Psychophysical evaluations of a current multi-view 3-D display:
Its advantages in glossiness reproduction
Yuichi Sakano
Hiroshi Ando

Abstract — Although two-view 3-D displays requiring stereo glasses are on the market, the shape ofobjects they present is distorted when the observer’s head moves. This problem can be solved by usinga (passive) multi-view 3-D display because such a display can produce motion parallax. Another problem has to do with the surface quality of the presented object, but little is known about the fidelity ofsuch displays as far as the surface quality goes. Previously, it was found that a two-view 3-D display
has a problem in which glossiness deteriorates when the observer’s head moves and that it can bealleviated by using a head tracker, whose data enables the display to produce correct motion parallax
and luminance changes when the viewer’s head moves. Here, it was determined whether this problem
can be solved by using commercially available multi-view 3-D displays, whose finite number of viewpoints and certain amount of cross-talk, however, make luminance changes inexact and smaller thanthey should be. It was found that this display can solve the problem to a certain extent.
Keywords — Surface quality, gloss, appearance reproduction, quantitative evaluation, psychophysics,
stereoscopic display, autostereoscopic display, cross-talk.
DOI # 10.1889/JSID20.5.286

1Introduction

Two-view (stereoscopic) 3-D displays that require LCD
shutter goggles or polarized glasses are becoming increasingly popular consumer items. However, it is known thatthese types of 3-D displays have a problem wherein thesimulated 3-D shape is distorted when the observer’s headmoves because they cannot produce motion parallax.1,2
There is another type of 3-D display on the market: a (passive)
multi-view 3-D display. This type of display has three ormore viewpoints and presents the same number of 2-D
images at those points. By using a multi-view 3-D display,
the problem of shape distortion can be solved to someextent because the display can produce motion parallax bypresenting appropriate 2-D images in accordance with the
movements of the observer’s head.3–7 The drawback is thatthe image change is imprecise because of the finite viewpoint number.8,9
Although this difference between these 3-D displays
in reproducing the “3-D shape” of the presented object iswell known, little is known about whether there are any differences in their reproduction of the “surface quality” of thepresented object. The surface quality of the presented
objects is very important especially, for instance, for Internet
museums (E-museum)10,11 and for digitally designing vehicles.12 It has been reported that a high-density directional
display produces good surface quality.13,14 However, again,
little is known about the fidelity of the surface quality reproduced by consumer-quality 3-D displays (i.e., two-view andmulti-view 3-D displays).

The reproduction of glossiness, a type of surface quality, could be better in multi-view 3-D displays than in twoview ones because glossiness is a surface reflectanceproperty, or more specifically, the reflectance changes withreflection direction,15,16 which, theoretically, can be estimated from multiple 2-D images from different viewpoints15 (Fig. 1; for details, see the Introduction andAppendix in Ref. 15).
In fact, we previously found that two-view 3-D displays have a problem when the observer’s head is moving;
the presented stereoscopic glossy object is perceived as lessglossy because the 2-D image presented to each single eyedoes not change over time, and thus corresponds to a matte(i.e., zero glossiness) surface.15 In the experiments of thatstudy, the subjects moved their heads laterally and observed
a stereoscopic glossy surface presented by a CRT monitor
through stereo shutter goggles. We asked them to rate theperceived glossiness, and the results showed that the perceived glossiness was lower when the surface presented toeach eye did not change over time on the 2-D CRT screen
than when the surface changed in luminance and in its 2-D
shape on the screen (i.e., motion parallax) in accordancewith the observer’s head position (this was done by using ahead-tracking system in the control experiment of Experiment 3 of that study). The results remained very similar to
those of the control experiment even when the observers
did not move their heads when an unchanging surface waspresented (the main experiment of Experiment 3). These
results suggest that motion parallax and temporal changes inluminance accompanying the observer’s head motion (i.e.,
temporal cues to glossiness15) enhance perceived glossiness

Received 12-19-11; accepted 02-13-12.
The authors are with Universal Communications Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT),
2-2-2 Hikaridai, Seika-cho, Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan; telephone +81-774-95-1002, e-mail: yuichi@nict.go.jp.
© Copyright 2012 Society for Information Display 1071-0922/12/2005-0286$1.00.

286

Journal of the SID 20/5, 2012

FIGURE 1 — Reflectance, head motion, and stereo viewing. (a) Headmotion and reflectances of a glossy (top) and a matte (bottom) surface.
When the observer’s eye is looking in the direction of the specularreflection of a glossy surface, the luminance of the surface point is high.
Once the eye moves out of the specular direction, luminance decreases
immediately. In contrast, when viewing a matte surface, the luminanceof the surface is unaffected by the location of the eye. Thus, it istheoretically possible to distinguish a glossy surface from a matte one.
(b) Stereo viewing and reflectances of a glossy (top) and a matte (bottom)
surface. The luminance of the surface for the eye looking in the directionof the specular reflection of the glossy surface is much higher than thatfor the other eye not looking in the specular direction. In contrast, whenviewing a matte surface, the luminance of the surface for one eye is equal
to that for the other eye. Thus, it is theoretically possible to distinguish
the glossy surface from the matte one (copied from Sakano and Ando2010).

real multi-view 3-D display could alleviate the weakenedglossiness problem.
To address this question, we wanted to determine
whether the perceived glossiness of an object surface presented with a multi-view 3-D display is higher when theimage changes according to the head motion than when it
does not despite the head motion. However, the latter condition (i.e., no image changes with head motion) is almost
impossible to achieve. To solve this problem, we have used,instead, the condition under which there are no imagechanges and no head motion. We believe that this substitution makes sense because we found in our previous study
that when the surface image does not change over time,
whether the observer moves the head or not does not affectthe perceived glossiness of a glossy surface.15 Similarly, it
has been reported that image changes, not head motion
itself, affect perceived glossiness.18
Thus, in the present study, we tried to determine
whether the perceived glossiness of an object surface presented with a multi-view 3-D display is higher when thesurface changes over time due to the observer’s head motion
than when the observer does not move the head and thus
the surface does not change either. If the perceived glossiness is higher in the former condition than the latter one,the results would suggest that a multi-view 3-D display,which has a finite number of viewpoints, alleviates the weakened-glossiness problem to some extent.

2
when viewing stereoscopically. As described above, since, in
the real world, when the observer moves his or her head, theluminance of an observed glossy object changes in accordance with the observer’s head position, while that of a matte(Lambertian) object does not change, the former results(the control experiment of Experiment 3) also suggest thatwhen a glossy object is presented with a two-view 3-D display without a head-tracking system, the perceived glossiness would be less than it should be. Hereafter, we will referto this problem as “the weakened-glossiness problem.”
The question that we want to address in the present
study is whether the weakened-glossiness problem can bealleviated to any extent by using a current (passive) multiview 3-D display. In our previous study,15 we continuously
changed the luminance and the 2-D shape of the stimulus
surface on the screen according to the observer’s head position by using a head-tracking system. This condition of temporal changes of the stimulus corresponds to a multi-view
3-D display with an infinite number of viewpoints and a continuous set of viewpoints. In contrast, a real multi-view 3-D
display has a finite number of viewpoints and the viewpoints
are discrete, resulting in discontinuous changes in luminance and in the 2-D shape of the stimulus accompanying
the observer’s lateral head motion. Even if the luminancechange is smooth owing to cross-talk between the images forthe different viewpoints,17 the temporal profile of thechange is still inexact. Thus, it remains to be seen whether a

2.1

Methods
Apparatus

We used a commercially available multi-view 3-D display
using a parallax barrier (NEWSIGHT, Inc., 45-in. 3-D-Display D, 45 in., eight viewpoints) and a personal computer(DELL, Inc., Precision T7400, 3.2-GHz CPU, 3.25-GB
RAM, graphic card: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800) to present
the stimuli. The resolution of the display behind the barrier
was 1920 × 1080 pixels (Sharp, Inc., LC-45GD1E, TFT
Active Matrix LCD, 98.6 × 55.5 cm). The viewing distancefor the best 3-D image quality of the display was 480 cm. In
the experiment, the subjects viewed the display at this distance. The distance between the two closest viewpoints (i.e.,
centers of the viewing zones) was 6.0 cm at this viewing
distance.
We measured the luminance of the display using aphotometer (Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., LS-110) andcorrected luminance gamma non-linearity using software(Nvidia control panel). The maximum luminance at the center of the display measured from the central viewpoint was
19.2 cd/m2 when a single corresponding image (uniform
white over the display) was presented. The luminance was
2.25 times larger when the uniform white images for all
eight viewpoints were presented than when only the single
corresponding image was presented. This luminance ratio
reflects the magnitude of cross-talk between the views of
the display.

Sakano and Ando / Advantages of a current multi-view 3-D display in glossiness reproduction287

for mutual illumination for convenience although theamount of this reflection was inexact. The surface was illuminated by simulated white parallel light from above.
The display presented the stimuli in 2-D or in 3-D.
The 2-D stimulus was viewed without head motion (2-Dcondition). The 3-D stimulus was viewed with head motion(3-D dynamic condition) or without it (3-D static condition). The 3-D dynamic stimulus changed passively overtime due to the subject’s head motion while the 3-D static
stimulus did not change over time. Note that these two stimuli were physically identical on the display and that the 2-D
image on the display that presented to each viewpoint did
not change over time in both stimuli. The only difference
between the two stimuli was that the subject moved his or
her head laterally in the 3-D dynamic condition while thesubject’s head remained still in front of the display in the
3-D static condition. That is, different images became visible one after another when the subject moved his or herhead laterally, resulting in the dynamic stimulus, while thevisible images remained the same when the subject did not
move the head, resulting in the static stimulus.

2.3
FIGURE 2 — Examples of the stimuli used in the experiment. (a) An entire
2-D stimulus image. (b) Cropped stereo-pair images of the 3-D (top) and
2-D (bottom) stimuli. Note that the value of the specular reflectance israised to 0.9 in the images from 0.6 to compensate the weakened effectsof the 3-D presentation by viewing in a lit room.

2.2

Stimuli

The stimulus was an achromatic computer-generated display that simulated a glossy and bumpy surface (Fig. 2). The
bumpy surface was elaborated as follows. First, a flat square(49.3 × 49.3 cm) in the frontal plane was divided into 1600
small squares. Second, each small square was divided into
two triangles. Third, each vertex of the triangles was assigned
a random pedestal depth ranging between 0.31 mm close to
and 0.31 mm far from the subject. Finally, the entire bumpy
surface was then slanted 45° with its top away from the subject around the middle horizontal axis.
The luminance intensity of each surface facet (i.e., trian g l e ) w as d et e r m i n ed f r o m t h e Ph on g l ightin gmodel15,19–22:
I = Iin Rd cos q + Iin Rs cos n a + Is Ra ,(1)

where I is the intensity of the surface, Iin is the intensity ofincident light (1.0), Ia is the intensity of ambient light (1.0),
Rd is the diffuse reflectance (0.05), Rs is the specular reflectance (0.6), Ra is the ambient reflectance (0.05), n is theindex determining the highlight size (128), θ is the angle ofincidence, and α is the angle between the cardinal directionof specular reflection and the direction towards the viewpoint. In this model, the ambient reflection was substituted

288

Journal of the SID 20/5, 2012

Head motion and viewing condition

In the 3-D dynamic condition, the subjects made two lapsof lateral head motion starting and ending in front of thecenter of the display. The end-to-end distance of the headmotion was about 36 cm, which allowed the subjects to view
all eight 2-D images. To control the head movements,
before the experiment, the subjects practiced moving thehead smoothly in the horizontal directions so that the subjects could do so observing all eight views in a fixed time
(4 sec). We also instructed the subjects to minimize the vertical and tilt movement of the head. In the experiment, theexperimenter (the first author) made sure by observationthat the subjects moved the head smoothly and naturally,
but not necessarily at a constant speed.
In the 3-D static and the 2-D conditions, the subjects
viewed the stimuli with the head kept still in front of thecenter of the display. Before the experiment, the subjects
practiced stabilizing the head right in front of the center ofthe display. The subjects also practiced alternating head stabilization with lateral head movement. The experimenter
made sure by observation that the subject’s head was stable
when it should be although we did not measure the head
movements in this study.
To control eye movements, the subjects were instructed
to fixate the approximate center of the display during theexperiment. The subjects viewed the stimuli binocularly except in monocularly viewing conditions described below. In
the monocularly viewing conditions, one of the subject’s
eyes was occluded by a black opaque eye patch.

2.4

Compared conditions

To examine the advantages of a multi-view 3-D display overa two-view 3-D display, we compared the 3-D static stimuluswith the 3-D dynamic one in terms of the perceived glossiness. To examine the effect of stereoscopic presentation, orin other words, the effect of binocular cues to glossiness(i.e., image differences between the two eyes),15 the effectof temporal cues, and the combined effect of these cues, we
also compared the following stimulus pairs: the 2-D stimulus with the 3-D static one, the 3-D static stimulus with the
3-D dynamic one viewed monocularly in both conditions,and the 2-D stimulus with the 3-D dynamic one, respectively.

tion method (i.e., rating task). In each trial, the subject
orally reported the perceived glossiness of one stimulus interms of a number relative to which the glossiness of theother stimulus was assumed to be ten. Zero meant no glossiness (completely matte). The subjects were explicitly allowed to report any number that was equal to or higher thanzero, including ten and higher numbers. The subjects reported the glossiness of the following stimuli: the 3-D static
stimulus for the pair of (3-D static, 3-D dynamic) both in the
monocularly and binocularly viewing conditions, and the2-D stimulus for the pairs of (2-D, 3-D static) and of (2-D,
3-D dynamic). Each combination of conditions was repeated
ten times for each subject.

2.6
2.5

Procedure and task

The experiment was conducted in a darkened room. During
the experiment, the subjects kept seated on the chair placed
right in front of the center of the display. The heights of thesubjects eyes were almost the same as the middle level ofthe display.
In each trial, the paired stimuli described above presented alternately. The stimuli were presented until the subject responded. The presentation duration of each stimulus
was 3.87 sec, and the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) was 0.13 sec.
In order to quantitatively compare the perceived
glossiness of the paired stimuli, we used the magnitude estima-

Subjects

One author and three subjects naive to the purpose of theexperiments participated in the experiment. All had normal
or corrected-to-normal visual acuity. All had experienced
other experiments on binocular stereopsis, and we confirmed that they had normal stereovision.

3

Results and discussion

3.1

Central findings

As shown in Fig. 3, the perceived glossiness of the 3-D static
stimulus was significantly lower than that of the 3-D dynamic

FIGURE 3 — Results of the experiment. The rated glossiness of one stimulus when glossiness of the otherstimulus was assumed to be ten. The rated stimuli were the 3-D static, 2-D, 3-D static monocular, and 2-D
stimuli for the paired stimuli of (3-D static, 3-D dynamic), (2-D, 3-D static), (3-D static monocular, 3-D dynamic
monocular), and (2-D, 3-D dynamic), respectively. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM. The dotted line indicates theglossiness of the non-rated (i.e., standard) stimulus.

Sakano and Ando / Advantages of a current multi-view 3-D display in glossiness reproduction289

stimulus (t3 = 5.58; p < 0.01 for all subjects). As describedin Introduction, the perceived glossiness of the 3-D static
stimulus would be almost equivalent to the perceived glossiness of the 3-D stimulus with no temporal changes viewed
with head motion. In the real world, when the observer
moves his or her head, the luminance of an observed glossy
object changes in accordance with the observer’s headmotion, while that of a matte (Lambertian) object does notchange. Thus, the results suggest that the problem of an
object presented with a two-view 3-D display being perceived as less glossy as a result of the lack of image changes
when the head moves (i.e., the weakened-glossiness problem) can be alleviated to some extent by the use of a commercially available multi-view 3-D display that has a finite
number of viewpoints (eight viewpoints in this case) and acertain amount of cross-talk. In other words, these results
suggest that a current multi-view 3-D display is better thana two-view 3-D display without head tracking in terms ofglossiness reproduction when a viewer moves his or her
head.
Similarly, the perceived glossiness of the 2-D stimulus
was significantly lower than that of the 3-D static stimulus(t3 = 2.53, p < 0.05 for all subjects, Fig. 3). As described in
Introduction, in the real world, when viewing a glossy object
binocularly, the two eyes would experience luminance differences while a matte (Lambertian) object produces zero
luminance difference. Thus, these results suggest that the
problem of an object presented in 2-D being perceived asless glossy as a result of the lack of image differences between
the two eyes is to some extent solved by the use of a multiview 3-D display without head motion. In other words, theresults suggest that a current multi-view 3-D display is better than a 2-D display in glossiness reproduction when thedisplays are viewed without head motion.
Even when the display was viewed monocularly, theperceived glossiness of the 3-D static stimulus was significantly lower than that of the 3-D dynamic stimulus (t3 =
2.75, p < 0.05 for all subjects, Fig. 3). These results reflect
the effectiveness of image changes accompanying head
movements (i.e., temporal cues) in glossiness perception
when monocularly viewing a current multi-view 3-D displaythat produced inexact luminance changes owing to the finite
number of viewpoints and the cross-talk between the views.
The results also suggest that even when the observer views
the display monocularly, the weakened-glossiness problem
can be alleviated. In other words, the results suggest that acurrent multi-view 3-D display is better than a two-view display in glossiness reproduction even when the displays are
viewed monocularly with head movements.
In qualitative concordance with the three results
above, the perceived glossiness of the 2-D stimulus was significantly lower than that of the 3-D dynamic stimulus (t3 =8.04, p < 0.005 for all subjects, Fig. 3). These results reflect
the combined effects of image changes accompanying head
movements (i.e., temporal cues) and image differences
between the two eyes (i.e., binocular cues) in glossiness per-

290

Journal of the SID 20/5, 2012

ception. These results suggest that a multi-view 3-D display
is better than a 2-D display in glossiness reproduction when
the head moves.

3.2

Individual differences

As can be seen in Fig. 3, there were large individual differences in the rated glossiness, especially in the comparison
pairs of (2-D, 3-D static) and (3-D static monocular, 3-D
dynamic monocular). These differences could reflect individual differences in to what extent the perceived glossiness
depended on binocular cues (i.e., luminance differences between the eyes and the binocular disparity distribution of
the surface)15 and temporal cues (i.e., luminance changes
over time and the motion parallax distribution of the surface) compared with monocular static (i.e., pictorial) cues.
That is, if a certain subject relies heavily on binocular cues,
for instance, the rated glossiness of the 2-D stimulus should
be lower because the glossiness specified by the binocular
cues was zero in the 2-D stimulus, but it was a certain value(as determined by the stimulus Phong parameters Rs andpossibly α) in the 3-D static and 3-D dynamic stimuli.
There is a possibility that glossiness perception frombinocular cues could depend on interocular distance andthat the individual differences in interocular distance could
contribute to the individual differences in the rated glossiness. To examine this possibility, we measured interoculardistances of the subjects using a pupilometer (Topcon digital PD meter PD-5) and compared them with the rated
glossiness results. The results showed that the subjects’interocular distances ranged from 6.15 to 6.65 cm and thatthe subjects whose interocular distances were wide tended
to show lower glossiness rating in the comparison pairs of(2-D, 3-D static) and (3-D static monocular, 3-D dynamic
monocular) (r = –0.909, p = 0.091; r = –0.915, p = 0.085,
respectively). For the comparison pairs of (3-D static, 3-D
dynamic) and (2-D, 3-D dynamic), on the other hand,showed no significant correlation (r = –0.482, p = 0.518; r =–0.788, p = 0.212, respectively). These results could imply
the relationship between the glossiness perception andinterocular distance. For instance, wide interocular distances could enhance the use of binocular cues. In that case,the temporal cues could also be assigned large weights inglossiness perception owing to the possible mechanisms
shared with binocular cues.15 However, to clarify the relationship between the interocular distance and glossinessperception, further study is required.
Despite a large variation in perceived glossiness between
subjects, all subjects judged consistently that the 2-D stimulus was less glossy than the 3-D static and 3-D dynamic stimuli, implying that all subjects depended on the binocular
cues to a certain extent. Similarly, they judged consistently
that the 3-D static stimulus was less glossy than the 3-D
dynamic stimuli both in the monocular and binocular cases,
implying that all subjects depended on the temporal cues toa certain extent and that the use of a multi-view 3-D display
is advantageous for glossiness reproduction.

3.3

Limitations in glossiness reproduction
using a multi-view 3-D display

As described above, we found that the use of a multi-view
3-D display with a finite number of viewpoints solves theweakened-glossiness problem to some extent. Anotherinteresting question might be whether this solution is complete or partial; in other words, whether a multi-view 3-D
display has limitations regarding its ability to deal with theweakened-glossiness problem. There is a possibility that thissolution is partial because of the following three reasons.
First, as described in Introduction, a multi-view 3-D display
has a finite number of viewpoints and the viewpoints are
discrete, resulting in discontinuous changes in luminanceand in the 2-D shape of the stimulus accompanying the observer’s lateral head motion. Even if the luminance change
is smooth owing to cross-talk between the images for thedifferent viewpoints,17 the temporal profile of the change isstill inexact. Second, a multi-view 3-D display often has alarge amount of cross-talk,23 as was observed in the display
used in the present study. The cross-talk reduces both luminance differences between the two eyes and luminancechanges accompanying lateral head movements. These
reductions could deteriorate perceived glossiness because
the reduced luminance differences and reduced luminancechanges simulate lower glossiness than intended by binocular and temporal cues, respectively,15,16,24 smaller interocular luminance differences and smaller luminance changes
produce lower perceived glossiness,15,25,26 and perceived
glossiness depends strongly on these binocular15,25–38 andtemporal15,25,31,32,39 cues to glossiness. Third, the viewing
distances for the best 3-D image quality of some multi-view
3-D displays are very long. In these cases, the glossinessreproduction of an object with low glossiness could be inexact because when viewing a real surface or a simulated one
presented with a 3-D display, a very long viewing distancecauses a very small angular difference from the observed
surface between the two eyes or eye locations before andafter head movements and thus the luminance difference
between the two eyes or luminance change accompanying
the head motion is very small, which could be invisible orunable to be reproduced owing to the limitation in thenumber of gray levels of the display.
To examine whether the solution using a multi-view
3-D display is complete or partial, one might think of adirect comparison of the results of the present study withthose of our previous study using a CRT, stereo shutter goggles, and a head tracking system15 because in the latterstudy, we continuously changed the images according to theobserver’s head position and the magnitude of cross-talk was
small. However, we do not think this comparison is a good
method because there were many differences in experimental conditions, including stimulus size (in visual angle and ininch), viewing distance, luminance, color, and reflectanceparameters of the stimulus surface. Instead of comparing
different displays, we plan to investigate, by using a CRT,
stereo shutter goggles, and a head-tracking system, howmany viewpoints (or how short the distance between theneighboring viewpoints) are required as well as how muchcross-talk would be allowed for good glossiness reproduction.

Acknowledgments
This study was conducted as part of a project titled “researchand development on glasses-free 3-D image technologies”
from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communicationsof Japan.

References
1 J. -Y. Son and B. Javidi “Three-dimensional imaging methods based on
multiview images,” J. Disp. Technol. 1, No. 1, 125–140 (2005).
2 J. Konrad and M. Halle “3-D displays and signal processing,” IEEE
Signal Process. Mag. 24, No. 6, 97–111 (2007).
3 N. A. Dodgson “Autostereoscopic 3-D display,” IEEE Computer 38,
No. 8, 31–36 (2005).
4 Y. Zhu and T, Zhen “3-D multi-view autostereoscopic display and its
key technologie,” Asia-Pacific Conference on Information Processing
2, 31–35 (2009).
5 M. Kawakita et al., “Projection-type integral 3-D display with distortioncompensation,” J. Soc. Info. Display 18, No. 9, 668–677 (2010).
6 M. Lambooij et al., “Evaluation of stereoscopic images: beyond 2-D
quality,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 57, No. 2, 432–444 (2011).
7 Y. Takaki et al., “Super multi-view windshield display for long-distanceimage information presentation,” Opt. Express 19, No. 2, 704–716(2011).
8 M. Tsuboi et al., “An objective and subjective evaluation of anautostereoscopic 3-D display,” Proc. 27th Intl. Conf. Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3577–3582 (2009).
9 L. Hill and A. Jacobs “3-D liquid crystal displays and their applications,” Proc. IEEE 94, No. 3 (2006).
10 M. Tsuchida et al., “High fidelity image reproduction using angular
distribution of reflected spectral intensity,” Opt. Rev. 8, No. 6, 444–450(2001).
11 Y. Akao et al., “Gonio-spectral imaging of paper and cloth samples
under oblique illumination conditions based on image fusion techniques,” J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 48, No. 3, 227–234 (2004).
12 P. Dumont-Becle et al., “Multi-texturing approach for paint appearance simulation on virtual vehicles,” Proc. Driving Simulation Conf.,
213 (2001).
13 Y. Takaki and T. Dairiki, “High-appearance images generated by highdensity directional display,” Proc. IDW ‘05, 3-D4-2, 1777–1780 (2005).
14 M. Oguma and Y. Takaki “Appearance reproduction by high-density
directional display: Influence of ray sampling and comparisons to highresolution 2-D display,” Proc. IDW 15, 1087–1090 (2008).
15 Y. Sakano and H. Ando, “Effects of head motion and stereo viewing on
perceived glossiness,” J. Vision 10, No. 9(15), 1–14 (2010).
16 R. S. Hunter and R. W. Harold, “Scales for gloss and other geometricattributes,” The Measurement of Appearance, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New
York, 1987), p. 75.
17 R. Kaptein and I. Heynderickx, “Effect of crosstalk in multi-view
autostereoscopic 3-D displays on perceived image quality,” SID Symposium Digest 38, 1220–1223 (2007).
18 K. Araki et al., “Glossiness perception enhanced by retinal-image motion from object-motion and self-motion,” i-Perception 2, No. 4, 366(2011).
19 B. T. Phong, “Illumination for computer generated pictures,” Commun. ACM 18, 311–317 (1975).
20 S. Nishida and M. Shinya, “Use of image-based information in judgments of surface-reflectance properties,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image
Sci. Vis. 15, 2951–2965 (1998).

Sakano and Ando / Advantages of a current multi-view 3-D display in glossiness reproduction291

21 G. Wendt et al., “Highlight disparity contributes to the authenticity andstrength of perceived glossiness,” J. Vision 8, No. 1(14), 1–10 (2008).
22 G. Wendt et al., “Disparity, motion, and color information improvegloss constancy performance,” J. Vision 10, No. 9(7), 1–17 (2010).
23 A. Boev et al., “Crosstalk measurement methodology for auto-stereoscopic screens,” 3-DTV Conference, 1–4 (2007).
24 B. K. P. Horn, “Understanding image intensities,” Artific. Intell. 8, No.
2, 201–231 (1977).
25 S. M. Anstis, “Monocular lustre from flicker,” Vision Res. 40, No. 19,
2551–2556 (2000).
26 D. Paille et al., “Luminance binocular disparity for 3-D surface simulation,” Proc. SPIE 4299, 622–633 (2001).
27 D. Brewster, “Examination of Dove’s theory of luster,” Athen, 1041
(1852).
28 D. Brewster, “On the binocular vision of surfaces of different colours,”
Report of British Association 2, 9 (1855).
29 D. Brewster, “On binocular luster,” Report of British Association 2,
29–31 (1861).
30 H. W. Dove, “Ueber die Ursachen des Glanzes und der Irradiation,
abgeleitet aus chromatischen Versuchen mit dem Stereoskop,” Poggendorffs Ann. 83, 169–183 (1850).
31 H. Helmholtz, “Rivalry between the visual globes of the two eyes,”
Treatise on Physiological Optics (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY,
1866/2005), pp. 512–516.
32 E. Hering, “The binocular achromatic colors,” Outlines of a Theory of
the Light Sense (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
1874/1964), pp. 251–252.
33 I. P. Howard, “Depth from binocular rivalry without spatial disparity,”
Perception 24, No. 1, 67–74 (1995).
34 I. Ludwig et al., “Temporal integration of monocular images separated
in time: stereopsis, stereoacuity, and binocular luster,” Percept. Psychophys. 69, No. 1, 92–102 (2007).
35 W. Pieper and I. Ludwig, “Binocular vision: rivalry, stereoscopic lustre,
and sieve effect,” Perception 30, ECVP Abstract Suppl. (2001).
36 W. Pieper and I. Ludwig, “The minimum luminance-contrast requirements for stereoscopic luster,” Perception 31, ECVP Abstract Suppl.
(2002).
37 J. M. Preston, “Theories of luster,” J. Soc. Dy. Col. 47, No. 5, 136–143(1931).
38 C. W. Tyler, “Binocular vision,” Duane’s Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol. 2 (J. B. Lippincott Co. Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 1–24.
39 D. C. Burr et al., “A spatial illusion from motion rivalry,” Perception
15, No. 1, 59–66 (1986).

292

Journal of the SID 20/5, 2012

Yuichi Sakano received his B.S. degree in physics
from Sophia University and his M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in visual psychophysics from Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, in 1999, 2001,
and 2004, respectively. He then became a postdoctoral fellow and was engaged in research on
human visual perception, especially the perception of stereoscopic motion-in-depth at the Centre
for Vision Research in York University, Toronto,
Canada. In 2006, he joined ATR Cognitive Information Science Laboratories, Kyoto, Japan. Since 2009, he has been
engaged in research on human visual perception, especially glossinessperception, and on psychophysical evaluation of 3-D displays at the
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology(NICT).
Hiroshi Ando received his B.S. degree in physics
in 1983, his M.S. degree in experimental psychology in 1987 from Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan,
and his Ph.D. degree in computational neuroscience from the Department of Brain and Cognitive
Sciences, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), USA in 1993. He then joined ATR (Advanced
Telecommunications Research Institute International), Kyoto, Japan, where he became Head of
Department of Perceptual and Cognitive Dynamics. In 2006, he joined NICT (National Institute of Information and Communications Technology) and became Group Leader of Multimodal
Communication Group. He now is Director of the Multisensory Cognition and Computation Laboratory of NICT. He has also been guest professor at Kyoto University, Osaka University and Nara Institute of
Science and Technology in Japan. His primary research interests include
cognitive brain science, computational neuroscience, and multisensory
human interfaces.