“Dynamic range independent image quality assessment” by Aydin, Mantiuk, Myszkowski and Seidel

  • ©Tunc Aydin, Rafal K. Mantiuk, Karol Myszkowski, and Hans-Peter Seidel




    Dynamic range independent image quality assessment



    The diversity of display technologies and introduction of high dynamic range imagery introduces the necessity of comparing images of radically different dynamic ranges. Current quality assessment metrics are not suitable for this task, as they assume that both reference and test images have the same dynamic range. Image fidelity measures employed by a majority of current metrics, based on the difference of pixel intensity or contrast values between test and reference images, result in meaningless predictions if this assumption does not hold. We present a novel image quality metric capable of operating on an image pair where both images have arbitrary dynamic ranges. Our metric utilizes a model of the human visual system, and its central idea is a new definition of visible distortion based on the detection and classification of visible changes in the image structure. Our metric is carefully calibrated and its performance is validated through perceptual experiments. We demonstrate possible applications of our metric to the evaluation of direct and inverse tone mapping operators as well as the analysis of the image appearance on displays with various characteristics.


    1. Akyüz, A. O., Reinhard, E., Fleming, R., Riecke, B. E., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2007. Do HDR displays support LDR content? a psychophysical evaluation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 26, 3. Article 38. Google ScholarDigital Library
    2. Cramér, H. 1999. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
    3. D’Agostino, R. 1972. Relation between the chi-squared and ANOVA test for testing equality of k independent dichotomous populations. The American Statistician 26, 30–32.Google Scholar
    4. Daly, S. 1993. The Visible Differences Predictor: An algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In Digital Images and Human Vision, MIT Press, A. B. Watson, Ed., 179–206. Google ScholarDigital Library
    5. Drago, F., Myszkowski, K., Annen, T., and Chiba, N. 2003. Adaptive logarithmic mapping for displaying high contrast scenes. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. of EUROGRAPHICS) 24, 3, 419–426.Google ScholarCross Ref
    6. Durand, F., and Dorsey, J. 2002. Fast bilateral filtering for the display of high-dynamic-range images. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 21, 3, 257–266. Google ScholarDigital Library
    7. Fattal, R., Lischinski, D., and Werman, M. 2002. Gradient domain high dynamic range compression. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 21, 3, 249–256. Google ScholarDigital Library
    8. Janssen, R. 2001. Computational Image Quality. SPIE Press.Google Scholar
    9. Kuang, J., Johnson, G. M., and Fairchild, M. D. 2007. iCAM06: A refined image appearance model for hdr image rendering. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 18, 5, 406–414. Google ScholarDigital Library
    10. Lubin, J. 1995. Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition. World Scientific, ch. A Visual Discrimination Model for Imaging System Design and Evaluation, 245–283.Google Scholar
    11. Mantiuk, R., Daly, S., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H.-P. 2005. Predicting visible differences in high dynamic range images – model and its calibration. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging X, vol. 5666 of SPIE Proceedings Series, 204–214.Google Scholar
    12. Meylan, L., Daly, S., and Susstrunk, S. 2007. Tone mapping for high dynamic range displays. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XII, SPIE, volume 6492.Google Scholar
    13. Moon, P., and Spencer, D. 1944. On the stiles-crawford effect. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 34, 319–329.Google ScholarCross Ref
    14. Pattanaik, S. N., Tumblin, J. E., Yee, H., and Greenberg, D. P. 2000. Time-dependent visual adaptation for fast realistic image display. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, 47–54. Google ScholarDigital Library
    15. Ramanarayanan, G., Ferwerda, J., Walter, B., and Bala, K. 2007. Visual Equivalence: Towards a new standard for Image Fidelity. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 26, 3. Article 76. Google ScholarDigital Library
    16. Reinhard, E., Stark, M., Shirley, P., and Ferwerda, J. 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 21, 3, 267–276. Google ScholarDigital Library
    17. Reinhard, E., Ward, G., Pattanaik, S., and Debevec, P. 2005. High Dynamic Range Imaging: Acquisition, Display, and Image-Based Lighting. Morgan Kauffman. Google ScholarDigital Library
    18. Rempel, A. G., Trentacoste, M., Seetzen, H., Young, H. D., Heidrich, W., Whitehead, L., and Ward, G. 2007. Ldr2Hdr: On-the-fly reverse tone mapping of legacy video and photographs. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 26, 3. Article 39. Google ScholarDigital Library
    19. Seetzen, H., Heidrich, W., Stuerzlinger, W., Ward, G., Whitehead, L., Trentacoste, M., Ghosh, A., and Vorozcovs, A. 2004. High dynamic range display systems. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
    20. Smith, K., Krawczyk, G., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H.-P. 2006. Beyond tone mapping: Enhanced depiction of tone mapped HDR images. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. of EUROGRAPHICS) 25, 3, 427–438.Google ScholarCross Ref
    21. Wang, Z., and Bovik, A. C. 2002. A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 9, 3 (March), 81–84.Google Scholar
    22. Wang, Z., and Bovik, A. C. 2006. Modern Image Quality Assessment. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
    23. Wang, Z., and Simoncelli, E. P. 2005. Translation insensitive image similarity in complex wavelet domain. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, & Signal Processing, vol. II, 573–576.Google Scholar
    24. Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E., and Bovik, A., 2003. Multi-scale structural similarity for image quality assessment.Google Scholar
    25. Watson, A. 1987. The Cortex transform: rapid computation of simulated neural images. Comp. Vision Graphics and Image Processing 39, 311–327. Google ScholarDigital Library
    26. Watson, A. 2000. Visual detection of spatial contrast patterns: Evaluation of five simple models. Optics Express 6, 1, 12–33.Google ScholarCross Ref
    27. Winkler, S. 2005. Digital Video Quality: Vision Models and Metrics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
    28. Wu, H., and Rao, K. 2005. Digital Video Image Quality and Perceptual Coding. CRC Press. Google ScholarDigital Library

ACM Digital Library Publication:

Overview Page: