Fourteen image quality metrics were evaluated for hard-copy and soft-copy displays of digital images degraded by various levels of noise and blur. All quality metrics were formulated to include the displayed modulation spectrum of the image. The statistical analyses suggested that several of the metrics correlated strongly with performance, and, thus, support the proposed utility of image-dependent quality measures. An MTFA-type metric was shown to correlate highest with the average performance scores across noise and blur conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeatonR. J.Image quality and human performance: An evaluation of quantitative predictors for hard-copy and soft-copy displays of digital images. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1983.
2.
BracewellR.The Fourier transform and its application.New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.
3.
BurkeJ. J.StricklandR. N.Quality metrics of digitally derived imagery and their relation to interpreter performance: I. Preparation of a large-scale database.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Technical Report HFL-81–1, April, 1982.
4.
CharmanW. N.OlinA.Tutorial: Image quality criteria for aerial camera systems. Photographic Science and Engineering, 1965, 9, 385–397
5.
HufnagelR. E.A search for a summary measure of image quality. Part II. An invited paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Optical Society of America, Philadelphia, 1965.
6.
LinfootE. H.Fourier methods in optical image evaluation.London: Focal Press, 1960.
7.
SchadeO.Image degradation, graininess, and sharpness in television and motion picture systems. Part III. The grain structure of television systems. Journal of the Society for Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 1953, 61, 97–164
8.
SchindlerR. A.Optical power spectrum analysis of display imagery. Phase I: Concept validity.Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, AMRL-TR-76-96, November, 1976.
9.
SnyderH. L.ShedivyD. I.MaddoxM. E.Quality metrics of digitally derived imagery and their relation to interpreter performance: III. Subjective scaling of hard-copy digital imagery.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Technical Report HFL-81–3, February, 1982.
10.
TaskH. L.An evaluation and comparison of several measures of image quality for television displays.Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, AMRL-TR-79–7, January, 1979.
11.
van MeeterenA.Visual aspects of image intensification.Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception, TNO, 1973.
