Optimizing prediction gain in axial symmetric scans

N. Memon, D. Neuhoff, S. Shende

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Though most lossless image coding techniques use a raster scan to order the pixels for context-based predictive coding, other scans, such as the Hilbert or Peano scan, have been proposed as alternatives with potentially better performance. However, a general understanding of the merits of different scans has been lacking. In previous work, the authors had presented a framework in which the effect of pixel scan order on lossless compression can be quantitatively analyzed, so that comparisons of different scans can be made. Assuming a quantized-Gaussian and isotropic image model with contexts consisting of previously scanned adjacent pixels in a distance constrained neighborhood, it was found that the raster scan is better than the Hilbert scan. In this paper we further develop our arguments and show that for a large class of scans, which we call axial symmetric scans, the raster scan is indeed optimal. We would like to note that many common scans including the Hilbert scan fall under the class of axial symmetric scans.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationIEEE International Conference on Image Processing
Pages932-935
Number of pages4
Volume1
StatePublished - 2000
EventInternational Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 2000) - Vancouver, BC, Canada
Duration: Sep 10 2000Sep 13 2000

Other

OtherInternational Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 2000)
CountryCanada
CityVancouver, BC
Period9/10/009/13/00

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
  • Hardware and Architecture
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Optimizing prediction gain in axial symmetric scans'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Memon, N., Neuhoff, D., & Shende, S. (2000). Optimizing prediction gain in axial symmetric scans. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (Vol. 1, pp. 932-935)