Continuous assessment of image quality

SMPTE Journal

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 123-128

  De Ridder, Huib ^a,b,c,d   Hamberg, Roelof ^e,f,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c Institute for Perception   (United States)

^d ROYAL NETHERLANDS ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^e UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^f LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g IPO ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002869974     PISSN: 00361682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5594/J15812     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. J. A. J. Roufs, "Perceptual Image Quality: Concept and Measurement," Philips J. Res., 47:35-62, 1992.
2. ITU/R Rec. 500-5, Method for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures, 1992.
3. J. W. Allnatt, Transmitted-Picture Assessment, John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1983.
4. H. de Ridder and G. M. M. Majoor, "Numerical Category Scaling: An Efficient Method for Assessing Digital Image Coding Impairments." in Human Vision and Electronic Imaging: Models, Methods, and Applications. B.E. Rogowitz and J.P. Allebach, eds., SPIE, 1249:65-77. 1990.
5. N. K. Lodge, "Interpolative Coding Methods for the Digital Transmission of Conventional and High Definition Television," Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 1993.
6. 7 and is usually associated with short-term or working memory operations.
7. A. D. Baddeley, Working Memory, Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 1986.
8. V. Seferidis, M. Ghanbari, and D. E. Pearson, "Forgiveness Effect in Subjective Assessment of Packet Video," Electronics Letters, 28:2013-2014, 1992.
9. R. Aldridge, J. Davidoff, M. Ghanbari, D. Hands, and D. Pearson, "Recency Effect in the Subjective Assessment of Digitally-Coded Television Pictures," 5th IEE Intl. Conf. on Image Processing and Its Applications, pp. 336-339, Edinburgh, U.K., July 4-6, 1995.
10. R. Hamberg and H. de Ridder, "Continuous Assessment of Perceptual Image Quality," J. Optical Society of America, 12:2573-2577, 1995.
11. This research was carried out as part of the European RACE project MOSAIC (Methods for Optimization and Subjective Assessment in Image Communications), which focuses on evaluation methods of digital imaging systems.
12. K. Teunissen, "The Validity of CCIR Quality Indicators Along a Graphical Scale." SMPTE J., 105:144-149, Mar. 1996.
13. C. Chatfield, Statistics for Technology, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall: London, 1983.
14. 0 should be larger or equal to zero, because the response cannot precede the quality impression.
15. SAS/STAT User Guide, Version 6, 4th ed., SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., 1993.