Andrew M. Weiner, Editor-in-Chief
Alain Philippe Kattnig and Jérôme Primot
Alain Philippe Kattnig* and Jérôme Primot
Office National d’Etudes et de Recherche Aérospatiale, Département d’Optique Théorique et Appliquée, Chemin de la Hunière, 91761 Palaiseau cedex, France
*Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Imaging systems comparisons remains today a sensitive subject because of the difficulty to merge radiometric and spatial dimensions into a single, easy to use, parameter. By leaning explicitly on professional image users and their requirements we show how to build such a criterion, called Mission-Quality. A specific observation campaign is described and its results are used to calibrate and carry first proof of the criterion adequacy.
©2008 Optical Society of America
Alain Philippe Kattnig, Ouamar Ferhani, and Jérôme Primot
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18(12) 3007-3017 (2001)
Ronald G. Driggers, Mel Kruer, Dean Scribner, Penny Warren, and Jon Leachtenauer
Appl. Opt. 38(28) 5936-5943 (1999)
David M. Rouse, Sheila S. Hemami, Romuald Pépion, and Patrick Le Callet
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28(2) 157-188 (2011)
Jon C. Leachtenauer, William Malila, John Irvine, Linda Colburn, and Nanette Salvaggio
Appl. Opt. 36(32) 8322-8328 (1997)
Andy Cochrane, Kevin Schulz, Rick Kendrick, and Ray Bell
Opt. Express 21(19) 22124-22138 (2013)
A. P. Kattnig, O. Ferhani, and J. Primot, “A telescope design and performance analysis tool: the mission-quality criterion,” Proc. SPIE 5497, 396–404 (2004).
A. P. Kattnig, O. Ferhani, and J. Primot, “Mission-driven evaluation of imaging system quality,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 3007–3017 (2001).
A. H. Lettington, D. Dunn, A. M. Fairhurst, and Y. Fang, “Proposed performance measures for imaging systems with discrete detector arrays,” J. Mod. Opt. 48, 115–123 (2001).
J. C. Leachtenauer, W. Malila, J. Irvine, L. Colburn, and N. Salvaggio, “General image-quality equation: GIQE,” Appl. Opt. 36, 8322–8328 (1997).
D. Sheffer and D. Ingman, “The informational difference concept in analyzing target recognition issues,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 1431–1438 (1997).
A. van Meeteren, “Characterization of task performance with viewing instruments,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 2016–2023 (1990).
C. L. Fales, F. O. Huck, and R. W. Samms, “Imaging system design for improved information capacity,” Appl. Opt. 23, 872–888 (1984).
A. Torralba and P. Sinha, “Statistical context priming for object detection,” Eighth International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’01), 763–770 (2001).
STANAG 3769 (about the minimal resolution needed for photographic interpretation), NATO Standardization Agreements (NATO, Brussels).
Imagery Resolution Assessments and Reporting (IRARS) Committee, “National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale (NIIRS)”, http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/niirs_c/guide.htm.
OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.
Alert me when this article is cited.
Click here to see a list of articles that cite this paper
Model of image acquisition and reconstruction. III(x,y) being the two-dimensional Dirac comb and h(x,y) the point-spread function of the imaging system.
Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF
Correlation between photo-interpreters average ratings and Mission-Quality predictions against different constant values defining the noise component of the Mission-Quality criterion.
Averaged photo-interpreters ratings of presented images versus its modified Mission-Quality predictions. A red line is drawn, linking the two unambiguous extreme points of the plot.
(a). Averaged photo-interpreters ratings of presented images versus its modified Mission-Quality value with a Noise power of 0 digitization levels. (b). Noise power of 50 digitization levels. (c). Noise power of 100 digitization levels. (d). Noise power of 150 digitization levels.
(a). Averaged photo-interpreters ratings of presented images versus its modified Mission-Quality value with a f-number of 5. (b) f-number of 10. (c) f-number of 15. (d) f-number of 20.
(a). Averaged photo-interpreters ratings of presented images versus its modified Mission-Quality value with a detector size of 10 microns. (b) Detector size of 20 microns. (c) Detector size of 30 microns.
Table 1. Rating scale used to evaluate the quality of images toward the observation mission
Table 2. Values of imaging systems parameters
Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.
Rating scale used to evaluate the quality of images toward the observation mission
Values of imaging systems parameters