![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
KYN, your new extensive discussion of a three-part image quality framework is interesting, and might be OK, but it's really not clear yet, as it's unsourced. Where did you get this framework? If you made it up, let's try to find sources that resemble it, and use those. I don't think it helps to have that much "authoritative sounding" framework if no source is cited for it. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm wondering if image quality shouldn't be understood in a human perception point of view. I mean as psychologists do by defining e.g. Gestalt Theory or ecological approach to visual perception. For an effective starting on the subject, see Gaetano Kanizsa's book : Grammatica del vedere) The image formation technologies aren't studied but on the contrary the brain interpretation of image contents and its related image quality measurement.
Moreover, we could investigate the relationship between psychologist models and digital information technomogy, i.e. the domain of image quality assessment (IQA). IQA is part of the quality of experience (QoE) that puts the end-users in the center of any digital process (digitizing, compressing, broadcasting and so on) unlike the now classical quality of services (QoS). A good starting reference is the paper Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures, by Zhou Wang and Alan Bovik, in Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE , vol.26, no.1, January 2009.
Regards
--Stéfane 14:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefane.paris ( talk • contribs)
Good article if a bit confused. Two suggestions: 1) Contrast is not also known as gamma, in fact gamma is something entirely different; 2) Diffraction should be listed as a source of reduced IQ -- Jack Hogan ( talk) 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
References
Does it make sense to add a tools section that mentions some of the available resources for measuring image quality? There are certainly a variety of both research-oriented & commercial ones around, so I'm thinking that starting to list them might be useful. GeekPhotog ( talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice that the article uses the ideal (presumably not diffraction limited) pinhole camera to start the discussion. Nowhere in the article is diffraction, a fundamental physical limit on image quality, mentioned. In actual pinhole cameras, there is an optimal pinhole size, balancing diffraction with the actual size of the hole. Gah4 ( talk) 13:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
KYN, your new extensive discussion of a three-part image quality framework is interesting, and might be OK, but it's really not clear yet, as it's unsourced. Where did you get this framework? If you made it up, let's try to find sources that resemble it, and use those. I don't think it helps to have that much "authoritative sounding" framework if no source is cited for it. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm wondering if image quality shouldn't be understood in a human perception point of view. I mean as psychologists do by defining e.g. Gestalt Theory or ecological approach to visual perception. For an effective starting on the subject, see Gaetano Kanizsa's book : Grammatica del vedere) The image formation technologies aren't studied but on the contrary the brain interpretation of image contents and its related image quality measurement.
Moreover, we could investigate the relationship between psychologist models and digital information technomogy, i.e. the domain of image quality assessment (IQA). IQA is part of the quality of experience (QoE) that puts the end-users in the center of any digital process (digitizing, compressing, broadcasting and so on) unlike the now classical quality of services (QoS). A good starting reference is the paper Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures, by Zhou Wang and Alan Bovik, in Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE , vol.26, no.1, January 2009.
Regards
--Stéfane 14:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefane.paris ( talk • contribs)
Good article if a bit confused. Two suggestions: 1) Contrast is not also known as gamma, in fact gamma is something entirely different; 2) Diffraction should be listed as a source of reduced IQ -- Jack Hogan ( talk) 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
References
Does it make sense to add a tools section that mentions some of the available resources for measuring image quality? There are certainly a variety of both research-oriented & commercial ones around, so I'm thinking that starting to list them might be useful. GeekPhotog ( talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice that the article uses the ideal (presumably not diffraction limited) pinhole camera to start the discussion. Nowhere in the article is diffraction, a fundamental physical limit on image quality, mentioned. In actual pinhole cameras, there is an optimal pinhole size, balancing diffraction with the actual size of the hole. Gah4 ( talk) 13:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)