Some changes:
1. In previous table, our methods are using m1,m2 = (3,2). This table is using m1, m2 = (5,3).
2. Secord's method is using the same number of stipples as our ETF method, which improves the values a lot.
3. Martin's method is using high packing density value(4.0).
Discussion:
1. It seems CPSNR cannot say anything. It might be explained as the contrast for CAH is different for the contrast for stippling, since stipples are two dimensions. Contrast is not based on density only. The sizes of stipples and the directionality affect the contrast too. I guess it is not proper for our measurement.
2. As for MSSIM, our ETF method higher than our without etf method and Secord method, but lower than Kang's method. It makes sense. But I cannot explain why FSED and Ostromoukhov methods have higher scores in this comparisons. They always have lower number of stipples than our other three methods.
3.The high PSNR scores for our methods make me worry about the conversion validation.Some confidence comes from the values of Secord's method since it uses the same transition and has lower scores.
4. Except that the woman4 image uses more than 35000 stipples, the number for other images is around 20000 stipples. Secord's method is using the same number of stipples as the ETF method, always higher than other three methods. Kang said the number of stipples is around 8000 to 14000 without counting the pixels or lines used for the ETF edges.Based on my codes, the number of pixels on ETF edges is larger than 14000 or 20000. I guess the number of stipples for testing is fair in some way.
CPSNR
No comments:
Post a Comment