8,742 research outputs found

    Metrics for Stereoscopic Image Compression

    Get PDF
    Metrics for automatically predicting the compression settings for stereoscopic images, to minimize file size, while still maintaining an acceptable level of image quality are investigated. This research evaluates whether symmetric or asymmetric compression produces a better quality of stereoscopic image. Initially, how Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) measures the quality of varyingly compressed stereoscopic image pairs was investigated. Two trials with human subjects, following the ITU-R BT.500-11 Double Stimulus Continuous Quality Scale (DSCQS) were undertaken to measure the quality of symmetric and asymmetric stereoscopic image compression. Computational models of the Human Visual System (HVS) were then investigated and a new stereoscopic image quality metric designed and implemented. The metric point matches regions of high spatial frequency between the left and right views of the stereo pair and accounts for HVS sensitivity to contrast and luminance changes in these regions. The PSNR results show that symmetric, as opposed to asymmetric stereo image compression, produces significantly better results. The human factors trial suggested that in general, symmetric compression of stereoscopic images should be used. The new metric, Stereo Band Limited Contrast, has been demonstrated as a better predictor of human image quality preference than PSNR and can be used to predict a perceptual threshold level for stereoscopic image compression. The threshold is the maximum compression that can be applied without the perceived image quality being altered. Overall, it is concluded that, symmetric, as opposed to asymmetric stereo image encoding, should be used for stereoscopic image compression. As PSNR measures of image quality are correctly criticized for correlating poorly with perceived visual quality, the new HVS based metric was developed. This metric produces a useful threshold to provide a practical starting point to decide the level of compression to use

    A Perceptually Based Comparison of Image Similarity Metrics

    Full text link
    The assessment of how well one image matches another forms a critical component both of models of human visual processing and of many image analysis systems. Two of the most commonly used norms for quantifying image similarity are L1 and L2, which are specific instances of the Minkowski metric. However, there is often not a principled reason for selecting one norm over the other. One way to address this problem is by examining whether one metric, better than the other, captures the perceptual notion of image similarity. This can be used to derive inferences regarding similarity criteria the human visual system uses, as well as to evaluate and design metrics for use in image-analysis applications. With this goal, we examined perceptual preferences for images retrieved on the basis of the L1 versus the L2 norm. These images were either small fragments without recognizable content, or larger patterns with recognizable content created by vector quantization. In both conditions the participants showed a small but consistent preference for images matched with the L1 metric. These results suggest that, in the domain of natural images of the kind we have used, the L1 metric may better capture human notions of image similarity

    Generative Compression

    Full text link
    Traditional image and video compression algorithms rely on hand-crafted encoder/decoder pairs (codecs) that lack adaptability and are agnostic to the data being compressed. Here we describe the concept of generative compression, the compression of data using generative models, and suggest that it is a direction worth pursuing to produce more accurate and visually pleasing reconstructions at much deeper compression levels for both image and video data. We also demonstrate that generative compression is orders-of-magnitude more resilient to bit error rates (e.g. from noisy wireless channels) than traditional variable-length coding schemes
    • ā€¦
    corecore