JPEG vs. JPEG 2000: an objective comparison of image encoding quality

Farzad Ebrahimi; Matthieu Chamik; Stefan Winkler

doi:10.1117/12.564835

2 November 2004 JPEG vs. JPEG 2000: an objective comparison of image encoding quality

Farzad Ebrahimi, Matthieu Chamik, Stefan Winkler

Proceedings Volume 5558, Applications of Digital Image Processing XXVII; (2004) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.564835
Event: Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting, 2004, Denver, Colorado, United States

Abstract

This paper describes an objective comparison of the image quality of different encoders. Our approach is based on estimating the visual impact of compression artifacts on perceived quality. We present a tool that measures these artifacts in an image and uses them to compute a prediction of the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) obtained in subjective experiments. We show that the MOS predictions by our proposed tool are a better indicator of perceived image quality than PSNR, especially for highly compressed images. For the encoder comparison, we compress a set of 29 test images with two JPEG encoders (Adobe Photoshop and IrfanView) and three JPEG2000 encoders (JasPer, Kakadu, and IrfanView) at various compression ratios. We compute blockiness, blur, and MOS predictions as well as PSNR of the compressed images. Our results show that the IrfanView JPEG encoder produces consistently better images than the Adobe Photoshop JPEG encoder at the same data rate. The differences between the JPEG2000 encoders in our test are less pronounced; JasPer comes out as the best codec, closely followed by IrfanView and Kakadu. Comparing the JPEG- and JPEG2000-encoding quality of IrfanView, we find that JPEG has a slight edge at low compression ratios, while JPEG2000 is the clear winner at medium and high compression ratios.

Citation Download Citation

Farzad Ebrahimi, Matthieu Chamik, and Stefan Winkler "JPEG vs. JPEG 2000: an objective comparison of image encoding quality", Proc. SPIE 5558, Applications of Digital Image Processing XXVII, (2 November 2004); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.564835

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available