Paper detail

On the limits of perceptual quality measures for enhanced underwater images

The appearance of objects in underwater images is degraded by the selective attenuation of light, which reduces contrast and causes a colour cast. This degradation depends on the water environment, and increases with depth and with the distance of the object from the camera. Despite an increasing volume of works in underwater image enhancement and restoration, the lack of a commonly accepted evaluation measure is hindering the progress as it is difficult to compare methods. In this paper, we review commonly used colour accuracy measures, such as colour reproduction error and CIEDE2000, and no-reference image quality measures, such as UIQM, UCIQE and CCF, which have not yet been systematically validated. We show that none of the no-reference quality measures satisfactorily rates the quality of enhanced underwater images and discuss their main shortcomings. Images and results are available at https://puiqe.eecs.qmul.ac.uk.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.