Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Assessing objective quality metrics for JPEG and MPEG point cloud coding (2403.00410v2)

Published 1 Mar 2024 in eess.IV

Abstract: As applications using immersive media gained increased attention from both academia and industry, research in the field of point cloud compression has greatly intensified in recent years, leading to the development of the MPEG compression standards V-PCC and G-PCC, as well as the more recent JPEG Pleno learning-based point cloud coding. Each of the standards mentioned above is based on a different algorithm, introducing distinct types of degradation that may impair the quality of experience when lossy compression is applied. Although the impact on perceptual quality can be accurately evaluated during subjective quality assessment experiments, objective quality metrics also predict the visually perceived quality and provide similarity scores without human intervention. Nevertheless, their accuracy can be susceptible to the characteristics of the evaluated media as well as to the type and intensity of the added distortion. While the performance of multiple state-of-the-art objective quality metrics has already been evaluated through their correlation with subjective scores obtained in the presence of artifacts produced by the MPEG standards, no study has evaluated how metrics perform with the more recent JPEG Pleno point cloud coding. In this paper, a study is conducted to benchmark the performance of a large set of objective quality metrics in a subjective dataset including distortions produced by JPEG and MPEG codecs. The dataset also contains three different trade-offs between color and geometry compression for each codec, adding another dimension to the analysis. Performance indexes are computed over the entire dataset but also after splitting according to the codec and to the original model, resulting in detailed insights about the overall performance of each visual quality predictor as well as their cross-content and cross-codec generalization ability.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. D. Lazzarotto, M. Testolina, and T. Ebrahimi, “Subjective performance evaluation of bitrate allocation strategies for mpeg and jpeg pleno point cloud compression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04760, 2024.
  2. D. Tian, H. Ochimizu, C. Feng, R. Cohen, and A. Vetro, “Geometric distortion metrics for point cloud compression,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 3460–3464, 2017.
  3. A. Javaheri, C. Brites, F. Pereira, and J. Ascenso, “Mahalanobis based point to distribution metric for point cloud geometry quality evaluation,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 27, pp. 1350–1354, 2020.
  4. Q. Yang, Y. Zhang, S. Chen, Y. Xu, J. Sun, and Z. Ma, “Mped: Quantifying point cloud distortion based on multiscale potential energy discrepancy,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 6037–6054, 2022.
  5. A. Zaghetto, D. Graziosi, and A. Tabatabai, “Density-to-density (d3-psnr) script availability,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG7 input document M61195, Online, Oct. 2022.
  6. I. Viola, S. Subramanyam, and P. Cesar, “A color-based objective quality metric for point cloud contents,” in 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).   IEEE, 2020.
  7. Q. Yang, Z. Ma, Y. Xu, Z. Li, and J. Sun, “Inferring point cloud quality via graph similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2020.
  8. E. Alexiou and T. Ebrahimi, “Towards a point cloud structural similarity metric,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Expo Workshops (ICMEW), 2020, pp. 1–6.
  9. Y. Zhang, Q. Yang, and Y. Xu, “Ms-graphsim: Inferring point cloud quality via multiscale graph similarity,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2021, pp. 1230–1238.
  10. D. Lazzarotto and T. Ebrahimi, “Towards a multiscale point cloud structural similarity metric,” in 2023 IEEE 25th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6.
  11. A. Javaheri, C. Brites, F. Pereira, and J. Ascenso, “A point-to-distribution joint geometry and color metric for point cloud quality assessment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.00054, 2021.
  12. G. Meynet, Y. Nehmé, J. Digne, and G. Lavoué, “Pcqm: A full-reference quality metric for colored 3d point clouds,” 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp. 1–6, 2020.
  13. I. Viola and P. Cesar, “A reduced reference metric for visual quality evaluation of point cloud contents,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 27, pp. 1660–1664, 2020.
  14. W. Zhou, G. Yue, R. Zhang, Y. Qin, and H. Liu, “Reduced-reference quality assessment of point clouds via content-oriented saliency projection,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 30, pp. 354–358, 2023.
  15. Z. Zhang, W. Sun, X. Min, Q. Zhou, J. He, Q. Wang, and G. Zhai, “Mm-pcqa: Multi-modal learning for no-reference point cloud quality assessment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00244, 2022.
  16. Z. Zhang, W. Sun, Y. Zhu, X. Min, W. Wu, Y. Chen, and G. Zhai, “Evaluating point cloud from moving camera videos: A no-reference metric,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2023.
  17. N. Ponomarenko, F. Silvestri, K. Egiazarian, M. Carli, J. Astola, and V. Lukin, “On between-coefficient contrast masking of dct basis functions,” in Proceedings of the third international workshop on video processing and quality metrics, vol. 4, 2007.
  18. Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004.
  19. Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, “Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,” in The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, vol. 2.   Ieee, 2003, pp. 1398–1402.
  20. Z. Wang and Q. Li, “Information content weighting for perceptual image quality assessment,” IEEE Transactions on image processing, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1185–1198, 2010.
  21. H. Sheik and A. Bovik, “A visual information fidelity measure for image quality assessment,” IEEE T. Img. Proc, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 430–444, 2006.
  22. L. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Mou, and D. Zhang, “FSIM: A feature similarity index for image quality assessment,” IEEE transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2378–2386, 2011.
  23. V. Laparra, J. Ballé, A. Berardino, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Perceptual image quality assessment using a normalized laplacian pyramid,” Electronic Imaging, vol. 2016, no. 16, pp. 1–6, 2016.
  24. Z. Li, A. Aaron, I. Katsavounidis, A. Moorthy, and M. Manohara, “Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric,” The Netflix Tech Blog, 2016, [Online]. Accessed on 1-Feb-2024.
  25. A. Javaheri, C. Brites, F. Pereira, and J. Ascenso, “Point cloud rendering after coding: Impacts on subjective and objective quality,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 23, pp. 4049–4064, 2020.
  26. E. Zerman, P. Gao, C. Ozcinar, and A. Smolic, “Subjective and objective quality assessment for volumetric video compression,” IS&T Electronic Imaging, Image Quality and System Performance XVI, 2019.
  27. E. Alexiou, I. Viola, T. M. Borges, T. A. Fonseca, R. L. De Queiroz, and T. Ebrahimi, “A comprehensive study of the rate-distortion performance in MPEG point cloud compression,” APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing, vol. 8, 2019.
  28. S. Perry, L. A. D. S. Cruz, J. Prazeres, A. Pinheiro, E. Dumic, D. Lazzarotto, and T. Ebrahimi, “Subjective and objective testing in support of the jpeg pleno point cloud compression activity,” 2022 10th European Workshop on Visual Information Processing (EUVIP), pp. 1–6, 2022.
  29. D. Lazzarotto, E. Alexiou, and T. Ebrahimi, “Benchmarking of objective quality metrics for point cloud compression,” 2021 IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), pp. 1–6, 2021.
  30. D. Lazzarotto, M. Testolina, and T. Ebrahimi, “On the impact of spatial rendering on point cloud subjective visual quality assessment,” 2022 14th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp. 1–6, 2022.
  31. ——, “Influence of spatial rendering on the performance of point cloud objective quality metrics,” 2022 10th European Workshop on Visual Information Processing (EUVIP), pp. 1–6, 2022.
  32. J. Prazeres, R. Rodrigues, M. Pereira, and A. M. Pinheiro, “Quality evaluation of machine learning-based point cloud coding solutions,” Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Advances in Point Cloud Compression, Processing and Analysis, pp. 57–65, 2022.
  33. J. Prazeres, Z. Luo, A. M. Pinheiro, L. A. da Silva Cruz, and S. Perry, “Jpeg pleno call for proposals responses quality assessment,” ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5, 2023.
  34. Q. Yang, H. Chen, Z. Ma, Y. Xu, R. Tang, and J. Sun, “Predicting the perceptual quality of point cloud: A 3d-to-2d projection-based exploration,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 23, pp. 3877–3891, 2020.
  35. X. Wu, Y. Zhang, C. Fan, J. Hou, and S. Kwong, “Subjective quality database and objective study of compressed point clouds with 6dof head-mounted display,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 4630–4644, 2021.
  36. WG7, “Common test conditions for v-pcc,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG7 output document N00038, Online, Oct. 2020.
  37. Q. Liu, H. Su, Z. Duanmu, W. Liu, and Z. Wang, “Perceptual quality assessment of colored 3d point clouds,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2022.
  38. Y. Liu, Q. Yang, Y. Xu, and L. Yang, “Point cloud quality assessment: Dataset construction and learning-based no-reference metric,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.11895, 2020.
  39. A. Ak, E. Zerman, M. Quach, A. Chetouani, A. Smolic, G. Valenzise, and P. L. Callet, “Basics: Broad quality assessment of static point clouds in compression scenarios,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04796, 2023.
  40. WG1, “Jpeg pleno point cloud coding common training and test conditions v1.5,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG1 JPEG output document N100667, Online, Jan. 2022.
  41. WG7, “Common test conditions for g-pcc,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG7 output document N722, Hannover, Germany, Oct. 2023.
  42. ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-15, “Methodologies for the subjective assessment of the quality of television images,” 2023.
  43. ITU-R Recommendation BT.709-6, “Parameter values for the hdtv standards for production and international programme exchange,” International Telecommunication Union, 2006.
  44. ITU-R Tutorial, “Objective perceptual assessment of video quality: Full reference television,” International Telecommunication Union, 2004.
  45. Recommendation ITU-T P.1401, “Methods, metrics and procedures for statistical evaluation, qualification and comparison of objective quality prediction models.” International Telecommunication Union, 2012.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now