A new reduced-reference image quality assessment based on the SVD signal projection

Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

A new image quality metric is proposed in this paper based on the degradation of structural information. It uses the singular value decomposition (SVD) as a structural projection tool called SVD-based reduced-reference image quality evaluator (SBR-IQE). This method employs the SVD signal projection to factorize the reference image matrix as well as its distorted version into their components including singular vectors and values. The singular vectors contain structural information and singular values determine the importance of each singular vector in the image structure. Thus, the minutiae perceptual information could be eliminated by singular values diagnosis. The remaining components are considered as the image features. The task of similarity measurement includes three comparisons based on luminance, contrast and structure. The overall quality evaluation is obtained according to these three comparisons. Experimental results have demonstrated that the proposed metric outperforms the state-of-the-art RR-IQA metrics and enjoys lower computational cost as well.

Keywords

Reduced reference image quality assessment Singular value decomposition Structural information 

References

  1. 1.
    Bhateja V, Kalsi A, Srivastava A (2015) Image similarity metric (ISIM): a reduced reference image quality assessment approach. CSI Trans ICT 3(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnec M, Le Callet P, Barba D (2003) An image quality assessment method based on perception of structural information. In: Image processing, 2003. ICIP 2003. Proceedings. 2003 international conference on (Vol. 3, pp III-185)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnec M, Le Callet P, Barba D (2005) Visual features for image quality assessment with reduced reference. In: Image processing, 2005. ICIP 2005. IEEE international conference on (Vol. 1, pp I-421)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen MJ, Bovik AC (2011) No-reference image blur assessment using multiscale gradient. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2011(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chono K, Lin YC, Varodayan D, Miyamoto Y, Girod B (2008) Reduced-reference image quality assessment using distributed source coding. In: Multimedia and expo, 2008 I.E. international conference on (pp 609–612)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daly S (1993) The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. Digit Images Hum Vis 4:124–125Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckert MP, Bradley AP (1998) Perceptual quality metrics applied to still image compression. Signal Process 70(3):177–200CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eskicioglu AM, Fisher PS (1995) Image quality measures and their performance. IEEE Trans Commun 43(12):2959–2965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Wang,(2001) Rate scalable foveated image and video communications. PhD thesis, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girod B (1993) What's wrong with mean-squared error? In: Watson AB (ed) Digital images and human vision. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 207–220Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu A, Zhang R, Zhan X, Yin D (2011) Image quality assessment incorporating the interaction of spatial and spectral sensitivities of hvs. In: Proc. 13th IASTED int. conf. on signal and image processing (pp 1–7)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kakarala R, Ogunbona PO (2001) Signal analysis using a multiresolution form of the singular value decomposition. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(5):724–735MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuo TY, Su PC, Tsai CM (2016) Improved visual information fidelity based on sensitivity characteristics of digital images. J Vis Commun Image Represent 40:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kusuma TM, Zepernick HJ (2003) A reduced-reference perceptual quality metric for in-service image quality assessment. In: Mobile future and symposium on trends in communications, 2003. SympoTIC’03. Joint first workshop on (pp 71–74)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larson EC, Chandler DM Categorial image quality (CSIQ) database. (Online) Available http://vision.okstate.edu/csiq
  16. 16.
    Le Callet P, Autrusseau F (2005) Subjective quality assessment Irccyn/IVC database. http://www2.irccyn.ec-nantes.fr/ivcdb/
  17. 17.
    Liu L, Dong H, Huang H, Bovik AC (2014) No-reference image quality assessment in curvelet domain. Signal Process Image Commun 29(4):494–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu L, Liu B, Huang H, Bovik AC (2014) No-reference image quality assessment based on spatial and spectral entropies. Signal Process Image Commun 29(8):856–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu D, Xu Y, Quan Y, Le Callet P (2014) Reduced reference image quality assessment using regularity of phase congruency. Signal Process Image Commun 29(8):844–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu D, Xu Y, Quan Y, Yu Z, Le Callet P (2015) Directional regularity for visual quality estimation. Signal Process 110:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mansouri A, Aznaveh AM, Torkamani-Azar F, Jahanshahi JA (2009) Image quality assessment using the singular value decomposition theorem. Opt Rev 16(2):49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mittal A, Soundararajan R, Bovik AC (2013) Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Process Lett 20(3):209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Narwaria M, Lin W (2012) SVD-based quality metric for image and video using machine learning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part B (Cybernetics) 42(2):347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ponomarenko N, Egiazarrian K Tampere image database 2008 TID2008. (Online) Available http://www.ponomarenko.info/tid2008.htm
  25. 25.
    Rehman A, Wang Z (2012) Reduced-reference image quality assessment by structural similarity estimation. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(8):3378–3389MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rostami M, Michailovich O, Wang Z (2012) Image deblurring using derivative compressed sensing for optical imaging application. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(7):3139–3149MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saha A, Wu QJ (2013) Perceptual image quality assessment using phase deviation sensitive energy features. Signal Process 93(11):3182–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shahid M, Rossholm A, Lövström B, Zepernick HJ (2014) No-reference image and video quality assessment: a classification and review of recent approaches. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2014(1):40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheikh HR, Seshadrinathan K, Moorthy K, Wang Z, Bovik AC, Cormack LK Image and video quality assessment research at LIVE. (Online) Available http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality
  30. 30.
    Shnayderman A, Gusev A, Eskicioglu AM (2006) An SVD-based grayscale image quality measure for local and global assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(2):422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soundararajan R, Bovik AC (2012) RRED indices: Reduced reference entropic differencing for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(2):517–526MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Teo PC, Heeger DJ (1994) Perceptual image distortion. In: Image processing, 1994. Proceedings. ICIP-94., IEEE international conference (Vol. 2, pp 982–986)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang Z (2011) Applications of objective image quality assessment methods [applications corner]. IEEE Signal Process Mag 28(6):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang Z, Simoncelli EP (2005, January) Reduced-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural image statistic model. Hum Vis Electron Imaging 5666:149–159Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Lu L (2002) Why is image quality assessment so difficult? In: Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2002 I.E. International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp IV-3313)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang Z, Simoncelli EP, Bovik AC (2003) Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: Signals, systems and computers, 2004. Conference record of the thirty-seventh Asilomar conference on (Vol. 2, pp 1398–1402)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang S, Deng C, Lin W, Zhao B, Chen J (2013) A novel SVD-based image quality assessment metric. In: Image Processing (ICIP), 2013 20th IEEE international conference on (pp 423–426)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Winkler S (1999) Perceptual distortion metric for digital color video. In: Human vision and electronic imaging (pp 175–184)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wu J, Lin W, Shi G, Liu A (2013) Reduced-reference image quality assessment with visual information fidelity. IEEE Trans Multimed 15(7):1700–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu J, Lin W, Fang Y, Li L, Shi G, Niwas I (2016) Visual structural degradation based reduced-reference image quality assessment. Signal Process Image Commun 47:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yalman Y (2014) Histogram based perceptual quality assessment method for color images. Comput Stand Interfaces 36(6):899–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang Y, Wu J, Shi G, Xie X, Niu Y, Fan C (2015) Reduced-Reference Image Quality Assessment Based on Discrete Cosine Transform Entropy. IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Commun Comput Sci 98(12):2642–2649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang Y, Wu J, Xie X, Li L, Shi G (2016) Blind image quality assessment with improved natural scene statistics model. Digit Signal Process 57:56–65MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhu X, Milanfar P (2009) A no-reference sharpness metric sensitive to blur and noise. In: Quality of multimedia experience, 2009. QoMEx 2009. International workshop on (pp 64–69)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentSemnan UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations