In-Capture Mobile Video Distortions: A Study of Subjective Behavior and Objective Algorithms
Abstract
Digital videos often contain visual distortions that are introduced by the camera's hardware or processing software during the capture process. These distortions often detract from a viewer's quality of experience. Understanding how human observers perceive the visual quality of digital videos is of great importance to camera designers. Thus, the development of automatic objective methods that accurately quantify the impact of visual distortions on perception has greatly accelerated. Video quality algorithm design and verification require realistic databases of distorted videos and human judgments of them. However, most current publicly available video quality databases have been created under highly controlled conditions using graded, simulated, and post-capture distortions (such as jitter and compression artifacts) on high-quality videos. The commercial plethora of hand-held mobile video capture devices produces videos often afflicted by a variety of complex distortions generated during the capturing process. These in-capture distortions are not well-modeled by the synthetic, post-capture distortions found in existing VQA databases. Toward overcoming this limitation, we designed and created a new database that we call the LIVE-Qualcomm mobile in-capture video quality database, comprising a total of 208 videos, which model six common in-capture distortions. We also conducted a subjective quality assessment study using this database, in which each video was assessed by 39 unique subjects. Furthermore, we evaluated several top-performing no-reference IQA and VQA algorithms on the new database and studied how real-world in-capture distortions challenge both human viewers as well as automatic perceptual quality prediction models. The new database is freely available at: http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/incaptureDatabase/index.html.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CVD2014 and LIVE-Qualcomm only modeled capture distortions on small numbers of not very diverse unique contents.
“These two databases, however, only modeled (camera) capture distortions on small numbers of not very diverse unique contents.”
From UGC-VQA: Benchmarking Blind Video Quality Assessment for User Generated Content (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 154
- Authors
- Ghadiyaram, D., Pan, J., Bovik, A. C., Moorthy, A. K., Panda, P., & Yang, K.-C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Qualcomm (United States) (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2061-2077
- ISSN
- 1051-8215 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2205
- OpenAlex
- W2617811665
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Qualcomm
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- video quality assessment, no-reference image quality assessment, video quality database, subjective quality assessment, visual perception, perceptual quality prediction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review