Objective image quality assessment of texture compression

Texture compression is widely used in real-time rendering to reduce storage and bandwidth requirements. Recent research in compression algorithms has explored both reduced fixed bit rate and variable bit rate algorithms. The results are evaluated at the individual texture level using Mean Square Error, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio, or visual image inspection. We argue this is the wrong evaluation approach. Compression artifacts in individual textures are likely visually masked in final rendered images and this masking is not accounted for when evaluating individual textures. This masking comes from both geometric mapping of textures onto models and the effects of combining different textures on the same model such as diffuse, gloss and bump maps. We evaluate final rendered images using rigorous perceptual error metrics. Our method samples the space of viewpoints in a scene, renders the scene from each viewpoint using variations of compressed textures, and then compares each to a ground truth using uncompressed textures from the same viewpoint. We show that masking has a significant effect on final rendered image quality, that graphics hardware compression algorithms are too conservative, and reduced bit rates are possible while maintaining quality.

[1]  Donald P. Greenberg,et al.  A model of visual masking for computer graphics , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[2]  Greg Turk,et al.  Image-driven simplification , 2000, TOGS.

[3]  Frances Y. Kuo,et al.  Remark on algorithm 659: Implementing Sobol's quasirandom sequence generator , 2003, TOMS.

[4]  Doaa Mohammed Image Compression Using Block Truncation Coding , 2011 .

[5]  Martin Pettersson,et al.  ETC2: texture compression using invalid combinations , 2007, GH '07.

[6]  Maneesh Agrawala,et al.  Rendering from compressed textures , 1996, SIGGRAPH.

[7]  Pengwei Hao,et al.  Comparative study of color transforms for image coding and derivation of integer reversible color transform , 2000, Proceedings 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. ICPR-2000.

[8]  Marc Olano,et al.  LEAN mapping , 2010, I3D '10.

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

[10]  Marius Pedersen,et al.  Analysis of the Difference of Gaussians Model in Image Difference Metrics , 2010, CGIV/MCS.

[11]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  New measurements reveal weaknesses of image quality metrics in evaluating graphics artifacts , 2012, ACM Trans. Graph..

[12]  Tomas Akenine-Möller,et al.  iPACKMAN: high-quality, low-complexity texture compression for mobile phones , 2005, HWWS '05.

[13]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  View-independent environment maps , 1998, Workshop on Graphics Hardware.

[14]  Marc Olano,et al.  Variable Bit Rate GPU Texture Decompression , 2011, EGSR '11.

[15]  Simon Fenney,et al.  Texture compression using low-frequency signal modulation , 2003, HWWS '03.

[16]  Mahdi Nezamabadi,et al.  Color Appearance Models , 2014, J. Electronic Imaging.