OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 22, Iss. 4 — Feb. 24, 2014
  • pp: 4751–4767
« Show journal navigation

Investigation of Designated Eye Position and Viewing Zone for a two-view autostereoscopic display

Kuo-Chung Huang, Yi-Heng Chou, Lang-chin Lin, Hoang Yan Lin, Fu-Hao Chen, Ching-Chiu Liao, Yi-Han Chen, Kuen Lee, and Wan-Hsuan Hsu  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 4751-4767 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.004751


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (3572 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Designated eye position (DEP) and viewing zone (VZ) are important optical parameters for designing a two-view autostereoscopic display. Although much research has been done to date, little empirical evidence has been found to establish a direct relationship between design and measurement. More rigorous studies and verifications to investigate DEP and to ascertain the VZ criterion will be valuable. We propose evaluation metrics based on equivalent luminance (EL) and binocular luminance (BL) to figure out DEP and VZ for a two-view autostereoscopic display. Simulation and experimental results prove that our proposed evaluation metrics can be used to find the DEP and VZ accurately.

© 2014 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

With the increasing usage of 3D compatible displays, the optical quality assessment of these displays is more and more important. One of the amazing 3D displays is an autostereoscopic display without using extra glasses for the observers, and such an autostereoscopic display definitely will be the main stream of the 3D display market in the near future. Since a two-view parallax-barrier type autostereoscopic display has been applied in the handheld display market such as handheld game machines, digital cameras and mobile phones for a while, we focus on this kind of autostereoscopic display in this study.

For the autostereoscopic display, the image quality for observers depends on both the viewing distance and viewing angle. Therefore, there are designated eye positions (DEPs) which are the best viewing positions for each eye at the viewing plane. Besides, a viewing zone (VZ), in which an observer is free to move and can still perceive good stereopsis, is another important issue for the autostereoscopic display. Although there have been lots of studies on VZ, deeper researches are still needed for further understanding. Thus this study proposes a novel evaluation method to describe VZ by a novel formula and discussing the affecting factors for VZ of the parallax barrier autostereoscopic display, such as the refraction index of panel glass, the system crosstalk, and the uniformity, by the geometric and the ray tracing methods, respectively.

2. Methods

2.1 Design principle for a two-view autostereoscopic display

The first section of the article is a review of the literature addressing both empirical and theoretical aspects of the DEP and VZ investigations, and reflects the key index for designing principle. This is followed by some background information of the ongoing research in which the present study was carried out and a statement of the VZ issue. Figure 1
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram for a two-view autostereoscopic display design. The figure is for illustration and not to the scale. In practice, Z>>f and PE >>PD.
shows the top view for a two-view autostereoscopic display design, the rectangular coordinate system is used and the coordinate of the screen center is set as (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0). PD and PB are the pitch of sub-pixel on image screen and that of parallax barrier, respectively. The distance from display to barrier is defined as f, the distance from barrier to an observer is defined as Z, and the inter-pupil distance (IPD) is marked as PE. First, according to the convergent rule for a monocular condition that every sub-pixel image designed for the specified eye would converge at the same point, and the point is defined as the designated eye position (DEP) [11

11. K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, C. C. Liao and K. Lee, “3D display measurement for DEP,” IMID Digest. 1018-1021 (2009).

] as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the distance between two DEPs for the right and left eyes should be designed equal to IPD. A convergent relationship between PD and Z can be shown in Eq. (1) [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

]:
PB2PD=ZZ+f.
(1)
Second, according to the binocular consideration for each specified view, the other relationship between the IPD and PD is written in Eq. (2):
PEPD=Zf.
(2)
From Eqs. (1) and (2), we can derive the designer’s formulas for a two-view autostereoscopic display as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4):
Z=PEfPD,
(3)
PB=2PEPDPE+PD,
(4)
and Z is also called as the optimal/optimum viewing distance (OVD).

2.2 Geometric approach

Actually many 3D images are arranged according to sub-pixels instead of pixels, hence we define no sub-pixel disappearing condition instead of no pixel disappearing condition [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

, 12

12. W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, and K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. In other words, at VZ the viewer should perceive each sub-pixel for the specified views. VZ is surrounded by the lines L1, L2, L3, and L4, and each line is linked by the sub-pixel and barrier as shown in Fig. 2. For example, L1 can be plotted by jointing points E and F, and these points can be expressed as in Eqs. (5) and (6). L2 can be plotted by jointing points E’ and F’, and these points can be expressed as in Eqs. (7) and (8).

E(PD(N32+aD2),0,0),
(5)
F(12PB(N1aB),0,f),
(6)
E'(PD(N12+12aD),0,0),
(7)
F'(12PB(N1aB),0,f).
(8)

Thus L1 can be expressed as in Eq. (9) by the pixel aperture ratio aD, the barrier aperture ratio aB, the pitch of sub-pixel PD, the pitch of barrier PB, the distance between the image screen and barrier f, the number of pairs N in the image screen, and the horizontal screen size W. Similarly, the lines L2 to L4 can be obtained. The formulas of L1 to L4 in x-z plane are listed in Eqs. (9) to (12).
L1:z=f[x+PD(N-1.5+0.5aD)]-PB(0.5N-0.5-0.5aB)+PD(N-1.5+0.5aD),
(9)
L2:z=f[x-PD(N-0.5+0.5aD)]PB(0.5N-0.5-0.5aB)-PD(N-0.5+0.5aD),
(10)
L3:z=f[x+PD(N-1.5-0.5aD)]-PB(0.5N-0.5+0.5aB)+PD(N-1.5-0.5aD),
(11)
L4:z=f[x-PD(N-0.5-0.5aD)]PB(0.5N-0.5+0.5aB)-PD(N-0.5-0.5aD).
(12)
A, B, C, and D are intersection points of every two lines. ∆X of VZ is the distance between points C and B in the X coordinate, and points C and B can be solved from Eqs. (9) to (12):
C(PBPD(2aB+aD-1)2(PB-2PD),0,2PDfPB-2PD),
(13)
B(PBPD(2aB+aD-1)2(PB-2PD),0,2PDfPB-2PD).
(14)
Points B and C have the same z coordinate (2PDf)/(2PDPB) which is approaching to OVD. ∆Z of VZ is the distance between points D and A in the Z coordinate. Equations (15) and (16) are the formulas of ∆X and ∆Z:
ΔX=PDPB2aB+aD2PD-PB=PE(2aB+aD),
(15)
ΔZ=PDf(2N-aD-2)PD(2N-aD-2)-PB(N+aB-1)-PDf(2N+aD-2)PD(2N+aD-2)-PB(N-aB-1)=2PBPDf(N-1)(2aB+aD)(N-1)2(PB-2PD)2-(aBPB+aDPD)2.
(16)
In practice, Z>>f, PE >>PD, PB~2PD and 2PDN = W, and Eq. (16) is reduced to
ΔZ~4PD2f(N-1)(2aB+aD)(N-1)2(2PD2/PE)2-(2aBPD+aDPD)2.
(17)
Since (N-1) is roughly equal to N, Eq. (17) becomes
ΔZ~4fN(2aB+aD)(W/PE)2-(2aB+aD)2,
(18)
and Eq. (3) would be
Z=PEfPD~PEf×2NW.
(19)
To substitute Eq. (19) for Z in Eq. (18), we find that
ΔZ~2ZWPE(2aB+aD)(W/PE)2-(2aB+aD)2.
(20)
For both aB and aD being less than 1, then (2aB + aD)<<(W/PE), in a practical case, and we finally achieve the quation for ΔZ from Eq. (20)
ΔZ~2ZPE(2aB+aD)W~2ZΔXW.
(21)
From Eq. (21), we can know that ΔZ is proportional to ΔX for given OVD = Z and screen width W. We can concluded thatΔX control is the key parameter when we discuss the VZ contorl. Also from Eqs. (15) and (21), aB and aD are the only parameters for designers to adjust the VZ for a two-view autostereoscopic display.

2.3 Ray tracing approach

Figure 3(a)
Fig. 3 (a) Measured angular luminance profile for point 2. (b) The measured points on the screen and W is the horizontal screen size.
shows an example for the measured angular luminance profile from the center points of the two-view images. We measure the angular luminance profiles from the three points on the screen [as shown in Fig. 3(b)] and reconstruct the VZ by our proposed method mentioned below. In contrast to the geometric approach, it must be noted that we usually measure fewer than 500 pixels without any bad effects in practice [13

13. International Committee for Display Metrology, Information Display Measurements Standard (SID, 2012), Chap 17.

]. In other words, measured points 1 to 3 are neither a single pixel nor a single sub-pixel.

To figure out an evaluation method to describe the luminance perceived by an observer, we propose a novel metric. Figure 4(a)
Fig. 4 The notations of luminance metric. The monocular luminance from a specified point showed in (a), and the monocular equivalent luminance from multiple points showed in (b).
shows an example for our metric notations. Number 1, 2 and 3 represent the measured points on an autostereoscopic display screen. Points 1 and 3 are the side points on the screen, and point 2 is the central one as shown in Fig. 4(b). The right image luminance measured or perceived from point 3 by the observer’s right eye is expressed as LR-3. The italic style character L represents the luminance, the subscript characters R means for the right eye, and the subscript characters 3 means the luminance comes from point 3. Multiple-point luminance that an observer perceived at her or his right eye as shown in Fig. 4(b) is notated as LReq. The equation of LReq is expressed in Eq. (22), and we name it as the equivalent luminance (EL), or called total luminance [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

], for right eye. EL is an equation to describe the intersection of luminance from the three different points, and EL satisfies the condition of no pixel disappearing which we defined in section 2.2.

LReq=(LR1×LR2×LR3)(1/3).
(22)

In general case, the EL for right eye can be expressed in Eq. (23), where n and m are integers. If measured luminance from any point is zero, the EL will be zero. In other words, if any image cannot be observed by a specified eye at a specified position, then the observation position is not a qualified viewing position.

LReq=(n=1mLRn)(1/m).
(23)

2.4 Crosstalk map

Crosstalk is a critical issue to destroy stereopsis [14

14. K. C. Huang, C.-H. Tsai, K. J. Lee, and W.-J. Hsueh, “Measurement of Contrast Ratios for 3D Display,” Proc. SPIE 4080, 78–86 (2000). [CrossRef]

, 15

15. K. C. Huang, J. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, and N.-Y. Wang, “How crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]

]. To investigate the effect of System Crosstalk (SCT) in the VZ, the authors proposed an acceptable crosstalk map to express the SCT qualified space. The SCT formula for the right eye is expressed as Eq. (24) as defined in ICDM [13

13. International Committee for Display Metrology, Information Display Measurements Standard (SID, 2012), Chap 17.

]. The reasonable SCT criterion is still a debated issue [16

16. K. C. Huang, F. H. Chen, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, Y. H. Chou, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, and K. Lee, “A crosstalk Model and its Application to Stereoscopic and Autostereoscopic Displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 249–262 (2013).

, 17

17. K. C. Huang, J. H. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, and N. Y. Wang, “A study of how crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]

], and it is commonly believed that 3%~10% SCT is an acceptable range for a two-view autostereoscopic display. Therefore, in this paper we set it as an adjustable parameter at around 5%. The monocular luminance LRKW means that the luminance measured at the right eye when the left and right input channels are full black and full white, respectively, where black and white is expressed as the subscripts K and W, respectively.

XR=LRWKLRKKLRKWLRKK.
(24)

2.5 Uniformity map

In addition to SCT, uniformity is another important issue to affect the image quality. A formula to define uniformity of the screen for the right eye is written as [13

13. International Committee for Display Metrology, Information Display Measurements Standard (SID, 2012), Chap 17.

]:

UR(%)=LRminLRmax×100%.
(25)

The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum luminance of the measured points. In the study, the measured points include only the three points as shown in Fig. 3(b). Although the human perception for display uniformity depends on the spatial frequency and background luminance of the test pattern [18

18. C. O. Spring, “Perception of Luminance Uniformity: Comparing Photometric Calculations to Subjective Perceptions of Uniformity,” Master Thesis, University of Colorado (2002), http://www.craigspring.com/images/Lum_Uniform_Thesis_Screen.pdf.

], the acceptable value of uniformity is 80% according to EBU report [19

19. EBU – TECH 3320, “User requirements for Video Monitors in Television Production,” https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf.

]. We believe that 80% is a strict specification when a user views the display from normal direction, so we set the acceptable value of uniformity higher than 60%.

2.6 Binocular issue

Although binocular issue has been considered in Eqs. (3) and (4), only monocular condition is included in sections 2-1 to 2-4. We still need a formula to express the binocular luminance in the ray tracing approach. Binocular luminance is a formula to describe the luminance perception from both eyes. The authors have proposed a human factor study to evaluate the binocular luminance, the study [20

20. K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, F. H. Chen, L. C. Lin, K. Lee, and H. Y. Lin, “Evaluation Metric for Binocular Luminance Difference,” Proc. China Display/Asia Display, 168–171 (2011).

] suggested that the logarithmic average method is used to describe the binocular luminance. In Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Schematic diagram for the binocular luminance. This figure shows the equivalent luminance for two eyes and the binocular luminance is defined for the center point between the two eyes.
, binocular luminance, that is defined as in Eqs. (26) and (27), is labeled as LBi. If consider central point only, binocular luminance is label as LBi-2. It is worthy of noting that LBi locates at the center of two eyes, so the position of LBi is not really a light convergent point.
LBi(x,y,z)=(LLeq(xL,yL,zL)×LReq(xR,yR,zR))1/2,
(26)
Where
((xxL)2+(yyL)2+(zzL)2)1/2=((xxR)2+(yyR)2+(zzR)1/2)=IPD/2.
(27)
A methodology for our novel evaluation metric to evaluate the VZ shows in Fig. 6
Fig. 6 Flow chart of the novel metric for VZ.
.

2.7 Refractive index effect

In current two-view parallax barrier autostereoscopic display applications, LCD is utilized as the parallax barrier to make the display as 2D/3D switchable. In LCD, the cover glasses with higher refractive index would refract the light into the air and affect the OVD and VZ [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

12

12. W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, and K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. Therefore, we should consider the effect of refractive index (nB) to approach the real situation. The new OVD at the main lobe is then modified as

Z=PEfPDnB.
(28)

3. Simulation and experiment results

3.1 Simulation without considering the refractive index of glasses

In this study, handmade autostereoscopic displays are used to test the novel method, while ITRI’s measurement equipment and LighttoolsTM are used to capture and simulate the raw data of angular luminance profile. Then, MatlabTM is used to reconstruct the VZ from the raw data. To verify Eq. (15), we build six Lighttools models, in which pitches of sub-pixeles PD are 0.009 cm, N = 2880, IPD = 6.5 cm, OVD = 146.25 cm, pitch of barrier PB = 0.017975cm, with six different barrier and pixel aperture ratios (aB, aD) being (0.334, 0.5), (0.334, 0.7), (0.334, 0.3), (0.5, 0.3), (0.5, 0.5), and (0.5, 0.7), for model 1 to model 6, respectively. In Figs. 7(a)
Fig. 7 (a) ∆X for difference aperture of sub-pixel on OVD when aB = 0.334, aD = 0.5. (b) ∆X for difference aperture of sub-pixel on OVD when aB = 0.334, aD = 0.7. (c) ∆Z of the main lobe when aB = 0.334, aD = 0.5. (d) ∆Z of the main lobe when aB = 0.334, aD = 0.7. In (c) and (d), the + x directions are into the paper.
and 7(b), the Lreq is drawn along the x direction at z = 146.25cm. In model 1, the calculated ∆X by using Eq. (15) is 7.59 cm and the simulated ∆X by using Eq. (22) is 7.598 cm, as shown in Fig. 7(a). For model 2, the calculated ∆X is 8.89 cm and the simulated ∆X is 8.798 cm, as shown in Fig. 7(b). The viewing zone formula calculation is consistent with simulation, and we can find that ∆X and pixel aperture ratio are in direct proportion, this trend comply with our viewing zone formula. According to Eq. (15), the crosstalk free VZ condition is to set ∆X equal to IPD, and therefore (2aB + aD) is equal to 1. This diamond-shaped VZ will appear repeatedly along x direction at OVD, and its widths still fit the ∆X and ∆Z formulas. It is worthy of noting that diamond-shaped region will appear repeatedly at around OVD, the reason is that the rays from pixel will pass through the other barrier slits, thus will appear as the other diamond-shaped region at the other locations around OVD. The designed dimond-shaped region is named as the “main lobe”, and the others are called the “side lobes” [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

]. As was mentioned above, the viewing zone is defined as the full region that equivalent luminance is not equal to zero. If we consider the widely used definition FWHM (full width at half maximum) to define the area, the viewing region in x direction would be smaller than that defined in Eq. (15) (as shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b)). The FWHM results show that the geometric approach is not good enough to describe VZ. As VZ shown in Fig. 2 that the intersection points A and D are not at the same x coordinate, the ∆Z is harder to be defined. Figures 7(c) and 7(d) show the side view at the y-z plane, and ∆Z in main lobes are 45.5 cm and 53.75 cm for (aB, aD) = (0.334, 0.5) and (0.334, 0.7), respectively. Tables 1

Table 1. Comparisons between the geometric approach and the EL metric for delta x. Unit for ∆X: cm.

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables
and 2

Table 2. Comparisons between the geometric approach and the EL metric for delta z. Unit for ∆Z: cm.

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables
show the comparsions between the geometry and the EL metrics. Table 1 shows that calculation using Eq. (15) is consistent with EL metric simulation with 1%~2% error, and the error is defined as the absolute value of ((Calculated result)-(Simulated result))/(Calculated result). Also, Table 2 shows that the calculated ∆Z(1) and ∆Z(2) of main lobes for different formula by using Eqs. (16) and (21), respectively. And a good consistent result with <5% error is achieved for ∆Z(1) in Error ratio (1). Since ∆Z(2) is calculated from ∆X, a larger Error ratio (2) than Error ratio (1) is expected in Table 2.

The authors use model 2 parameters by applying the designer’s formulas in Eqs. (3) and (4) to find that the designed OVD = 146.25 cm. Besides, two views are symmetrical to the x = 0. We can calculate the (x, y, z) coordinates for the DEPs in the main lobe for the right and left eyes to be (3.25, 0, 146.25) and (−3.25, 0, 146.25), respectively. The coordinates (0, 0, 146.25) should be obtained if we consider the binocular effect in the main lobe.

The authors also use model 2 parameters by applying the Eq. (22) for observed points 2 or 3, and Fig. 8
Fig. 8 (a) Equivalent luminance map in X-Z plane for the right eye (LReq) from side points 1 and 3. The peak luminance locates at (x, y, z) = (−3.5, 0, 285~295). (b) Equivalent luminance map in X-Z plane for the right eye (LReq) from three points 1 to 3. The peak luminance of each pattern locates at (x, y, z) = (−19.5~-20, 0, 291~300).
shows equivalent luminance maps for the right eye. We calculate the maximum luminance poisition, and the results show that both of the two positions would be out of the designed OVD. Figures 9
Fig. 9 Top view for SCT maps in X-Z plane. The maps show the qualifed space for (a) XR<1% and (b) XR<3%.
and 10
Fig. 10 Top view for uniformity maps in X-Z plane. The maps show the qualifed space for (a) UR>60%, and (b) UR>80%.
show maps for different SCT and different uniformity criteria, respectively. Figure 11
Fig. 11 (a) Equivalent luminance map for right eye (LReq) from 3 points). (b) Qualified equivalent luminance map for right eye (LReq) map (XR<3%) (c) Qualified equivalent luminance map for right eye (LReq) map (UR>60%). (d) Qualified equivalent luminance map for right eye (LReq) map (UR>60% and XR<3%). In (b), (c), and (d), the location of peak luminance would be not affected by qualified crosstalk and uniformity maps.
shows qualified viewing zone for SCT<3% and uniformity>60%, the results show that the location of peak luminance would be not affected by qualified crosstalk and uniformity maps. Those results as shown in Figs. 811 indicate that if we consider monocular issue only, we can’t find the precise point through the metric, especially when the designed OVD is not given.

Since monocular condition can’t help an inspector to find out the designed OVD and DEP, the authors try to use binocular luminance through Eq. (26). Binocular issue can help to approach the right position but with uncertain z if only one central point data is given (as shown in Fig. 12
Fig. 12 Binocular luminance map LBi-2 from center point 2, the peak luminance locates at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 144~169).
). The multi-point binocular luminance result as shown in Fig. 13
Fig. 13 (a) Binocular luminance map LBi from points 1, 2 and 3. (b) Qualified binocular luminance map map (UL>60%; UR >60% and XL<3%; XR<3%). The peak luminance locates at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 144~148).
provide a better result even the designed OVD is unknown. The peak luminance location (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 144~148) is closed to the designed binocular luminance location (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 146.25). Thers is only 1~2% tolerance between the geometric evaluation by Eqs. (3) and (4) and the calcalated result utilizing our metric.

3.2 Simulation with considering refractive index of glasses

To approach a real case [10

10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

12

12. W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, and K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]

], the refractive index of glass should be considered [11

11. K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, C. C. Liao and K. Lee, “3D display measurement for DEP,” IMID Digest. 1018-1021 (2009).

, 12

12. W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, and K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. Given the refractive index nB = 1.515, the designed OVD calculated by Eq. (28) is modified as 96.42 cm. The result, as shown in Fig. 14
Fig. 14 (a) Binocular luminance map from 3 points, the peak luminance locates at (x, y, z) = (0, 0,94.5~94.75). (b) Qualified binocular luminance map map (UL>60%; UR >60% and XL<3%; XR<3%).
, proves that the designed OVD estimated by Eq. (28) is closed to the predicted location.

3.3 Experiment result

To prove the relationship between aB, aD and VZ in Eq. (15), we built three experiments, in which PD are 0.010583 cm, N = 800, IPD = 6.5 cm, OVD = 33 cm, PB = 0.02113cm, W = 16.933 cm, with three different barrier and pixel aperture ratios (aB, aD) being (0.334, 0.5), (0.334, 0.7), and (0.5, 0.7) for model 7 to model 9, respectively. Since illumination of VZ is to be observed in this experiment, a design with brighter backlight and shorter OVD would be better for detecting the VZ. In this experiment, we prepared a handmade backlight with 4620 nits (measured by Konica-Minolta CS-200 luminance meter), barrier is printed by MANIA-BARCO silver-writer, and set the designed OVD as 33cm.

To indicate the VZ from the right-side and left-side pixels, the authors added a light blocking plate on the barrier to block the light from the central area. To figure out the VZ easier, we also added two color filters to distinguish the light from two sides. Figure 15
Fig. 15 Experiment set-up for aB, aD and VZ relationship test. Two color filters are added to separate the light from two sides. The width of each bright area with color filter is 1.5 cm.
shows the VZ experiment, and it is noted that the areas with color filters are not a single sub-pixel as we assume in the section 2-2; therefore, a longer △Z than that calculated by Eq. (16) is expected. In addition, the two color filters are designed to distinguish the light for the same view from two sides but not designed to separate the light from different views.

Figures 16(a)
Fig. 16 Experimental results for (aB, aD) equal to (a) (0.334, 0.5), (c) (0.334, 0.7), and (e) (0.5, 0.7). A Penny (one cent, of 1.905 cm in diameter) is put on the VZ to evaluate the size of VZ. 16(b), 16(d), and 16(f) are the zoom in pictures of 16(a), and 16(c), and 16(e), respectively. And the blue lines on 16(b), 16(d), and 16(f) are the areas estimated by geometric approach.
16(f) show the experiment results for model 7 to 9, a Penny (one cent) of 1.905 cm in diameter is put on the illumination plate to evaluate the size of VZ. From Figs. 16(b), 16(d), and 16(f), we can find the width △X for model 9 is larger than that for model 8, △X for model 8 is larger than △X for model 7, and △X is proportional to aB and aD. The relationship in Eq. (15) could be confirmed in this experiment.

We also built a handmade two-view autostereoscopic display by using the same parameters of model 2, and the result is shown as in Fig. 17
Fig. 17 Binocular luminance LBi map from 3 points, and the peak luminance locates at (x, y, z) = (0.25, 0, 102.5~102.75).
. To verify the reconstructed result which is calculated from measured data, we compare the reconstructed data and captured pictures at around OVD as shown in Fig. 18
Fig. 18 Experiment for verifying the reconstruction map based on equivalent luminance. Calcuated peak LReq at the first lobe ( + 1) is at (x, y, z) = (17.5~17.75, 0, 103~104.5). The observed pictures for (a) a B/W pattern and (b) natural picture are shown at the observation point (17.5, 0, 103) marked at (c). Those for (d) a B/W pattern and (e) natural picture are shown at the observation point (15.5, 0, 103) marked at (f).
.

Figures 18(a)18(f) show the comparative results. In Figs. 18(a)18(c), the test patterns of B/W in Fig. 18(a) and natural picture in Fig. 18(b) are captured at the maximum equivalent luminance locations as shown in Fig. 18(c) where (x, y, z) = (17.5, 0, 103) in the first lobe ( + 1). If we move to the lower equivalent luminance position, the worse quality image will appear as in Figs. 18(d) and 18(e) at the location (x, y, z) = (15.5, 0, 103).

4. Conclusion

3D display metrology serves as the bedrock for 3D display industry. Much research, such as 3D human factors, ergonomics and 3D optical system design, cannot be conducted without reliable measurement for system evaluation. In this paper, we present an evaluation method for a two-view parallax barrier type autostereoscopic display and propose novel evaluation metrics based on EL and BL. Both design theory and simulation to figure out DEPs and VZ are developed. The new metric is proved to be consistent with geometric method with 1%~2% error in △x calculation and <5% error in △z calculation for a VZ investigation. The design theory based on geometric approach is simple and good for estimating DEPs and VZ, and the simulation based on ray tracing approach can evaluate DEPs and VZ more accurately especially by considering binocular issue. The BL simulation result shows that no error in x direction and <2% tolerance in z direction for DEP verification in a case that designed OVD is not given. The metric can also be coupled with image quality consideration, such as crosstalk and uniformity. Experimental results to verify the proposed evaluation metrics and simulation results have also been shown. This study provides not only the evaluation metrics for DEPs and VZ of a autostereoscopic display in a very clear and coherent manner, but also relates the image quality assessment to the design parameters which will be a valuable reference to the autostereoscopic display metrology as well as system designers.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan, R.O.C. under the project 101-EC-17-A-05-01-1111, Electronics & Optoelectronics Research Lab of ITRI, the National Science Council, R.O.C. under project NSC-102-2221-E-002-205-MY3 and NTU under the Aim for Top University Projects 102R3401-1 and 102R7607-4.

References and links

1.

N. A. Dodgson, “Analysis of the viewing zone of the Cambridge autostereoscopic display,” Appl. Opt. 35(10), 1705–1710 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2.

N. A. Dodgson, “Analysis of the viewing zone of multi-view autostereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 4660, 254–265 (2002). [CrossRef]

3.

A. Yuuki, S. Uehara, K. Taira, G. Hamagishi, K. Izumi, T. Nomura, K. Mashitani, A. Miyazawa, T. Koike, T. Horikoshi, and H. Ujike, “Viewing Zones of Autostereoscopic Displays and their Measurement Methods,” Proc. 15th IDW, 1111–1114 (2008).

4.

A. Yuuki, S. Uehara, K. Taira, G. Hamagishi, K. Izumi, T. Nomura, K. Mashitani, A. Miyazawa, T. Koike, T. Horikoshi, S. Miyazaki, N. Watanabe, Y. Hisatake, and H. Ujike, “Influence of 3-D cross-talk on qualified viewing spaces in two- and multi-view autostereoscopic displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 18(7), 483–493 (2010).

5.

H. Yamamoto, M. Kouno, S. Muguruma, Y.Hayaski, Y. Yamamoto, M. Kouno, Y. Shimizum, and N. Nishida, “Optimization of stereoscopic full color LED display using parallax barrier to enlarge viewing areas,” Proc. Asia Display/ IDW, 1303–1306 (2001).

6.

H. Yamamoto, T. Sato, S. Muguruma, Y. Hayasaki, Y. Nagai, Y. Shimizu, and N. Nishida, “Stereoscopic Full-Color Light Emitting Diode Display Using Parallax Barrier for Different Interpupillary Distances,” Opt. Rev. 9(6), 244–250 (2002). [CrossRef]

7.

H. Yamamoto, T. Kimura, S. Matsumoto, and S. Suyama, “Viewing-Zone Control of Light-Emitting Diode Panel for Stereoscopic Display and Multiple Viewing Distances,” J. Disp. Technol. 6(9), 359–366 (2010). [CrossRef]

8.

T. Järvenpää and M. Salmimaa, “Optical characterization of autostereoscopic 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 16(8), 825–833 (2008).

9.

P. Boher, T. Leroux, T. Bignon, and V. Collomb-Patton, “A new way to characterize autostereoscopic 3D displays using Fourier optics instrument,” Proc. SPIE7237, (2009).

10.

K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, and W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).

11.

K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, C. C. Liao and K. Lee, “3D display measurement for DEP,” IMID Digest. 1018-1021 (2009).

12.

W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, and K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]

13.

International Committee for Display Metrology, Information Display Measurements Standard (SID, 2012), Chap 17.

14.

K. C. Huang, C.-H. Tsai, K. J. Lee, and W.-J. Hsueh, “Measurement of Contrast Ratios for 3D Display,” Proc. SPIE 4080, 78–86 (2000). [CrossRef]

15.

K. C. Huang, J. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, and N.-Y. Wang, “How crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]

16.

K. C. Huang, F. H. Chen, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, Y. H. Chou, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, and K. Lee, “A crosstalk Model and its Application to Stereoscopic and Autostereoscopic Displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 249–262 (2013).

17.

K. C. Huang, J. H. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, and N. Y. Wang, “A study of how crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]

18.

C. O. Spring, “Perception of Luminance Uniformity: Comparing Photometric Calculations to Subjective Perceptions of Uniformity,” Master Thesis, University of Colorado (2002), http://www.craigspring.com/images/Lum_Uniform_Thesis_Screen.pdf.

19.

EBU – TECH 3320, “User requirements for Video Monitors in Television Production,” https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf.

20.

K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, F. H. Chen, L. C. Lin, K. Lee, and H. Y. Lin, “Evaluation Metric for Binocular Luminance Difference,” Proc. China Display/Asia Display, 168–171 (2011).

OCIS Codes
(100.6890) Image processing : Three-dimensional image processing
(110.3000) Imaging systems : Image quality assessment
(120.2040) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Displays
(220.4840) Optical design and fabrication : Testing

ToC Category:
Vision, Color, and Visual Optics

History
Original Manuscript: November 11, 2013
Revised Manuscript: January 24, 2014
Manuscript Accepted: January 26, 2014
Published: February 21, 2014

Virtual Issues
Vol. 9, Iss. 4 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Kuo-Chung Huang, Yi-Heng Chou, Lang-chin Lin, Hoang Yan Lin, Fu-Hao Chen, Ching-Chiu Liao, Yi-Han Chen, Kuen Lee, and Wan-Hsuan Hsu, "Investigation of Designated Eye Position and Viewing Zone for a two-view autostereoscopic display," Opt. Express 22, 4751-4767 (2014)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-22-4-4751


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. N. A. Dodgson, “Analysis of the viewing zone of the Cambridge autostereoscopic display,” Appl. Opt. 35(10), 1705–1710 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. N. A. Dodgson, “Analysis of the viewing zone of multi-view autostereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 4660, 254–265 (2002). [CrossRef]
  3. A. Yuuki, S. Uehara, K. Taira, G. Hamagishi, K. Izumi, T. Nomura, K. Mashitani, A. Miyazawa, T. Koike, T. Horikoshi, H. Ujike, “Viewing Zones of Autostereoscopic Displays and their Measurement Methods,” Proc. 15th IDW, 1111–1114 (2008).
  4. A. Yuuki, S. Uehara, K. Taira, G. Hamagishi, K. Izumi, T. Nomura, K. Mashitani, A. Miyazawa, T. Koike, T. Horikoshi, S. Miyazaki, N. Watanabe, Y. Hisatake, H. Ujike, “Influence of 3-D cross-talk on qualified viewing spaces in two- and multi-view autostereoscopic displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 18(7), 483–493 (2010).
  5. H. Yamamoto, M. Kouno, S. Muguruma, Y.Hayaski, Y. Yamamoto, M. Kouno, Y. Shimizum, and N. Nishida, “Optimization of stereoscopic full color LED display using parallax barrier to enlarge viewing areas,” Proc. Asia Display/ IDW, 1303–1306 (2001).
  6. H. Yamamoto, T. Sato, S. Muguruma, Y. Hayasaki, Y. Nagai, Y. Shimizu, N. Nishida, “Stereoscopic Full-Color Light Emitting Diode Display Using Parallax Barrier for Different Interpupillary Distances,” Opt. Rev. 9(6), 244–250 (2002). [CrossRef]
  7. H. Yamamoto, T. Kimura, S. Matsumoto, S. Suyama, “Viewing-Zone Control of Light-Emitting Diode Panel for Stereoscopic Display and Multiple Viewing Distances,” J. Disp. Technol. 6(9), 359–366 (2010). [CrossRef]
  8. T. Järvenpää, M. Salmimaa, “Optical characterization of autostereoscopic 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 16(8), 825–833 (2008).
  9. P. Boher, T. Leroux, T. Bignon, V. Collomb-Patton, “A new way to characterize autostereoscopic 3D displays using Fourier optics instrument,” Proc. SPIE7237, (2009).
  10. K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, F. H. Chen, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, W. H. Hsu, “A Study of Optimal Viewing Distance in a Parallax Barrier 3D Display,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 263–270 (2013).
  11. K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, C. C. Liao and K. Lee, “3D display measurement for DEP,” IMID Digest. 1018-1021 (2009).
  12. W. H. Chang, K. C. Huang, Y. H. Chou, H. Y. Lin, K. Lee, “A Novel Evaluation Method for 3D Display Viewing-Zone,” Proc. SID, 1279–1282 (2012). [CrossRef]
  13. International Committee for Display Metrology, Information Display Measurements Standard (SID, 2012), Chap 17.
  14. K. C. Huang, C.-H. Tsai, K. J. Lee, W.-J. Hsueh, “Measurement of Contrast Ratios for 3D Display,” Proc. SPIE 4080, 78–86 (2000). [CrossRef]
  15. K. C. Huang, J. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, N.-Y. Wang, “How crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]
  16. K. C. Huang, F. H. Chen, L. Lin, H. Y. Lin, Y. H. Chou, C. C. Liao, Y. H. Chen, K. Lee, “A crosstalk Model and its Application to Stereoscopic and Autostereoscopic Displays,” J. Soc. Info. Disp. 21(6), 249–262 (2013).
  17. K. C. Huang, J. H. C. Yuan, C. H. Tsai, W. J. Hsueh, N. Y. Wang, “A study of how crosstalk affects stereopsis in stereoscopic displays,” Proc. SPIE 5006, 247–253 (2003). [CrossRef]
  18. C. O. Spring, “Perception of Luminance Uniformity: Comparing Photometric Calculations to Subjective Perceptions of Uniformity,” Master Thesis, University of Colorado (2002), http://www.craigspring.com/images/Lum_Uniform_Thesis_Screen.pdf .
  19. EBU – TECH 3320, “User requirements for Video Monitors in Television Production,” https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf .
  20. K. C. Huang, C. L. Wu, F. H. Chen, L. C. Lin, K. Lee, and H. Y. Lin, “Evaluation Metric for Binocular Luminance Difference,” Proc. China Display/Asia Display, 168–171 (2011).

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  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited