ReviewJournal of imaging2024
Overview of High-Dynamic-Range Image Quality Assessment.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the High-Dynamic-Range (HDR) image has gained widespread popularity across various domains, such as the security, multimedia, and biomedical fields, owing to its ability to deliver an authentic visual experience. However, the extensive dynamic range and rich detail in HDR images present challenges in assessing their quality. Therefore, current efforts involve constructing subjective databases and proposing objective quality assessment metrics to achieve an efficient HDR Image Quality Assessment (IQA). Recognizing the absence of a systematic overview of these approaches, this paper provides a comprehensive survey of both subjective and objective HDR IQA methods. Specifically, we review 7 subjective HDR IQA databases and 12 objective HDR IQA metrics. In addition, we conduct a statistical analysis of 9 IQA algorithms, incorporating 3 perceptual mapping functions. Our findings highlight two main areas for improvement. Firstly, the size and diversity of HDR IQA subjective databases should be significantly increased, encompassing a broader range of distortion types. Secondly, objective quality assessment algorithms need to identify more generalizable perceptual mapping approaches and feature extraction methods to enhance their robustness and applicability. Furthermore, this paper aims to serve as a valuable resource for researchers by discussing the limitations of current methodologies and potential research directions in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.