4.6 Article

Making a Completely Blind Image Quality Analyzer

Journal

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 209-212

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LSP.2012.2227726

Keywords

Completely blind; distortion free; image quality assessment; no reference

Funding

  1. Intel
  2. Cisco under the VAWN program
  3. National Science Foundation [CCF-0728748, IIS-1116656]
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [1116656] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An important aim of research on the blind image quality assessment (IQA) problem is to devise perceptual models that can predict the quality of distorted images with as little prior knowledge of the images or their distortions as possible. Current state-of-the-art general purpose no reference (NR) IQA algorithms require knowledge about anticipated distortions in the form of training examples and corresponding human opinion scores. However we have recently derived a blind IQA model that only makes use of measurable deviations from statistical regularities observed in natural images, without training on human-rated distorted images, and, indeed without any exposure to distorted images. Thus, it is completely blind. The new IQA model, which we call the Natural Image Quality Evaluator (NIQE) is based on the construction of a quality aware collection of statistical features based on a simple and successful space domain natural scene statistic (NSS) model. These features are derived from a corpus of natural, undistorted images. Experimental results show that the new index delivers performance comparable to top performing NR IQA models that require training on large databases of human opinions of distorted images. A software release is available at http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/niqe_release.zip.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available