24 January 2011 Evaluating super resolution algorithms
Author Affiliations +
This study intends to establish a sound testing and evaluation methodology based upon the human visual characteristics for appreciating the image restoration accuracy; in addition to comparing the subjective results with predictions by some objective evaluation methods. In total, six different super resolution (SR) algorithms - such as iterative back-projection (IBP), robust SR, maximum a posteriori (MAP), projections onto convex sets (POCS), a non-uniform interpolation, and frequency domain approach - were selected. The performance comparison between the SR algorithms in terms of their restoration accuracy was carried out through both subjectively and objectively. The former methodology relies upon the paired comparison method that involves the simultaneous scaling of two stimuli with respect to image restoration accuracy. For the latter, both conventional image quality metrics and color difference methods are implemented. Consequently, POCS and a non-uniform interpolation outperformed the others for an ideal situation, while restoration based methods appear more accurate to the HR image in a real world case where any prior information about the blur kernel is remained unknown. However, the noise-added-image could not be restored successfully by any of those methods. The latest International Commission on Illumination (CIE) standard color difference equation CIEDE2000 was found to predict the subjective results accurately and outperformed conventional methods for evaluating the restoration accuracy of those SR algorithms.
© (2011) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Youn Jin Kim, Youn Jin Kim, Jong Hyun Park, Jong Hyun Park, Gun Shik Shin, Gun Shik Shin, Hyun-Seung Lee, Hyun-Seung Lee, Dong-Hyun Kim, Dong-Hyun Kim, Se Hyeok Park, Se Hyeok Park, Jaehyun Kim, Jaehyun Kim, } "Evaluating super resolution algorithms", Proc. SPIE 7867, Image Quality and System Performance VIII, 78670D (24 January 2011); doi: 10.1117/12.874392; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.874392

Back to Top