General image-quality equation: GIQE

Applied Optics

Volumn 36, Issue 32, 1997, Pages 8322-8328

  Leachtenauer, Jon C ^a   Malila, William ^b   Irvine, John ^a   Colburn, Linda ^b   Salvaggio, Nanette ^c  

^a ERIM   (United States)

^b ERIM International   (United States)

^c TASC   (United States)

Author keywords

Aerial imagery; Image interpretability; Image quality; Predicting image interpretability; System performance prediction

Indexed keywords

EID: 18444401766     PISSN: 1559128X     EISSN: 21553165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/AO.36.008322     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. L. A. Maver, C. D. Erdman, and K. Riehl, “Imagery interpret-ability rating scales,” in Digest of Technical Papers: International Symposium of the Society for Information Display (Society for Information Display, Santa Ana, Calif., 1995), Vol. 26, pp. 117-120.
2. IRARS Committee, General Image Quality Equation: Users Guide, Version 3.0, High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Tier II+ distribution (IRARS Committee, Washington, D.C., 1994).
3. J. C. Leachtenauer, “National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scales: overview and product description,” in ASPRS/ASCM Annual Convention and Exhibition Technical Papers: Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry (American Society for Photo-grammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Baltimore, Md., 1996), Vol. 1, pp. 262-272.
4. H. L. Snyder, “Visual search and image quality,” Rep. AMRL-TR-76-89 (Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1976).
5. N. H. Nill and B. H. Bouzas, “Objective image quality measure derived from digital image power spectra,” Opt. Eng. 31, 813-825 (1992).
6. U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Department of the Navy, and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Photo Interpretation Handbook, TM30-45/NAVAER 10-35-610/AFM 200-50 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1954).
7. C. C. Bennett, S. H. Winterstein, J. D. Taylor, and R. E. Kent, “A study of image quality and speeded intrinsic target recognition,” IBM Rep. 63-535-1 (IBM Federal Systems Division, Oswego, N.Y., 1963).
8. Applied Psychology Corporation, “Performance of photographic interpreters as a function of time and image characteristics,” Rep. RADC-TDR-63-313 (Rome Air Development Center, Rome, N.Y., 1963).
9. R. A. Erickson and J. C. Hemingway, “Image identification on television,” Rep. NWC TP 5025 (Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif., 1970).
10. H. C. Borrough, R. F. Fallis, T. H. Warnock, and J. H. Britt, “Quantitative determination of image quality,” Rep. D2-114058 (Boeing Aerospace Company, Kent, Wash., 1967).
11. H. L. Task, “An evaluation and comparison of several measures of image quality for television displays,” Rep. AMRL-TR-79-7 (Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1979).
12. R. A. Schindler, “Optical power spectrum analysis ofprocessed imagery,” Rep. AMRL-TR-79-29 (Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1979).
13. F. A. Rossell and R. H. Willson, “Recent psychophysical experiments and the display signal-to-noise ratio concept,” in Perception of Displayed Information, L. M. Biberman, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1973).
14. R. J. Beaton, R. W. Monty, and H. L. Snyder, “An evaluation of system quality metrics for hard-copy and soft-copy displays of digital imagery,” in Applications of Digital Image Processing VI, A. G. Tescher, ed., Proc. SPIE 432, 320-328 (1983).
15. R. E. Simmons and D. W. Cheeseman, Physique (eoi) User’s Guide, Version 3.10 (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, N.Y., 1991).
16. 2 X/3.32.
17. J. C. Leachtenauer and N. L. Salvaggio, “NIIRS prediction, use of the Briggs target,” in ASPRS /ASCM Annual Convention and Exhibition Technical Papers: Remote Sensing and Pho-togrammetry, (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Baltimore, Md., 1996), Vol. 1, pp. 282-291.
18. The term λ (f-number)/P is the ratio of the wavelength times the f-number to the pixel pitch. A ratio of greater than 1 denotes oversampling relative to the cutoff frequency.