SUBJECTIVE IMAGE QUALITY TRADEOFF BETWEEN SPATIAL RESOLUTION AND QUANTIZATION NOISE

Under the Esteemed Guidance of Mr.K.Vasu Babu

Assistant professor

TEAM MEMBERS: Ch.V.Krishna Mohan B.Sravani B.J.V.P.Gowtham Kumar K.Sindhura G.Anudeep Varma

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT Lossless and Lossy Compression Overview of JPEG Lossy Compression Comparison between JPEG and JPEG 2000

ABSTRACT
In general quality metrics compare the original image to a distorted

image at the same resolution assuming a fixed viewing condition.

However, in many applications, such as video streaming, due to the

diversity of channel capacities and display devices, the viewing distance and the spatiotemporal resolution of the displayed signal may be adapted in order to optimize the perceived signal quality.
For example, at low bit rate coding applications an observer may prefer

to reduce the resolution or increase the viewing distance to reduce the visibility of the compression artifacts.

 The tradeoff between resolution/viewing conditions and visibility of

compression artifacts requires new approaches for the evaluation of image quality that account for both image distortions and image size.
In order to better understand such tradeoffs, we conducted subjective tests

using two representative still image coders, JPEG and JPEG 2000.
Our results indicate that an observer would indeed prefer a lower spatial

resolution (at a fixed viewing distance) in order to reduce the visibility of the compression artifacts, but not all the way to the point where the artifacts are completely invisible.

Lossless and Lossy Compression

Lossless compression
There is no information loss, and the image can be

reconstructed exactly the same as the original Applications: Medical imagery, Archiving

Lossy compression
Information loss is tolerable Many-to-1 mapping in compression eg. quantization Applications: commercial distribution (DVD) and rate

constrained environment where lossless methods can not provide enough compression ratio

Why Lossy?
o

In most applications related to consumer electronics, lossless compression is not necessary

o What we care is the subjective quality of the decoded

image, not those intensity values

o With the relaxation, it is possible to achieve a

higher compression ratio (CR)

o For photographic images, CR is usually below 2 for

lossless, but can reach over 10 for lossy

Lossy Image Compression and JPEG Coding Standard

Why lossy for images?
Tradeoff between Rate and Distortion

Transform basics
Unitary transform

Quantization basics
Uniform Quantization

JPEG=T+Q+C
T: DCT, Q: Uniform Quantization, C: Run-length and

Huffman coding

Overview of JPEG Lossy Compression

Flow-chart diagram of DCT-based coding algorithm specified by Joint Photographic Expert Group (JPEG)

Original

JPEG 27:1

JPEG2000 27:1

JPEG Compression Example

Original image
512 x 512 x 8 bits = 2,097,152 bits

JPEG
27:1 reduction =77,673 bits

JPEG
JPEG is a lossy compression technique used

for full-color or gray-scale images, by exploiting the fact that the human eye will not notice small color changes.
JPEG 2000 is an initiative that will provide an

image coding system using compression techniques based on the use of wavelet technology.

1MB Before JPEG COMPRESSION

JPEG COMPRESSED IMAGE 18.4kb

Comparison between JPEG and JPEG 2000

JPEG 2000 offers numerous advantages over the old JPEG standard.
One main advantage is that JPEG 2000 offers both lossy and

lossless compression in the same file stream. while JPEG usually only utilizes lossy compression. The JPEG 2000 files can also handle up to 256 channels of information as compared to the current JPEG standard. Another advantage of JPEG 2000 over JPEG is that JPEG 2000 is able to offer higher compression ratios for lossy compression. For lossy compression, data has shown that JPEG 2000 can typically compress images from 20%-200% more than JPEG

Compression efficiency for lossy compression is typically measured using the peak signal to noise ratio, or PSNR, and the root mean square error (RMSE)

Table: Comparison of PSNR compression efficiencies (in dB) for two images at various bit rates

OUTPUT
INPUT IMAGE
JPEG COMPRESSED IMAGE RESOLUTION MODIFIED IMAGE

REFERENCES

[1] T. N. Pappas, R. J. Safranek, and J. Chen, .Perceptual criteria for image quality evaluation,. in Handbook of Image and Video Processing, 2nd ed., A. C. Bovik, Ed. Academic Press, 2005, pp. 939.959. [2] J. H. D. M. Westerink and J. A. J. Roufs, .Subjective image quality as a function of viewing distance, resolution, and picture size,. SMPTE Journal, vol. 98, pp. 113.119, Feb. 1989.

[4] .The effects of picture size and definition on perceived image quality,. in IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 36, 9, Sept. 1989, pp. 1865.1869. [5] Subjective image quality of highdefinition television images,. in Proc. Society for Information Display, vol. 31, 1990, pp. 239.243. [6] C. Kuhmunch, G. Kuhne, C. Schremmer, and T. Haenselmann, .A video-scaling algorithm based on human perception for spatio-temporal stimuli,. in Multimedia Computing and Networking, W. chi Feng and M. G. Kienzle, Eds., Proc. SPIE, Vol. 4312, San Jose, CA, Jan. 2001, pp. 13.24.

[3] P. G. J. Barten, .The SQRI method: A new method for the evaluation of visible resolution on a display,. in Proc. Society for Information Display, vol. 28, 1987, pp. 253.262.

CONCLUSION
This paper has highlighted the need for a fundamental

change in our understanding of image quality assessment, both subjective and objective. The results of our subjective tests are expected to be applicable in the development of image fidelity measures that predict image quality over multiple resolutions and viewing conditions, and take into account both the visibility of the compression artifacts and the image size, i.e., the visibility of the signal itself. Such measures will be invaluable for scalable image and video compression applications.