Evaluation of two principal approaches to objective image quality assessment

Nowadays, it is evident that we must consider human perceptual properties to visualize information clearly and efficiently. We may utilize computational models of human visual systems to consider human perception well. Image quality assessment is a challenging task that is traditionally approached by such computational models. Recently, a new assessment methodology based on structural similarity has been proposed. We select two representative models of each group, the visible differences predictor and the structural similarity index, for evaluation. We begin with the description of these two approaches and models. We then depict the subjective tests that we have conducted to obtain mean opinion scores. Inputs to these tests included uniformly compressed images and images compressed non-uniformly with regions of interest. Then, we discuss the performance of the two models, and the similarities and differences between the two models. We end with a summary of the important advantages of each approach.

[1]  Robert Eriksson,et al.  Modeling the perception of digital images: a performance study , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[2]  James O. Larimer,et al.  Evaluation of human vision models for predicting human observer performance , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[3]  I Russell,et al.  Statistics--with confidence? , 1991, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[4]  Benjamin Watson,et al.  Using naming time to evaluate quality predictors for model simplification , 2000, CHI.

[5]  A. Bovik,et al.  A universal image quality index , 2002, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[6]  Scott J. Daly,et al.  Visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  Gary W. Meyer,et al.  Comparison of two image quality models , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[8]  Patrick C. Teo,et al.  Perceptual image distortion , 1994, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Image Processing.

[9]  Karol Myszkowski,et al.  The Visible Differences Predictor: Applications to Global Illumination Problems , 1998, Rendering Techniques.

[10]  Neil W. Bergmann,et al.  An automatic image quality assessment technique incorporating higher level perceptual factors , 1998, Proceedings 1998 International Conference on Image Processing. ICIP98 (Cat. No.98CB36269).

[11]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.