Sign in

Not a member? | Forgot your Password?

Search imagedsp

Search tips

Find us on Facebook!





Subscribe to imagedsp

Search tips

Free PDF Downloads

A Quadrature Signals Tutorial: Complex, But Not Complicated

Understanding the 'Phasing Method' of Single Sideband Demodulation

Complex Digital Signal Processing in Telecommunications

Introduction to Sound Processing

C++ Tutorial

Introduction of C Programming for DSP Applications

Fixed-Point Arithmetic: An Introduction

Cascaded Integrator-Comb (CIC) Filter Introduction

Discussion Groups

FIR Filter Design Software

See Also

Embedded SystemsFPGA

Discussion Groups | Image Signal Processing | quality metric PSNR??

Technical Discussions related to Image Processing (image coding, compression, digital effects, mpeg, etc)

  

Post a new Thread



Is this thread worth a thumbs up?

0

quality metric PSNR?? - rukmanimohan04 - Apr 12 9:49:00 2005


hi,

I am a bit confused regarding the use of PSNR... Is it absolutely a
blunder to compare an original image and its 2D DCT compressed-
decompressed version using this metric PSNR?? Can any one give me some
appropriate values for PSNR in this case? I want to know if this kind
of comparison based on PSNR value is really outdted????
waiting for ur reply,
regds,
rukmani







Re: quality metric PSNR?? - Sameer Kibey - Apr 12 17:03:00 2005


Hi Rukmani

PSNR is a standard way of measuring the quality of
compressed images. It is absolutely not outdated! Even
papers on JPEG 2000, if you have seen them, compare
baseline JPEG and JPEG 2000 on the basis of PSNR vs
bits/pixel values. (well, JPEG 2000 isnt recent
anymore, but you get the idea)

PSNR = 10*log10 (255^2/MSE)

where original image is assumed to be use 8 bits per
pixel (hence 'peak' = 255).

Usually PSNR of more than 35 dB is considered good
quality.

If you are dealing with colored images, you would work
with the Y,U,V components separately and quote either
the average PSNR in dB or the three PSNR values
separately (psnrY, psnrU, psnrV) to indicate the
quality of the compressed image.

hope this helps to some extent.
Sameer

----
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there." - Richard Feynman --- rukmanimohan04 <rukmanimohan04@rukm...> wrote: >
>
> hi,
>
> I am a bit confused regarding the use of PSNR... Is
> it absolutely a
> blunder to compare an original image and its 2D DCT
> compressed-
> decompressed version using this metric PSNR?? Can
> any one give me some
> appropriate values for PSNR in this case? I want to
> know if this kind
> of comparison based on PSNR value is really
> outdted????
> waiting for ur reply,
> regds,
> rukmani
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony







Re: quality metric PSNR?? - mpwi...@sandia.gov - May 19 7:07:42 2006

Hi Rukmani,

I feel PSNR and MSE metrics are good for general quality assessed by the human
eye.  However a computer will feel different.  If you need to detect or segment
an object or classify the image PSNR tells you nothing.  If say blurring
artifacts or edge artifacts are introduced you are hosed.  I suggest you
evaluate what the end user will be doing with the imagery and apply an
appropriate evaluation such as classification rate, etc.  However for
applications such as medical diagnosis the end user is using their vision and
PSNR can be sufficient unless the doctor is using edges or other features as
clues.  Then you may want to compare edge maps or texture features and compare
the values pre/post compression.

Good Luck,
Mark
>    
>  
>  
>  
>hi,  
>  
>I am a bit confused regarding the use of PSNR... Is it absolutely a   
>blunder to compare an original image and its 2D DCT compressed-  
>decompressed version using this metric PSNR?? Can any one give me some   
>appropriate values for PSNR in this case? I want to know if this kind   
>of comparison based on PSNR value is really outdted????  
>waiting for ur reply,  
>regds,  
>rukmani  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>