Re: Image quality evaluation

Posted by Nas-5 on Aug 31, 2006; 2:19pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Image-quality-evaluation-tp3695062p3695067.html

Hi Emmanuele,

I tried the link for Image Quality Calculator, but
there was no such plugin in there I'm afraid.

best,
Nas

--- Jennifer West <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Emmanuele and everyone,
>
> Way back in July we were discussing image quality
> assessment. I have  
> been experimenting with using Sobel filters for
> assessing quality.  
> I've written a plugin that ranks images by their
> edges using the  
> "find edges" routine that is built into ImageJ.
>
> If anyone is still working on this I would be
> interested to see how  
> the results from this routine compares to routines
> that others may be  
> using. Please let me know.
>
> The plugin may be downloaded from:
>

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/astronomy/jwest/plugins.html

>
> Cheers,
> Jennifer
>
> ___________________________________
> Jennifer West, Instructor
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
> 378 University College
> University of Manitoba
> Ph. 204-474-9501
>
>
> On 12-Jul-06, at 4:06 AM, Emmanuele Sordini wrote:
>
> > Hello Hennifer!
> >
> > On 7/11/06, Jennifer West <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Emmanuele,
> >>
> >>
> >> I wrote a plugin that computes a "quality factor"
> based on a method
> >> that I read at this site:
> >> http://acquerra.com.au/astro/software/ppmcentre/
> >
> > According to the webpage, this method is the same
> as the one used in
> >> Registax.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, the source code of ppmcentre is not
> available (link  
> > to tar
> > file broken?), so I can't comment on that method.
> But if it's used in
> > Registax it should be quite reliable. Could you
> perhaps provide me  
> > with the
> > latest version (i.e. tar archive) you have?
> >
> > BTW, my webcam processing application of choice is
> Iris. For sure  
> > it's way
> > less user-friendly than Registax, but it's also
> more powerful.
> >
> >
> > I've only tested my plugin on two stacks of images
> (one of Jupiter
> >> and one of Saturn) and it seems to work
> reasonably well. But I would
> >> be very happy if you would like to test it and
> let me know how it
> >> works on your images. I've just posted it to my
> website and you may
> >> download it here:
> >>
>

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/astronomy/jwest/

>
> >> plugins.html
> >
> >
> > Nice website! I also appreciate the "Save as FITS"
> plugin, which
> > inexplicably is not provided with ImageJ.
> >
> > Let me know how this works for you!
> >
> >
> > I've done a very quick trial run on a 20-frame
> sample from an AVI  
> > file of
> > mine. Here's the outcome (frame numbers from 1 to
> 20 sorted in  
> > decreasing
> > quality order) as compared with the one from Iris:
> >
> > Iris                            ImageQuality
> plugin
> >                  Frame #       Score (times 10^11)
> > 15         10    9.06731706255
> > 19         15    9.06724426944
> > 12         9     9.06694117833
> > 17         1     9.06688137711
> > 20         2     9.06688128297
> > 10         18    9.06685968411
> > 13         20    9.06681322122
> > 11         6     9.06679849284
> > 4          17    9.06679361922
> > 8          7     9.06678465756
> > 9          16    9.06666556767
> > 18         19    9.06645265785
> > 3          4     9.06644101764
> > 5          12    9.06637309293
> > 14         3     9.06632877069
> > 1          8     9.06630080046
> > 2          14    9.06627718458
> > 7          13    9.06626186028
> > 6          5     9.06622588776
> > 16         11    9.06609830427
> >
> > As you can see, it turned out to be quite
> different from Iris. But  
> > we know
> > that probably "no two image quality indicators are
> alike" :-)
> >
> > Emmanuele
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com