Paper
9 May 2011 Performance assessment of treating aliased signal as target-dependent noise
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
The applicability of two theories that account for aliasing artifacts, introduced by spatial sampling, on target acquisition performance is addressed. Currently the Army's imager performance model, the Targeting Task Performance (TTP) metric uses a parameterized model, based upon a fit to a number of perception experiments, called MTF squeeze. MTF squeeze applies an additional degradation to the TTP metric based upon the amount of spurious response in the final image. While this approach achieves satisfactory results for the data sets available, it is not clear that these results extend to a wider variety of operating conditions. Other models treat the artifacts arising from spurious response as a target-dependent noise. Modeling spurious response as noise allows proper treatment of sampling artifacts across a wider variety of systems and post-processing techniques. Perception experiments are used to assess the performance of both the MTF squeeze and aliasing as noise methods. The results demonstrate that modeling all of the aliased frequencies as a target-dependent noise leads to erroneous predictions; however, considering only aliased signals above the Nyquist rate as additive noise agrees with experimental observations.
© (2011) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Bradley L. Preece and David P. Haefner "Performance assessment of treating aliased signal as target-dependent noise", Proc. SPIE 8014, Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XXII, 80140H (9 May 2011); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.885216
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 1 scholarly publication.
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Modulation transfer functions

Systems modeling

Targeting Task Performance metric

Performance modeling

Imaging systems

Interference (communication)

Image processing

Back to Top