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.
- Odyssey software inc. 2003. CFCOM 2003. http://www.odysseysoftware.com/Google Scholar
- Ankrum, D. R. 1996. Viewing distance at computer workstations. In Work Place Ergonomics, 10--12.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Ardito, M. 1994. Studies on the influence of display size and picture brightness on the preferred viewing distance for HDTV. SMPTE 103, 8.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Birkmaier, C. 2000. Understanding digital: Advanced theory. In The Guide to Digital Television, M. Silbergleid and M. Pescatore, Eds. (United Entertainment Media).Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Diamant, L. 1989. The Broadcast Communications Dictionary (3rd Ed.) Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Hands, D. S. 2004. A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 6, 6, 806--816. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- ITU-R. 2004. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Rep. no. BT.500-11.Google Scholar
- ITU-T. 1999. Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Rep. no. ITU-T Recommendation P.911.Google Scholar
- Jesty, L. C. 1958. The relation between picture size, viewing distance and picture quality. In Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng., 425--439.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jumisko-Pyykkö, S. and Hannuksela, M. 2008. Does context matter in quality evaluation of mobile television. In Proceedings of the Mobile HCI. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Kingslake, R. 1963. Lenses on Photography. Barnes & Co., New York.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Knoche, H. and McCarthy, J. 2005a. Design requirements for mobile TV. In Proceedings of Mobile HCI, 69--76. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Lund, A. M. 1993. The influence of video image size and resolution on viewing-distance preference. In SMPTE 102, 406--415.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Luther, A. C. 1996. Principles of Digital Audio and Video. Artech House Publishers. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mason, S. 2006. Mobile TV - Results from the BT Movio DAB-IP trial in Oxford EBU Technical Review.Google Scholar
- Masoodian, M., Apperley, M., and Frederikson, L. 1995. Video support for shared workspace interaction: An empirical study. Interact. Comput. 7, 3, 237--253.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Neuman, W. R. 1988. The mass audience looks at HDTV: An early experiment. In Research Panel National Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Poynton, C. 2003. Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Ribchester, E. 1958. Discussion before the radio and telecommunication section. In Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineering, 105B, 437.Google Scholar
- Richardson, I. E. G. and Kannangara, C. S. 2004. Fast subjective video quality measurement with user feedback. Electron. Lett. 40, 13, 799--801.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Södergård, C. 2003. Mobile television - technology and user experiences. Report on the Mobile-TV project Rep. no. P506. VTT Information Technology.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Tanton, N. E. 2004. Results of a survey on television viewing distance Rep. no. WHP 090. British Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
- Thompson, F. T. 1957. Television line structure suppression. SMPTE 66, 603--606.Google Scholar
- Thompson, R. 1998. Grammar of the Shot. Elsevier Focal Press.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Winkler, S. and Faller, C. 2005. Maximizing audiovisual quality at low bitrates. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
The big picture on small screens delivering acceptable video quality in mobile TV
Recommendations
The sweet spot: how people trade off size and definition on mobile devices
MM '08: Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on MultimediaMobile TV can deliver up-to-date content to users on the move. But it is currently unclear how to best adapt higher resolution TV content. In this paper, we describe a laboratory study with 35 participants who watched short clips of different content ...
ShapeShifting TV: interactive screen media narratives
This paper presents a paradigm, called ShapeShifting TV, for the realisation of interactive TV narratives or, more generally, of interactive screen-media narratives. These are productions whose narrations respond on the fly (i.e. in real time) to ...
Interactive TV narratives: Opportunities, progress, and challenges
This article is motivated by the question whether television should do more than simply offer interactive services alongside (and separately from) traditional linear programs, in the context of its dominance being seriously challenged and threatened by ...






Comments