Do experts and naive observers judge printing quality differently?

Luke Chengwu Cui

doi:10.1117/12.525845

Translator Disclaimer

18 December 2003 Do experts and naive observers judge printing quality differently?

Luke Chengwu Cui

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 5294, Image Quality and System Performance; (2003) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.525845
Event: Electronic Imaging 2004, 2004, San Jose, California, United States

Abstract

We theorize that there may be four types of differences (I, II, III, IV) between the expert observers and the naive observers when judging printing quality. Using data from a printing quality competitiveness study, we show that the expert observers may judge printing quality differently from naive observers depending on the test image and the specific printing defects the samples may have. We use correlation coefficients of the rank scores of samples to reveal various degrees of disagreement between the two groups for all the samples of an image. Significance test of each individual pair of samples were used to identify those pairs that have the largest discrepancy for each image when judged by the two groups. The visual differences between the samples were also analyzed. We further used scaled values distribution plots generated by bootstrap to explicitly show the differences both in printing quality ranking and attributes ranking. For the samples in this study, there was good agreement between the two groups for color images when engine artifacts were least obvious, making the type I and type III difference unlikely. For the mono print, the two groups ranked the samples differently in many pairings and ranked them in opposite directions. The data show that the expert group tended to weigh on engine printing artifacts more than the naive group, indicating the type IV difference.

Citation Download Citation

Luke Chengwu Cui "Do experts and naive observers judge printing quality differently?", Proc. SPIE 5294, Image Quality and System Performance, (18 December 2003); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.525845

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE