Conference Paper

Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM.

DOI: 10.1109/ICPR.2010.579 Conference: 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2010, Istanbul, Turkey, 23-26 August 2010
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT In this paper, we analyse two well-known objective image quality metrics, the peak-signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) as well as the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and we derive a simple mathematical relationship between them which works for various kinds of image degradations such as Gaussian blur, additive Gaussian white noise, jpeg and jpeg2000 compression. A series of tests realized on images extracted from the Kodak database gives a better understanding of the similarity and difference between the SSIM and the PSNR.

  • Source
    International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Application in Engineering, Technology & Sciences. 04/2014; 7(1):51 - 57.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Image quality metrics (IQMs), such as the mean squared error (MSE) and the structural similarity index (SSIM), are quantitative measures to approximate perceived visual quality. In this paper, through analyzing the relationship between the MSE and the SSIM under an additive noise distortion model, we propose a perceptually relevant MSE-based IQM, MSE-SSIM, which is expressed in terms of the variance of the source image and the MSE between the source and distorted images. Evaluations on three publicly available databases (LIVE, CSIQ, and TID2008) show that the proposed metric, despite requiring less computation, compares favourably in performance to several existing IQMs. In addition, due to its simplicity, MSE-SSIM is amenable for the use in a wide range of image and video tasks that involve solving an optimization problem. As an example, MSE-SSIM is used as the objective function in designing a Wiener filter that aims at optimizing the perceptual visual quality of the output. Experimental results show that the images filtered with a MSE-SSIM-optimal Wiener filter have better visual quality than those filtered with a MSE-optimal Wiener filter.
    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 11/2013; 22(11):4447-59. · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The transmission of real-time multimedia streams requires service guarantees, such as limited packet loss, minimum bandwidth and low delay and jitter, to ensure a good quality of experience (QoE) for viewers. The spatial and temporal redundancy of videos is addressed by coding algorithms that reduce the amount of information necessary to represent the images. As a consequence, multimedia traffic commonly presents variable bit rate behavior and self-similar characteristics. Although the reduction in bandwidth requirements is highly desirable, the burstiness of traffic leads to problems in network design and performance prediction. Even a low level of packet loss could severely affect the viewer QoE. In this paper, we propose a real-time packet payload classifier, implemented with artificial neural network (ANN) to be used at network routers. A priority packet discard strategy can be implemented to avoid discarding packets that carry the most relevant information for image reconstruction, thus improving the perceived quality. This approach does not require changes at the video source to classify outgoing packets. The ANN was employed because of its good capacity in temporal series recognition and the possibility of its implementation in real-time systems due to its low computational complexity. The video traces used for training and validation were encoded with H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding and are publicly available. The priority packet discard strategy was tested through computational simulations. The QoE was estimated comparing the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) of original and the received frames of video, and the results indicate that the proposed method improves the QoE. The implementation does not require packet payload processing and can be performed with network layer information only.
    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 01/2014; 27:137–147. · 1.96 Impact Factor


Available from