OSA's Digital Library

Applied Optics

Applied Optics


  • Editor: Joseph N. Mait
  • Vol. 53, Iss. 3 — Jan. 20, 2014
  • pp: 520–527

Effect of interlacing methods of stereoscopic displays on perceived image quality

Minyoung Park, Joohwan Kim, and Hee-Jin Choi  »View Author Affiliations

Applied Optics, Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp. 520-527 (2014)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (1397 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



To provide two-eyed views with one device, stereoscopic 3D (S3D) displays interlace the two views either temporally or spatially: temporal interlacing (TI) alternates the two views in time with full resolution, while spatial interlacing (SI) presents the two views simultaneously but with half resolution for each eye. We investigate the effect of interlacing methods on image quality through a psychophysical experiment. We compared four experimental conditions: three S3D interlacing methods (TI, SI with raw sampling, and SI with vertical interpolation), and one nonconventional interlacing method (vertical interpolation). The stimuli were 10 natural stereo images presented at nine levels of pixel sizes (0.64, 0.78, 0.89, 1.00, 1.28, 1.55, 1.78, 2.00, and 2.56 arcmin). To test the effect of interlacing methods per se, we provided all the experimental conditions to the subjects using a single experimental setup: a mirror stereoscope. The results show that TI does not degrade the image quality for any pixel size. SI degrades the image quality when the pixel size is relatively large, but the effect of the two SI methods does not differ significantly. Comparison of SI methods against the vertical interpolation method implies that the primary cause of the degradation in image quality for SI methods is the visibility of the interlacing pattern rather than the loss of high-frequency information.

© 2014 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(100.6890) Image processing : Three-dimensional image processing
(110.2990) Imaging systems : Image formation theory
(110.3000) Imaging systems : Image quality assessment

ToC Category:
Imaging Systems

Original Manuscript: September 13, 2013
Revised Manuscript: December 12, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: December 19, 2013
Published: January 20, 2014

Virtual Issues
Vol. 9, Iss. 3 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Minyoung Park, Joohwan Kim, and Hee-Jin Choi, "Effect of interlacing methods of stereoscopic displays on perceived image quality," Appl. Opt. 53, 520-527 (2014)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. K. A. Grebenyuk and V. V. Petrov, “Methods, formats, and technologies for the reproduction of stereoscopic video images,” J. Opt. Technol. 74, 330–337 (2007). [CrossRef]
  2. S. Dawson, “Active versus passive,” Connected Home Australia, 46–48 (2012).
  3. S. Dawson, “Passive 3D from the beginning,” http://hifi-writer.com/wpblog/?p=3797 .
  4. J. Kim and M. S. Banks, “Effective spatial resolution of temporally and spatially interlaced stereo 3D televisions,” SID Symp. Dig. Tech. Papers, 43, 879–882 (2012). [CrossRef]
  5. R. M. Soneira, “3D TV display technology shoot-out,” http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm .
  6. E. F. Kelley, “Resolving resolution,” Inform. Dis. 27, 18–21 (2011).
  7. E. F. Kelley and P. A. Boynton, “Late-news paper: binocular fusion camera to render pixel detail in 3D displays,” SID Symp. Dig. Tech. Papers 43, 145–148 (2012). [CrossRef]
  8. X. Wang, M. Yu, Y. Yang, and G. Jiang, “Research on subjective stereoscopic image quality assessment,” Proc. SPIE 7255, 725509 (2009). [CrossRef]
  9. A. K. Moorthy and A. C. Bovik, “A survey on 3D quality of experience and 3D quality assessment,” Proc. SPIE 8651, 86510M (2013). [CrossRef]
  10. http://www.flickr.com/groups/3d-cross-view/pool/ .
  11. I. Fründ, N. V. Haenel, and F. A. Wichmann, “Inference for psychometric functions in the presence of nonstationary behavior,” J. Vis. 11(6), 16 (2011). [CrossRef]
  12. F. W. Campbell and J. G. Robson, “Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings,” J. Physiol. 197, 551–566 (1968).
  13. D. H. Kelly, “Motion and vision. II. Stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 1340–1349 (1979). [CrossRef]
  14. D. M. Hoffman, V. I. Karasev, and M. S. Banks, “Temporal presentation protocols in stereoscopic displays: flicker visibility, perceived motion, and perceived depth,” J. Soc. Inform. Dis. 19, 271–297 (2011). [CrossRef]
  15. ITU-R Recommendation , “Parameter values for the HDTV standards for production and international programme exchange,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland (2002).
  16. ITU-R Recommendation , “Subjective assessment methods for image quality in high-definition television,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva (1998).
  17. ITU-R Recommendation , “General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displays,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva (2012).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited