Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 7, pp 8195–8212 | Cite as

No-reference stereoscopic 3D image quality assessment via combined model

Article
  • 159 Downloads

Abstract

Currently, stereoscopic 3D image has been widely applied in many fields. However, it may suffer from various quality degradations during the acquisition and transmission. Therefore, an effective 3D image quality assessment (IQA) method has great significance for 3D multimedia applications. Since 3D image pair has two images, it is easily distorted asymmetrically. In this paper, we have designed a no-reference quality assessment algorithm for asymmetrically distorted 3D images by utilizing combined model. First, in order to extract the distorted information in different frequency, the Gabor filter bank is employed to decompose the 3D image pair. Second, the “Cyclopean” and difference maps, representing for binocular characteristic and asymmetric information, are generated from the Gabor filter results. Then, the statistical characteristics of “Cyclopean” and difference maps are estimated by utilizing the generalized Gaussian distribution (GGD) fitting. Finally, a SVR regression is learned to map the feature vector to the recorded subjective difference mean opinion scores (DMOS). Besides, we also make an attempt to utilize structural similarity index (SSIM) to measure the asymmetric information of 3D image pair. The performance of our algorithm is evaluated on the popular 3D IQA databases. Extensive results show that the proposed algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art no-reference 3D IQA algorithms and is comparable to some full-reference 3D IQA algorithms.

Keywords

No-reference 3D IQA Human visual system Statistic feature SSIM 

References

  1. 1.
    Benoit A, Le Callet P, Campisi P et al (2009) Quality assessment of stereoscopic images. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2008:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campisi P, Le Callet P, Marini E (2007) Stereoscopic images quality assessment Signal processing conference, 2007 15th European, pp 2110–2114Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang C C, Lin C J (2011) LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2:27:1–27:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen M J, Cormack L K, Bovik A C (2013) No-reference quality assessment of natural stereopairs. IEEE Trans Image Process 22(9):3379–3391MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen M J, Su C C, Kwon D K et al (2013) Full-reference quality assessment of stereopairs accounting for rivalry. Signal Process: Image Commun 28(9):1143–1155Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gu K, Wang S, Zhai G et al (2016) Analysis of distortion distribution for pooling in image quality prediction. IEEE Trans Broadcast 62(2):446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joshi D, Datta R, Fedorovskaya E et al (2011) Aesthetics and emotions in images. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 28(5):94–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumano H, Tanabe S, Fujita I (2008) Spatial frequency integration for binocular correspondence in macaque area v4. J Neurophysiol 99(1):402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin Y H, Wu J L (2014) Quality assessment of stereoscopic 3D image compression by binocular integration behaviors. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(4):1527–1542MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maalouf A, Larabi M C (2011) CYCLOP: a stereo color image quality assessment metric IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 1161–1164Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Md S K, Appina B, Channappayya S S (2015) Full-Reference Stereo image quality assessment using natural stereo scene statistics. IEEE Signal Process Lett 22 (11):1985–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mittal A, Moorthy A K, A C Bovik (2011) Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator 2011 conference record of the forty fifth asilomar conference on signals, systems and computers (ASILOMAR), pp 723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moorthy A K, Bovik A C (2011) Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(12):3350–3364MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pokorny J (1972) Foundations of cyclopean perception. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruderman D L (1994) The statistics of natural images. Netw: Comput Neural Syst 5(4):517–548CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryu S, Sohn K (2014) No-Reference Quality assessment for stereoscopic images based on binocular quality perception. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 24 (4):591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saad M A, Bovik A C, Charrier C (2012) Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21 (8):3339–3352MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shao F, Li K, Lin W et al (2015) Using binocular feature combination for blind quality assessment of stereoscopic images. IEEE Signal Process Lett 22(10):1548–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharifi K, Leon-Garcia A (1995) Estimation of shape parameter for generalized Gaussian distributions in subband decompositions of video. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 5(1):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheikh H R, Sabir M F, Bovik A C (2006) A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(11):3440–3451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaufman L (1974) Sight and mind: an introduction to visual perception. Chicago, NY, USA. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simoncelli E P, Freeman W T (1995) The steerable pyramid: a flexible architecture for multi-scale derivative computation International conference on image processing, 1995, proceedings, vol 3(3), pp 444–447Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simoncelli E P, Freeman W T, Adelson E H et al (1992) Shiftable multiscale transforms. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 38(2):587–607MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Su C C, Cormack L K, Bovik A C (2015) Oriented correlation models of distorted natural images with application to natural stereopair quality evaluation. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(5):1685–1699MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang J, Rehman A, Zeng K et al (2015) Quality prediction of asymmetrically distorted stereoscopic 3D images. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(11):3400–3414MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Z, Bovik A C, Sheikh H R et al (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    You J, Jiang G, Xing L et al (2010) Quality of visual experience for 3D presentation-stereoscopic image Proceedings of the international workshop video process. qaulity metrics consum. elect, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang C, Pan J, Chen S et al (2016) No reference image quality assessment using sparse feature representation in two dimensions spatial correlation. Neurocomputing 173:462–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y, Chandler D M (2015) 3D-MAD: a full reference stereoscopic image quality estimator based on binocular lightness and contrast perception. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(11):3810–3825MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhao S, Gao Y, Jiang X et al (2014) Exploring principles-of-art features for image emotion recognition Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on multimedia, ACM, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao S, Yao H, Gao Y et al (2016) Continuous probability distribution prediction of image emotions via Multi-Task shared sparse regression. IEEE Trans Multimed, to appear 2016Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhao S, Yao H, Gao Y et al (2016) Predicting personalized emotion perceptions of social images Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on multimedia conference, ACM, pp 1385–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhao S, Yao H, Sun X (2013) Video classification and recommendation based on affective analysis of viewers. Neurocomputing 119:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou W, Zhang S, Pan T et al (2016) Blind 3D image quality assessment based on self-similarity of binocular features. Neurocomputing, to appear 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Information EngineeringTianjin UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations