Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 210–215 | Cite as

Quality Degradation in Lossy Wavelet Image Compression

  • Tzong-Jer Chen
  • Keh-Shih ChuangPh.D.
  • Jay Wu
  • Sharon C. Chen
  • Ing-Ming Hwang
  • Meei-Ling Jan
Article

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a method for measuring quality degradation in lossy wavelet image compression. Quality degradation is due to denoising and edge blurring effects that cause smoothness in the compressed image. The peak Moran z histogram ratio between the reconstructed and original images is used as an index for degradation after image compression. The Moran test is applied to images randomly selected from each medical modality, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed radiography and compressed using the wavelet compression at various levels. The relationship between the quality degradation and compression ratio for each image modality agrees with previous reports that showed a preference for mildly compressed images. Preliminary results show that the peak Moran z histogram ratio can be used to quantify the quality degradation in lossy image compression. The potential for this method is applications for determining the optimal compression ratio (the maximized compression without seriously degrading image quality) of an image for teleradiology.

Keywords

Wavelet compression quality evaluation Moran test 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by research grant NSC89-2314-B007 from the National Science Council, Taiwan. The image data were provided by S. C. Kuo and Alex Hsu of the Department of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Shan Medical & Dental College Hospital, Taiwan.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang, HK 1996PACS—Picture Archiving and Communication Systems in Biomedical Imaging.VCH PublishersNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wong, S, Zaremba, L, Gooden, D,  et al. 1995Radiologic image compression—a review.Proc IEEE83194219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, ZD, Chang, RF, Kuo, WJ 1999Adaptive predictive multiplicative autoregressive model for medical image compression.IEEE Trans Med Imaging18181184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swets, JA 1979ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques.Invest Radiol14109121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ji, TL, Sundareshan, MK, Roehrig, H 1994Adaptive image contrast enhancement based on human visual properties.IEEE Trans Med Imaging13573586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eskicioglu, AM, Fisher, PS 1995Image quality measures and their performance.IEEE Trans Comm4329592965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cosman, P, Gray, R, Plshen, R 2000Quality evaluation for compressed medical images: fundamentals.Bankman, IN eds. Handbook of Medical Imaging Processing and Analysis.Academic PressNew York803819Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Okkalides, D, Efremides, S 1994Quality assessment of DSA, ultrasound and CT digital images compressed with the JPEG protocol.Phys Med Biol3914071421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Persons, K, Palisson, P, Manduca, A,  et al. 1997An analytical look at the effects of compression on medical images.J Digit Imaging106066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burgul, R, Gilbert, FJ, Undrill, PE 2000Methods of measurement of image quality in tele-ultrasound.Br J Radiol7313061312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Good, WF, Gur, D, Feist, JH,  et al. 1994Subjective and objective assessment of image quality—a comparison.J Digit Imaging77778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the US Food and Drug Agency. Guidance for the submission of premarket notification for medical image management devices. Washington, DC, 2000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeVore, R, Jawerth, B, Lucier, B 1992Image compression through wavelet transform coding.IEEE Trans Info Theory38719746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg, MA, Pivovarov, M, Mayo-Smith, WW,  et al. 1994Application of wavelet compression to digitized radiographs.AJR Am J Roentgenol163463468Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cliff, AD, Ord, JK 1981Spatial Process: Methods and Applications.PionLondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chuang, KS, Liu, BJ, Huang, HK,  et al. 1994Noise content analysis in clinical digital images.Radiographics14397403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, I, Roszkowski, A, Slaughter, R,  et al. 2000Acceptable levels of digital image compression in chest radiology.Australas Radiol443235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savcenko, V, Erickson, BJ, Palisson, PM,  et al. 1998Detection of subtle abnormalities on chest radiographs after irreversible compression.Radiology206609616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacMahon, H,  et al. 1991Data compression: effect on diagnostic accuracy in digital chest radiography.Radiology178175179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao, B, Schwarz, LH, Kijewski, PK 1998Effects of lossy compression on lesion detection: predictions of the non-prewhitening matched filter.Med Phys2516211624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kido, S, Ikezoe, J, Kondoh, H,  et al. 1996Detection of subtle interstitial abnormalities of the lungs on digital chest radiographs: acceptable data compression ratio.AJR Am J Roentgenol167111115Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slone, RM, Foos , DH,  et al. 2000Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation.Radiology215543553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cox, GG, Cook, LT, Insana, MP,  et al. 1996The effects of lossy compression on the detection of subtle pulmonary nodules.Med Phys23127132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© by SCAR (Society for Computer Applications in Radiology) 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tzong-Jer Chen
    • 1
  • Keh-Shih ChuangPh.D.
    • 1
  • Jay Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sharon C. Chen
    • 1
  • Ing-Ming Hwang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Meei-Ling Jan
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear SciencesNational Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu 30043Taiwan
  2. 2.Health Physics DivisionInstitute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy CouncilTaiwan
  3. 3.School of Medical TechnologyKaohsiung Medical UniversityTaiwan
  4. 4.Physics DivisionInstitute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy Council Taiwan

Personalised recommendations