Comments on ‘Area and power efficient DCT architecture for image compression’ by Dhandapani and Ramachandran
- Renato J. Cintra^{1}Email author and
- Fábio M. Bayer^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634-017-0486-8
© The Author(s) 2017
Received: 24 November 2015
Accepted: 18 June 2017
Published: 10 July 2017
Abstract
In [Dhandapani and Ramachandran, “Area and power efficient DCT architecture for image compression”, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2014, 2014:180] the authors claim to have introduced an approximation for the discrete cosine transform capable of outperforming several well-known approximations in literature in terms of additive complexity. We could not verify the above results and we offer corrections for their work.
Keywords
1 Introduction
In a recent paper [1], a low-complexity transformation was introduced, which is claimed to be a good approximation to the discrete cosine transform (DCT). We wish to evaluate this claim.
We aim at analyzing the above matrix and showing that it does not consist of a meaningful approximation for the 8-point DCT. In the following, we adopted the same methodology described in [2–11] which the authors also claim to employ.
2 Criticisms
2.1 Inverse transformation
2.2 Lack of DC component
where \(\text {MSE} = \frac {1}{M\cdot N} {\sum \nolimits }_{i=1}^{M}{\sum \nolimits }_{j=1}^{N} (a_{i,j} - b_{i,j})^{2}\), a _{ i,j } and b _{ i,j } are the (i,j)-th element of the original and reconstructed images, respectively; and MAX is the maximum pixel valye. For 8-bit greyscale images, MAX = 255.
2.3 Fast algorithm
which is different from T. Therefore, the SFG is incorrect and does not correspond to the proposed matrix. We assume that the intended method is T _{SFG}, which is the matrix implied by the fast algorithm. Indeed, this transformation is shown again in the schematics of the hardware realization of their work. Nevertheless, hereafter, we analyze both matrices: T and T _{SFG}. Similar to T, the matrix T _{SFG} does not evaluate the DC value, being subject to the criticism detailed in the previous subsection.
2.4 Lack of energy concentration
Moreover, the lack of energy concentration in the first transform coefficients indicates that the standard zigzag pattern employed in the quantization step is not adequate for this transformation. Nevertheless, the authors claim to employ the zigzag pattern with success. We could not verify this claim.
Transform coding assessment
Method | Transform efficiency | Coding gain (dB) |
---|---|---|
DCT [12] | 93.99 | 8.83 |
SDCT [2] | 82.62 | 6.02 |
BAS-2008 [4] | 84.95 | 6.01 |
BAS-2009 [6] | 85.38 | 7.91 |
BAS-2010 [8] | 88.22 | 8.33 |
BAS-2011 [9] | 85.38 | 7.91 |
CB-2011 [13] | 87.43 | 8.18 |
CB-2012 [3] | 80.90 | 7.33 |
Transformation in [14] | 3 4 . 9 3 | − 1 . 6 5 |
Transformation in [15] | 3 3 . 6 7 | − 4 . 0 8 |
T [1] | 2 8 . 9 5 | − 1 . 8 6 |
T _{SFG} [1] | 2 8 . 9 5 | − 1 . 8 6 |
2.5 Irreproducibility of results
The results shown by Dhandapani and Ramachandran could not be repeated. The authors state that they employ simultaneously a quantization step, which corresponds to variable bitrate encoding, and a fixed number of retained transform-domain coefficients, which suggests constant bitrate. This seems contradictory. However, to examine the transformation suggested by the authors, we adopted a constant bitrate encoding based on the retention of r transform-domain coefficients, as suggested originally by Haweel and others [2–11].
PSNR of reconstructed images (r=6w0)
Transform | Lena | Boat | Goldhill | Barbara | Lighthouse | Mandrill | Grass |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCT [12] | 51.400 | 46.531 | 49.497 | 47.097 | 49.719 | 41.147 | 44.264 |
SDCT [2] | 45.708 | 41.593 | 44.308 | 40.532 | 43.044 | 35.956 | 36.517 |
BAS-2008 [4] | 43.996 | 39.498 | 42.449 | 38.304 | 41.139 | 33.886 | 34.364 |
BAS-2009 [6] | 48.096 | 44.828 | 46.470 | 40.143 | 44.035 | 37.982 | 36.869 |
BAS-2010 [8] | 50.976 | 46.483 | 48.912 | 46.657 | 48.193 | 40.617 | 42.486 |
BAS-2011 [9] | 48.010 | 44.874 | 46.328 | 40.073 | 44.690 | 38.085 | 37.191 |
CB-2011 [13] | 49.537 | 45.353 | 47.892 | 43.163 | 46.455 | 39.668 | 39.815 |
CB-2012 [3] | 46.621 | 44.217 | 45.027 | 39.763 | 41.939 | 36.486 | 35.223 |
Transformation in [14] | 30.193 | 29.635 | 32.107 | 29.411 | 29.777 | 26.575 | 20.612 |
Transformation in [15] | 27.895 | 27.463 | 29.797 | 27.260 | 27.547 | 24.530 | 18.445 |
T [1] | 30.560 | 30.034 | 32.565 | 29.851 | 30.090 | 26.862 | 20.982 |
T _{SFG} [1] | 30.889 | 29.867 | 32.920 | 29.117 | 30.189 | 26.779 | 20.900 |
PSNR of reconstructed images (r=10)
Transform | Lena | Boat | Goldhill | Barbara | Lighthouse | Mandrill | Grass |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCT [12] | 32.088 | 28.971 | 30.656 | 24.752 | 25.549 | 22.832 | 19.893 |
SDCT [2] | 27.443 | 25.570 | 27.543 | 23.488 | 23.348 | 21.095 | 17.019 |
BAS-2008 [4] | 29.509 | 27.150 | 28.994 | 24.285 | 24.444 | 22.279 | 18.849 |
BAS-2009 [6] | 29.916 | 27.354 | 29.288 | 24.520 | 24.381 | 22.223 | 18.661 |
BAS-2010 [8] | 31.143 | 28.292 | 30.072 | 24.666 | 25.063 | 22.581 | 19.376 |
BAS-2011 [9] | 29.916 | 27.354 | 29.288 | 24.520 | 24.381 | 22.223 | 18.661 |
CB-2011 [13] | 30.446 | 27.861 | 29.612 | 24.460 | 24.756 | 22.516 | 19.157 |
CB-2012 [3] | 27.015 | 25.190 | 27.141 | 23.595 | 23.087 | 21.596 | 17.170 |
Transformation in [14] | 2.159 | 1.856 | 2.877 | 2.936 | 2.582 | 1.992 | 1.981 |
Transformation in [15] | − 6 . 9 2 7 | − 7 . 2 1 3 | − 6 . 2 0 5 | − 6 . 1 2 0 | − 6 . 4 4 2 | − 7 . 0 5 3 | − 6 . 9 1 4 |
T [1] | 2.163 | 1.867 | 2.880 | 2.951 | 2.596 | 2.001 | 1.981 |
T _{SFG} [1] | 4.686 | 4.380 | 5.399 | 5.454 | 5.086 | 4.481 | 4.355 |
3 Conclusion
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by CNPq, FACEPE, and FAPERGS.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- V Dhandapani, S Ramachandran, Area and power efficient DCT architecture for image compression. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 180:, 1–9 (2014).Google Scholar
- TI Haweel, A new square wave transform based on the DCT. Signal Process. 82:, 2309–2319 (2001).View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- FM Bayer, RJ Cintra, DCT-like transform for image compression requires 14 additions only. Electron. Lett. 48(15), 919–921 (2012). doi:10.1049/el.2012.1148.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, Low-complexity 8 ×8 transform for image compression. Electron. Lett. 44(21), 1249–1250 (2008). doi:10.1049/el:20082239.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, in 2nd International Conference on Signals, Circuits and Systems (SCS). A multiplication-free transform for image compression, (2008), pp. 1–4. doi:10.1109/ICSCS.2008.4746898.
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, in 2009 International Conference on Microelectronics (ICM). A fast 8 ×8 transform for image compression, (2009), pp. 74–77. doi:10.1109/ICM.2009.5418584.
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, in Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). Image encryption using the reciprocal-orthogonal parametric transform, (2010), pp. 2542–2545. doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5537110.
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, in 53rd IEEE International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS). A novel transform for image compression, (2010), pp. 509–512. doi:10.1109/MWSCAS.2010.5548745.
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. A low-complexity parametric transform for image compression, (2011).Google Scholar
- S Bouguezel, MO Ahmad, MNS Swamy, Binary discrete cosine and Hartley transforms. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I: Regular Papers. 60(4), 989–1002 (2013).MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- N Brahimi, S Bouguezel, in 7th International Workshop on Systems, Signal Processing and Their Applications (WOSSPA). An efficient fast integer DCT transform for images compression with 16 additions only, (2011), pp. 71–74. doi:10.1109/WOSSPA.2011.5931415.
- V Britanak, P Yip, KR Rao, Discrete cosine and sine transforms (Academic Press, Oxford, 2007).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- RJ Cintra, FM Bayer, A DCT approximation for image compression. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 18(10), 579–582 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- D Vaithiyanathan, R Seshasayanan, in Proceeding of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS). Low power DCT architecture for image compression (Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, 2013), pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICACCS.2013.6938745.
- D Vaithiyanathan, R Seshasayanan, S Anith, K Kunaraj, in Proceeding of the International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE 2013). A low-complexity DCT approximation for image compression with 14 additions (Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, 2013), pp. 303–307. doi:10.1109/ICGCE.2013.6823450.