Signal, Image and Video Processing

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 81–91 | Cite as

A comprehensive assessment of the structural similarity index

Original Paper

Abstract

In recent years the structural similarity index has become an accepted standard among image quality metrics. Made up of three components, this technique assesses the visual impact of changes in image luminance, contrast, and structure. Applications of the index include image enhancement, video quality monitoring, and image encoding. As its status continues to rise, however, so do questions about its performance. In this paper, it is shown, both empirically and analytically, that the index is directly related to the conventional, and often unreliable, mean squared error. In the first evaluation, the two metrics are statistically compared with one another. Then, in the second, a pair of functions that algebraically connects the two is derived. These results suggest a much closer relationship between the structural similarity index and mean squared error.

Keywords

Structural similarity index SSIM Mean squared error MSE Image quality metric 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acharya T., Tsai P.S.: JPEG2000 Standard for Image Compression: Concepts, Algorithms and VLSI Architectures. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beghdadi A., Iordache R.: Image quality assessment using the joint spatial/spatial-frequency representation. EURASIP J. Appl. Signal Process. 2006, 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Channappayya, S.S., Bovik, A.C., Caramanis, C., Heath Jr., R.W.: Ssim-optimal linear image restoration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 765–768 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chih-Che Lin, D., Chau, P.M.: Objective human visual system based video quality assessment metric for low bit-rate video communication systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 320–323 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cockshott, W.P., Balasuriya, S.L., Gunawan, I.P., Siebert, J.P.: Image enhancement using vector quantisation based interpolation. In: Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coskun, B., Sankur, B.: Robust video hash extraction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference, pp. 292–295 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly, S.: Digital Images and Human Vision, chap. The Visible Differences Predictor: An Algorithm for the Assessment of Image Fidelity, pp. 179–206. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dosselmann, R.: An evaluation of existing and emerging digital image and video quality metrics. Master’s thesis, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dosselmann, R., Yang, X.D.: A prototype no-reference video quality system. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision, pp. 411–417 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dosselmann, R., Yang, X.D.: An empirical assessment of the structural similarity index. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp. 112–116 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez R., Woods R.: Digital Image Processing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lay D.C.: Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis R.: Practical Digital Image Processing. Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lubin, J.: Vision models for target detection and recognition, chap. 10. A Visual Discrimination Model for Imaging System Design and Evaluation, pp. 245–283. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mai, Z.Y., Yang, C.L., Kuang, K.Z., Po, L.M.: A novel motion estimation method based on structural similarity for h.264 inter prediction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 2, pp. 913–916 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miyahara M., Kotani K., Algazi V.R.: Objective picture quality scale (pqs) for image coding. IEEE Trans. Commun. 46, 1215–1226 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reibman, A.R., Poole, D.: Characterizing packet-loss impairments in compressed video. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing vol. 5, pp. 77–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rouse, D.M., Hemami, S.S.: Analyzing the role of visual structure in the recognition of natural image content with multi-scale ssim. In: Proceedngs of the SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging Conference, vol. 6806 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouse, D.M., Hemami, S.S.: Understanding and simplifying the structural similarity metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 1188–1191 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seshadrinathan, K., Bovik, A.C.: New vistas in image and video quality assessment. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging Conference, vol. 6492 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seshadrinathan, K., Bovik, A.C.: Unifying analysis of full reference image quality assessment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 1200–1203 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sheikh H.R., Sabir M.F., Bovik A.C.: A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans. Image Process 15(11), 3440–3451 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shnayderman, A., Gusev, A., Eskicioglu, A.M.: A multidimensional image quality measure using singular value decomposition. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Image Quality and System Performance Conference, vol. 5294, pp. 82–92 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sonka M., Hlavac V., Boyle R.: Image Processing, Analysis and Machine Vision. Brooks/Cole, Belmont (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sung C.C., Ruan S.J., Lin B.Y., Shie M.C.: Quality and power efficient architecture for the discrete cosine transform. IEICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. E88A(12), 3500–3507 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Süsstrunk, S., Winkler, S.: Color image quality on the internet. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Electronic Imaging Conference on Internet Imaging, vol. 5304, pp. 118–131 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Triola M.F.: Elementary Statistics. Pearson, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vorren, S.S.: Subjective quality evaluation of the effect of packet loss in high-definition video. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang Z., Bovik A.C.: A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 9(3), 81–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: Why is image quality assessment so difficult? In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 4, pp. 3313–3316 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang Z., Bovik A.C.: Mean squared error: love it or leave it?. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26(1), 98–117 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang Z., Bovik A.C., Sheikh H.R., Simoncelli E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Simoncelli, E.P.: Handbook of Image and Video Processing, 2 edn, chap. 8.3: Structural Approaches to Image Quality Assessment, pp. 961–974. Academic Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, Z., Li, Q., Shang, X.: Perceptual image coding based on a maximum of minimal structural similarity criterion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, vol. 2, pp. 121–124 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Z., Lu L., Bovik A.C.: Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Process. Image Commun. 19(2), 121–132 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, Z., Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C.: The Handbook of Video Databases: Design and Applications, chap. 41: Objective Video Quality Assessment, pp. 1041–1078. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E.P.: Translation insensitive image similarity in complex wavelet domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. II, pp. 573–576 (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E.P., Bovik, A.C.: Multi-scale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, vol. 2, pp. 1398–1402 (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Winkler S.: Digital Video Quality: Vision Models and Metrics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations