Model-based error diffusion for high

fidelity lenticular screening

Daniel L. Lau and Trebor Smith

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0046
dllau@engr.uky.edu

Trebor Smith
Satori Vision Inc., 14395 Terrapin Station, Belle Haven, VA 23306
tsmith@satorivision.com

Abstract: Digital halftoning is the process of converting a continuous-

tone image into an arrangement of black and white dots for binary display
devices such as digital ink-jet and electrophotographic printers. As printers
are achieving print resolutions exceeding 1,200 dots per inch, it is becoming
increasingly important for halftoning algorithms to consider the variations
and interactions in the size and shape of printed dots between neighboring
pixels. In the case of lenticular screening where statistically independent
images are spatially multiplexed together, ignoring these variations and
interactions, such as dot overlap, will result in poor lenticular image
quality. To this end, we describe our use of model-based error-diffusion for
the lenticular screening problem where statistical independence between
component images is achieved by restricting the diffusion of error to only
those pixels of the same component image where, in order to avoid in-
stabilities, the proposed approach involves a novel error-clipping procedure.
© 2006 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (100.2810) Halftone image reproduction; (090.2870) Holographic display.

References and links

1. F. X. Didik, “A brief history of stereo images, printing and photography from 1692-2001,” Tech. Rep.,
Didik.com/Vari-Vue.com, 2001.
2. M. Lake, “An art form that’s precise but friendly enough to wink,” New York Times, G11, May 20, 1999.
3. R. A. Ulichney, “Dithering with blue noise,” Proc. of the IEEE 76, 56–79 (1988).
4. J. E. Adamcewicz, “A study on the effects of dot gain, print contrast and tone reproduction as it relates to
increased solid ink density on stochastically screened images with conventionally screened images,” M.S. thesis,
Rochester Institute of Technology, 1994.
5. M. Rodriguez, “Graphic arts perspective on digital halftoning,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital
Display V, B. E. Rogowitz and J. P. Allebach, eds., Proc. SPIE 2179, pp. 144–149 (1994).
6. M. Rodriguez, “Promises and pitfalls of stochastic screening in the graphic arts industry,” IS&T’s Eighth Inter-
national Congress on Advances in Non-Impact Printing Technologies, 1992.
7. D. L. Lau and G. R. Arce, Modern Digital Halftoning, (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 2001).
8. P. Fink, PostScript Screening: Adobe Accurate Screens, (Adobe Press, Mountain View, Calif., 1992).
9. R. W. Floyd and L. Steinberg, “An adaptive algorithm for spatial gray-scale,” Proceedings Society Information
Display 17, 75–78 (1976).
10. P. Stucki, “Mecca-a multiple-error correcting computation algorithm for bilevel image hardcopy reproduction,”
Tech. Rep. RZ1060, IBM Research Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, 1981.
11. R. A. Ulichney, Digital Halftoning, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).
12. T. P. Goggins, “Method of producing multidimensional lithographic separations free of moire interference,” U.S.
Patent No. 5,488,451 assigned to National Graphics, Inc., 1996.

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3214
 13. T. P. Goggins, “Method of producing a multidimensional composite image,” U.S. Patent No. 5,847,808 assigned
to National Graphics, Inc., 1998.
14. T. P. Goggins, “Method of producing multidimensional lithographic separations free of moire interference,” U.S.
Patent No. 5,617,178 assigned to National Graphics, Inc., 2002.
15. M. Pilu, “Halftoning of lenticular images,” U.S. Patent Application No. 20,030,011,824 filed by Hewlett Packard
Co., January 2003.
16. K. Yano, “Image forming system, apparatus, and method,” U.S. Patent Application No. 20,030,067,638 filed by
Canon Kabushik Kaisha, April 2003.
17. K. Iwano, H. Akahori, K. Nobori, K. Kayashima, M. Fujimoto, and Y. Kawamata, “Image printer for controlling
the shape of pixels based upon correlation values,” U.S. Patent No. 6,459,470 filed by Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd., October 2002.
18. P. G. Roetling and T. M. Holladay, “Tone reproduction and screen design for pictorial electrophotographic
printing,” J. Appl. Photogr. Eng. 15, 179–182 (1979).
19. T. N. Pappas and D. L. Neuhoff, “Printer models and error diffusion,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. 4, 66–79
(1995).
20. J. H. Kim, T. I. Chung, H. S. Kim, K. S. Son, and Y. S. Kim, “A new edge-enhanced error diffusion algorithm
based on the error sum criterion,” J. Electron. Imaging 4, 172–178 (1995).
21. F. A. Baqai and J. P. Allebach, “Halftoning via direct binary search using analytical and stochastic printer model,”
IEEE Trans. Image Process 12, 1–12 (2003).
22. S. Wang, K. T. Knox, and N. George, “Novel centering method for overlapping correction in halftoning,” in Re-
cent Progress in Digital Halftoning, R. Eschbach, ed., (Society for Imaging Science and Technology, Springfield,
VA, 1994), pp. 56–60.
23. T. N. Pappas, C. Dong, and D. L. Neuhoff, “Measurement of printer parameters for model-based halftoning,” J.
Electron. Imaging 2, 193–204 (1993).
24. M. Broja, R. Eschbach, and O. Bryngdahl, “Stability of active binarization processes,” Opt. Commun. 60,
353–358 (1985).
25. S. Weissbach and F. Wyrowski, “Numerical stability of the error diffusion concept,” Opt. Commun. 93, 151–155
(1992).
26. Z. Fan, “Stability analysis of error diffusion,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics,
Speech, and Signal Processing, (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1993), pp. 321–
324.
27. Z. Fan, “Stability analysis of color error diffusion,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Electronic Imaging
Science and Technology, (Society for Imaging Science and Technology, Springfield, VA, 2000), pp. 483–488

1. Introduction
Lenticular screening refers to a print technology where multiple images are spatially multi-
plexed and then printed onto the flat side of a plastic, lenticular lens array such that only a
single image is visible when viewed from any particular incident angle (Fig. 1). Assuming the
screen is viewed with the lens axes vertically arranged, the screen forms a stereoscopic array
where each eye sees a unique image thus creating the illusion of depth. As such, the compo-
nent images are typically of a 3-D scene viewed from a sliding camera (Fig. 2), but dissimilar
images are sometimes used to create a scene-wipe effect. Now although stereoscopic imaging
can be traced back to Sir Charles Wheatstone and the invention of the stereoscope in 1838
and even back to 1692 and the French painter Gois-Clair [1], it wasn’t until the 1940s that
lenticular imaging became of commercial interest with the introduction of inexpensive manu-
facturing processes for plastic, lenticular sheets [2]. Today, lenticular printing is now commonly
performed using lithographic presses printing directly to the plastic lens arrays. There is also
significant interest in printing directly on sheets with hexagonally packed lens arrays.
For digital halftoning where a continuous-tone original image is converted to a binary rep-
resentation for printing, lenticular screening creates a unique and challenging set of problems.
Traditionally, halftoning converts an image into binary dots arranged either as a regular grid
of round dot clusters that vary in size according to tone or as a stochastic arrangement of iso-
lated dots varying in their spacing. In the case of a periodic arrangement, halftoning schemes
are generally referred to as amplitude modulated (AM) halftoning where dark shades of gray
are represented by large, black dot clusters and light shades by small clusters. In the case of

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3215
 1. Images are divided into
strips and are interlaced

3. The lenticule isolates and

A B together into one graphic.

magnifies the interlaced image 2. The graphic is printed

beneath it, determined by the directly on the back of an
y
angle of observation rra
sa
c le
n extruded lens array.
sti
pla
ed
ud
E x tr
Animation

4. If the lenticules run vertically,

3D/Binocular
a different image can be delivered
Disparity
to each eye to create a 3D image.

Fig. 1. Illustration of the lenticular imaging process (provided by http://www.lenstar.org).

aperiodic patterns, halftoning schemes are generally referred to as frequency modulated (FM)
halftoning where dark shades of gray are represented by a tight packing of printed black dots
and light shades by a loose packing.
Frequency modulated techniques are generally considered to be the preferred approach due
to the lower visibility of the isolated pixels, as opposed to clusters, and to aperiodic textures,
as opposed to regular grids [3]. Because these techniques achieve a higher apparent resolution
than AM, FM halftoning is also commonly referred to as high fidelity halftoning. But because
dots are isolated, FM halftones are much more susceptible to distortions caused by variations
in the size and shape of printed dots [4–6]. As such, only predictable printing processes like
ink-jet devices can employ these techniques.
Amplitude modulation, by clustering pixels, creates patterns less susceptible to distortions
caused by dot variability as clustering greatly improves the consistency in the size and shape of
printed dots [7]. As such, AM techniques are sometimes the only techniques that can be used
in unreliable devices such a electrophotographic (laser) printers. AM halftoning is also used in
highly reliable devices where the device resolution in terms of dot addressability (i.e. 10,000
dots per inch) is much greater than the resolution in terms of printed dot size (i.e. 10 micron spot
size). For these devices, the corresponding AM screens can achieve higher screen frequencies
than the apparent resolution of the FM screens because printed dots, placed side-by-side, result
in a dot area only slight larger than a single, isolated dot. As such, AM screens can address a
multitude more unique gray-levels per unit area than a FM screen.
Now for lenticular imaging, the image to be halftoned is formed by splicing the columns
of the component images, and because of the manner of packing multiple views/images into
a single print, the apparent resolution is reduced along the horizontal axis by a factor equal
to the number of views. As such, there is an even greater need for the screening technique to
maximize the apparent resolution of a given device but to do so without introducing spatial
correlation between columns from neighboring views, where the printed status of a pixel in
one column affects the resulting printed tone of pixels in neighboring columns. AM halftoning
would, therefore, seem inappropriate given the lower apparent resolution of AM screens and the

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3216
 Fig. 2. The component images of a lenticular image as seen through a lenticular lens array.

manner in which AM halftoning divides the composite image into halftone cells that are then
replaced with a cluster representing the average gray-level for the entire block [8], irrespective
of the image content within the cell.
Frequency modulated halftoning, through error-diffusion [9], would seem an appropriate
screening technique for lenticular imaging because of its behavior to isolate printed dots, but
the manner in which quantization error is diffused into neighboring pixels has unwanted conse-
quences given the fact that neighboring pixels may be from different component images. Pixels
in the halftone image will, therefore, be correlated when the corresponding pixels are statisti-
cally independent in the continuous-tone, composite image. A demonstration of the effects of
error-diffusion halftoning, using the 12-weight Stucki [10] filter and a serpentine raster [11],
of the composite images can be seen in Fig. 3 where we show the simulated visual response
to a 12-frame, lenticular image sequence with streaking artifacts most visible in the first frame
where a white text string is visible across the top of the image. This white logo is the result of
dot suppression caused by the black letters from the last frame of the sequence. Streaking arti-
facts are also visible in the first frame to the left and right of the central dolphin where extreme
gray-level pixels, of the neighboring channel, show up as a negative image blended with the
current view.
In addressing these halftoning issues, the best source of information regarding lenticular
halftoning is, perhaps, the patent literature where just some of the many works include that of
Goggins [12–14], Pilu [15], Yano [16], and of Iwano et al [17]. A work of particular importance
is that of Goggins who describes a lenticular printing system where the component images are
reduced in size (number of pixels) along the horizontal axis and then halftoned. The columns of
each component halftoned image are then spatially multiplexed together such that the nth col-
umn of each component image falls under the nth lens. This technique is demonstrated in Fig. 4
where the composite images, generated by means of error diffusion prior to being spatially

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3217
 Fig. 3. The component images of a lenticular image as seen through a lenticular lens array
where error diffusion has been applied after spatial multiplexing.

Fig. 4. The component images of a lenticular image as seen through a lenticular lens array
where error diffusion has been applied prior to spatial multiplexing.

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3218
 Fig. 5. The component images of a lenticular image as seen through a lens array, using a
printed dot model, where error diffusion has been applied prior to spatial multiplexing with
tone correction.

multiplexed together, show an almost perfect rendition of the original sequence of Fig. 2.
Now unlike the works of Goggins that recognize the need to maintain statistical indepen-
dence between pixels of separate component images, we also recognize that printer distortions,
such as dot-overlap and dot-loss, will create correlations/interactions between consecutive pix-
els regardless of the underlying image content. An illustration of this correlation can be seen in
Fig. 5 where we show the images produced by error-diffusion using a printed-dot model [18,19]
and where tone correction [11] has been applied prior to halftoning. From visual inspection, the
overlap of printed dots into neighboring channels creates a ghost image most visible above and
below the text string. So from this, we realize that traditional tone correction is incapable of
accounting for printer variations in lenticular prints because these techniques rely upon an as-
sumed distribution of dots at each gray-level. As such given a particular pixel’s gray-level in
a traditional application, we can easily predict what the average tone level will be around that
pixel in the final output from prior measurements and, hence, we will alter that pixel’s gray-
level through a reverse table look-up procedure such that we get our desired tone in the printed
output. By halftoning each component image independently, we cannot reliably predict how
much ink will overlap from the neighboring pixel columns and, as such, don’t know how to
alter the current pixel’s gray-level such that the total ink coverage within the pixel column will
be equal to the input gray level.
In light of the artifacts created by non-ideal printing devices, this paper describes our work
with lenticular halftoning that delineates itself on this later premise of printed-dot interactions.
In particular, this paper focuses on our use of model-based error-diffusion as a means of max-
imizing the apparent resolution within each component image by creating an aperiodic pattern
of isolated dots, taking into account the size and shape of printed dots (even isolated ones) when

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3219
 y[n]

x[n] + ~
y[n]
DOT
Σ MODEL
+
+ -
Σ
xe[n] ye[n]
b

Fig. 6. Model-based error-diffusion.

diffusing quantization error between pixels. Model-based error-diffusion was first introduced by
Pappas and Neuhoff [19] who used the hard, circular-dot model of Roetling and Holladay [18]
to predict the resulting gray-level of each halftone pixel after printing. This predicted gray-level
was then used to determine the quantization error to be diffused into soon-to-be-processed pix-
els as opposed to assuming binary black or white levels.
In order to minimize the correlation between consecutive columns of lenticular images, we
will make use of specially modified error filters such that the quantization error for any par-
ticular pixel is only diffused to neighboring input pixels of that same component image. But
this diffusion technique creates instabilities in areas where component images differ widely in
their gray-levels. As such, we will describe a novel technique for clipping the quantization er-
ror such that error does not build up over many pixels. The excess error, beyond the clipping
threshold, will not be discarded as proposed by Kim [20] but, instead, will be diffused into
the input gray-levels of the nearest neighboring pixels regardless of which component image
they belong. The effect of this diffusion is to lighten the gray-levels of the neighboring pixels,
and by brightening these neighboring pixels who are responsible for limiting the gamut of the
currently processed pixel, we hope to reduce the gamut reduction. This, of course, introduces
reverse ghosting, but the assumption here is that we need to eliminate the instability in error
diffusion and that introducing mild to moderate reverse ghosting in dark image regions is better
than severe ghosting in bright regions.

2. Model-based error-diffusion
Introduced in 1976, Floyd and Steinberg’s error-diffusion [9] is a neighborhood filtering process
that converts a continuous-tone image pixel x[n] into a binary pixel of halftone image y[n] such
that:

1 , if (x[n] + xe [n]) ≥ 0
y[n] = (1)
0 , else
where xe [n] is the diffused quantization error accumulated during previous iterations as:
M
xe [n] = ∑ bi · ye [n − i] (2)
i=1

with ye [n] = y[n] − (x[n] + xe [n]). The diffusion coefficients bi , which regulate the proportions
to which the quantization error at pixel n transfers or diffuses into neighboring pixels, are such
that ∑Mi=1 bi = 1. Computationally, error-diffusion can be done in-place with the output pixels,
y[n], residing in the memory locations of the input pixels, x[n].
Noting that the printed dots of an ink-jet or similar printer can be accurately modeled as a
binary, round, circular-dot such that an isolated black pixel is completely covered with ink and

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3220
 Fig. 7. Calculation of the error term in model-based error-diffusion.

with portions of neighboring white pixels partially covered by ink, it should be obvious that
the binary halftones printed by error diffusion will always print darker than their ratio of black
to white pixels. As such, images will typically be tone-corrected prior to halftoning in order to
compensate for this ink overlap. For an alternative approach, Pappas and Neuhoff [19] proposed
model-based error-diffusion as a means of accounting for dot overlap in the halftoning process
where, as depicted in Fig. 6, a model of the printed dot is used to predict the ink coverage within
each halftone pixel after printing and then using this modeled ink coverage in the calculation
of the corresponding quantization error.
In model-based error-diffusion, the output pixel, y[n], is still determined as defined in eqn. (1),
but in this case, the error terms, ye [n − i] for i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are calculated at each iteration and
cannot be stored in an error image buffer. That is, assuming an ideal printer means that the
quantization error, ye [n], can be diffused and stored in an error buffer, e[n], such that:

1 , if (x[n] + e[n]) ≥ 0
y[n] = , where (3)
0 , else
eupdate [n] = y[n] − (x[n] + e[n]) and (4)
eupdate [n + i] = e[n + i] + bi eupdate [n]. (5)

Using a dot model such as the hard circular-dot, which affects neighboring pixels, means that
the final value of y[n] is not determined until all its neighbors have been quantized. So in model-
based error-diffusion, the error term, e[n], has to be calculated at each iteration prior to quan-
tizing x[n] + e[n] as:
M
e[n] = ∑ bi (ỹ[n − i] − x[n − i]) (6)
i=1

where ỹ[n − i] is the modeled tone for output pixel y[n − i] assuming y[n + i] for i = 1, 2, . . . are
not printed (Fig. 7). From eqns. (3) and (6), model-based error-diffusion can be summarized as:

1 , if x[n] + ∑M


i=1 bi (ỹ[n − i] − x[n − i]) ≥ 0
y[n] = . (7)
0 , else

Now in order to predict the resulting gray-levels that will be produced by the printer for a given
dot pattern, we need an accurate model of the printing device. Such a model can be specified by
a formula, as performed by Pappas and Neuhoff [19] using the hard-circular dot model depicted
in Fig. 7, or by table look-up where the table is generated by analysis of printed test patterns
from the target device. Such an analysis was performed by Baqai and Allebach [21] who used
a test pattern where a 145 × 145 binary image is divided into blocks of size 6 × 6. Inside each

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3221
 1 2 4 2 1
2 4 8 4 2
4 8 •

1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2
4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 •

Fig. 8. The (top) traditional and (bottom) lenticular Stucki error-diffusion filters for a four
component, lenticular image where halftoning can now be done after the spatially multi-
plexing of images but with the same results as if done prior to. Color coding has been used
to indicate which component image each pixel belongs while the arrows indicate the raster
scanning direction.

6 × 6 is a 3 × 3 sub-block that, over the entire pattern, represents every possible combination of
9 bits (512 patterns).
By repeatedly printing and scanning this pattern and then performing an automated search
for a specific bit-pattern, Baqai and Allebach aligned the printed 6 × 6 blocks from multiple
scans according to the fudiciary pixels surrounding the block at its 4 corners. Once aligned,
the 6 × 6 blocks would be averaged together and then the average gray-level corresponding to
the center pixel of the 3 × 3 sub-block would be entered into the look-up table (LUT) for that
particular 9-bit combination. Noting that many printing devices produce radially symmetric
dots (on average), the total size of the LUT can be reduced from 512 entries down to 102
given that many of the 9-bit combinations, when printed as 3 × 3 blocks, are permutations
(flips, rotations, etc.) of other combinations. Wang et al [22] even took the unique approach of
modeling the average gray-level of the region between the centers of the printed pixels forming
a 2 × 2 cluster, reducing the LUT to 16 entries.

3. Lenticular screening
In extending model-based error diffusion to lenticular printing, we note that, as a neighbor-
hood process, error-diffusion assumes correlation between neighboring pixels [3], and in the
case of a step-edge, error-diffusion will diffuse error across the edge to create a blurred edge
in the halftone [20], and supposing that the image is composed of multiple images spatially
multiplexed together, this blurring will result in columns of image slice A bleeding into slice
B. The overall impact of this bleeding depends on how well correlated the two slices are at
this point but ghosting artifacts are the result as was demonstrated in Fig. 3. So in order to
eliminate or minimize the effects of bleeding quantization error between component images,
we propose using error filters that restrict the quantization error from pixels of slice A to only
those neighboring pixels also from slice A. Under the assumption that there are an equal num-
ber of image columns under each and every lenticular lens such that corresponding columns
of the same component image are equally spaced apart, we need only splice an equal number
of zero columns between the columns of a traditional error filter as illustrated in Fig. 8 using
Stucki’s 12-weight error filter [10].
For situations where the number of columns under each lens is not equal for all lenses such
as when printing 1,000 dpi halftones onto 80 lens-per-inch material with even numbered lenses
having 12 pixel columns and odd numbered lenses having 13 columns, the distribution of error

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3222
 Fig. 9. The component images of a lenticular sequence as seen through a lens array, using
a printed-dot model, where the proposed model-based error diffusion technique has been
applied after spatial multiplexing.

will not be restricted to the appropriate channel by simply splicing zeros into the error filter.
As such for each lens whose number of underlying columns is less than the maximum number
of columns under any one particular lens (the even lenses with 12 columns), we can insert
temporary spacer columns into the original continuous-tone image either by duplication of
an existing column, by inserting a pre-specified constant value, or arbitrary combination of
existing columns. After halftoning this up-sampled, continuous-tone image using the proposed
zero-spliced error filter, we then delete the spacer columns from the halftone image, thereby,
generating an appropriately sized, binary image with, in our example, even numbered columns
having 12 pixel columns and odd numbered columns having 13.
In the case of non-lenticular lens arrays where the spatial multiplexing of pixels from multiple
component images leads to an arbitrary distribution, we need a means by which we can prop-
erly distribute error from previously processed pixels. To do so, we create a so-called “map”
image as a way of searching the post-multiplexed image for nearest neighboring pixels from
the same component image as the pixel currently being quantized. Specifically, each compo-
nent image is assigned a unique identification number/tag such that the pixel, map[n], of the
map image is set equal to the identification number/tag associated with the component image
corresponding to x[n]. So in the process of quantizing x[n], we search a fixed-sized neighbor of
the already processed pixels looking for those pixels whose corresponding map image has the
same identification number/tag. Of those pixels corresponding to the same component image,
we define a set of filter weights {bi : i = 1, 2, . . .}, which sum to one, and calculate the resulting
error term e[n].
For a demonstration of the halftones produced by the proposed MBED technique, Fig. 9
shows the resulting lenticular image sequence that, in comparison with Fig. 5, shows greatly

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3223
reduced ghosting artifacts in the regions of the traveling text string. But these artifacts are not
wholly eliminated as is evident in the light gray regions directly neighboring black pixels in the
frames directly before or after the subject frame (i.e. top of first frame) – limiting the maximum
intensity value to 0.67 (0=black, 1=white). These artifacts are a direct consequence of the gamut
reduction produced by dot overlap where the printed dots, from dark-gray slices, overlap into
the pixels of neighboring light-gray slices creating the impression that three frames are visible
instead of just the one. This gamut reduction has the potential to create an instability [24–27]
where quantization error builds up uncontrollably, suppressing dots in later regions where we
may, otherwise, want dots to be printed.
In order to eliminate this unregulated build-up of error, we could use a technique similar to
that of Kim et al [20] who clipped the quantization error across step-edges in order to reduce the
amount of bleeding of quantization error across discontuities in gray-level. Specifically, Kim et
al would compare the accumulated quantization error with the current input pixel, which after
crossing a step-edge would jump in value. This jump in value would, likewise, create a jump in
the distance of the accumulated error value, xe [n], with the input pixel, x[n], and, hence, trigger
a clipping operation defined by some threshold, T .
In our case, we could simply clip the error, regardless of the current input gray-level, beyond
a similar threshold (T = 0.80), but while this approach will eliminate dot suppression, it does
not address the problem of ghosting where the dark regions of one component image show up
in neighboring component images. So instead of simply discarding the excess error, we will
diffuse it into the dark-gray pixels of the nearest, neighboring, component images. By doing so,
we increase the gray-levels of these neighboring dark regions to, thereby, reduce the number of
printed dots responsible for limiting the light-gray output gamut. In this manner, we distribute
the effects of dot-overlap symmetrically to both the extreme light and dark gray-levels. In the
case of Fig. 9, the maximum intensity level increases from 0.67 to 0.82 with an increase in
intensity for the black text from 0.07 to 0.19. For comparison, the same ghosting artifacts in
Fig. 5 have a gray level of 0.77.

4. Conclusions
Digital halftoning is the process of converting continuous-tone images to binary for display by
digital printers, and as printers are achieving ever higher resolutions, the variation in the size
and shape of printed dots are having an increasingly negative impact on the overall quality of
the resulting prints. As such, modern halftoning algorithms need to take into account the be-
havior of the device to print isolated dots in order to counteract the effects of printer distortion.
For lenticular screening, the problem of accounting for printer distortion is especially difficult
because of the need to maintain statistical independence between component images. In this
paper, we have described a series of modifications to Pappas and Neuhoff’s model-based error-
diffusion algorithm where our approach is to use specially designed error filters that restrict
quantization error to pixels of the same slice. And in order to maintain stability, we employ a
novel clip-and-diffuse process of the quantization error at each pixel. Now while ghosting ar-
tifacts were not completely eliminated, the proposed technique of model-based halftoning did
greatly reduce the overall visibility of artifacts where only in cases of bright gray-levels above
0.82 did artifacts occur. Regardless, this issue of dot overlap and it’s corresponding gamut
reduction remains a challenge for future works in this area as our a long list of additional con-
cerns. These other concerns include issues related to the alignment of the lens array with the
halftone sampling grid during printing, and it these other issues that need to be addressed in
future works.

#68264 - $15.00 USD Received 21 February 2006; revised 7 April 2006; accepted 9 April 2006
(C) 2006 OSA 17 April 2006 / Vol. 14, No. 8 / OPTICS EXPRESS 3224