Frequently Asked Questions

• Does HDR-VDP-2 report differences in color?

No. However, color information is used to correctly compute photopic (daylight) and scotopic (night vision) luminance, i.e. Purkinje shift.

• Does HDR-VDP-2 work with ordinary (LDR) images?

Yes. You need to specify 'sRGB-display' as the color_encoding parameter and pass an RGB image in which the values range from 0 to 1. This color encoding assumes that the peak luminance of the display is 100 <math>cd/m^2</math>. Note that the matlab function imread will return a matrix of uint8 or unit16, which needs to be converted to the normalized floating point matrix: single(img)/2^8 or single(img)/2^16.

• <math>Q_{MOS}</math> predictions do not match my assessment of quality.

<math>Q_{MOS}</math> predictions were optimized for a range of distortions, including image compression, blocky artifacts, noise and blur. The full list can be found in the Calibration reports. This predictor is likely to be much less accurate for other type of distortions that were not considered. In such situation, the predictor <math>Q</math> could be a better choice.

• How to interpret the visibility predictions: <math>P_{det}</math> and <math>P_{map}</math> ?

<math>P_{det}</math> is probability of detecting a difference for the entire image assuming that each part of the image is equally attended; and <math>P_{map}</math> is a map (2D matrix) per-pixel probability. It should be interpreted as the probability of detection when an observer is focusing on a particular pixel.

For the current version of the HDR-VDP-2, <math>P_{det} = max(P_{map} )</math>. It was found that this choice gives the best match to psychophysical data and is also the most conservative estimate. Intuitively, if a hex pattern starts to be noticeable, it is detected in the part of the display where it is the most visible (hence the maximum function), regardless whether that part takes 90% or 10% of a display. In fact the probability of detection map already accounts for the higher visibility of larger areas (spatial integration).

The probabilities <math>P_{det}</math> and <math>P_{map}</math> are NOT the probabilities of the two-alternative-forced-choice (2AFC) experiment, in which the probability is affected by the chance of guessing the right answer. The probability <math>P_{det}</math> should be interpreted as the probability that an average observer correctly detects the difference while his or her chance of guessing is zero. For example an observer is presented a just noticeable pattern and a very large number (in fact infinite number) of flat luminance maps, from which he or she has to choose the one that contains the pattern. The <math>P_{det}</math> can vary from 0 to 1, while the probability in the 2AFC experiment is normally within the range from 0.5 to 1 because an observer has at least 0.5 chance of guessing right. The following paragraphs explain in detail the difference between <math>P_{det}</math> and the probabilities found in forced choice experiments.

The probability of a positive answer in a forced choice experiment is equal probability of detection (<math>P_d</math>) plus the probability of a chance (correct guess) conditional on the case when the pattern is not detected:

<math>P_p=P_d+(1-P_d){\cdot}P_c</math>.

From the above equation we get:

<math>P_d=\frac{P_p-P_c}{1-P_c}</math>.

In the two-alternative-choice experiment there is 50% chance of guessing the right answer (<math>P_c=0.5</math>). Therefore, in order to find the threshold for 50% probability of detection (<math>P_d=0.5</math>), the psychometric procedure is adjusted to converge at 75% probability of positive answer (<math>P_p=0.75</math>). Thus probability of detection <math>P_d</math>, which is equivalent to <math>P_{det}</math> in HDR-VDP-2, is different to the probability of giving correct answer in an 2AFC experiment.

• Why are the HDR-VDP-2 visibility predictions so conservative?

You may be surprised that the HDR-VDP-2 reports differences in the regions where you can barely see any difference. This is because the assumption is that the observer knows exactly where the distortion is located, which is not the case in the typical situations. Also, even if the difference is visible, it may not be objectionable. In that case the quality predictors <math>Q</math> and <math>Q_{MOS}</math> may be more suitable.

Another reason for high sensitivity is that the HDR-VDP-2 was calibrated for the distortions that are localized within a Gaussian window of about 1-2 visual degree diameter. If the distortion spreads over larger areas, the visbility may be overpredicted. It is possible to reduce the sensitivity of the metric using the option "peak_sensitivity", but the amount of the adjustment should be validated by performing some calibration experiment for a subset of the images you need to process.

If the distortions are not localized, a better prediction can be obtained if the spatial pooling component of the metric is disabled. To disable it, pass { 'do_spatial_pooling', false, 'peak_sensitivity', 2.355708 } in the option list. The second argument adjust overall sensitivity to compensate for the lack of spatial integration and was found by fitting to the 'complex images' dataset. You may still want to further adjust this parameter for your particular application.

• Why the HDR-VDP-2 reports visible difference for two images that are identical?

The problem comes from the limited numerical precision and the way spatial integration is implemented. It will be address in the next revision of the metric. If this is causing any problems, the best is to disable spatial pooling as explained in the answer above.

• The difference between two images are restricted to a small region (e.g. a single object), but the HDR-VDP-2 reports distortions outside that region where there are no differences. Why is that?

The HDR-VDP-2 analyzes a full range of spatial frequencies when predicting visibility. When the differences affect lower frequencies, the distortion cannot be precisely localized and the visible differences tend to 'spill over' the boundary of the affected region. This is the current limitation of the HDR-VDP-2, which will hopefully be addressed in the next revisions.

The older HDR-VDP-1.7 contained a 'hack' that restricted the reported differences to areas that were actually different. The feature was enabled by default, and could be switched off with --no-abs-fix option. It worked by testing the luminance difference on the pixel level and masking the distortion for the pixels that did not differ. It was removed from the HDR-VDP-2 as not very elegant and undermining the purpose of the visual model.