Image Processing Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 4.1 BD-rate variations
for state-of-the-art
and proposed structures
compared to basic
anchor—with 3
Coast 3
3
Spiral
Perpendicular
Diagonal
IPP
1.2%
2.2%
5.1%
3 views
IBP
9.1%
7.1%
11.4%
Hierarchical
3.0%
4.4%
8.4%
Method [
48
]
2.1%
Method [
47
]
6.8%
CENTRAL2D
7.1%
Akko 3
3
Spiral
Perpendicular
Diagonal
IPP
4.9%
5.5%
8.8%
IBP
2.7%
4.0%
1.9%
Hierarchical
1.9%
2.4%
4.0%
Method [
48
]
7.8%
Method [
47
]
7.7%
CENTRAL2D
8.2%
Table 4.2 BD-rate variations
for state-of-the-art
and proposed structures
compared to basic
anchor—with 11
5 views
Coast 11
5
Spiral
Perpendicular
Diagonal
IPP
20.5%
19.6%
16.1%
IBP
15.9%
14.9%
13.9%
Hierarchical
8.4%
9.3%
13.0%
Method [
48
]
19.5%
24.4%
Method [
47
]
CENTRAL2D
29.1%
Akko 11
5
Spiral
Perpendicular
Diagonal
IPP
22.9%
24.8%
6.5%
20.0%
23.4%
2.4%
IBP
Hierarchical
14.9%
20.2%
3.7%
Method [
48
]
24.2%
Method [
47
]
25.9%
CENTRAL2D
27.6%
with respect to the reference at the same quality, hence negative values represent
gains of the proposed technique.
Table
4.1
shows that
Central2D
scheme, method [
47
], and IPP structure with
perpendicular and spiral scan outperform the other methods for both sequences with
a3
3 views configuration. These schemes minimize the distance between the
coding views and the inter-view reference pictures and do not use diagonal inter-
view reference pictures.
Central2D
has an additional gain due to the use of both
horizontal and vertical inter-view reference pictures. Table
4.2
shows that
Central2D
is the most coherent and efficient configuration also with a larger
