## 3 Evaluation
### Elemental Image Compared to Viewpoint Image Resolution  
The algorithm's performance was assessed by utilising 24 synthetic Holoscopic images with five distinct EI resolutions: 20 \(\times\) 20, 40 \(\times\) 40, 60 \(\times\) 60, 80 \(\times\) 80, and 100 \(\times\) 100, as shown in Figure 20. The MAE and PBP were calculated for all resolutions. As depicted in Figure 21, an increase in the EI's resolution does not consistently result in an improved accuracy. EIs with a high resolution are expected to lead to a high score. Yet, the clarity of the EIs relies on the clarity of the produced VPIs. Smaller EIs typically originate from VPIs with higher resolutions compared to those larger EIs (trade-off in resolution), which allows for more information to be presented in the EIs. This ultimately leads to a sharper image, as seen in Table 1. This table displays a single EI on various scales. Although the EI with a resolution of 100 \(\times\) 100 is larger, it is noticeable that the circles on the dice in the EI with a resolution pf 60 \(\times\) 60 are more defined and sharper. As the scale increases, the EI loses more information, resulting in the presence of noisy features. Future research can employ this dataset with many resolutions to construct a multi-resolution pyramid, thereby capturing all the accessible information at each level of resolution. Figure 19: The algorithm was tested on a total of 12 real Holoscopic images. This is a collection of four images showcasing close-up sections to illustrate the disparity between EIs and VPIs. As seen in Figure 21, the MAE values for the methodology across different resolutions reveal varying degrees of accuracy. The MAE for the \(20\times 20\) resolution ranges between 0.673 and 0.804, suggesting a significant amount of errors. For the \(40\times 40\) resolution, the MAE ranges between 0.613 and 0.755, indicating a significantly enhanced performance in comparison to the \(20\times 20\) resolution. The \(60\times 60\) resolution's MAE ranges from 0.430 to 0.650, demonstrating a significant improvement in accuracy compared to the lower resolutions. The MAE for the \(80\times 80\) resolution varies between 0.419 and 0.625, indicating a higher level of precision. At a resolution of \(100\times 100\), the MAE varies between 0.462 and 0.640, suggesting a somewhat lower level of precision compared to the \(80\times 80\) resolution. The PBP for the \(20\times 20\) resolution ranges from 68.8% to 86.1%, suggesting a significant presence of bad pixels. The PBP of the \(40\times 40\) resolution falls within the range of 72.7% \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**EI Slice Resolution** & **20 \(\times\) 20** & **40 \(\times\) 40** & **60 \(\times\) 60** & **80 \(\times\) 80** & **100 \(\times\) 100** \\ \hline Original Resolution & & & & & \\ \hline Scaled-Down (\(20\times 20\)) & & & & & \\ \hline Scaled-Up (\(100\times 100\)) & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: EIs of three different scales, original, down-sampled, and up-sampled. Figure 20: Example of three Holographic images alongside their calculated disparities at various resolutions. Observing the disparity from the low-resolution images is difficult. Consequently, close-up views are offered. to 87.0%, indicating comparable performance to that of the \(20\times 20\) resolution. Moving to \(60\times 60\) resolution, the range is from 49.4% to 66.9%, suggesting a significant reduction in bad pixels compared to the lower levels. With an \(80\times 80\) resolution, the PBP falls between 39.6% and 64.1%, indicating a significant enhancement in performance and a reduction in the number of bad pixels. Finally, at \(100\times 100\) resolution, the range is from 44.7% to 64.3%, exhibiting an accuracy that is slightly lower than \(80\times 80\). Images with a low resolution, such as \(20\times 20\) and \(40\times 40\) images, still have a noticeably reduced accuracy.