CIELAB, GMA 1. INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 Can Gamut Mapping Quality Be Predicted by Colour Image Difference Formulae? Eriko Bando*, Jon Y. Hardeberg, David Connah The Norwegian Color Research Laboratory, Gjøvik University College, Gjøvik, Norway ABSTRACT We carried out a CRT monitor based psychophysical experiment to investigate the quality of three colour image difference metrics, the CIEE ab equation, the icam and the S-CIELAB metrics. Six original images were reproduced through six gamut mapping algorithms for the observer experiment. The result indicates that the colour image difference calculated by each metric does not directly relate to perceived image difference. Keywords: Colour image difference, CRT display, S-CIELAB, icam, CIELAB, GMA 1. INTRODUCTION Digital imagery has become one of the major image reproduction methods, and according to the diversity of imaging methods, there is a strong need to quantify how reproduced images have been changed by the reproduction process and how much of these changes are perceived by the human eye A traditional colour difference equation, the CIELAB E ab colour difference formula, is still the most widely used as a colour difference metric in the graphic arts industry, although it was designed to derive colour difference for a single pair of colour patches. As a result, a pixel by pixel E ab calculation is not able to predict perceived image difference. Therefore, several digital image distortion metrics, which are designed to take into account more characteristics of the human visual system, have been researched and developed over recent years. In this experiment, we consider two perceptual image metrics as well as the CIELAB E ab colour difference formula. The S-CIELAB E metric [1] is an extension of the CIELAB E ab metric, and the aim of S-CIELAB is to take into account the spatial-colour sensitivity of the human eye. One of the most recently developed image appearance models is icam [2, 3]. It is based on the S- CIELAB spatial vision concepts, but incorporates more sophisticated models of chromatic adaptation. It is also simpler than other multi-scale observer models, which can be computationally complex. Colour image difference metrics have complicated structures because they must include various factors that change image appearance, such as colour, noise, sharpness, as well as viewing conditions, illumination level, texture, sample size etc. However, those factors have not been fully adapted into current colour image difference metrics, because there is no clear definition of what weight should be given to each, and what is the best metric and acceptable threshold for each. In this paper we describe experiments to test whether image-difference metrics can be used to assess the quality of a gamut-mapping procedure. Initially we describe a psychophysical experiment to determine the relative quality of 6 gamut mapping algorithms for mapping 6 different images onto a printer gamut. We then apply the colour image difference metrics to the same images and investigate the possibility of correlations between the experimental data and the image difference metric calculations. 2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP A paired image comparison on a CRT monitor is adopted as the method of psychometric scaling for this experiment. Six srgb images, used in previous gamut mapping research [4], were selected (Figure 1). Each original image has been reproduced by six different gamut mapping algorithms (Table 1), so that a total of 42 images (6 originals and 36 reproductions) were used for the paired image comparison. The destination gamut for each of the gamut mapping algorithms was that of a HP Color LaserJet Printer 4550 PS. printer. Two pairs of images were displayed in each trial, hence, the observers judged 4 images (2 pairs) simultaneously. Each pair consisted of one original and one reproduction and the position of original and reproduction was changed randomly to avoid the observer adapting to the original image. The observer was then asked which pair showed the least difference, i.e. which reproduction was closest

2 to the original. The same pairs were shown twice to confirm the repeatability. Therefore a total of 180 comparisons were made per observer. A total of 16 observers, 5 females and 11 males with ages ranging from 22 to 44, participated in the experiment. The observers were asked to take a colour deficiency test before the experiment. The observers sat on a chair which was placed 35 inches away from the monitor [5] and were asked to view the monitor s grey background for 2 minutes to adapt to the viewing conditions. A Dell 18-inch monitor with a resolution of pixels was used to display the images, and its white point was set to D65. The monitor wascalibrated daily during the experiment, and the monitor s ICC profile was used to transform the CRT s RGB primaries to CIE tristimulus values. The experiment was carried out in a dark room and the viewing angle for the monitor was about 23 degrees (Figure 2). 1.Camera 2.Girl 3.Cat 4.Pollution 5.Ski 6.Picnic Figure 1. Sample Images

3 1.Hue-angle preserving minimum _E_ab clipping, Only out-of-gamut colours are mapped to its closest colours. 2. GAMMA, srgb gamut, Used to map srgb images. 3. SGCK, image gamut Both used for mapping image gamut to reproduction gamut, but 4. SGCK, srgb gamut SGCK, srgb gamut using srgb gamut as its source gamut. 5. SGCKC, image gamut. 6. SGCKC, srgb gamut Using two mapping processes, firstly SGCK algorithm, and then clipped by minimume ab clipping. SGCK, srgb gamut using srgb gamut as its source gamut. Table 1. Gamut mapping algorithms Figure 2. Viewing Condition 3. RESULT ANALISIS 3.1 Psychophysical experiment Except for the first (Camera) and the third (Cat) images, the hue-angle preserving minimum E ab clipping algorithm shows good performance. This result corresponds to a previous monitor-based gamut mapping quality survey [6], however, paper-based psychophysical experiments show different results [4, 6]. Figure 3. Z scores of each algorithm

4 Figure 4. Overall Z score According to the overall z-score, the hue-angle preserving minimume ab clipping algorithm seems to perform the best, followed by the SGCKC algorithms. 3.2 Image difference calculation All the reproduced images differences were computed using three different equations: icam, S-CIELAB E s and CIELAB E ab. These metrics each compute a pixel by pixel image difference, resulting in an image difference map for each metric. To compare results from these metrics with the single-figure z-scores we calculate the mean and maximum error for each image difference map. We selected the Girl image as the example for further discussion, because this image is representative of the overall z-scores (Figures 3 and 4). The computed mean image difference values of the Girl image are shown in Figure 5 and Table 2. We did not find any correspondence between any of the three image difference metrics and the z-scores from the psychophysical experiments. The overall results are plotted in Figure 6; the results from CIELAB, icam and S-CIELAB are all variable, and there is no significant difference between them. For example, we can see that in Tables 2 and 3, the mean and maximum image differences of the SGCK algorithms and the SGCKC algorithms are very close, but the difference between those two algorithms z-scores is quite large. This suggests that the observers perceived image difference does not relate to average or maximum pixel by pixel differences. As a second example, the SGCK algorithm, when executed prior to the minimum E ab clipping algorithm, does not influence pixel by pixel based image difference but does influence perceived image quality. icam:*, S-CIELAB:o, E ab :x Figure 5. Mean image difference of Girl

5 GMA icam Mean Im S-CIELAB Zscore Mean E s Mean E ab 95% confident interval= 0, ,7 5,6 3,1 0,59 2 2,6 5,6 5,2-0,01 3 4,5 8,3 6,7 0,10 4 4,5 8,3 6,8 0,22 5 4,5 8,3 6,7-0,45 6 4,5 8,3 6,8-0,45 Table 2. Mean image difference and z-score of Girl GMA icam Maximum Im S-CIELAB Maximum E s Maxmum E ab Zscore 95% confident interval= 0, ,9 138,8 23,6 0, ,4 91,8 29,6-0, ,1 120,5 24,5 0, ,0 120,1 24,2 0, ,3 115,6 24,0-0, ,1 116,1 23,7-0,45 Table 3. Maximum image difference and z-score of Girl icam:* S-CIELAB:o, E ab :x Figure 6. Mean image difference of all reproductions 3.3 Hypothesis The following Figures 7 and 8 give the image difference maps for the hue-angle preserving minimum E ab clipping (the overall best result, Figure. 4) and the SGCKC, srgb gamut mapping algorithms (the overall worst result, Figure. 4). Note: we have to take into account that icam s unit of image difference is different, because it uses IPT as the colour space, instead of CIELAB. Tables 2 and 3 show the computed mean and maximum image difference values together with the z-scores. The best GMA and the worst GMA have a large z-score difference, and each image difference metric also predicts a closer match between for the best GMA compared to the worst. However, the second best (closely followed by the third) GMAs still show a remarkable difference from the worst GMA, even though their mean and maximum difference values are almost identical. That is, one of, or a combination of, particular area/colour/texture has an influence on image quality. For instance, both the Cat and Camera image show an atypical

6 result (Figure 3), in that the hue-angle preserving minimum E ab clipping algorithm does not work well. Those two images have fine detail on a very dark (achromatic) background in common. This also suggests that a large, dark, achromatic area has a strong influence on perceived image quality, and the hue-angle preserving minimume ab clipping algorithm comparatively performs poorly for such images. S-CIELAB icam CIELABE ab Figure 7. Hue-angle preserving minimume ab clipping 3. 4 Image quality Criteria S-CIELAB icam CIELABE ab Figure 8. SGCKC, srgb gamut

7 All observers were asked to select 3 most important judgment criteria from 8 options (in random order): Light colours, Dark colours, Shadow details, Mid tone details, Highlight details, Skin colour, Sky Blue and Others (Figure 9). Figure 9. Judgment Criteria The results show that shadow details, dark colours and skin colour are relatively important factors, and this result corresponds to the above stated hypothesis. Therefore, we computed area based image difference of the Girl image, which represent the overall result and the Camera image, which is an example of an image with fine detail on a very dark (achromatic) background. For the Camera image the observers specifically noted the green area in the middle of the picture and the presence of fine detail in the bottom left corner were important factors in their judgements. S-CIELAB icam CIELABE ab Figure 10. SGCK, image gamut

8 S-CIELAB icam CIELABE ab Figure 11. GAMMA, srgb gamut 3.5 Area Based Image Difference Calculation Following the results from the previous sections, we would like to investigate if calculated differences from particular areas of the images correspond to observer judgments. To achieve this, the Girl and the Camera images are divided into 4 areas (Figure 12-13) according to the result of the observers three most used criteria and mapped difference. These areas are shown as white areas in Figures We then repeat the image difference calculations, but for each region individually instead of the whole image, and compare these calculated differences with observer judgments. Face Face Shadow Background Hand Figure 12. The 4 areas of the Girl image used in the area-based difference calculation. Lens CameraBag Background DarkDetails Figure 13. The 4 areas of the Camera image used in the area based difference calculation

9 3.5.1 The Girl Image The best algorithm from the observer judgements (Hue-angle preserving minimum E ab clipping: GMA 1) does not always show the minimum image difference for icam and S-CIELAB, whereas CIELAB always chooses this as the best image. Apart from that, GMA 2 performs irregularly, but there are no noticeable differences between GMA 3-6 (the worst GMAs from the observer data are 5 and 6). S-CIELAB predicts a very large difference for the small area, called Hand, although this area is very small, also it might attract limited attention given by observers, but the influence of such a large difference may affect the overall mean difference. Figure 14. Result of area based calculation for the Girl image Figure 15. Result of area based calculation for the Girl image/the best and worst algorithms

10 GMA 1 GMA 2 GMA 3 GMA 4 GMA 5 GMA 6 icam 4,4 3,1 4,1 4,1 4,1 4,1 Face S-CLAB 7,5 9,1 8,8 8,9 8,7 8,9 Face Shadow Background Hand CLAB 4,4 8,5 7,0 7,1 7,0 7,2 icam 11,2 7,2 8,2 8,3 8,2 8,3 S-CLAB 17,8 18,4 16,3 16,4 16,3 16,6 CLAB 10,6 17,5 12,9 12,9 12,9 13,2 icam 1,0 3,6 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 S-CLAB 0,9 0,8 5,8 5,8 5,8 5,8 CLAB 0,7 0,8 5,5 5,6 5,5 5,6 icam 22,8 16,3 18,1 18,2 18,1 18,1 S-CLAB 59,2 27,6 40,3 40,2 39,6 39,6 CLAB 15,0 22,0 16,5 16,4 16,4 16,5 Table 4. Result of area based mean difference calculation for the Girl image The Camera Image Even though the observers' criteria for image quality judgment state that "dark colours" and "shadow details" are important, the colourful green lens area is also noticeable in the centre of the Camera image. Figure 16 shows the results for all the GMAs and all the areas of the Camera image. The psychophysical results suggest that SGCK, image (GMA 3) is the best algorithm for the Camera image and that the GAMMA, srgb algorithm (GMA 2) is the worst for this image. S-CIELAB and CIELAB suggest GMA 2 has bigger difference in the lens area, but the rest of the areas (dark achromatic or less chromatic) indicate that GMA 2 has less difference than GMA3 does. On the other hand, icam performs differently; icam gives that GMA 2 has the smallest mean difference of the all 6 GMAs in the lens area. For other image areas icam predicts that there is no difference between the GMAs. CIELAB and S-CIELAB work similarly to each other in the Camera image. In this image, icam predicts that GMA 2 gives a smaller difference than the other GMAs in the lens area. icam also shows all GMAs have no difference in the rest of the regions (dark achromatic or less chromatic). However, although icam gives different results from the other metrics, there are no clear results to indicate that icam, S-CIELAB and CIELAB predict perceived image difference. Figure 16. Result of area based calculation for the Camera image

11 GMA 1 GMA 2 GMA 3 GMA 4 GMA 5 GMA 6 icam 5,7 1,6 5,5 5,5 5,3 8,4 Lens S-CLAB 11,3 16,4 11,7 11,8 11,6 16,0 CLAB 10,5 18,7 12,4 12,5 12,3 15,1 icam 16,0 16,2 15,6 15,6 15,5 15,7 Shadow Details S-CLAB 12,7 12,9 15,8 15,8 15,6 13,4 CLAB 13,3 13,7 16,3 16,4 16,2 13,8 icam 3,8 3,4 3,6 3,6 3,6 3,7 Camera Bag S-CLAB 5,1 7,5 9,1 9,2 9,1 6,5 CLAB 3,8 6,3 7,9 7,9 7,8 5,1 icam 2,8 2,3 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,9 Background S-CLAB 2,2 2,6 8,7 8,7 8,7 6,0 CLAB 2,0 2,6 8,6 8,7 8,6 5,5 Table 5. Result of area based mean difference calculation for the Camera image 4 CONCLUSIONS We carried out a psychophysical experiment to test whether image-difference metrics can be used to assess the quality of a gamut-mapping procedure. Firstly, the results of this experiment were compared with the computed mean differences produced by icam, S-CIELAB and CIELAB equations, secondly we investigated the images in particular areas which represent characteristics of each scene. We do not find a correlation between the perceived image differences and pixel by pixel image difference calculation values, even in the particular factors of large achromatic area, dark area with fine details and skin tones, but this also means that there are potential improvements for icam and S-CIELAB. We found that 4 of 6 reproduced images for each scene have almost identical computed difference values, although observers detect the difference between those algorithms. The observer s criteria did not seem to be not related to the image difference calculations, but those factors must be adopted in the image difference equations. Further research will be carried out with all images, in the subjects of image difference and image quality metrics, perceptual difference in different media, factors that made observers prefer particular images e.g. background/texture/contrast sensitivity effect, the correlation between the human vision error prediction, the image difference map and human eye s dwell time on objects in images. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Professor Lindsay MacDonald for his advice, Garrett Johnson for providing icam and S-CIELAB MATLAB codes, Morten Amsrud who kindly helped to reproduce images, Ivar Farup and Øivind Kolloen for Java programming help. REFERENCES [1] X. Zhang, B. A. Wandell, A spatial extension of CIELAB for digital color image reproduction, SID Journal, (1997). [2] M. D. Fairchild, G. Johnson, Meet icam: A Next-Generation Color Appearance Model, IS&T/SIT Tenth Color Imaging Conference, pp , Arizona, USA (2002). [3] M. D. Fairchild and G.M. Johnson, The icam framework for image appearance, image differences, and image quality, Journal of Electronic Imaging, in press (2004). [4] I. Farup, J. Y. Hardeberg, and M. Amsrud, Enhancing the SGCK Colour Gamut Mapping Algorithm, CGIV 2004, pp , Aachen, Germany (2004). [5] D. R. Ankrum, Viewing Angle And Distance In Computer Workstations,

12 [6] P. J. Green, L. W. MacDonald, Colour Engeneering, Jon Wiley & Sons, ltd, West Sussex, England (2002). Phone