On the performance of human visual system based image quality assessment metric using wavelet domain

Most of the efficient objective image or video quality metrics are based on properties and models of the Human Visual System (HVS). This paper is dealing with two major drawbacks related to HVS properties used in such metrics applied in the DWT domain : subband decomposition and masking effect. The multi-channel behavior of the HVS can be emulated applying a perceptual subband decomposition. Ideally, this can be performed in the Fourier domain but it requires too much computation cost for many applications. Spatial transform such as DWT is a good alternative to reduce computation effort but the correspondence between the perceptual subbands and the usual wavelet ones is not straightforward. Advantages and limitations of the DWT are discussed, and compared with models based on a DFT. Visual masking is a sensitive issue. Several models exist in literature. Simplest models can only predict visibility threshold for very simple cue while for natural images one should consider more complex approaches such as entropy masking. The main issue relies on finding a revealing measure of the surround influences and an adaptation: should we use the spatial activity, the entropy, the type of texture, etc.? In this paper, different visual masking models using DWT are discussed and compared.

[1]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  Spatial quantization via local texture masking , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[2]  Patrick Le Callet,et al.  A robust quality metric for color image quality assessment , 2003, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[3]  M. Nadenau Integration of human color vision models into high quality image compression , 2000 .

[4]  Wenjun Zeng,et al.  An overview of the visual optimization tools in JPEG 2000 , 2002, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[5]  D. W. Heeley,et al.  Cardinal directions of color space , 1982, Vision Research.

[6]  Andrew P. Bradley,et al.  A wavelet visible difference predictor , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[7]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  The cortex transform: rapid computation of simulated neural images , 1987 .

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

[9]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Image quality and entropy masking , 1997, Electronic Imaging.

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

[11]  Shawmin Lei,et al.  Visual masking in wavelet compression for JPEG-2000 , 2000, Electronic Imaging.