1. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT), Japan Taichi Kawano

2.  Conducted subjective quality assessment for ACR, DCR, and DSCQS to compare their stabilities in 3D video  Experimental results showed that ACR is suitable in terms of its stability and assessing time

4. ACR  MCI of ACR for 3D video was larger than that for 2D video.

5. DCR DSCQS  No significant difference in MCI of DCR and DSCQS between 2D and 3D videos.

6.  In DCR and DSCQS, it might be easy for participants to evaluate 3D video quality because there is a reference video  In ACR, it might be difficult for participants to evaluate 3D video quality because they do not have a criterion for evaluating 3D video quality due to lack of viewing experience

9. Normalized MCI of ACR with 24 participants for 2D video

10.  To satisfy the criterion (Normalized MCI < 0.09)  28 people must participate in ACR  23 people must participate in DCR  36 people must participate in DSCQS  DCR is suitable in term of M  However, the assessing time of DCR is twice as long as that of ACR

11.  Assessing time of ACR per participant is T  If “Normalized MCI < 0.09” is needed  ACR requires 28T (T * 28 people)  DCR requires 46T (2T * 23 people)  DSCQS requires 144T (4T * 36 people)  ACR is suitable in term of its stability and assessing time.

12. Propose using ACR with more than 28 participants for 3D video

14. Scores of 42 participants P1 : Score=4 P2 : Score=5 P42 : Score=5 Scores of M participants P1 : Score=4 P2 : Score=5 P42 : Score=5 Randomly select Calculate MCI  Selection and calculation were repeated 15 times  MCI in graph plots average of 15 MCIs