4.7 Article

Model-Based Referenceless Quality Metric of 3D Synthesized Images Using Local Image Description

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 394-405

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2017.2733164

关键词

Quality assessment; no-reference; depth image-based rendering; image description; autoregression; saliency

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61703009, 61473034, 61673053]
  2. Nova Programme Interdisciplinary Cooperation Project [Z161100004916041]
  3. Singapore MoE [M4011379, RG141/14, M4020355.020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New challenges have been brought out along with the emerging of 3D-related technologies, such as virtual reality, augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality. Free viewpoint video (FVV), due to its applications in remote surveillance, remote education, and so on, based on the flexible selection of direction and viewpoint, has been perceived as the development direction of next-generation video technologies and has drawn a wide range of researchers' attention. Since FVV images are synthesized via a depth image-based rendering (DIBR) procedure in the blind environment (without reference images), a reliable real-time blind quality evaluation and monitoring system is urgently required. But existing assessment metrics do not render human judgments faithfully mainly because geometric distortions are generated by DIBR. To this end, this paper proposes a novel referenceless quality metric of DIBR-synthesized images using the autoregression (AR)-based local image description. It was found that, after the AR prediction, the reconstructed error between a DIBR-synthesized image and its AR-predicted image can accurately capture the geometry distortion. The visual saliency is then leveraged to modify the proposed blind quality metric to a sizable margin. Experiments validate the superiority of our no-reference quality method as compared with prevailing full-, reduced-, and no-reference models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据