DEliverable 2.3 - the School of Engineering and Design - Brunel ...

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
Project Number:
Project title:
Deliverable Type:
248420
3D VIVANT
Report
CEC Deliverable Number: IST-248420/Brunel/WP2/PU/R/Del-2-3/ver 2
Resubmission Delivery Date: 15 th September 2011
Actual Delivery Date: 1 st September 2011
Title of the Deliverable:
Workpackage:
Nature of the Deliverable:
Organisations:
Authors:
Circulation List:
User Acceptance Validation Plan - Update
WP2
Report
1 Brunel University
2 Centre for Research and Technology Hellas – Informatics and
Telematics Institute
3 Institut für Rundfunktechnik GmbH
4 Holografika
5 RAI research centre
6 Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg
7 Instituto de Telecomunicações
8 European Broadcast Union
9 Arnold & Richter Cine Technik
Nicolas de Abreu Pereira, Annette Duffy, Oliver Pidancet, Iordanis
Biperis, Amar Aggoun, Emmanuel Tsekleves, John Cosmas,
Johannes Steurer, Mario Muratori, Michael Meier, Ralf Neudel,
Yvonne Thomas, Michael Weitnauer
Partners
Keywords: user validation, usability, test
01.09.11 1

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
CONTENTS
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
TABLE CAPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................... 5
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 TARGET USERS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONS AND FEATURES TO BE TESTED ..................................................................... 7
2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................................................... 8
2.2 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON 3D VIDEO .................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Stereoscopic 3D .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Multiview Auto-stereoscopic 3D ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 11
2.3 QUALITY ASSESSEMNT ON 3D AUDIO ................................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Methods for the Assessment of Sound Colour ................................................................................. 12
2.3.2 Methods for the Assessemnt of Localisation Quality ...................................................................... 13
2.4 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE .......................................................................... 13
2.4.1 User Acceptance and Usability ....................................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 14
3 PRODUCTION-SIDE ACCEPTANCE FACTORS ............................................................................... 16
3.1 HOLOSCOPIC CAMERA SETS ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 PRODUCTION PROCESSES ..................................................................................................................... 17
4 END-USER ACCEPTANCE .................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 BROADCAST EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Viewing ........................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Hearing ........................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Video Hyperlinking Environment ................................................................................................... 20
4.2.2 Search and Retrieval Framework ................................................................................................... 21
5 ORGANISATION OF TESTS .................................................................................................................. 22
5.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 TIME PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 24
5.3 RECRUITING TESTERS .......................................................................................................................... 25
6 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 26
7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 27
ANNEX 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
ANNEX 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 31
01.09.11 2

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
TABLE CAPTIONS
Table 1: Professional Users Testplan
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
End-Users Testplan
Parameters Relevant to the Shooting Phase
Parameters Relevant to the Recording Phase
Parameters relevant to the editing phase
Parameters Relevant to the Compositing Phase
01.09.11 3

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to provide, at an early stage of the project, a plan for user acceptance
validation in 3D VIVANT. Acceptance tests and studies will mainly be carried out in Task 7.3 –
“User Perception and Usability Testing”, which starts in project month 29 and continues until month
34.
The project developments will create new technology for the production and consumption of 3D
holoscopic video. Therefore, it will be important to test the acceptance of the new production
technology and the implications this has for existing production workflows and processes. Consumers
will be offered a new way to view, hear and interact with 3D content. All of these aspects need to be
tested. In order to highlight the advantages of the technology being developed and validate it, it is
important to consider the shortcomings of existing 3D approaches and solutions. The user tests, both
professional and end-user tests, will consider these in addition to other relevant acceptance factors.
Following numerous internal tests of objective measures conducted by the developing partners there
will be extensive validation of 3D VIVANT’s outcomes involving professional testers from outside
the project teams and, of course, future (potential) end-users. As the core objective of these tests is to
validate user acceptance, the majority of the tests will be based on qualitative assessment methods as
opposed to the project internal tests which will primarily involve objective testing methods.
As the developments in the project will be many and complex, there will be the need to carry out a
number of tests in various locations, each with a specific purpose and involving the main partners
responsible for the development in question.
01.09.11 4

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
The introduction (Section 1) briefly summarises the objectives and the adopted approach for
conducting user validation tests for the development in 3D VIVANT, explaining the starting position
of the validation tests in question, such as the differences between professional and end-user
validation.
Section 2 provides an overview of the assessment methods and explains the choice of methods in
general and with respect to the assessment of 3D video (Section 2.2), 3D audio (Section 2.3) and
usability testing (Section 2.4) in particular.
The following sections give details on the assessment of acceptance factors on the side of professional
content production (Section 3) and on that of the end-users (Section 4). The latter include audiovisual
perception (Section 4.1.1 – Viewing, and Section 4.1.2 – Listening) and the interactive experience
(Section 4.2). For each of these the selected data collection methods are described in the respective
sub-sections.
Section 5 provides an overview of the organisation of tests, including a rough time plan and details on
the recruiting of testers.
Eventually, Section 6 provides a list of references cited in this document, while Annexes 1 and 2 give
some extra background information on 3D video production.
01.09.11 5

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
1 INTRODUCTION
The main target of 3D VIVANT is to create a new way of producing and enjoying 3D video and the
associated audio content. 3D VIVANT will develop the tools which are necessary for capturing,
processing and viewing 3D holoscopic content; and targets both the professional and consumer
environments. This means that the 3D VIVANT system will be used by various groups of people,
involved in different stages of the 3D holoscopic content exploitation chain and having different
expectations from it.
3D VIVANT has to validate that it meets the expectations of all of these users. However, since
expectations vary among different user groups, an effective way of validating their acceptance
requires a customised approach for each group. Therefore, for a thorough validation of user
acceptance, two major groups of users are distinguished: 1) the professional users, and 2) the endusers.
Furthermore, there is an important difference between testing perceived audiovisual quality and tests
on interactive features, including usability, usefulness, etc. This variety of testing persons and aspects
to be tested requires a variety of methods for testing and validation. While some features and
functions will require primarily qualitative methods, others may involve some quantitative measuring
as part of the evaluation setup. The chosen methods will be described in Section 2.
In WP7 of the project, assessment sessions are envisaged for evaluating the user acceptance of the
various functionalities and characteristics – most of them are new ones – of the 3D holoscopic
system. The results of the evaluations, from the points of view of both end-users and professional
users, will mainly be used by the developers to improve the capabilities of the system. This would
also inform any future development outside and after the end of the project.
As some of 3D VIVANT’s features will create very new experiences, the test results will provide
important feedback for further improving and refining the technology and for optimal marketing
results. The aim of this document is to define the criteria and metrics for the aforementioned user
acceptance tests and to suggest a testing plan. These metrics will be the basis for Task 7.3 – “User
Perception and Usability Testing”, due to start near the end of the project, in month 29 (July 2012).
The information gathered from the tests needs to concentrate on the functionalities and experience
that are exclusive to the project developments, i.e., 3D holoscopic technology and the hyperlinking
environment. The approach adopted aims at capitalising on the knowledge and expertise of the project
partners with regards to 3D production and consumption as well as to interactive software and also to
review existing research on the topic. From this, it was possible to list the shortcomings and
acceptability issues relating to 3D. The tests should help to establish whether 3D VIVANT deals with
these shortcomings and provides acceptable solutions.
Concerning the choice of the methods, all tests will take into account varying requirements with
regard to target users as well as features and facilities to be tested. For detailed descriptions see
Sections 2-4.
1.1 TARGET USERS
The development of 3D holoscopic video requires the development of various production facilities as
these are not available as of today. Hence, 3D VIVANT’s results will require tests on shooting,
editing, and, of course, viewing newly created content. This means that the tests will involve
professional users as well as end-users.
Tests involving professional users will differ from end-user tests in various ways. While professional
users will provide much more detailed input and even concrete, constructive ideas, e.g., concerning
01.09.11 6

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
the organisation of production processes, end-user tests are more focused on subjective acceptance
factors. While professional users are expected to be much more critical, for instance, concerning the
quality of 3D video in terms of exact colours, etc., as well as with respect to the production side
factors, end-users are expected to speak their minds concerning the subjective appearance and
perceived usefulness or advantages in comparison to what they have known so far.
These and other differences in background, perception and expectations will influence the choice of
methods applied to evaluate their opinions and feedback.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONS AND FEATURES TO BE TESTED
The validation of user acceptance of 3D VIVANT’s project results will focus on all components and
prototypes developed in the course of the project. While some may be more in the focus of the user
acceptance tests, all of them will be involved and play an important role for the results of the
assessment activities.
The assessment of the production process and its required functions and features will include preview,
transport issues, storing, depth of field, and many other aspects of TV and video production.
Tests on post-production issues will involve the performance of the codec and usability of editing
software and metadata editing tools, and numerous other features.
Object search and retrieval will play a prominent role in both professional and end-user tests as it is a
feature of the hyperlinking environment both in production as well as consumption by end-users.
Validating the users’ acceptance of 3D holoscopic video will be important with respect to end-users
as well as to professional users, while their interests and thus their feedback may be very different.
The tests on the visual perception and the acceptance of 3D holoscopic video will be the most
important outcome of 3D VIVANT’s User Acceptance Validation tests.
There will also be dedicated tests on 3D audio, which will also involve both professional users and
end-users, whereas professional users will be involved in validating the production methods rather
than the auditive perception of 3D audio.
01.09.11 7

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
2 METHODOLOGY
There are major differences between testing functions and features involving interactivity and the
assessment of acceptance of perception quality (using vs. viewing). While, for instance, usability
testing requires tests on whether users understand what they are expected to do and how easy it is for
them to find out and actually do, validating acceptance of a novel perception of 3D video and audio
will require very different research questions. These differences will influence the choice of methods
to a large extent.
The following section will describe the objectives and the adopted approach for conducting user
validation tests for the development in 3D VIVANT.
2.1 QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODS
As the main objective of the User Validation Activities in 3D VIVANT is to investigate whether the
results of 3D VIVANT, from holoscopic 3D to novel opportunities to view and interact with video
content, will be accepted by potential users as an added value to their previous experience, many
subjective aspects will have to be taken into account. In order to explore the limitations of 3D
VIVANT’s features and functions, the chosen evaluation methods will have to allow maximum
openness and flexibility.
For both interactivity as well as viewing characteristics there is broad agreement that they could not
be sufficiently validated with objective measures alone. While performance, colour display and
various other aspects may be measured according to objective criteria, subjective terms like
acceptance are best evaluated with qualitative methods.
All functions and features to be validated by project externals will be pilot tested by the partners
involved in the development of these features before they will be subject to tests involving external
users. These internal tests will include several objective tests, which will be dictated by the
specifications determined in the respective work packages. User acceptance, on the other hand, will
be validated primarily through qualitative methods.
While quantitative evaluation methods require huge samples of testers in order to create statistics,
deduct objectivity from subjective statements, and confirm or falsify the scientist’s expectations,
qualitative methods are a source for recommendations and inspirations. Focus group discussions,
open interviews and the thinking aloud method, for instance, may produce answers that were not
planned, let alone prepared by the scientists leading the evaluation. This means, at the same time, that
test results are less predictable as testers can come up with answers to questions that were not asked
or not even thought of.
This relative openness, however, does not contradict the will and possibility to achieve generalisation
(Seale 1999) and transferability (Lincoln and Guba 1985) of the test results. Approved quality criteria
ensure that both, the choice of the instrument and the evaluation of the test results will lead to an
understanding of positive and negative potentials and give valuable input as to how to avoid negative
and achieve positive results (De Abreu et al 2006).
In terms of the data to be obtained from users, these typically fall under two categories:
• Process data – Observations about what the users were doing and thinking as they proceeded
through the tests.
• Summary data – ‘Bottom-line’ information like the time taken to finish a task, error rate, etc.
Relevant data collection methods are
• Questionnaires – Comprising of both closed and open ended questions. Questionnaires in this
01.09.11 8

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
context are useful for collecting summary data, such as user data (e.g., age, background), user
satisfaction, ease of use of specific tasks, performance of the system, etc. This can be collected in
a fairly quick manner and processed and analysed at a later stage. Questionnaires will be given to
the users to complete during tests or after they have used the tools in question.
• Interviews – Semi-structured (prepared and spontaneous questions) interviews comprising of a
selected user sample and one/two interviewees. The main aim here is to gain a deeper insight into
the user perception of the system. Interviews are very useful in this context, as they facilitate
confidentiality and allow users to express their views on the system. This is very useful from the
interviewer’s perspective too, as they can further probe topics of interest with the user and
ascertain valuable data that is very difficult to gain otherwise (e.g., via questionnaires). These are
also useful in getting so-called user stories of their experiences. Interviews provide testers with
process data.
• Focus groups – Composed of a small number of users and a moderator. These are particularly
useful in the process of user perception and form one of the main ways of getting feedback from
professional users. They help to establish a feeling of group membership and provide a unique
opportunity for users to express their views in an informal but informative manner. It is often the
case in user groups that one response from a user triggers another question or response from other
users or the moderator creating an iterative type of group interview/discussion. Focus groups
provide evaluators with information on what users thought during tests and where it specifically
did not match their expectations (process data). Inspiring and constructive remarks, especially
from professional users, on how to improve the situation under assessment can be another very
important outcome of a focus group discussion.
The following sections will explain in details which methods will be used for which tests and why.
2.2 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON 3D VIDEO
While there are standardised objective methods for quality assessment of 2D video coding, display,
etc., such as Perceptual Evaluation of Video Quality (PEVQ) and “Peak-Signal-to-Noise-Ratio”
(PSNR), metrics for validating 2D video, these cannot be easily transferred to 3D (Veit 2011).
Although ITU-R has initiated discussions on ‘Digital three-dimensional (3D) TV broadcasting’ (ITU-
R Question 128/6 (2008)), there are no agreed standards for testing the perceived quality of 3D video,
yet. Therefore, 3D VIVANT’s user validation tests will be inspired by standards on traditional
validation scenarios on Quality of Experience of 2D video and/or TV as well as by tests performed in
the course of recent research activities and currently proposed standards.
ITU-R Recommendation BT.500, a standard which describes various methods of showing test
footage and recording testers’ opinions will be a good starting point. The follow-up ITU-R BT.1438
did a very first step for standardizing subjective tests of 3D video but leaves many questions
unanswered. The viewing conditions during the envisaged tests will be largely based on these
recommendations and on Chen’s catalogue of subjective video quality assessment methodologies for
3DTV (Chen 2010), but may have to be adapted to 3DVIVANT-specific aspects in some details. In
addition, methods of quality assessment of 3D displays, 3D content, and 3D devices based on human
factors, are being discussed in IEEE P3333, the draft Standard for Test Procedures for Electric
Energy Storage Equipment and Systems for Electric Power Systems Applications 1 , and may be
considered in order to optimise the validation settings, if available at the time.
Validating user acceptance will also have to involve comparison tests with other available
technologies.
1 For more details check http://standards.ieee.org/develop/project/3333.html
01.09.11 9

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
These will set certain standards in terms of what the user expects with respect to e.g., colour,
resolution, brightness, contrast, etc., which the project results will have to meet. Although this may
sound like a challenge, comparison with other technologies may also show advantages, such as
independence from the need to wear special glasses, etc. The following two sub-sections will outline
features of 3D technologies suitable for comparison tests.
Nevertheless, since the 3D holoscopic technology is in its infancy, the tests envisaged in the project
should be considered more as useful guidelines for the future developments of this technology rather
than competitive comparisons aimed to persuade about the need of giving up any other existing 3D
visual technology.
Consequently, the methods and approaches reported in the aforementioned publications will be
practiced as required in order to obtain valid results, but it is assumed that they may have to be
relaxed when deemed necessary. In this case the corresponding WP7 deliverables will mention the
actual modifications with respect to the standardized rules.
User Acceptance Tests on 3D holoscopic video content will primarily be conducted with
questionnaires comprised of closed questions to explore limits of quality acceptance and open
questions to allow for individual input. For a detailed description of the tests, see Section 4.1.
2.2.1 Stereoscopic 3D
Most of the currently available 3D technologies are based on stereoscopic images. In this approach,
one image is produced for each eye and delivered to the appropriate eye during playback. The
separation of the images is usually done using special 3D glasses, for home users usually with activeshutter
or polarised glasses.
For the production of live-action stereoscopic content, stereo setups of two cameras in mirror or sideby-side
rigs are used. This requires a high degree of accuracy when setting up the cameras since the
cameras have to be accurately aligned and work exactly frame synchronously. In addition, to achieve
good results, the properties of the lenses also have to match perfectly.
One of the main disadvantages of the stereoscopic method is the need to wear some kind of special
3D glasses. Moreover, in stereoscopic viewing, the eyes’ convergence and accommodation do not
work in unison in contrast to normal human viewing. This leads to eye fatigue and in some cases even
to headaches. Another shortcoming of stereoscopic 3D is the dependency on the viewing angle. Since
only two different perspectives are present, a sideways movement of the observer results in a
sideways shear of the stereoscopic image.
2.2.2 Multiview Auto-stereoscopic 3D
Auto-stereoscopic approaches are generally based on the same principles as the stereoscopic 3D. But
in contrast to the classical stereoscopic 3D, for the multiview auto-stereoscopic case a larger number
of perspectives (views) are used. To view the content, mostly LCD-based displays with lenticular
lenses are used. They distribute the multiple views horizontally across the entire field of view of the
display. Depending on the position, every viewer can see exactly one pair of these views, a
stereoscopic image pair. The main advantage of auto-stereoscopic displays is that the viewer does not
need glasses and that a larger area of parallax can be shown. With a larger number of different views,
the effect of shear distortion can also be reduced. The main disadvantage, on the other hand, is that
the more views a display offers the more the resolution is reduced in comparison with 2D of
stereoscopic 3D systems.
Unless intermediate view interpolation or extrapolation is used, in general, for the production of
content for auto-stereoscopic displays the number of cameras required is the same as the number of
views offered, normally at least five to nine. This significantly increases the effort and expenditure,
01.09.11 10

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
especially for live events, because, as is the case for stereoscopic 3D, here the cameras must also be
exactly aligned and synchronised.
Even though auto-stereoscopic displays do not offer a large parallax area, the viewer appears to be
able to look around objects. However, the number of viewing positions and the resulting stereo pairs
is limited. In this case, the shear distortion effect is reduced but still detected in each stereo pair.
Nevertheless, if the viewer moves around in front of the display, jumps in the picture can be detected
when the viewing angle changes. This phenomenon is called flipping. A further disadvantage of the
auto-stereoscopic process is the missing vertical parallax. As the views can only be separated
horizontally, no vertical parallaxes can be displayed. The result is that a viewer can appear to look left
and right around an object but not over or under it.
More recently, a combination of conventional 2D video capture with depth map generation has been
used for the capture and processing of multiview auto-stereoscopic 3D content. However, the display
of multiview auto-stereoscopic 3D content relies upon the brain to fuse the two disparate images to
create the 3D sensation. A particularly contentious aspect for entertainment applications is the human
factors issue. For example, in stereoscopy, the viewer needs to focus at the screen plane while
simultaneously converging the eyes to different locations in space producing unnatural viewing
(Yamazaki et al., Lambooij et al. 1989). This can cause eye-strain and headaches in some people.
Consequently, content producers limit the depth of scene to be viewed to minimise this problem. With
recent advances in digital technology, some human factors which result in eye fatigue, such as limits
in head movement in the case of circulate/linear polarized glasses systems, etc., have been eliminated.
However, some intrinsic eye fatigue factor, like a mismatch in convergence and focus, will always
exist in stereoscopic 3D technology (Onural et al., Benton, Honda 2006). Furthermore, due to the lack
of perspective continuity in 2D view systems, objects in the scene often lack solidity (cardboarding)
and give rise to an ‘unreal’ experience.
For the 3D video quality assessment of stereoscopic videos, most researchers employ subjective
testing (De Silva et al., Hewage et al., Leon et al.2010) focusing mainly on depth perceived by the
users on autostereoscopic displays and the sensitivity of the observers to the changes in depth in a 3D
video scene (De Silva 2010). Most of the 3D video user perception studies relate to the design and
evaluation of 3D stereoscopic and multiview video systems based on different coding parameters. In
the majority of these studies, subjective testing using a qualitative methodology with no more than 15
users has been employed (Kalva et al. 2006; Saygili et al. 2009; Knorr et al. 2008; Olsson and
Sjostrom 2010). In some of these research studies, different types of video systems were compared by
the users in terms of various system parameters and user perception of stereoscopic versus multiview
video (Knorr et al.2008; Olsson and Sjostrom 2010). Most of the results suggest that, for stereoscopic
and multiview video, the bit rate and the content of the original 3D image form the factors that most
significantly affect the perceived 3D image quality (Kalva et al. 2006; Knorr et al. 2008; Olsson and
Sjostrom 2010; Reis et al. 2007). In terms of multiview 3D video, it is also noted that users prefer less
apparent depth and motion parallax when being exposed to compressed 3D images on an autostereoscopic
multiview display (Olsson and Sjostrom 2010). Furthermore, it was found that motion
and complexity of the depth image have a strong influence on the acceptable depth quality in 3D
videos (Leon et al. 2008).
2.2.3 Data Collection Methods
The following data collection methodologies will be employed to gather information on the users’
perceived quality of the project’s video content:
• Questionnaires – Comprising of both closed and open ended questions.
• Interviews – Semi-structured (prepared and spontaneous questions) interviews comprising of a
selected user sample and one/two interviewees.
01.09.11 11

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
2.3 QUALITY ASSESSEMNT ON 3D AUDIO
For studying the perceptive quality of audio of content reproducing, processing algorithms and
content generation, listening tests are the current state-of-the-art.
For conducting listening tests, there are several standardised and established methods. Most of them
are used for validating the quality level of coding systems. There are no up-to-date standardised
methods for 3D audio assessment, but the known and established principles can easily be transferred
for assessing certain attributes of 3D audio.
All methods offer the test subjects one or more test-signals, so called stimuli, which they have to
value on the basis of predefined attributes. Multiple stimuli, which have to be valued simultaneously,
form a so-called trial. The different trials of a listening test should be validated back-to-back and the
order of the trials has to be accidental and unknown to the subjects (ITU-R BS.1284-1).
Participating test persons are grouped in expert listeners and normal listeners. The assigned category
depends on the experience of the subject with listening tests and used methods. If the differences
between the stimuli under test are small and difficult to detect, the listening test should be conducted
with expert listeners. Test with normal listeners may be consulted for the evaluation of a new audio
reproducing system’s overall perceptive quality. For the evaluation it is necessary to separate the
valuations of expert and normal listeners to draw conclusions from the results to the listening
experience of the test persons. In principle the number of test persons should be as big as possible, but
in practice a number of 12 to 30 test subjects is considered to be sufficient.
Listening tests can be conducted in three different environments:
• Anechoic chamber: Advantageous for tests without any influence of the room.
• Headphone listening: Avoids most room influences and provides the detection of subtle
distinction.
• Room with predefined conditions referred to ITU-R BS.1116-1: Volume, reverberation
time, etc. are defined to prevent possible unwanted room influences. These parameters also
guarantee the reproducibility of the listening tests.
In the preparation of the listening test it is necessary to define the attributes, which are to be rated.
These can be for example the sound colour or the spatial impression. A list of possible attributes can
be found at ITU-R BS.1284-1, but using own attributes is also allowed as long as they are explicit and
clear defined.
2.3.1 Methods for the Assessment of Sound Colour
Every method for proceeding listening tests has advantages and disadvantages and has to be selected
on the basis of the criteria to be evaluated, the number of stimuli and the expected perceptibility.
Typical methods are:
• “ABX”: Two known stimuli “A” and “B” and one further “X”, which is either identically
with “A” or “B”, are offered to the test person. The test subject has to allocate “X” to the
corresponding stimulus. The different stimuli can be listened to as often as wanted. This
method is qualified for subtle distinction. The number of correct and wrong allocations is a
measure of the perceptibility of the differences, but doesn’t provide any quantitative
information.
• “Double-blind triple-stimulus with hidden reference” referred to ITU-R BS.1116-1:
Three stimuli “A”, “B” and “C” are presented to the test subject. “A” is always the known
01.09.11 12

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
reference. “B” and “C” are equivalent to the tested stimulus and one more hidden reference
in random order. The test subject has to value the stimuli “B” and “C” in comparison to the
reference “A”. The hidden reference should be identified, of course. The stimuli can be
listened to as often as wanted. The issued ratings and recognition rate of the hidden reference
gives information about small differences respectively degradation of the tested signal.
• “Multiple stimulus test with hidden reference and anchor” (MUSHRA) referred to ITU-
R BS.1534-1: The test person is offered several stimuli and one known reference. One of the
stimuli equates to a hidden reference and a “low anchor”. The test subject has to rate the
individual stimuli in comparison to the reference regarding to a defined attribute using the
“quality scale” (ITU-R BS.1284-1). The hidden reference has to be identified and accordingly
positive valued and the “low anchor”, which is an artificially debased signal, should also be
identified and negative valued. Sometimes MUSHRA is used without “low anchor” and/or
explicit reference, as it may be hard to define such signals under certain circumstances.
2.3.2 Methods for the Assessment of Localisation Quality
Especially for spatial audio the accuracy of localisation of an audio reproduction or generation system
is very important. In practice there are two methods established for assessment (Farag 2003):
• Pointing method: The test person is offered a stimulus and has to point with a laser on a
scale or pencil on a map at the perceived position. This method has the advantage that it is
easy to conduct, but the disadvantage of possible further inaccuracies through the test person.
This applies especially for positions behind or over the test subject, thus positions outside of
the test person’s visual field.
• Acoustic pointer method: The test subject controls a sound source (e.g. a loudspeaker array
with only one active speaker) and has to ”point” at the perceived position through positioning
the sound source. The test person can switch between the offered stimulus and the positioned
sound source as often as wanted.
For both variations, the correlation between real and perceived position is evaluated. Instead of
positions often only the perceived direction, that means the angle of incidence, is evaluated.
2.4 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE
This section provides an overview of the methods that will be employed for testing the user
acceptance for interactive features.
There are numerous methods to evaluate the usability and usefulness of Information Technology. As
3D VIVANT’s development outcomes are primarily combinatory innovations, models which validate
usability and usefulness in comparison with existing technologies are applicable only to a limited
extent. While the Motivational Model (MM) focuses on predicting the users’ interest in using the
features in question and Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT, after Rogers 1985) or the Model of PC
Utilization (MPCU, after Thompson et al. 1994) focus on evaluating usability in terms of
improvements of previous experience and (especially) working situations, 3D VIVANT’s test will
focus on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, after Davis 1989) as it focuses on two aspects of
major interest in 3D VIVANT: 1) Perceived Usefulness (PU), and 2) Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEOU).
Whereas Perceived Usefulness is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system
would enhance or improve his or her situation Perceived Ease of Use measures “the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis 1989).
01.09.11 13

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
The most comprehensive source on how to actually conduct usability tests, which describes in all
details the way the partners have organized usability tests in recent years, seems to be Rubin and
Chisnell’s “Handbook of Usability Testing” (2008). The envisaged validation tests will try and
investigate differences in perceived usefulness and usability with respect to gender, age and prior
experience with IT, in order to cater for varying expectations in a large (potential) audience as that of
the broadcasting partners in the project.
2.4.1 User Acceptance and Usability
The key aim of the user acceptance or usability testing is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness
of the system. As the user interacts with a system via some form of a user interface (typically
graphical), usability testing is closely associated with the study of interaction between users and
computers.
The user acceptance of the proposed use cases (the Broadcast TV as well as the Online Hyperlinking
use cases) will be tested according to the following four criteria:
• Usability – Whether the system can be operated with ease and efficiency.
• Usefulness – Whether the system allows the user to complete the relevant tasks successfully.
• Intuitiveness – Whether the system and its interface components (navigation, etc.) can be easily
recognised.
• Learnability – Whether the system can be mastered quickly, minimizing the user’s learning
curve.
User acceptance testing will involve a mixed qualitative methodology.
The user acceptance testing refers to the testing and evaluation of the developed use cases, namely the
Broadcast TV and Online Hyperlinking use cases as well as the 3D graphical user interface (3D GUI)
that will be developed as part of these use cases. The user acceptance testing will involve both
professional as well as end-users.
2.4.2 Data Collection Methods
The following data collection methods will be utilised to gather user feedback. The individual
sections on the technologies (Section 3 and Section 4) to be tested will name applicable methods
more precisely.
• Questionnaires – Comprising of both closed and open ended questions.
• Interviews – Semi-structured interviews comprising of a selected user sample and one/two
interviewees.
• Task-centred testing – Users fulfil prepared tasks without help from experts. Their methods and
success of fulfilling these are being watched and documented.
• Thinking aloud method –Users tell the tester what they are thinking, while fulfilling tasks to
give designers and developers an idea of what users would have expected.
The user acceptance methodology will be employed for the testing of both components of the
interactive experience testing as discussed and detailed in Section 4.2.1 for the hyperlinking
(particularly questionnaires, task-centred testing, the thinking aloud method and observations) and
Section 4.2.2 for the search and retrieval framework (particularly questionnaires, task-centred testing,
the thinking aloud method and observations).
Focus groups and interviews will be employed primarily for the production-side testing as described
01.09.11 14

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
in Section 3 of this document.
The testing of the broadcasting experience as discussed in Section 4.1 will focus on viewing and
listening tests. The results will be evaluated both through questionnaires and records of testers’
spontaneous impressions (Thinking aloud method).
01.09.11 15

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
3 PRODUCTION-SIDE ACCEPTANCE FACTORS
The 3D VIVANT concept can have far reaching implications for the production of content. The new
camera sets will have to interface with existing technology and may require further technical
developments. But also production processes and workflows will be impacted by the technical
developments and the opportunities they offer.
• The editorial department may have to (re)write scripts to take full advantage of the holoscopic
imagery.
• The camera department will have to find out how to work creatively with the holoscopic image;
especially the technical aspects of the camera’s setup will be important for them. They have to
work with the holoscopic camera and, therefore, they will have precise ideas of how a basic setup
of the camera has to work. There should be the possibility to monitor the 3D holoscopic images in
terms of creative decisions and in terms of technical ones. For the creative part, the requirement is
to see a 3D image like it would be recorded, to set the depth and to position all objects/actors in
front of the camera and to judge lighting, etc. In terms of technical decisions, the camera
department would need some measurement techniques to judge the image with respect to overall
picture quality usually controlled via waveform monitors, vectorscopes, etc. It has to be
investigated if these 2D measurement instruments are still sufficient to judge holoscopic images.
As the 3D holoscopic image will be captured in a different form the conventional ways, it is
possible that these techniques are no longer adequate and the measurement techniques have to be
modified or new ones developed.
• The director needs 3D playback to also judge the final composed image and the acting while
recording.
• During postproduction, both creative and technical monitoring (holoscopic display and
waveform/vectorscope) is needed.
Production side validation activities will concentrate on the holoscopic camera sets to be developed in
the project and also on the production processes for the service scenarios envisaged in the use cases.
3.1 HOLOSCOPIC CAMERA SETS
The project aims to ultimately produce a single tier holoscopic camera. Initially, a two tier camera
will be produced. However, to make 3D content generation accessible to partners, it is also planned to
develop an add-on optical hardware, which can be used with an HDTV camera equipped with the new
imaging sensor. As the camera solutions developed will be prototypes, as opposed to finished
marketable products, the proposed approach is to conduct a technical comparison of camera sets
produced by the project with other 3D solutions (commercially) available. It will be necessary to
consider items related to the calibration of system, as well as to list what existing technology in the
production process is impacted by the camera itself and the output, i.e., the 3D holoscopic images it
produces.
Annex 1 contains some tables in which the main parameters involved in a TV production are listed,
with the indication of the monitoring tool and/or measuring instrument usually adopted in a TV studio
or a post-processing environment. Some of the parameters and monitoring or measuring tools should
be equally relevant for 3D holoscopic productions; others may have to be modified to suit the needs
of 3D holoscopic shooting.
Like in 2D shooting, basic parameters such as focus, aperture and focal length have to be adjustable
and controlled via adequate monitoring tools. For stereoscopic shooting, additional depth related
parameters, such as screen position in depth, transversal and longitudinal magnification and
01.09.11 16

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
horizontal disparity range have to be adjusted to follow the artistic intention and technically result in
good stereoscopic images without distortions. These adjustments are typically controlled via a
monitor capable of showing stereoscopic content. For 3D holoscopic image production, it has to be
investigated if similar or other depth related parameters are relevant and how these parameters can be
controlled and monitored. A 3D holoscopic display for image control will be necessary. Referring to
signal parameters like white level, black pedestal, gamma and component gain in 2D and stereoscopic
productions, measurement instruments like waveform monitor and vectorscope are used. These
instruments will also have to be adapted to suit holoscopic content.
3.2 PRODUCTION PROCESSES
The production of the service scenarios in the use cases including 3D holoscopic content and
hyperlinked video will have implications for the production process and will to some extent require
new or altered tasks, skills and workflows for the whole production team. It is, therefore, planned to
conduct interviews and create focus groups with key members of the production teams at RBB and
RAI to gather guidelines and recommendations. Annex 2 lists the differences between 2D and 3D
stereoscopic production and contains production guidelines for 3D stereoscopic production. This
document, provided by ARRI, is based on in-house experience and also on an interview with the
director of photography (DOP) Christian Rein, who is experienced in shooting 3D stereo. These
guidelines could provide the basis for discussions with the production team. The main issues will be:
• Storyboard, film production grammar – How did the depth cues in 3D holoscopy affect the
storyboard, specifically: How much depth should be contained in each scene What is the
interaction between the depth cues Was there a Lilliputian effect or anything similar Was
window violation an issue Will an object in front of the screen, which is close to the lateral
frame of the picture, be cut off by the picture frame in an unnatural manner
• Pre-production – Did staging and decorations have to be planned and built more accurately for
3D holoscopic productions
• Shooting – What additional equipment was needed Was additional personnel required (e.g., in
stereoscopic 3D a stereographer cooperates with the DOP and the director to design the depth
perception of the picture) Did a slower panning speed produce less irritating results Was the
pace of work slower than for 2D production
• Quality control – How did 3D holoscopic production affect quality control
• Editing – Did the 3D production require a slower/different pace of cutting as well as other editing
effects
• Green Screen, visual effects – How did 3D holoscopic production affect chroma keying and
visual effects Typically back plates and composites of real and virtual layers are more
demanding in 3D. Virtual elements have to be placed at the right position in depth in the scene.
Moreover, flat back plates might not be sufficient, e.g., when simulating a deep perspective.
• Additional tasks in post-production – What additional tasks were necessary in post-production
01.09.11 17

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
4 END-USER ACCEPTANCE
The aim of the user validation with end-users is to determine if they can use and enjoy the 3D
holoscopic service scenarios envisaged in the project. These service scenarios, as described in the Use
Cases Document (see Deliverable D2.1), have two main components for the end-user: 1) Broadcast
TV, and 2) Online Hyperlinking. The validation of the Broadcast TV component will concentrate on
the audiovisual aspects, while the validation of the Online Hyperlinking component will additionally
address the interaction and scalability aspects of the service scenarios. The validation will address the
general acceptability and perception of the service scenarios developed and also covers specific issues
derived from the end-user requirements in Deliverable D2.1
The focus of the tests is not to validate 3D Television (TV) per se, but to concentrate on the benefits
and characteristics of 3D holoscopic TV and object-based hyperlinked videos.
4.1 BROADCAST EXPERIENCE
4.1.1 Viewing
Specific test criteria for validation by the end-user are based primarily on the end-user requirements.
This will involve real 3D holoscopic images captured with the holoscopic camera and computer
generated 3D holoscopic content, or a combination of both.
To gain a broad user acceptance some basic requirements concerning the picture quality can be
defined as follows:
• Spatial resolution – As broadcasters tend to distribute their programmes in HDTV format and
2D, and first stereoscopic 3D movies are available on blu-ray discs that use full HD resolution
(1920×1080 pixels), the users would expect the holoscopic image to deliver similar resolutions. It
has to be investigated if the new viewing experience of the holoscopic image can legitimate
resolutions lower than HD (at least 1280×720).
• Colour – Certainly, colour is a very important parameter to reproduce a realistic image of the
world and users will expect pictures which show colours in a most natural way. In order to
investigate to what extent colour representation is a camera or a display issue, computer
generated content could be used for comparison.
To gain a better 3D viewing experience than with existing 3D technologies, the user would expect the
shortcomings of stereoscopic and auto-stereoscopic technologies to be solved. Basic acceptance
factors will be:
• Free viewing – Like on 2D displays it should be possible for multiple persons to view the 3D
holoscopic content without the need to wear special glasses and independent of the individual
position in front of the screen.
• Continuous parallax without distortions – Since current 3D technologies can only provide
horizontal parallax, 3D VIVANT’s holoscopic 3D should deliver full horizontal and vertical
parallax throughout the viewing zone without flipping or shear distortion.
• Distinguish between 2D and 3D content – Because for some use cases a combination of 2D and
3D holoscopic content is needed, users should be able to distinguish between 2D and 3D content
without optical or mental irritations and be able to watch 2D content on a holoscopic 3D display
without distortion.
During the user perception testing of the Broadcast TV viewing part, users will be asked to view the
same computer generated 3D holoscopic content that is displayed on different display mediums. The
01.09.11 18

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
first one will be stereoscopic content generated from the 3D holoscopic content (through the 3D
holoscopic software plug-in tool that will be developed in M18 under the scope of Deliverable D3.9)
that will be displayed on a commercial 2D monitor with users wearing special 3D glasses. The second
one will be 3D holoscopic content that is displayed on three different types of displays.
User acceptance tests will largely depend on the viewing conditions during the test. ITU-R
Recommendation BT.500, clause 2.1.2, viewing conditions are considered “slightly more critical than
the optimal home viewing conditions” and optimal conditions are described. This lighting
environment is suggested for evaluating the “quality at the consumer side of the TV chain” and could
be adopted as a basis for the tests envisaged in the project just like the Preferred Viewing Distance
(PVD) recommended in ITU-R BT.500.
It should be taken into account that the main purpose of the ITU-R BT.500 is to define a standard
viewing environment in order to obtain comparable results with different assessment sessions.
However, the definition of optimal, or preferred, viewing conditions for a 3D display is still an open
issue. Consequently, for the tests to be carried out in the frame of the project, the viewing
environment suggested in ITU-R BT.500 will be implemented, whereas the parameters related to the
display will be chosen so that the resulting viewing conditions will be felt optimal by the viewers.
4.1.2 Hearing
Spatial audio generation and playback will also be an integral part of the 3D VIVANT system. The
main goal is to provide a consistent spatial audio experience accompanying the holoscopic video
content. Thus, at least the same degrees of freedom as possible with the holoscopic display and
content should be provided to one or more end-users. The key objectives are to allow plausible
localisation of objects in respect to the visual experience, perception of spatiality and depth, and an
overall coherent immersive listening experience.
For audio generation a new spherical surface microphone has been designed. Accordingly an
interpolation algorithm has been developed, to simulate microphone positions on the spherical surface
between the six existing microphones. This algorithm (and the spherical surface microphone itself)
have to be assessed through listening tests to find out the quality level of sound with following
criteria:
• Sound colouration – A correct interpolation of microphone positions with as less as possible
sound colouration in comparison to a real microphone at this position is very significant. This
criterion will be tested with the MUSHRA (#2.4.1) method (without low anchor). Three
variations of the developed algorithm and two known will be compared.
• Quality of localisation – The spherical surface microphone can also be used for binaural hearing.
Therefore the perceived localisation of a sound source has to match the real position as well as
possible. To test the quality of localisation with the spherical surface microphone a listening test
with pointing (#2.4.2) on a scale to indicate the perceived sound sources will be conducted. This
test will also evaluate the quality of localisation using interpolated microphones with different
algorithms. A dummy head Neumann KU-100 will also to be rated for comparing with the
spherical surface microphone and the interpolation algorithms.
Both tests will be conducted with headphone listening and a head-tracker for dynamic tracking of the
(binaural) signal. The reference is an artificially created (computer simulated) spherical surface
microphone with 360 microphones on the equatorial plane. Only expert listener will be consulted in
case of the small differences between the stimuli. A training session preceding the listening test will
familiarize the test persons with the rating procedure (especially for the pointing method) and the
possible artefacts or differences.
The spatial audio playback system will also be tested using the following criteria:
01.09.11 19

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
• Sound colouration: Possible degradations of the perceived audio quality will be tested using
a MUSHRA-like test. The stimuli will consist of a virtual sound source created by the
playback system, a real sound source located on the same position and another virtual sound
source created using stereophonic playback. Speech, noise and other audio signals known to
be prone to sound colouration artefacts will be used. As the overall experience of the three
stimuli will be totally different - because various playback principles are used. The test
subjects will be instructed to only consider sound colouration or other notable artefacts.
Therefore a training session will be needed before the actual listening test to familiarize the
test subjects with the scope of the test.
• Quality of localisation: Test subjects will be asked to localize virtual sound sources
generated by the playback system. Again, the pointing method (#2.4.2) will be used.
Both criteria will be tested from multiple listening positions to determine the size of the possible
listening area of the new playback system.
4.2 INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCE
There are two interactive features developed in 3D VIVANT, namely a Video Hyperlinking
Environment and an Object Search and Retrieval Framework. While the first is to be used primarily
by end users, the latter will only be used by professionals as part of the editing process of the video
hyperlinks.
4.2.1 Video Hyperlinking Environment
The object-based online video hyperlinking developed in 3D VIVANT will allow online users to
interact with 3D objects in a video by clicking on them. Through clicking the hyperlinked objects
users will be able to access additional content. Basic user acceptance factors can be defined as
follows:
• Navigation and interaction – Users will expect the navigation through the user interface to be
intuitive and usable. Furthermore, the chosen method of navigation and interaction has to be
suitable and effective for the display device and the content displayed. A computer mouse, as
users are accustomed to, for example, on a PC would probably not be suitable for a 3D
environment because it is basically a 2D input device. In addition to understanding how to
interact with the service, users need to understand the navigation architecture of the service, i.e.,
they need to understand how to access the content they require and how to return to previous
content.
• Recognition of clickable objects – To be able to follow hyperlinks, users will have to click on
linked objects. Thus, the user interface should provide some kind of highlighting of linked
objects, which allows the users to recognise linked objects and distinguish them from other
objects. At the same time, the highlights should not distract too much from the video itself. The
object and highlighting will also need to be displayed for a sufficient duration to allow users
enough time to interact with it.
• Responsiveness - The performance of the hyperlinking system is a critical point. Users typically
have high expectations with regard to responsiveness to their commands. They expect an
immediate response of some sort and become irritated if this does not happen. It is, therefore,
essential that the system reacts quickly enough and provides the user with some sort of instant
feedback about what the system is doing and that their request is being processed or has been
completed.
01.09.11 20

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
• Service acceptance – As the hyperlinking of single moving objects in a videostream is a new
video service scenario, the general acceptance of such a service by users has to be validated. The
acceptance issues to be considered will include: did the end-users understand the concept of the
service, did it fulfil their expectations, could they imagine using it, would they recommend it to
their friends, what are the perceived benefits, what did they like/dislike about it, etc.
4.2.2 Search and Retrieval Framework
Another functionality that the 3D VIVANT system will support is the retrieval of objects similar to
samples given by users. This functionality is expected to be used by professional rather than by endusers.
Professional users will want to exploit this functionality, especially during 3D scene
composition, when they want to change the scene and replace certain objects with similar ones. It
might be interesting for end-users to use this functionality to surf through or retrieve content from 3D
holoscopic content databases. However, in the course of the project we can consider this technology
as well as the availability of 3D holoscopic content as exclusive to professional users.
In 3D VIVANT, validation tests will be conducted only with professional users to consider
acceptance and usability issues with respect to functionality, performance and user friendliness
aspects. More precisely these are as follows:
• Functionality – In this case, testing aims to validate user acceptance pertaining to whether the
architecture meets user expectations in terms of functionality. It associates with the completeness
that the system offers regarding the defined and implemented functions. It is focused on aspects,
such as the supported content types (e.g., video, picture, 3D, 2D), search methods and metadata
storage procedures, without emphasising on whether these features are fast, reliable, friendly to
the user, etc.
• Performance – Validation testing will also consider the performance of the different functional
modules in terms of retrieval accuracy, processing power requirements, storage capacity
requirements and corresponding response latency. Retrieval accuracy is the core indicator of the
performance of any search engine as it can provide strong evidence about its actual usefulness
and effectiveness. Retrieval accuracy reveals the capability of a search engine to discriminate
between relevant and irrelevant objects with respect to the query and to present only the most
relevant objects. However, it is important that a search engine not only is effective, but efficient
as well. Resources are usually limited and, therefore, processing power and storage requirements
are critical parameters so that a search and retrieval framework may be applied in practice and
exploited by end-users. Finally, a positive decision to accept a search and retrieval framework
also depends on the time required to perform a retrieval request. In case that the user searches in
small multimedia databases, time is not a critical parameter. However, as multimedia databases
tend to grow exponentially, it becomes obvious that fast processing and system response get more
and more significant.
• User friendliness – Apart from the aforementioned characteristics, which refer mainly to the
technical aspects of the search and retrieval framework, validation tests will also investigate the
user friendliness and usability of the user interface allowing the searching of holoscopic content.
These tests will be performed in the context of the general acceptance tests regarding the user
interface of the 3D VIVANT system.
01.09.11 21

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
5 ORGANISATION OF TESTS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The planned approach for the user tests in 3D VIVANT on the end-user side is to initially have a
series of internal tests, focusing on particular aspects of the planned developments. These tests will in
general be conducted by the partner primarily responsible for the development but may also involve
other partners. Finally, the complete implemented use cases will be tested.
For the professional user tests, RAI in Task 5.3 – “3D Holoscopic Broadcasting Use Case” will create
a broadcast test-bed. This will form the basis for the input for the holoscopic camera sets tests. In
parallel, RBB will involve professional production teams in the production of RBB Kids’ and Youth
programmes to demonstrate 3D VIVANT’s features and functions. These production activities
(accompanied by questionnaires and focus groups) will form a major input to the validation process.
The validation of the production process will furthermore involve the use of the hyperlinking
environment and, closely connected, the search and retrieval mechanisms both of which will be tested
by professionals. The evaluation of these tests will involve questionnaires, thinking aloud and focus
groups.
Eventually, after feedback from project-internal testing and from professional user tests will have
been evaluated and the prototypes will have been optimised, end-users will be invited for testing their
acceptance of the project results as potential new products and services.
The following table provides an overview of the planned tests including timing, methodology,
location, testers and the content that will be used for the tests.
Table 1:
Professional Users Testplan
Tests Month Methodology Location -
Partners
Testers
Test Content
Holoscopic
camera set
Production
process
M19- M25
(Sep 2011 –
Mar 2012)
M29 – M31
(July 2012 –
September
2012)
M19- M25
(Sep 2011 –
Mar 2012)
M29 – M32
(July 2012 –
October
2012)
Professional Users: Production
Active use and
technical
comparison
Technical
comparison
Focus groups,
interviews
Focus groups,
interviews
Potsdam,
RBB
RBB and key
members of
RBB production
teams
Holoscopic camera
sets
Torino, RAI RAI Holoscopic camera
sets
Potsdam,
RBB
Potsdam,
RBB and
Torino, RAI
Key members of
RBB production
teams
Key members of
production
teams
Production of
implemented
showcase
Production of
implemented
showcase
01.09.11 22

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
Table 2:
End-Users Testplan
Tests Month Methodology Location -
Partners
Testers
Test Content
End-Users: Viewing Tests
3D holoscopic
content on 2D
display with 3D
glasses
M25 – M27
(March –
May 2012)
Questionnaires,
focus groups
London,
Brunel
University
Sample of endusers
Stereoscopic content
that has been
extracted from
computer generated
3D holoscopic
content
3D holoscopic
content on autostereoscopic
display overlaid
with lenticular
sheet
M25 – M27
(March –
May 2012)
Questionnaires,
focus groups
London,
Brunel
University
Sample of endusers
Computer generated
3D holoscopic
content
3D holoscopic
content on
holoscopic
display overlaid
with microlens
array
M25 – M27
(March –
May 2012)
Questionnaires,
focus groups
London,
Brunel
University
Sample of endusers
Real 3D holoscopic
images captured with
the holoscopic
camera and computer
generated 3D
holoscopic content
3D holoscopic
content on
HoloVisio
display
M29 – M31
(July –
September
2012)
Questionnaires,
focus groups
Budapest,
Holografika
Sample of endusers
Real 3D holoscopic
images captured with
the holoscopic
camera and computer
generated 3D
holoscopic content
End-Users: Audio Tests
Audio user
testing
M29 – M31
(July –
September
2012)
Listening tests Munich, IRT Representative
sample of endusers
3D audio content
End-Users: Interaction Tests
Hyperlinking
M29 – M31
(July –
September
2012)
Questionnaires,
task-centred
testing, the
thinking aloud
method and
observations
Potsdam,
RBB
Sample of endusers
3D hyperlinked video
Search and
retrieval
M31 – M33
(September
– November
2012)
Questionnaires,
task-centred
testing, the
thinking aloud
method and
observations
Thesaloniki,
CERTH/ITI
Sample of endusers
Search and retrieval
interface and
database
01.09.11 23

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
Table 2, cont.: Testplan End-Users
Tests Month Methodology Location -
Partners
Testers
Test Content
Broadcast
Hyperlinked 3D
video
M31 – M34
(September
– November
2012)
M31 – M34
(September
– November
2012)
End-Users: Complete Implemented Showcase Test
Questionnaires,
focus groups
Questionnaires,
task-centred
testing, the
thinking aloud
method and
observations
Potsdam,
RBB
Potsdam,
RBB
Representative
sample of show
case service
end-users
Representative
sample of show
case service
end-users
Implemented
showcase including
3D holoscopic video
and 3D audio
Implemented
showcase including
3D hyperlinked video
Two possible test scenarios for end-user visual tests, which should be reflected in the above table, are:
i. How does the 3D holoscopic content compare to stereoscopic 3D content (generated using
conventional stereoscopic technology); and
ii. How does the stereoscopic content extracted from the 3D holoscopic content compare to
stereo content generated using conventional stereoscopic technology.
The importance of the second point is related to the fact that, if it can be shown that the stereoscopic
3D content extracted from 3D holoscopic content is comparable to stereoscopic content generated
using conventional stereoscopic imaging techniques, then the production of 3D stereo becomes easier
(i.e., no need for multiple cameras and calibration problems).
Using computer generated content will be an easier option because it is possible to use the same
models generated in 3ds Max ® and carry out the rendering using existing plug-in tools for
stereoscopic and the plug-in tools developed by Brunel University for holoscopic content. Hence, the
same content is generated and displayed by the two technologies.
For real data, a concept which will allow the same content to be captured using the holoscopic camera
and a pair of 2D cameras is needed. One way to achieve this is by using a motion control system and
program a camera movement when capturing a static scene to simulate motion: 1st take will be with
the 3D holoscopic camera and the 2nd take will be with a pair of stereo cameras.
5.2 TIME PLAN
The time plan for the tests corresponds to the timing of Task 7.3 – “User Perception and Usability
Testing”, which starts in project month 29 and continues until month 34. The exceptions are the tasks
to be carried out by Brunel University on viewing and a small number of earlier tests at RBB focusing
on the optimisation of the processes before involving costly professional teams. The timing for these
tests is earlier to correspond with the availability of enough test candidates and personnel and also to
provide useful input at an earlier stage.
The professional user tests are planned at the start of the task so the time gap between producing the
showcases and developing and using the test-bed is not too great, and the experience is still fresh in
the candidates’ minds.
The end-user tests with the individual elements of the system are timed at the beginning of the task to
allow feedback and refining of the testing concept if necessary for the final end-user tests with the
01.09.11 24

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
implemented system.
5.3 RECRUITING TESTERS
Each partner will recruit a sample of end-users for the tests they are to execute. The final tests, with
the implemented showcases, will require a representative sample of end-users, i.e., end-users
representative of the target audience group of the developed showcase. Factors such as age, sex, and
previous 3D content exposure will have to be taken into account when recruiting users. The
responsible partners have a catalogue of interested testers from previous evaluation tests which may
be extended and/or adapted according to the needs of the tests.
For the professional user tests, the test candidates will include key production personnel that will be
involved in the production of the show cases and in the development of the broadcast test-bed. These
will be mainly professionals from RAI and RBB.
01.09.11 25

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
6 CONCLUSION
This deliverable has presented the methodology, user acceptance metrics as well as time plan to be
employed for the user acceptance validation in 3D VIVANT. Both professional as well as
(prospective consumers) end-users will be recruited for the purposes of testing and evaluating the
various components of the 3D VIVANT system. Qualitative assessment methods will be mainly
employed for the user validation and testing of the new audio-visual experience to be created by the
3D holoscopic video and 3D audio as well as the functionality, usability and user experience of the
Broadcast TV and Online Hyperlinking use cases.
The outcomes of these tests will be reported in D7.3 “Results of User Perception and Usability
Testing”, due in M34.
01.09.11 26

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
7 REFERENCES
Benton, S. A.: “Elements of Holographic Video Imaging.” In: Proceedings of SPIE 1600, Lake
Forest, Ill., USA, 15-19 July. (1991), pp. 82- 86.
Chen, W. et al.: “New Requirements of Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methodologies for
3DTV” In: Proceedings of Fifth International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for
Consumer Electronics - VPQM 2010, Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.A. September 26-29 (2010), pp 4025-
4028.
Creswell, J. W.: “Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.”
London (2008).
Davis, F. D.: “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology.” MIS Quarterly (13:3), (1989), pp. 319-339.
De Abreu, N., Blanckenburg, C., et al.: “Qualitatives Wissensmanagement. Neue wissensbasierte
Dienstleistungen im Wissenscoaching und in der Wissensstrukturierung. “ Berlin, (2006).
De Silva, D.V.S.X.; Fernando, W.A.C.; Nur, G.; Ekmekcioglu, E.; Worrall, S.T.: “3D video
assessment with Just Noticeable Difference in Depth evaluation.” 26-29 Sept. 2010, 17th IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), (2010), pp.4013-4016.
Farag, H., et al.: “Psychoacoustic Investigations on Sound-Source Occlusion.” Journal of Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 51, No. 7/8. (July 2003), pp. 635-646.
Hewage, C.T.E.R.; Worrall, S.T.; Dogan, S.; Villette, S.; Kondoz, A.M.: “Quality Evaluation of
Color Plus Depth Map-Based Stereoscopic Video.” Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE
Journal of, vol.3, no.2, pp.304-318, April 2009.
Honda, T. "Holographic display for movie and video" in Three Dimensional Image Technology ITE
Japan (1991), pp 619-22.
Leon, G.; Kalva, H.; Furht, B.: “3D Video Quality Evaluation with Depth Quality Variations.” 3DTV
Conference (28-30 May 2008): The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video,
(2008), pp.301-304.
Kalva, Christodoulou, et al.: “Design and evaluation of a 3D video system based on H.264 view
coding.” In: Proceedings of the 2006 international Workshop on Network and Operating Systems
Support For Digital Audio and Video (Newport, Rhode Island, November 22 - 23, 2006). NOSSDAV
'06. ACM, New York, NY, (2006), pp. 1-6.
Knorr, S., Kunter, M., Sikora, T.: “Stereoscopic 3D from 2D video with super-resolution capability”
In: Signal Processing: Image Communication, Volume 23, Issue 9, (October 2008), pp. 665-676.
Lambooij, M.T.M., W. A. IJsselsteijn, I. Heynderickx: “Visual Discomfort in Stereoscopic Displays:
A Review.” In: Proceedings of SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vol. 6490, (2007).
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E.G.: “Naturalistic Inquiry” Beverly Hills, Sage (1985).
Norman, D.: “User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-computer Interaction.”
New York, CRC Press, (1986).
Norman, D.: “The Design of Everyday Things.” New York, Doubleday Business, (1990).
01.09.11 27

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
Olsson, R., Sjostrom, M.: “Multiview image coding scheme transformations: artifact characteristics
and effects on perceived 3D quality.” SPIE New Display Technology for Military Applications
Journal. Vol. 7524, 75240Z, (2010).
Onural, L., et al.: “An Assessment of 3DTV Technologies.” In: Proceedings of NAB Broadcast
Engineering Conference, (2006), pp. 456-467.
Reis, G. A., Havig, P. R.et al.: “Color and shape perception on the Perspecta 3D volumetric display.”
SPIE New Display Technology for Military Applications Journal. Vol. 6558, 65580I (2007).
Rogers, E.: “Diffusion of Innovations”, New York (1995).
Rubin, J. and Chisnell, D.: “Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct
Effective Testing.” London (2008).
Saygili, G., Gurler, C.G., Tekalp, A. M.: “3D display dependent quality evaluation and rate
allocation using scalable video coding.” In: Proceedings of 16th IEEE International Conference on
Image Processing (ICIP), (2009), pp.717-720, 7-10.
Seale, C.: “The quality of qualitative research.” London, Sage (1999).
Thompson, Ronald L. Higgins, Christopher A. and Howell, Jane M. Influence of Experience on
Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model. Journal of Management Information
Systems Vol. 11, No. 1 (Summer, 1994), pp. 167-187 (1994)
Veit, Quirin: “Vergleichende Untersuchung und Bewertung von Codierverfahren für
dreidimensionales Fernsehen“, Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Amberg-Weiden
(2011).
Wolf, S. and Pinson, M.: “Video Quality Measurement Techniques,” NTIA Report 02-392, (Jun.
2002) (available online at www.its.bldrdoc.gov/n3/video/documents.htm).
Yamazaki, T., K. Kamijo, and S. Fukuzumi: “Quantitative evaluation of visual fatigue.” In:
Proceedings of Japan Display, (1989), pp. 606-609.
IEEE Standards
• P3333: Standard for the Quality Assessment of Three Dimensional (3D) Displays, 3D Contents
and 3D Devices based on Human Factors (2010), information online at:
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/project/3333.html
ITU-R Recommendations
• ITU-R BT.500: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures.
Latest version 12 (September 2009) available online at: http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.500-
12-200909-I/en
• ITU-R BS.1116-1: Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems
including multichannel sound systems (1994-1997)
• ITU-R BS.1284-1: General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality (1997-2003)
• ITU-R BT.1438 Subjective assessment of stereoscopic television pictures (2000)
• ITU-R BS.1534-1: Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of coding
systems(2001-2003)
01.09.11 28

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
ANNEX 1
A.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document refers to the need of calibrations and monitoring during the production process of a
typical TV product.
A.1.2 CALIBRATIONS AND MONITORING
This section lists the main parameters involved in a TV production, indicating also the monitoring
tool and/or measuring instrument usually adopted in a TV studio or a post-processing environment.
Table 3:
Shot parameters
Parameter
Parameters Relevant to the Shooting Phase
Related to…
Suggested monitor or
measuring instrument
Focus Focus regulation 2D monitor pixel-to-pixel
Depth of focus
Focus regulation
Iris diameter
2D monitor pixel-to-pixel
Viewing angle Focal length (zoom) 2D monitor pixel-to-pixel
Screen position in depth
Transversal and longitudinal
magnification (i.e., volumetric
distortion)
In stereo: convergence
distance
In holoscopic: it depends
on the optical system
In stereo: focal length
In holoscopic: if applicable
3D monitor
3D monitor
Normal use
Setting before shot /
continuous control (1)
Setting before shot
Setting before shot /
continuous control (1)
Setting before shot /
continuous control (1)
(scene definition)
Setting before shot (1)
(good representation of
real world)
Horizontal disparity range
In stereo: base,
convergence angle, focal
length
In holoscopic: if applicable
Still open problem
Setting before shot (1)
(to avoid eye fatigue)
Signal parameters
White level
Iris and overall gain
Waveform monitor and calibration
panel (white)
Setting before shot
(signal range)
Black pedestal
Pedestal level gain
Waveform monitor and calibration
panel (black)
Setting before shot
(signal range)
Gamma
Gamma regulation
Waveform monitor and calibration
panel (grey scale)
Setting before shot
(colorimetry)
Component gain
Component gain
Waveform monitor, vectorscope and
calibration panel (colour bars)
Setting before shot
(colorimetry)
Notes:
01.09.11 29

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
(1) This note applies when a film-type of shooting is adopted. In television-type of shooting, very
often the scene is very dynamic, unforeseeable and uncontrollable. How to quickly calibrate
the 3D shooting system is still an open issue (CRIT requested a patent for “screen position”
and “disparity range”).
Table 4:
Parameter
Parameters Relevant to the Recording Phase
Related to…
Recorded image Recording mechanism 2D or 3D monitor
Suggested monitor or
measuring instrument
Normal use
Presence monitor to verify
the recording quality
Table 5:
Parameter
Parameters relevant to the editing phase
Related to…
White level Overall gain Waveform monitor
Black pedestal Pedestal level Waveform monitor
Gamma Gamma regulation Waveform monitor
Suggested monitor or
measuring instrument
Component gain Component gain Waveform monitor, vectorscope
Sequences under process Video material 3D monitor
Processed sequences Video material 3D monitor
Normal use
Colour grading
(signal range)
Colour grading
(signal range)
Colour grading
(colorimetry)
Colour grading
(colorimetry)
To select the correct
transition points
To evaluate the obtained
result
Table 6:
Parameter
Parameters Relevant to the Compositing Phase
Related to…
Sequences under process Video material 3D monitor
Processed sequences Video material 3D monitor
Suggested monitor or
measuring instrument
Normal use
To watch the video material
to be composed
To evaluate the obtained
result
01.09.11 30

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
ANNEX 2
What is different in Stereo-3D production compared to 2D production
A.2.1 STORYBOARD, FILM PRODUCTION GRAMMAR
Binocular vision enables different depth cues than monocular vision. In monocular vision the
following depth cues are prevailing:
• occlusion
• accommodation
• perspective
• motion parallax
• relative size and familiar size
• texture gradients
• aerial perspective
The most obvious binocular depth cues are convergence and binocular disparity. The two eyes see
the world from slightly different perspectives. This results in horizontally shifted pictures depending
on the distance of the observed objects. An object in front of a distant background will appear at
different locations in both eyes. At the same time, different parts of the background will be occluded
in both eyes. The human brain fuses these two different pictures to a cyclopean picture augmented by
the perception of depth.
Another binocular depth cue is binocular rivalry. In this case the pictures in the left and right eye
cannot be fused by the human brain to a cyclopean picture.
It is obvious that 3D productions will utilize the additional binocular depth cues. Whereas slight
horizontal shifts and different occluded patches of the background are vital for binocular 3D
perception, binocular rivalry is mostly unwanted and should be avoided.
The story board for a stereo 3D production should contain a depth script in order to deal with the
following questions:
• How much stereoscopic depth should be contained in each scene The binocular depth of
a scene will definitely tell the audience its own story and not just support other depth
cues, especially as the binocular depth cues can be utilised independently from monocular
depth cues. This might reflect some emotions like in the following examples. If a scene
contains no or little binocular depth, the audience might consider the scene flat in the
figurative sense. A scene with a huge depth, on the other side, might cause a different
sensation of the scene and the perceived position of the observer in it. An object behind
the screen might be considered distant in an emotional sense, whereas objects in front of
the screen might enter the personal sphere of the audience.
• What is the interaction of binocular and monocular depth cues How will it be perceived,
if shallow depth of focus is combined with binocular depth, for example
01.09.11 31

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
• From stereoscopic experience some strange phenomena are known. If the inter-ocular
distance is chosen too wide, the scene will be perceived like a dollhouse. This is the so
called Lilliputian effect. Is this in accordance with the director’s intention
• Another artefact is the so called window violation. An object in front of the screen which
is close to the lateral frame of the picture will be cut off by the picture frame in an
unnatural manner. In natural perception an object in front of the window cannot be
occluded by the window frame located at a further distance.
• The size of stereo rigs might be a problem for actors. It is harder for the actor to maintain
a viewing line, as the mirror of a stereo rig might be bulky and obstruct the viewing line
for the actor when she/he plays very near in front of the camera.
The stereographer can change the binocular perception by modifying the stereoscopic parameters
“inter-ocular distance” and “convergence”. Up to now, the film makers have not yet agreed on a
common set of rules, how binocular depth cues should be utilised in stereo-3D productions. We now
understand that 3D production obeys different rules than 2D productions. Consequently we can also
accept that holoscopic productions will require yet another rule set differing from the 2D grammar
and from the stereo-3D grammar.
A.2.2 PRE-PRODUCTION
Staging and decorations will have to be planned and built more accurately. A flat wall paper in the
background, for example, will not properly stimulate the sensation of a deep perspective. As the
cutting frequency will be slower in the stereo 3D, the props have to be worked out to a more detailed
degree, as the human eye will notice sloppiness more easily. For the same reason rehearsal and acting
will have to be more precisely.
A.2.3 SHOOTING
3D productions require more complex production tools. The 3D camera comprises two normal
cameras, mostly digital cameras like HDTV cameras or digital film cameras. In some rare cases
integrated 3D cameras are available, which already contain two 2D cameras mounted into a single
housing. In addition to the cameras, more equipment is needed, like stereo rig, rig control, means for
synchronization of camera output, synchronised lens control, synchronised recording and playback,
3D monitoring.
3D productions require additional personnel. The most important new person in the camera crew is
the stereographer. The stereographer cooperates with the DOP and the director to design the depth
perception of the picture. The stereographer determines the interocular distance and the convergence
angle of both cameras. In addition to the stereographer one or more stereo-technicians will be
required to operate the cameras.
In 3D productions, lenses with different focal lengths are being used than in 2D production. DOPs
tend to use shorter focal length lenses. In many cases DOPs also tend to use a smaller aperture than in
2D productions, as a shallow depth of field is often considered contradictory to binocular depth
perception. As a rule of thumb, panning speed should be slower than in 2D production. The human
eye also seems to be more sensitive to crushed shadows in 3D perception than in 2D.
Special care is needed to avoid unwanted differences between the left and right image. The human
eye expects only horizontally shifted pictures. Vertical disparities can happen easily, if the cameras
are not calibrated correctly. It is the task of the stereographer to avoid those errors. Typically, this
requires several hours of setup and calibration time for the stereoscopic camera. Differences in
01.09.11 32

ICT Project 3D VIVANT– Deliverable 2.3
Contract no.:
248420
User Acceptance Validation Plan
brightness or colour are also crucial errors which have to be avoided or compensated. It is especially
disturbing if brightness differences occur in isolated parts of the image, like different highlight
clipping in the cameras or different reproduction of shiny surfaces (due to polarization effects caused
by the semi transparent mirror). It is more time consuming to change lenses in 3D stereo cameras.
Therefore, the camera crew might have to work at a slower pace than in 2D productions.
Some changes in the setup and operation are due to technical limitations of the camera equipment
(bulky, heavy, time consuming to calibrate), whereas other changes like selection of lenses, frequency
of scene cuts, decoration, panning speed, etc., arise from psychophysical aspects of 3D perception.
A.2.4 QUALITY CONTROL
The 3D quality control is an additional task after acquisition. All the potential errors have to be
checked and noticed like wrong order of left and right image, asynchronity, vertical disparities, colour
and brightness differences, differences in flare, highlight, shining surfaces, etc. The quality control
personnel have to take the decision, if errors are within the tolerance limits or the take has to be reshot.
A.2.5 EDITING
3D productions require a slower pace of cutting. Fast cuts cause irritations in human perception. Most
3D productions will be distributed in 2D as well. It is, therefore, necessary to create a single editing
version suitable for 2D and 3D viewing or to create different editing versions for 2D and for 3D.
A.2.6 GREEN SCREEN, VISUAL EFFECTS
Back plates and composites of real and virtual layers are more demanding in 3D. Virtual elements
have to be placed at the right position in depth in the scene. Moreover flat back plates might not be
sufficient, e.g., when simulating a deep perspective.
Stunt scenes are more demanding. When viewing in stereoscopic 3D, it might be obvious that a fight
scene is not real. The audience might realize that a punch intentionally fails the face of the victim.
A.2.7 ADDITIONAL TASKS IN POST-PRODUCTION
There are additional tasks in 3D post-production like depth grading, stereo fixes and stereo
handovers. Depth grading creates the chronology of the depth sensation throughout the production.
Here it is assigned, when in time the scene is further distant or comes closer to the audience. The term
stereo-fixes describes the task of removing unwanted stereoscopic flaws like colour differences or
areas of binocular rivalry. The term handover finally describes the task of adjusting the transition
from one cut to the next. This is to facilitate the perception of depth jumps.
Finally, various versions might have to be created for various distribution channels like 2D, Stereo-
3D, cinema, TV, and mobile displays.
01.09.11 33