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. McCarthy, J., Sasse, M. A., and Miras, D. 2004. Sharp or smooth? Comparing the effects of quantization vs. frame rate for streamed video. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, 535--542. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Nathan, J. G., Anderson, D. R., Field, D. E., and Collins, P. 1985. Television viewing at home: Distances and visual angles of children and adults. Human Factors 27, 467--476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Neuman, W. R. 1988. The mass audience looks at HDTV: An early experiment. In Research Panel National Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Owens, D. A. and Wolfe-Kelly, K. 1987. Near work, visual fatigue, and variations of oculomotor tonus. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Sc. 28, 743--749.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Poynton, C. 2003. Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Reeves, B., Detenber, B. H., and Steuer, J. 1993. New televisions: The effects of big pictures and big sound on viewer responses to the screen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ribchester, E. 1958. Discussion before the radio and telecommunication section. In Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineering, 105B, 437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Richardson, I. E. G. and Kannangara, C. S. 2004. Fast subjective video quality measurement with user feedback. Electron. Lett. 40, 13, 799--801.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Sasse, M. A. and Knoche, H. 2006. Quality in context: An ecological approach to assessing QoS for mobile TV. In Proceedings of 2nd ISCA/DEGA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Seo, K., Ko, J., Ahn, I., and Kim, C. 2007. An intelligent display scheme of soccer video on mobile devices. In IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Video Technol. 17, 1, 1395--1401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Sinha, A. and Agarwal, G. 2005. A method of dynamic cropping and resizing of video frames in DVB-H to Mobile. In GPSx 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Södergård, C. 2003. Mobile television - technology and user experiences. Report on the Mobile-TV project Rep. no. P506. VTT Information Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Strategy Analytics. 2006. TV phones: Integration and power improvements needed to reach 100 million sales. http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=ReportAbstractViewer&a0=2760Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Sugama, Y., Yoshida, T., Hamamoto, T., Hangai, S., Seng, B. C., and Kato, S. 2005. A comparison of subjective picture quality with objective measure using subjective spatial frequency. In Proceedings of the ICME, 1262--1265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Tamminen, S., Oulasvirta, A., Toiskallio, K., and Kankainen, A. 2004. Understanding mobile contexts. In Special Issue of J. Personal Ubiquit. Comput. 8, 135, 143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Tang, J. C. and Isaacs, E. A. 1993. Why do users like video? Studies of multimedia-supported collaboration. In Comput. Supported Cooperative Work: An Int. J. 1, 3, 163--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Tanton, N. E. 2004. Results of a survey on television viewing distance Rep. no. WHP 090. British Broadcasting Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, F. T. 1957. Television line structure suppression. SMPTE 66, 603--606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson, R. 1998. Grammar of the Shot. Elsevier Focal Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Westerink, J. H. and Roufs, J. A. 1989. Subjective image quality as a function of viewing distance, resolution, and picture size. In SMPTE J. 98, 113--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Winkler, S. and Faller, C. 2005. Maximizing audiovisual quality at low bitrates. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Yanqing, C., Chipchase, J., and Jung, Y. 2007. Personal TV: A qualitative study of mobile TV users. In Proceedings of EuroITV 2007, 195--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Yu, Z., Wu, H. R., and Ferguson, T. 2002. The influence of viewing distance on subjective impairment assessment. In IEEE Trans. Broadcasting 48, 4, 331--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The big picture on small screens delivering acceptable video quality in mobile TV

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
      ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 5, Issue 3
      August 2009
      204 pages
      ISSN:1551-6857
      EISSN:1551-6865
      DOI:10.1145/1556134
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 August 2009
      • Revised: 1 June 2009
      • Accepted: 1 June 2009
      • Received: 1 May 2009
      Published in tomm Volume 5, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!