SEMI International Standards
Standards New Activity Report Form (SNARF)
Date Prepared: 03/09/2021Revised (if Applicable):

Document Number: 6737
SNARF for: New Standard: Test Method of Binocular Image Fusion for Augmented Reality Transparent Displays

Originating Global Technical Committee: Flat Panel Display (FPD) - Metrology
Originating TC Chapter: Taiwan
Task Force (TF) in which work is to be carried out: Transparent Display Task Force
Note: If a new task force is needed, also submit a task force organization form (TFOF)

1. Rationale:
a. Describe the need or problem addressed by this activity.
(Indicate the customer, what benefits they will receive, and if possible, quantify the impact on the return on investment [ROI] if the Document is implemented.)
Emergence of the augmented reality (AR) transparent display extends people’s visual experience of conventional 2D contents. There are major types of transparent technology which include projection head-up display, LCDs, OLED, micro-LEDs and EL displays. AR provides illusion that virtual objects exist in a real scene by showing virtual objects superimposed with the surrounding real environment through an AR display. A transparent display has been mostly used for AR device and various studies have been performed to improve its performance.A major impediment to achieving natural images and a key cause of discomfort is the vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC) [1], which is caused by a mismatch between the binocular disparity of an AR image and the optical focus cues provided by the display. In terms of the near-eye displays (NEDs), mainstream strategies [2]for tackling these challenges involve dynamic display mechanisms that can generate accurate visuals in all possible optical depths, which greatly increases the complexity of the display design problem. Other obstacles to widespread adoption of AR NEDs include providing price-wise accessibility, requiring a reasonable amount of computation and power, and providing a thin and a light-weight form factor suitable for daily use.However, the optical measures of rendered stereo AR views may not account forthe perceptual factor such as binocular image fusion impairments, depth reproduction and visual comfort. Therefore, subjective evaluation methods are still widely used in assessing the perceptual attributes of conventional 2D displays and AR displays as well. All of these problems are still waiting to be addressed.

b. Estimate effect on industry.
2: Major effect on an industry sector - identify the relevant sector
Sector or Company Information: Displays

c. Estimate technical difficulty of the activity.
II: Some Difficulty - Disagreements on known requirements exist but developing consensus is possible

2. Scope:
a: Describe the technical areas to be covered or addressed by this Document development activity. For Subordinate Standards, list common concepts or criteria that the Subordinate Standard inherits from the Primary Standard, as well as differences from the Primary Standard:

In this document, we will explore stereoscopic imaging as a standard observer for evaluating the binocular fusion Images on AR displays.The objective quality metrics which incorporate perceptual attributes for conventional 2D video are well exploited in researches such as Bech et al. [3], Pinson and Wolf [4], and Lambrecht and Verscheure [5]. However, the development of quality models for AR display may be difficult as there are a number of perceptual attributes associated with AR perception to be considered. Objective measures, such as mean average difference and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), are widely used in measuring 2D video quality. But the use of such metrics in measuring stereoscopic image quality may not be directly applied because the perceptual attributes of AR images are much different compared to conventional 2D images.In previous study [6], authors proposed a stereo-image enhancement method based on the naked-eye technique developed byOverington [7], and the results indicated that the proposed method improved the perceived depth of image fusion on stereo-displays. Based on those results, the configuration of the stereoscopic imaging as the standard observer will be developed in this test method as well.The structure similarity (SSIM)[8], an often referred objective measure, is then used to analyze the results, and finally a set of the fusion criteria is suggested. The test method uses the structure similarity to measure the objective difference between a real-scene stereo image pair and itscombined AR stereo image pair.This opens a path towards building much simpler optical AR transparent display test methods driven by the needs of specific AR applications.References[1]D. M. Hoffman, A. R. Girshick, K. Akeley, and M. S. Banks. Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of vision, 8(3):33–33, 2008.[2]H. Hua. Enabling focus cues inhead-mounted displays. Proceedings of the IEEE, 105(5):805–824, 2017.[3]S. Bech, R. Hamberg, M. Nijenhuis, C. Teunissen, H.L. de Jong, P. Houben and S.K. Pramanik,
3Feb2020"The RaPID perceptural image description method (RsPID)," Proc. SPIE, 2657, 317-328 (1996).[4]M. Pinson and S. Wolf, "A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality," IEEE Trans. Broadcasting, 50(3), 312-322 (2004).[5]C.J.B. Lambrecht and O. Verscheure, "Perceptual quality measure using a spatio-temporal model of the human visual system," Proc. SPIE, 2668, 450-461 (1996).[6]C.H. Wen, Y.H. Li, N. Chang and H. Tsao, "Comfort fusion evaluations of a stereo image pair using the structure similarity," IDW2013, 1031-1032 (2013).[7]I. Overington, "Naked eye 3D perception from conventional 2D displays.pdf", available from (2011).[8]Z. Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh and E. P. Simoncelli, "Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity," IEEE Trans. Image Process., 13(4), 600-612 (2004).

b: Expected result of activity
New Standard or Safety Guideline (including replacement of an existing Standard or Safety Guideline)

For a new Subordinate Standard, identify the Primary Standard here:

For Standards, identify the Standard Subtype below:
Test Method

Miscellaneous (describe below):

3. Projected Timetable for Completion:

a: General Milestones
a. Activity Start: 02/05/2021b. 1st Draft by: 03/01/2022
c. (Optional) Informational Ballot by: d. Letter Ballot by: 07/30/2022
e. TC Chapter Approval By:10/31/2022

4. Liaisons with other Global Technical Committees/TC Chapters/Subcommittees/TFs:
List SEMI global technical committees, TC Chapters, subcommittees, or task forces in your or other Regions/Locales that should be kept informed regarding the progress of this activity. (Refer to SEMI Standards organization charts and global technical committee charters and scopes as needed.)
Japan FPD Metrology / Materials & Components CommitteeKorea FPD Metrology Committee

b. List any planned Type I Liaisons with external nonprofit organizations (e.g., SDO) that should receive Draft Documents from Standards staff for feedback during this activity and be notified when the Letter Ballot is issued (refer to Procedure Manual 7):

c. Intercommittee Ballots:
will not be issued

Identify the recipient global technical committee(s):

5. Safety Considerations:
The resulting document is expected:
NOT to be a Safety Guideline

NOTE FOR "to be a Safety Guideline": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is NOT technically sound and complete - Refer to Section 15.1 of the Regulations for special procedures to be followed.

NOTE FOR "NOT to be a Safety Guideline": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is still technically sound and complete.

6. Intellectual Property Considerations:
a. For a new Standard or Safety Guideline and for any part to be modified or added in a Revision of published Standards and Safety Guidelines:
the use of patented technology is NOT required.

If "patented technology is intended to be included in the proposed Standard(s) or Safety Guideline(s) " is selected above, then also check one:

b. For Revision, Reapproval, Reinstatement, or Withdrawal of existing Standard(s) and Safety Guideline(s):

c. The body of the Document and any Appendices, Complementary Files, Related Information sections, or Various Materials that may or may not be a part of the Document by reference:
the incorporation of Copyrighted Item will NOT be required

NOTE FORthe use of patented technology or the incorporation of Copyrighted Item(s) is NOT required’: If in the course of developing the Document, it is determined that the use of patented technology or Copyrighted Item(s) is necessary for the Document, the provisions of Regulations 16 must be followed.

NOTE FORwill incorporate Copyrighted Item’: A copyright release letter must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to publication.

7. Comments, Special Circumstances:

8. TC Member Review:

Member Review Start Date; 1/14/2021
Member Review End Date: 1/28/2021

NOTE FOR ‘TC Member Review’ is required by the Regulations for a period of at least two weeks
before approval of a new, or a major revision of an existing, Standard or Safety Guideline. (Refer to Regulations 8.2.1)

9. SNARF Approval Dates:
TC Chapter or GCS02/05/2021
Recorded in TC Minutes02/05/2021


10. SNARF Extension Dates:
TC Chapter Extension Granted on
Extension Expires on
SNARF_FPD-TW_FD_Test Method of binocular image fusion for transparent displays-Dec2020.docSNARF_FPD-TW_FD_Test Method of binocular image fusion for transparent displays-Dec2020.docSNARF_FPD-TW_FD_Test Method of binocular image fusion for transparent displays-Dec2020.pdfSNARF_FPD-TW_FD_Test Method of binocular image fusion for transparent displays-Dec2020.pdf