introduction to wavelets in image compression

7/30/2019 Introduction to Wavelets in Image Compression

1/13


2/13

Vectors are extended to allow proper transformation with filters that reference the surrounding area of every sample. The extension is done with

4 elements, as required by the above 9/7 filter.

Note that the transformation is reversible regardless of the vector extension

oduction to Wavelets in Image Compression http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~jakulin/Wavelets/index.html

r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


3/13

But note that the coefficient magnitudes are lower with vector extension

The high-pass and low-pass subbands are interleaved after the transform, but it is often desirable to separate and deinterleave them for further

processing.

Wavelets on images

Wavelet transform is especially useful for transforming images. For this, we apply it twice according to the JPEG-2000 standard: first on

columns, second on rows. Upon this, we deinterleave the image matrix, and possibly recursively transform each subband individually further.

We can now import the standard benchmark picture, sized 512x512:


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


4/13

We will only work with a small but diverse part of the image, combining sharp features, smooth gradients, and complex textures. Note that we

conver the unsigned byte values [0,256) to signed on the interval [-128,128). This way we can exploit gradient symmetry in quantization

By transposing the image, we can easily implement the 2D DWT:

It is very useful to interleave and deinterlave images too. We do this by creating four subimages, for the HH, LH, HL, and LL subbands.


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


5/13

Now that we have everything ready, we can embark on processing the chosen section of the image.

Let's show all four subbands:

The transformation is reversible, as we now show.


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


6/13

Denoising

Now, let's try to denoise the image, by chopping near-zero values in the LH, HL and HH components (or low-power white noise), and

subsequently reconstructing the image. Note that we chop away more in the HH subband than in the LH and HL - but we didn't have to. This

technique is called hard thresholding.

Soft thresholding shrinks the magnitude of the coefficient values outside the threshold, but it's worse in our example.


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


7/13

Quantization

Image compression is based on a slightly different concept - quantization. Instead of having 256 levels of grey, we might have only 16. Such an

image would look bad. But we can do just this on the LH, HL and HH subbands, without losing much. All we're going to do is rounding - with

different amounts depending on the subband. This is called deadzone (rounding down) uniform (division by a number) scalar (it operates on

individual color components of individual pixels which are scalars) quantization. Let's see:

As you can see, not that much quality was lost - especially considering that the above picture is enlarged on the screen! But the final filesize due

to skipping bits is (compare with 100%):

This might not seem much, but note that the remaining information is much more (i.e. orders of magnitude more) compressible with ordinary

entropy coding techniques (usually preceded by run-length coding), as we also denoised the image! Furthermore, we can recursively filter the LL

subband again, and repeat the procedure on LLLH, LLHL, and LLHH.

Examine the subbands after quantization. Note that the LH, HL and HH subbands have become extremely simple and very well compressible.


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


8/13

We notice that the sharp edge information remains in the LH, HL and HH subbands, but most of the lower amplitude noise, as well as the exact

magnitudes of the edges have been compromised.

Other decompositions

Let us automatize some earlier operations. Specifically,we will perform DWT recursively in each subband. This is sometimes called a packet or

SPACL decomposition (if we recursively subdivided the LLLL once or twice more), unlike the above 1-level Mallat decompositions where the

high-pass subbands remain undecomposed. The decompositions can be performed recursively - if we performed a Mallat decomposition again on

the LL, we would obtain a 2-level Mallat decomposition. The decomposition below is actually a 2-level packet decomposition, as we performed

it twice recursively, and it's packet decomposition because it was performed on all subbands.


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


9/13

We can see that the LH*, HL* and HH* subbands appear to be quite uninformative. It's time to try to understand what wavelet transform is

really about. The low-pass filter is a kind of a predictor: what can we say about the average value of a group of pixels. The high-pass filters, on

the other hand, store the errors we make with the low-pass predictors. LH and HL store the errors we make when we try to get to average values

of column-errors across rows, or vice versa, whereas HH stores LH's and HL's errors.

We see that the LL pass over LH,HL,HH subbands is tending towards the average of 0. This is a good indicator of noise as those irregularities

that appear merely in the highest resolution, but cannot be generalized to a wider area. However, we must note that people do recognize the

absence of noise. The main difference between the original and the compressed image is that the compressed one is too smooth.

In the following experiments, we will try to capture the regularities of noise. To do this, we will need a different kind of a transform.

Describing quantization noise

Let's examine the error introduced by quantization. We notice that the error is pretty much random, with the exception of a few features in the

HH band. The idea we will now pursue is to try to describe this error and re-introduce it in the decompressed image.

Let us now examine the frequency distributions of error:


r 13 16/01/2013 09:53


10/13

The LH and HL band distributions are narrower because of the lower level of quantization, and are not very Gaussian: this is because noise got

through quantization in those two bands. We could have been more radical when quantizing - disposing with more than 4 bits without losing

much information. But not to dawdle, let's now capture the noise (assuming it is Gaussian) and reintroduce it in the image.

There is an important consideration to be made: a part of the quantization noise is indeed noise, but a part is lost information. The lost

information shouldn't be considered a part of noise - as we cannot reintroduce it. Thus not to overestimate the noise , we divide the estimated

std. deviation by 2.

The noise description is very compact, and adds very little to the compressed file size. Especially considering the fact that the mean is always

approximately 0, and does not need to be stored.

Here we add the noise to the compressed image:

And now we compare the "en-noised" compressed image to the original image and the normal "de-noised" compressed image:


ur 13 16/01/2013 09:53


11/13

Although the en-noised image does look better than the de-noised one, we note that there is more noise than there was in the beginning. This is

partly because we equated some information lost in quantization with noise, and partly because there are noiser and less noisy areas on the

image. For example, the skin as a less noisy part of the image has received more noise than there was in the beginning, whereas the edges and

sharp features received too little. We corrected this by introducing the correction factor of 2 (we divided the standard deviation by 2) which

makes the skin appropriately smooth, but the hat feathers excessively smooth.

We would have achieved better results by decomposing in the spatial domain. For example, the texture of the hat is noisier than the texture of

the skin, so the noise distribution should be computed differently there. There is another important but yet unsolved problem: a part of the

quantization noise is indeed noise, but a part is lost information. The lost information shouldn't be considered a part of noise - as we cannot

reintroduce it.

Variance map

Now, we compute the standard deviations of quantization residuals at different resolutions. We will call these "variance maps".

We will need a routine which will bunch together neighboring pixels


ur 13 16/01/2013 09:53


12/13

It seems that the variance map at 16 pixel resolution works best: not too much detail, yet not too little of it. Let's now apply variance map at

resolution 16 for noise reconstruction. We divide the standard deviations by 2, or else the amount of noise is overestimated. It is important to

realize that only noise must be reintroduced, but not just noise is lost in quantization.

Although the noise levels on the skin and in the feathers are now more correct, there are still visible transitions between different noise levels.

More troubling, there is too much noise in the areas around sharp edges. Further work should address proper computation of noise levels around

sharp edges.

SPACL decomposition of residuals:

We notice that we do not need to compute the standard deviations in such an expensive way: it is merely an issue of averaging absolute

residuals. We might wonder if we could describe the noise better with Spacl decomposition -


ur 13 16/01/2013 09:53


13/13

One interesting approach would be discarding the noisy high-pass subband of variance and quantizing the low-pass subbands of variance.


introduction to wavelets in image compression

Documents