Sparse Representation-Based Full-Reference Quality Assessment of Distorted Satellite Stereo Images

Fig. 3. Original left image of building detection. (a) Corner detection results of original image; (b) DSM corresponding to Fig. (a); (c) building detection results

Download full size

Fig. 4. Building detection in some areas. (a) Corner detection results; (b) DSM corresponding to Fig. (a); (c) building test results

Download full size

Fig. 5. Building detection results. (a) Original image; (b) blur distortion image; (c) noise distortion image; (d) building detection of original image; (e) building detection result after blur distortion; (f) building detection result after noise distortion

Download full size

Fig. 6. Building detection results. (a) Building detection results of original image; (b) building detection results after blur distortion; (c) building detection results after noise distortion

Download full size

Fig. 7. Histogram of detection accuracy in the database

Download full size

Fig. 8. Block diagram of objective quality evaluation. (a) Feature extraction; (b) sparse representation-based similarity measure

Download full size

Fig. 9. SIFT features extraction. (a) SIFT features extraction of the original image; (b) SIFT features extraction of distorted image

Download full size

Fig. 10. Scatter plots of evaluation prediction values and detection accuracy rates obtained by different evaluation methods. (a) MS-SSIM; (b) SSIM; (c) IFC; (d) VIF; (e) model in Ref.[27]; (f) FSIM; (g) GSM; (h) model in Ref.[29]; (i) proposed method

Download full size

Table 1. Performance comparison of individual quality values
View table
Table 1. Performance comparison of individual quality values
Criteria $\begin{matrix} Q_{S}^{SIFT} \end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix} Q_{O}^{SIFT} \end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix} Q_{S}^{BRISK} \end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix} Q_{O}^{BRISK} \end{matrix}$ Q_f
PLCC 0.8213 0.7203 0.8204 0.8469 0.9013
SROCC 0.7951 0.7048 0.8024 0.8024 0.8772
KROCC 0.5976 0.5279 0.5755 0.6065 0.7043
RMSE 6.6405 8.2312 6.7287 6.3688 5.0103

Table 2. Comparison of overall performance of different evaluation methods

View table

Table 2. Comparison of overall performance of different evaluation methods

Model	PLCC	SROCC	KROCC	RMSE
MS-SSIM	0.8146	0.7938	0.6288	6.9891
SSIM	0.6551	0.6135	0.4311	8.8133
IFC	0.8285	0.8154	0.6705	6.6789
VIF	0.8890	0.8722	0.6839	6.3872
Model in Ref.[27]	0.7929	0.7445	0.5477	7.0585
FSIM	0.6971	0.6623	0.4735	8.2684
Model in Ref.[29]	0.6891	0.6750	0.4830	8.4530
GSM	0.6610	0.6916	0.4987	8.6132
Proposed	0.9013	0.8772	0.7043	5.0103

Table 3. PLCC values of different distortion types
View table
Table 3. PLCC values of different distortion types
Distortion Model
MS-SSIM SSIM IFC VIF Model in Ref.[27] FSIM Model in Ref.[29] GSM Proposed
Gblur 0.8624 0.6651 0.8342 0.9152 0.8374 0.6494 0.6475 0.7013 0.8901
WN 0.8617 0.5321 0.8360 0.8823 0.7632 0.5836 0.5952 0.5579 0.9272

Table 4. SROCC values of different distortion types
View table
Table 4. SROCC values of different distortion types
Distortion Model
MS-SSIM SSIM IFC VIF Model in Ref.[27] FSIM Model in Ref.[29] GSM Proposed
Gblur 0.9384 0.7079 0.8714 0.8629 0.7774 0.7074 0.7147 0.7384 0.8567
WN 0.8967 0.6719 0.8463 0.8513 0.7577 0.6824 0.6904 0.7013 0.9076

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Yiming Xiong, Feng Shao, Xiangchao Meng. Sparse Representation-Based Full-Reference Quality Assessment of Distorted Satellite Stereo Images[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2018, 38(12): 1210002

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites