Paper Selection Process and Abstract Submission Examples

New Two-Phase Process: Abstracts Due March 10 and Full Manuscripts for Shortlisted Entries Due July 10, With Final Paper Selection by Early August

With this year's call for papers, the Society has introduced a new two-phase submission and review process designed to enhance the quality above the already high standard for SMPTE 2020 presentations and to increase the opportunity for publication in the SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal.The first phase is the submission of abstracts and program committee selection of a shortlist of preliminary acceptances. The second phase of the selection process requires submission of final manuscripts. Final committee review occurs during the second phase of the process with the result being a subset of submitted manuscripts being selected for the program. All submitted manuscripts are peer-reviewed for possible publication in the SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, including those not accepted for the conference.

In the first phase of this new selection process, which begins January 15 and extends until March 10, SMPTE will accept abstract submissions. The SMPTE 2020 program committee will review these submissions and create a shortlist of preliminary acceptances by April 20. Authors will be notified of their abstract's status shortly after April 20.

In the second phase of this process, authors whose abstracts were shortlisted will be required to submit full manuscripts between April 20 and July 10 for committee review. SMPTE will notify authors of final committee decisions on or before August 10. All submitted manuscripts will go through peer review for possible publication in the award-winning SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal.

Annual Technical Conference Call for Technical Paper Proposals

Submit Abstract Here

Abstract Example 1:

Objective color difference metrics are the main tools for evaluating the color accuracy of professional reference monitors in the content creation industry. They are also vital for consumers who calibrate their displays with a desire to maintain the creators' intent when viewing films, TV shows, and even the latest video games. Accurate predictions of perceptual color differences are essential to providing a realistic evaluation of a device’s color reproduction.

ΔE2000 has been the industry standard for assessing perceptual color differences, but high dynamic range (HDR) and wide color gamut (WCG) display technologies have revealed inaccuracies in the formula’s predictions. It has since been encouraged to adopt a new color difference metric, ΔICTCP, which has been shown to provide accurate color difference predictions of colors in standard dynamic range (SDR) and these extended regions when compared to experimental just-noticeable difference (JND) threshold data sets. In January 2019, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) released Recommendation ITU-R BT.2124 “Objective metric for the assessment of the potential visibility of colourdifference in television." This ITU document defines ΔICTCP as the next generation of color difference metrics and is now officially known as ΔEITP.

Given this new recommendation, it is important that we become familiar with how ΔEITP performs in practice and what can be expected when using it in existing workflows. In this paper, we will provide real world examples of using this new color difference metric for the calibration of professional SDR and HDR mastering displays, client monitors, as well as premium consumer televisions. We will also highlight the performance differences we find when comparing ΔEITP to the incumbent industry standard, ΔE2000. Lastly, we will examine whether the industry is ready to quickly adopt ΔEITP, and what steps should be taken in education to help ensure a smooth transition to a metric that was designed specifically for HDR and WCG technologies.

Abstract Example 2:

Advancements in cinema and display technologies have allowed for wider color gamuts to become realizable.  With this, these technologies have the capability to support and reproduce highly-saturated color content.  It is important to remember, though, that the ability to produce colors with an extremely-high chroma component is strictly a capability of the technology and not a necessity that the image content must follow.  In short, the decision to utilize the expanded gamut available in advanced cinema technologies is at the discretion of the creative forces behind the project.  There are a number of different factors that can contribute to the creative color decisions made for motion pictures, with the primary factor being the aesthetic nature of the content produced.  Through creative-preference assessments of saturation adjustments in various image content, the value of the expanded color gamut in motion picture mastering was assessed.  Three images of comparable chroma histograms were utilized in the study to feature human skin tones, animated characters, and natural scenery, respectively.  Upon being adjusted, each image was rendered with color content outside of the boundaries of the DCI-P3 gamut. A two-alternative-forced choice psychophysical study was conducted to estimate observer preference of the saturation levels in each image.  From the observers’ selections, the reaction to the expanded image saturation in the three images was plotted and assessed for statistical significance. Through this study, it was found that there is a preference to incorporate colors exclusive to wider color gamuts that extend past the boundaries of Rec. 709 and DCI-P3.  It was also confirmed that the medium in which the content was generated has an effect on the level of saturation preferred.  Overall, this research provides a look into how technical capability and artistic vision can be connected.     

Keywords: cinema, display, wide color gamut, saturation, extremely-high chroma, creative, preference, two-alternative-forced-choice, psychophysical study.