On Jul 16, 9:28=A0am, AJ <arandal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After some image restoration work (which some people who follow this
> group may recall from a previous thread), I have now come to the point
> where I need to measure the quality of some restored images. =A0Part of
> this analysis has involved using different metrics such as VIF, MSSIM,
> PSNR HVSM and PSNR to measure the quality of the restored images.
>
> Now I would also like to conduct a subjective analysis, which is where
> YOU can help! :)
>
> I have uploaded a single image containing different results, and I
> would be extremely grateful if you would be able to take 30 seconds
> out of your time to rate the images in order of visual quality. =A0The
> link to the images
ishttp://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll146/arandall85/=
image_poll.png
> (please don't forget to use the zoom option on your browser if it
> automatically shrinks images to fit... the closer you can see the
> images, the more accurate your analysis will be).
>
> Each image is numbered (from 1-5). =A0What I would like is for you to
> reply to this thread with your opinion on the order of the images,
> from best to worst (where image 1 is the best quality, and image 5 is
> the worst).
>
> For example, if I thought the best image was number 2, and the worst
> was number 1, I would post something like the following:
>
> 2,4,3,5,1.
>
> and also a quick explanation as to why you thought some were better
> than others (if you have time!...the results are much more im****tant
> than an explanation).
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> AJ
to me: 2-3-4-5-1
I don't see so much differences between the 2-3 and the 4-5 pairs. It
could be also 3-2-4-5-1, 3-2-5-4-1, etc., but it is for me clearly
that the pair 2-3 have a better quality as the 4-5, and that the image
1 is the worst.
Jorge
|
