Article View: sci.image.processing
Article #365Re: Image Restoration
From: Juneho Yi
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:28
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:28
47 lines
2865 bytes
2865 bytes
sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes: >In article <yi.714841254@fife.ecn.purdue.edu> yi@fife.ecn.purdue.edu (Juneho Yi) writes: >>m_yearwo@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Mike Yearworth) writes: >>> I'm looking for some references on extracting objective >>>measurements of image quality, for example the signal to noise ratio >>>of an image or its entropy, with a view to judging how good a particular >>>image restoration technique is. I'd be interested in obtaining bibliographies >>>and/or references to good textbooks. Thankyou. >> >>We use the volume between two surfaces(original image and restored >>one)normalized by the surface area >>as an invariant(w.r.t. arbitrary coordinate) measure to compare >>results from different reconstruction algorithms. >>We came up with a very efficient way of computing >>the volume between >>two surfaces and the surface area. Time >>complexity is theta(n) >>where n is the number of pixels. >I'm assuming that the original poster is interested in objective measures >that have some correlation to the assessment a human observer would make. >Does this measure have any relationship to subjective evaluation? What is >the point of normalizing with respect to surface area? By normalizing the volume by the surface area, the value of the measure can be compared for different size of images. >The simplest objective measure is mean-square error, but it doesn't always >correlate closely with a subjective evaluation of image quality. Granted, >the above technique is *an* objective measure, but the question is whether >it is a good one for the purposes of the original poster. The Mean-Square error is kinda L2 metric. Apparently, if MSE is used as a measure, where the slope is high, the difference value is emphasized more than in flat regions. I am saying that MSE measure is ** not invariant ** w.r.t. a coordinate system. The original poster was looking for methods to compare various algorithms on image restoration, wasn`t it ? >-- >Stan Reeves >Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL 36849 >INTERNET: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu -- yi@ecn.purdue.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<yi.714929332@fife.ecn.purdue.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!fife.ecn.purdue.edu!yiReferences:
<1992Aug26.135228.29944@csd.brispoly.ac.uk> <yi.714841254@fife.ecn.purdue.edu> <sjreeves.920826141537@fourier.ee.eng.auburn.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!fife.ecn.purdue.edu!yi From: yi@fife.ecn.purdue.edu (Juneho Yi) Newsgroups: sci.image.processing Subject: Re: Image Restoration Keywords: Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Entropy, Resolution Message-ID: <yi.714929332@fife.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 27 Aug 92 15:28:52 GMT References: <1992Aug26.135228.29944@csd.brispoly.ac.uk> <yi.714841254@fife.ecn.purdue.edu> <sjreeves.920826141537@fourier.ee.eng.auburn.edu> Sender: news@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news) Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 47