Video Quality Metrics

Digital video communication has evolved into an important field in the past few years. There have been significant advances in compression and transmission techniques, which have made possible to deliver high quality video to the end user. In particular, the advent of new technologies has allowed the creation of many new telecommunication services (e.g., direct broadcast satellite, digital television, high definition TV, video teleconferencing, Internet video). To quantify the performance of a digital video communication system, it is important to have a measure of video quality changes at each of the communication system stages. Since in the majority of these applications the transformed or processed video is destined for human consumption, humans will ultimately decide if the operation was successful or not. Therefore, human perception should be taken into account when trying to establish the degree to which a video can be compressed, deciding if the video transmission was successful, or deciding whether visual enhancements have provided an actual benefit. Measuring the quality of a video implies a direct or indirect comparison of the test video with the original video. The most accurate way to determine the quality of a video is by measuring it using psychophysical experiments with human subjects (ITU-R, 1998). Unfortunately, psychophysical experiments are very expensive, time-consuming and hard to incorporate into a design process or an automatic quality of service control. Therefore, the ability to measure video quality accurately and efficiently, without using human observers, is highly desirable in practical applications. Good video quality metrics can be employed to monitor video quality, compare the performance of video processing systems and algorithms, and to optimize the algorithms and parameter settings for a video processing system. With this in mind, fast algorithms that give a physical measure (objective metric) of the video quality are used to obtain an estimate of the quality of a video when being transmitted, received or displayed. Customarily, quality measurements have been largely limited to a few objective measures, such as the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean square error (MSE), and the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), supplemented by limited subjective evaluation. Although the use of such metrics is fairly standard in published literature, it suffers from one major weakness. The outputs of these measures do not always correspond well with human judgements of quality. In the past few years, a big effort in the scientific community has been devoted to the development of better video quality metrics that correlate well with the human perception of quality (Daly, 1993; Lubin, 1993; Watson et al., 2001; Wolf et al., 1991). Although much Source: Digital Video, Book edited by: Floriano De Rango, ISBN 978-953-7619-70-1, pp. 500, February 2010, INTECH, Croatia, downloaded from SCIYO.COM

[1]  Jiuhuai Lu Image analysis for video artifact estimation and measurement , 2001, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[2]  Patrick C. Teo,et al.  Perceptual image distortion , 1994, Electronic Imaging.

[3]  Bülent Sankur,et al.  Statistical evaluation of image quality measures , 2002, J. Electronic Imaging.

[4]  J.S. Lee,et al.  Noise Modeling and Estimation of Remotely-Sensed Images , 1989, 12th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium,.

[5]  Mohammed Ghanbari,et al.  Image quality assessment based on harmonics gain/loss information , 2005, IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005.

[6]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  Image quality and image compression: a psychophysicist's viewpoint , 1993 .

[7]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  Perceptual contributions of blocky, blurry and noisy artifacts to overall annoyance , 2003, 2003 International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. ICME '03. Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8698).

[8]  Iain E. G. Richardson,et al.  H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression: Video Coding for Next-Generation Multimedia , 2003 .

[9]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  The Laplacian Pyramid as a Compact Image Code , 1983, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[10]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Blind measurement of blocking artifacts in images , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.00CH37101).

[11]  Yubing Wang,et al.  Survey of Objective Video Quality Measurements , 2006 .

[12]  Paolo Gastaldo,et al.  Objective assessment of MPEG-video quality: a neural-network approach , 2001, IJCNN'01. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37222).

[13]  Christian Keimel,et al.  No-reference video quality evaluation for high-definition video , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[14]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

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

[16]  Arun N. Netravali,et al.  Digital Video: An introduction to MPEG-2 , 1996 .

[17]  Margaret H. Pinson,et al.  Objective quality assessment of digitally transmitted video , 1991, [1991] IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing Conference Proceedings.

[18]  Patrick Le Callet,et al.  New perceptual quality assessment method with reduced reference for compressed images , 2003, Visual Communications and Image Processing.

[19]  Wesley De Neve,et al.  Rate-distortion performance of H.264/AVC compared to state-of-the-art video codecs , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[20]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  Perceptual contributions of blocky, blurry, and fuzzy impairments to overall annoyance , 2004, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[21]  James Hu,et al.  DVQ: A digital video quality metric based on human vision , 2001 .

[22]  W. Hays Statistics for the social sciences , 1973 .

[23]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  A Statistical Evaluation of Recent Full Reference Image Quality Assessment Algorithms , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[24]  Murat Kunt,et al.  Characterization of human visual sensitivity for video imaging applications , 1998, Signal Process..

[25]  Marina Bosi,et al.  Introduction to Digital Audio Coding and Standards , 2004, J. Electronic Imaging.

[26]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  Detectability and annoyance of synthetic blurring and ringing in video sequences , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[27]  Margaret H. Pinson,et al.  Spatial-temporal distortion metric for in-service quality monitoring of any digital video system , 1999, Optics East.

[28]  Albert J. Ahumada,et al.  Image quality: a multidimensional problem , 1993 .

[29]  Charles Poynton,et al.  Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces , 2012 .

[30]  Jeffrey Lubin,et al.  A VISUAL DISCRIMINATION MODEL FOR IMAGING SYSTEM DESIGN AND EVALUATION , 1995 .

[31]  Bernd Girod,et al.  What's wrong with mean-squared error? , 1993 .

[32]  Pascal Frossard,et al.  User-Oriented QoS Analysis in MPEG-2 Video Delivery , 1999, Real Time Imaging.

[33]  Paul S. Fisher,et al.  Image quality measures and their performance , 1995, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[34]  Andrew P. Bradley,et al.  Perceptual quality metrics applied to still image compression , 1998, Signal Process..

[35]  Alexandre Gonçalves Silva,et al.  Video Quality Assessment Using Objective Parameters Based on Image Segmentation , 1999 .

[36]  Huib de Ridder,et al.  Cognitive issues in image quality measurement , 2001, J. Electronic Imaging.

[37]  V. R. Algazi,et al.  Perceptual criteria and design alternatives for low bit rate video coding , 1993, Proceedings of 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.

[38]  Huib de Ridder Minkowski-metrics as a combination rule for digital-image-coding impairments , 1992 .

[39]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  Modeling packet-loss visibility in MPEG-2 video , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[40]  Alessandro Neri,et al.  A comparison between an objective quality measure and the mean annoyance values of watermarked videos , 2002, Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing.

[41]  Shuichi Matsumoto,et al.  Objective measurement scheme for perceived picture quality degradation caused by MPEG encoding without any reference pictures , 2000, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[42]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  Perceptual distortion metric for digital color video , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[43]  Ingemar J. Cox,et al.  Secure spread spectrum watermarking for multimedia , 1997, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

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

[45]  Margaret H. Pinson,et al.  A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[46]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  Predicting H.264 Packet Loss Visibility using a Generalized Linear Model , 2006, 2006 International Conference on Image Processing.

[47]  H.R. Wu,et al.  A generalized block-edge impairment metric for video coding , 1997, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[48]  Minerva M. Yeung,et al.  Watermarking for automatic quality monitoring , 2002, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[49]  Stephen D. Voran,et al.  Objective video quality assessment system based on human perception , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[50]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  Some properties of synthetic blocky and blurry artifacts , 2003, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[51]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  17.2: Detectability and Annoyance of Synthetic Blocky and Blurry Video Artifacts , 2002 .

[52]  A B Watson,et al.  Perceptual-components architecture for digital video. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[53]  Pierre Bretillon,et al.  Quality meter and digital television applications , 2000, Visual Communications and Image Processing.

[54]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  Perceptual blur and ringing metrics: application to JPEG2000 , 2004, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[55]  Jean-Bernard Martens,et al.  Image dissimilarity , 1998, Signal Process..

[56]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective , 1990 .

[57]  J. Laidlaw,et al.  ANATOMY OF THE HUMAN BODY , 1967, The Ulster Medical Journal.

[58]  T. Vlachos,et al.  Detection of blocking artifacts in compressed video , 2000 .

[59]  Michael Yuen,et al.  A survey of hybrid MC/DPCM/DCT video coding distortions , 1998, Signal Process..

[60]  Jeffrey Lubin,et al.  The use of psychophysical data and models in the analysis of display system performance , 1993 .

[61]  Sanjit K. Mitra,et al.  No-reference video quality metric based on artifact measurements , 2005, IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005.

[62]  Søren I. Olsen,et al.  Estimation of Noise in Images: An Evaluation , 1993, CVGIP Graph. Model. Image Process..

[63]  Constantin Paleologu,et al.  Perceptual Video Quality Assessment Based on Salient Region Detection , 2009, 2009 Fifth Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications.

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

[65]  Mohammed Ghanbari,et al.  Efficient Reduced-Reference Video Quality Meter , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[66]  Andrew B. Watson Towards a visual quality metric for digital video , 1998, 9th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 1998).