Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the desirability of content on viewers’ ratings of subjective video quality. Background: Most subjective video quality studies use short-duration clips that are specially designed to exercise the encoding algorithms and do not consider the desirability of the content as a variable. Method: In four studies, we employed a total of 100 participants and 180 movie clips encoded at nine levels from 550 kbps up to DVD quality. Participants viewed clips that were 2 min in length and then were asked about video quality of the clips and desirability of the movie content. Results: The results of these studies show that there is a strong correlation between the desirability of movie content and subjective ratings of video quality. This strong relationship holds across a wide range of encoding levels and movie content when that content is viewed under longer, more naturalistic viewing conditions. Conclusion: The effects of content should be considered when evaluating the subjective quality of encoded video content, as these effects can be as large as those seen between low- and high-quality encodings. Application: Researchers and practitioners trying to determine acceptable levels of video quality for actual consumption by consumers may find that the results and methods described here allow for a more accurate assessment of levels of video quality that are acceptable in a fielded service.
Adams, W.J. ( 2000). How people watch television as investigated using focus group techniques. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 44, 78-93.
2.
Alpert, T., & Evain, J.P. ( 1997). Single stimulus continuous quality evaluation. EBU Technical Review, 271, 12-20.
3.
Choi, H., Jeong, T., & Lee, C. ( 2009). Subjective video quality comparison using various displays . Optical Engineering, 48(3), 037002-037002-11.
4.
Corriveau, P., & Webster, A. ( 1999). VQEG evaluation of objective video quality assessment . SMPTE Journal, 108, 645-648.
5.
Garlin, F.V., & McGuiggan, R.L. (2002). Sex, spies and celluloid: Movie content, preference, choice and involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 427-445.
6.
Gilroy, T., Reuther, S. (Executive Producers) & Hackford, T. (Director). (2000). Proof of Life [Motion picture].United States: Castle Rock Entertainment.
7.
Hamberg, R., & De Ritter, H. ( 1999). Time-varying image quality: Modeling the relation between instantaneous and overall quality. SMPTE Journal, 108, 802-811.
8.
Henderson, J.M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception . Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243-271.
9.
International Telecommunications Union. (2008 ). Recommendation ITU-T P.910: Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-RECP.910-200804-I!!PDF-E&type=items
10.
International Telecommunications Union. (2009 ). Recommendation ITU-R BT.500-12: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Geneva , Switzerland: Author.
11.
Kortum, P., & Sullivan, M.A. (2004). Content is king: The effect of content on the perception of video quality. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 1910-1914). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
12.
Lang, A. ( 2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing . Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.
13.
Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R.F., & Kawahara, K. ( 1999). The effects of production pacing and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43, 451-475.
14.
Munson, D.C. ( 1996). A note on Lena. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 5, 3.
15.
Nathan, J.G., Anderson, D.R., Field, D.E., & Collins, P. ( 1985). Television viewing at home distances and visual angles of children and adults. Human Factors, 27, 467-476.
16.
Nielsen Company. ( 2009). Television, Internet and mobile usage in the U. S.: A2/M2 three screen report (Vol. 5, pp. 1-5). Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/3ScreenQ209_USRpt_final.pdf
17.
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. ( 1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35, 250-256.
18.
Pinson, M.H., & Wolf, S. ( 2003). Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. In Touradj Ebrahimi and Thomas Sikora (Eds.), Proceedings of SPIE: Vol. 5150.Visual communications and image processing (VCIP ’03) (pp. 573-582). Bellingham, WA: SPIE (The International Society for Optical Engineering).
19.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C.I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Sandoval, G. (2009, April 6). "YouTube, Sony Pictures in talks over feature films." Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10212585-93.html
21.
Simons, R.F., Detenber, B.H., Cuthbert, B.N., Schwartz, D.D., & Reiss, J.E. ( 2003). Attention to television: Alpha power and its relationship to image motion and emotional content. Media Psychology, 5, 283-301.
22.
Simpson, D., Bruckheimer, J. (Producers) & Scott, T. (Director). (1986). Top Gun [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.
23.
Smith, M.E., & Gevins, A. ( 2004). Attention and brain activity while watching television: Components of viewer engagement. Media Psychology, 6, 285-305.
24.
Sullivan, M., Pratt, J., & Kortum, P. ( 2008). Practical issues in subjective video quality evaluation: Human factors vs. psychophysical image quality evaluation. In Judith Masthoff, Sheri Panabaker , Marc Sullivan, and Artur Lugmayr (Eds.), ACM International Conference Proceeding Series: Vol. 291. Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video (pp. 1-4). New York : Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
Thorndike, E.L. ( 1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.
26.
Thorson, E. ( 1994). Using eyes on screen as a measure of attention to television . In A. Lang (Ed.), measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 65-84). London, England: Routledge.
27.
Van Sijll, J. ( 2007). Cinematic storytelling: The 100 most powerful film conventions every filmmaker must know. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions.
28.
Video Quality Experts Group. (2003). Final report from the Video Quality Experts Group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment. Retrieved from http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/projects/frtv_phaseII/downloads/VQEGII_Final_Report.pdf
29.
Weber, A.G. ( 2006). The USC-SIPI image database: Version 5 (USC-SIPI Report No. 315). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Viterbi School of Engineering, Signal and Image Processing Institute. Retrieved from http://sipi.usc.edu/database/SIPI_Database.pdf
30.
Yarbus, A.L. ( 1967). Eye movements and vision. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
31.
YouTube. (2009, October 9). Y,000,000,000uTube. Retrieved from http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/10/y000000000utube.html
