Advertisement

A Hybrid Image Quality Measure for Automatic Image Quality Assessment

  • Atif Bin Mansoor
  • Maaz Haider
  • Ajmal S. Mian
  • Shoab A. Khan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5575)

Abstract

Automatic image quality assessment has many diverse applications. Existing quality measures are not accurate representatives of the human perception. We present a hybrid image quality (HIQ) measure, which is a combination of four existing measures using an ‘n’ degree polynomial to accurately model the human image perception. First we undertook time consuming human experiments to subjectively evaluate a given set of training images, and resultantly formed a Human Perception Curve (HPC). Next we define a HIQ measure that closely follows the HPC using curve fitting techniques. The HIQ measure is then validated on a separate set of images by similar human subjective experiments and is compared to the HPC.The coefficients and degree of the polynomial are estimated using regression on training data obtained from human subjects. Validation of the resultant HIQ was performed on a separate validation data. Our results show that HIQ gives an RMS error of 5.1 compared to the best RMS error of 5.8 by a second degree polynomial of an individual measure HVS (Human Visual System) absolute norm (H 1) amongst the four considered metrics. Our data contains subjective quality assessment (by 100 individuals) of 174 images with various degrees of fast fading distortion. Each image was evaluated by 50 different human subjects using double stimulus quality scale, resulting in an overall 8,700 judgements.

Keywords

Image Quality Mean Square Error Human Visual System Image Quality Assessment Opinion Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Lu, L.: Why is Image Quality Assessment so difficult. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 4, pp. 3313–3316 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eskicioglu, A.M.: Quality measurement for monochrome compressed images in the past 25 years. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 4, pp. 1907–1910 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eskicioglu, A.M., Fisher, P.S.: Image Quality Measures and their Performance. IEEE Transaction on Communications 43, 2959–2965 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miyahara, M., Kotani, K., Algazi, V.R.: Objective Picture Quality Scale (PQS) for image coding. IEEE Transaction on Communications 9, 1215–1225 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo, L., Meng, Y.: What is Wrong and Right with MSE. In: Eighth IASTED International Conference on Signal and Image Processing, pp. 212–215 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 9, 81–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: From error measurement to structural similarity. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 13 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E.P., Bovik, A.C.: Multi-scale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: 37th IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shnayderman, A., Gusev, A., Eskicioglu, A.M.: An SVD-Based Gray-Scale Image Quality Measure for Local and Global Assessment. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 15 (February 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheikh, H.R., Sabir, M.F., Bovik, A.C.: A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 15, 3440–3451 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sarnoff Corporation, JNDmetrix Technology, http://www.sarnoff.com
  12. 12.
    Watson, A.B.: DC Tune: A technique for visual optimization of DCT quantization matrices for individual images, Society for Information Display Digest of Technical Papers, vol. XXIV, pp. 946–949 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damera-Venkata, N., Kite, T.D., Geisler, W.S., Evans, B.L., Bovik, A.C.: Image Quality Assessment based on a Degradation Model. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 9, 636–650 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weken, D.V., Nachtegael, M., Kerre, E.E.: Using similarity measures and homogeneity for the comparison of images. Image and Vision Computing 22, 695–702 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avcibas, I., Sankur, B., Sayood, K.: Statistical Evaluation of Image Quality Measures. Journal of Electronic Imaging 11, 206–223 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C., de Veciana, G.: An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 14, 2117–2128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C.: Image information and Visual Quality. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 15, 430–444 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chandler, D.M., Hemami, S.S.: VSNR: A Wavelet base Visual Signla-to-Noise Ratio for Natural Images. IEEE Transaction on Image Processing 16, 2284–2298 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheikh, H.R., Wang, Z., Cormack, L., Bovik, A.C.: LIVE image quality assessment database, http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality
  20. 20.
    ITU-R Rec. BT. 500-11, Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality for Television PicturesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atif Bin Mansoor
    • 1
  • Maaz Haider
    • 1
  • Ajmal S. Mian
    • 2
  • Shoab A. Khan
    • 1
  1. 1.National University of Sciences and TechnologyPakistan
  2. 2.Computer Science and Software EngineeringThe University of Western AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations