Comprehensive Performance Analysis of Objective Quality Metrics for Digital Holography

TL;DR

This study evaluates the effectiveness of various image quality metrics in assessing digital holograms across different stages and displays, revealing no single metric performs well in all scenarios.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive performance analysis of existing quality metrics on digital holograms using a new dataset and multiple evaluation conditions.

Findings

Few metrics correlate well with MOS in specific scenarios.

No metric consistently outperforms others across all test conditions.

Performance varies significantly depending on the hologram processing stage.

Abstract

Objective quality assessment of digital holograms has proven to be a challenging task. While prediction of perceptual quality of the recorded 3D content from the holographic wavefield is an open problem; perceptual quality assessment from content after rendering, requires a time-consuming rendering step and a multitude of possible viewports. In this research, we use 96 Fourier holograms of the recently released HoloDB database to evaluate the performance of well-known and state-of-the-art image quality metrics on digital holograms. We compare the reference holograms with their distorted versions: (i) before rendering on the real and imaginary parts of the quantized complex-wavefield, (ii) after converting Fourier to Fresnel holograms, (iii) after rendering, on the quantized amplitude of the reconstructed data, and (iv) after subsequently removing speckle noise using a Wiener filter. For every experimental track, the quality metric predictions are compared to the Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) gathered on a 2D screen, light field display and a holographic display. Additionally, a statistical analysis of the results and a discussion on the performance of the metrics are presented. The tests demonstrate that while for each test track a few quality metrics present a highly correlated performance compared to the multiple sets of available MOS, none of them demonstrates a consistently high-performance across all four test-tracks.