Size does matter: how image size affects aesthetic perception?

ABSTRACT

There is no doubt that an image's content determines how people assess the image aesthetically. Previous works have shown that image contrast, saliency features, and the composition of objects may jointly determine whether or not an image is perceived as aesthetically pleasing. In addition to an image's content, the way the image is presented may affect how much viewers appreciate it. For example, it may be assumed that a picture will always look better when it is displayed in a larger size. Is this "the-bigger-the-better" rule always valid? If not, in what situations is it invalid?

In this paper, we investigate how an image's resolution (pixels) and physical dimensions (inches) affect viewers' appreciation of it. Based on a large-scale aesthetic assessments of 100 images displayed in a variety of resolutions and physical dimensions, we show that an image's size significantly affects its aesthetic rating in a complicated way. Normally a picture looks better when it is bigger, but it may look worse depending on its content. We develop a set of regression models to predict a picture's absolute and relative aesthetic levels at a given display size based on its content and compositional features. In addition, we analyze the essential features that lead to the size-dependent property of image aesthetics. It is hoped that this work will motivate further research by showing that both content and presentation should be considered when evaluating an image's aesthetic appeals.

References

1. A. Bosch, A. Zisserman, and X. Munoz. Representing shape with a spatial pyramid kernel. In Proceedings of CIVR, pages 401--408, 2007.
2. K.-T. Chen, C.-C. Wu, Y.-C. Chang, and C.-L. Lei. A crowdsourceable QoE evaluation framework for multimedia content. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2009, 2009.
3. R. Datta, D. Joshi, J. Li, and J. Wang. Studying aesthetics in photographic images using a computational approach. In Proceedings of ECCV, pages 288--301, 2006.
4. R. Datta and J. Wang. ACQUINE: Aesthetic quality inference engine -- real-time automatic rating of photo aesthetics. In Proceedings of MIR, pages 421--424, 2010.
5. S. de Jong. SIMPLS: an alternative approach to partial least squares regression. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 18:251--263, 1993.
6. S. Dhar, V. Ordonez, and T. Berg. High level describable attributes for predicting aesthetics and interestingness. In Proceedings of CVPR, pages 1657--1664, 2011.
7. Y. Ke, X. Tang, and F. Jing. The design of high-level features for photo quality assessment. In Proceedings of CVPR, pages 419--426, 2006.
8. C. Li and T. Chen. Aesthetic visual quality assessment of paintings. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 3(2):236--252, 2009.
9. L. Liu, R. Chen, and D. Cohen-Or. Optimizing photo composition. Eurographics, 29(2):469--478, 2010.
10. W. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang. Content-based photo quality assessment. In Proceedings of ICCV, pages 2206--2213, 2011.
11. B. Manjunath and M.-Y. Ma. Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(8):837--842, 1996.
12. X. Sun, H. Yao, R. Ji, and S. Liu. Photo assessment based on computational visual attention model. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, pages 541--544, 2009.
13. H. Tong, M. Li, H. Zhang, J. He, and C. Zhang. Classification of digital photos taken by photographers or home users. In Proceedings of PCM, 2004.
14. L.-K. Wong and K.-L. Low. Saliency-enhanced image aesthetics class prediction. In Proceedings of ICIP, pages 997--1000, 2009.
15. O. Wu, W. Hu, and J. Gao. Learning to predict the perceived visual quality of photos. In Proceedings of ICCV, pages 225--232, 2011.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics

    • Graphics systems and interfaces

      • Perception