Analysis and Evaluation of Image Quality Metrics

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 340)


Image Quality Assessment (IQA) is a very difficult task, yet highly important characteristic for evaluation of the image quality. Widely popular IQA techniques, belonging to objective fidelity, like Mean Square Error (MSE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) or subjective fidelity which corresponds to the human visual system (HVS), like, Universal Quality Index (UQI), Structural SIMilarity (SSIM), Feature SIMilarity (FSIM), Feature SIMilarity for color images (FSIMc), Gradient Magnitude Similarity (GSM) have been discussed in this paper. Also quality measured on basis of degradation model and Noise Quality Measure (NQM) has been discussed. Experiments have been conducted on IVC database available online at and verified from the CSIQ database and LAR database available online at and On the basis of the obtained values judgements about the image distortion and hence the optimum image quality metric has been decided. It has been found from all the experiments conducted that FSIM is the best metric for the JPEG, JPEG2000, blur and LAR whereas UQI failed to give better results for all except JPEG2000.




  1. 1.
    Wang, S., Sekey, A., Gersho, A.: An objective measure for predicting subjective quality of speech coders. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 10(5), 819–829 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pappas, T.N., Allebach, J.P., Neuhoff, D.L.: Model-based digital halftoning. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 20(4), 14–27 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pappas, T.N., Chen, J., Depalov, D.: Perceptually-based techniques for image segmentation and semantic classification. IEEE Commun. Mag. 45, 44–51 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfgang, R.B., Podilchuk, C.I., Delp, E.J.: Perceptual watermarks for digital images and video. Proc. IEEE 87(7), 1108–1126 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hontsch, I., Karam, L.J.: Locally adaptive perceptual image coding. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9(9), 1472–1483 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pappas, T.N., Neuhoff, D.L., Ridder, H.D., Zujovic, J.: Image analysis: focus on texture similarity. IEEE 101(9), 1–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 9(3), 81–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Mou, X., Zhang, D.: A comprehensive evaluation of full reference image quality assessment algorithms, pp. 1477–1480 (2012).
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Brooks, A.C., Zhao, X., Pappas, T.N.: Structural similarity quality in a coding context: exploring the space of realistic distortions. IEEE 17(8), 1–13 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: Mean squared error: love it or leave it? A new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26, 98–117 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Mou, X., Zhang, D.: FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20, 2378–2386 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitra, P., Murthy, C.A., Pal, S.K.: Unsupervised feature selection using feature similarity. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(3), 301–312 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Z., Laganiere, R.: Phase congruence measurement for image similarity assessment, pp. 166–172 (2007).
  15. 15.
    Xue, W., Zhang, L., Mou, X., Bovik, A.C.: Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: an highly efficient perceptual image quality index. IEEE Trans. Image Process., 1–12.
  16. 16.
    Gu, K., Zhai, G., Yang, X., Zhang, W.: An improved full-reference image quality metric based on structure compensation. APSIPA ASC (2012).
  17. 17.
    Damera-Venkata, N., Kite, T.D., Geisler, W.S., Evans, B.L., Bovik, A.C.: Image quality assessment based on a degradation model. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9, 636–650 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaushik, P., Sharma, Y.: Comparison of different image enhancement techniques based upon Psnr & Mse. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 7(11), (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Liu, A., Lin, W.: Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 1(4), 1500–1512 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kite, T.D., Evans, B.L., Bovik, A.C., Sculley, T.L.: Digital halftoning as 2-D delta-sigma modulation. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, vol. 1, pp. 799–802 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, Q.: Halftone image quality analysis based on a human vision model. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 1913, pp. 378–389 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitsa, T., Varkur, K.L., Alford, J.R.: Frequency channel based visual models as quantitative quality measures in halftoning. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 1913, pp. 390–401 (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mitsa, T., Varkur, K.L.: Evaluation of contrast sensitivity functions for the formulation of quality measures incorporated in halftoning algorithms. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing, vol. 3, pp. 313–316 (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daly, S.: The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment for image fidelity. In: Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Human Vision, Visual Processing, Digital Display, vol. 1666, pp. 2–15. San Jose, CA (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lubin, J.: A visual discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. In: Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition, pp. 245–283. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teo, P., Heeger, D.: A model of perceptual image fidelity. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Image Processing, vol. 2, pp. 343–34 (1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barten, P.: Evaluation of subjective image quality with the square-root integral method. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 2024–2031 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al-Najjar, Y.A.Y., Soong, D.C.: Comparison of image quality assessment: PSNR, HVS, SSIM, UIQI. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 3(8), 1–5 (2012) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringKalyani Government Engineering CollegeKalyani, NadiaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyKalyani Government Engineering CollegeKalyani, NadiaIndia

Personalised recommendations