MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108531835 · doi:10.1109/dcc.1996.488378

Compression of aerial ortho images based on image denoising

2002· article· en· W2108531835 on OpenAlexaff
Armein Z. R. Langi, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage denoisingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionNoise reductionComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Aerial imageData compressionImage compressionCompression (physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image processingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract only given. Discusses the compression of an important class of computer images, called aerial ortho images, that result from geodetic transformation computations [Kinsner, 1994]. The computations introduce numerical noise, making the images nearly incompressible losslessly because of their high entropy. The use of classical lossy compression schemes is also not desirable because their effects on the original image are unknown. We then propose the use of image denoising coupled with lossless image compression, that preserves selected image characteristics. Two denoising schemes for a compression ratio of 2:1 are compared. The first scheme is based on a Donoho's (1992) wavelet shrinking scheme which preserves image smoothness. We study the effect of various shrinking parameter values on the compression ratio and image quality, where 35.5 dB peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) is obtained for a compression ratio of 2.03:1. This approach preserves high-frequency information, so that sharp edges do not become blurred as in classical filtering methods. This is critically important, because the main feature of ortho images is in its flatness and its precision of edge position. The second scheme is based on preserving pixel predictability [Kostelich and Schreiber, 1993), leading to a variant of planar predictive coding. This approach adds, to the edge preserving capability, the limitation in pixel deviation between the original and denoised images to be within one grayscale level. As a result, two different predictive coding schemes achieve a compression ratio of 2:1 at 49.9 dB and 51.2 dB PSNR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207