W11: How do Wikipedians determine "quality"? . WANG XIAOLING, 왕효령

Image quality refers to people's subjective evaluation of the visual perception of an image. It is generally believed that the image quality refers to the degree of error in the human visual system of the measured image (ie the target image) compared to the standard image (ie the original image). In other words, compared to the original image, the human eye believes that the target image has almost no degradation. Quality or damage, it is said that the quality of the target image is high, otherwise it is said that the image quality is poor. Another definition means that without the original image, the human eye can clearly distinguish the things in the image, and can distinguish the foreground and background, the outline of the object, the texture, etc. in the image, which means that the image quality is good. Otherwise, the image quality is poor.

Generally, there are two main methods for evaluating image quality: 1 Subjective evaluation method: The observer evaluates the image quality. Although it is not scientific, this is generally the final method to determine the quality of the image. 2. Objective evaluation method: Use algorithms to evaluate image quality. These algorithms are built into the technical system of Wikipedia. Therefore, the objective method is to use scientific instruments to measure the relevant parameters of the image, and then evaluate them, which is more accurate.

Comments

  1. SOMIN PARK (박소민)May 13, 2021 at 2:53 AM

    I read your post well! I didn't know there was an objective image quality assessment algorithm on Wikipedia. Thank you for letting me know something useful! There is also a paper that studies subjective image quality assessment, so if you are interested, please read it.

    here is the link :
    https://scienceon.kisti.re.kr/commons/util/originalView.do?cn=JAKO201225841538145&oCn=JAKO201225841538145&dbt=JAKO&journal=NJOU00292001

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more