skip to main content
research-article

Image and video upscaling from local self-examples

Published:22 April 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We propose a new high-quality and efficient single-image upscaling technique that extends existing example-based super-resolution frameworks. In our approach we do not rely on an external example database or use the whole input image as a source for example patches. Instead, we follow a local self-similarity assumption on natural images and extract patches from extremely localized regions in the input image. This allows us to reduce considerably the nearest-patch search time without compromising quality in most images. Tests, that we perform and report, show that the local self-similarity assumption holds better for small scaling factors where there are more example patches of greater relevance. We implement these small scalings using dedicated novel nondyadic filter banks, that we derive based on principles that model the upscaling process. Moreover, the new filters are nearly biorthogonal and hence produce high-resolution images that are highly consistent with the input image without solving implicit back-projection equations. The local and explicit nature of our algorithm makes it simple, efficient, and allows a trivial parallel implementation on a GPU. We demonstrate the new method ability to produce high-quality resolution enhancement, its application to video sequences with no algorithmic modification, and its efficiency to perform real-time enhancement of low-resolution video standard into recent high-definition formats.

References

  1. Aly, H. and Dubois, E. 2005. Image up-sampling using total-variation regularization with a new observation model. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14, 10, 1647--1659. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barnsley, M. 1988. Fractal modelling of real world images. In The Science of Fractal Images, H.-O. Peitgen and D. Saupe, Eds. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bhat, P., Zitnick, C. L., Snavely, N., Agarwala, A., Agrawala, M., Curless, B., Cohen, M., and Kang, S. B. 2007. Using photographs to enhance videos of a static scene. In Proceedings of the Conference on Rendering Techniques, J. Kautz and S. Pattanaik, Eds. Eurographics, 327--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ebrahimi, M. and Vrscay, E. R. 2007. Solving the inverse problem of image zooming using self-examples. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Analysis and Recognition ICIAR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4633. Springer, 117--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Farsiu, S., Robinson, M., Elad, M., and Milanfar, P. 2004. Fast and robust multiframe super resolution. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13, 10, 1327--1344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fattal, R. 2007. Image upsampling via imposed edge statistics. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3, 95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Freeman, W. T., Jones, T. R., and Pasztor, E. C. 2002. Example-based super-resolution. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 22, 2, 56--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Freeman, W. T., Pasztor, E. C., and Carmichael, O. T. 2000. Learning low-level vision. Int. J. Comput. Vision 40, 1, 25--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Glasner, D., Bagon, S., and Irani, M. 2009. Super-Resolution from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV09). 349--356.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Li, X. and Orchard, M. T. 2001. New edge-directed interpolation. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 10, 10, 1521--1527. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Lin, Z. and Shum, H.-Y. 2004. Fundamental limits of reconstruction-based superresolution algorithms under local translation. IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Mach. Intell. 26, 1, 83--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mallat, S. 1999. A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, 2nd ed. (Wavelet Analysis & Its Applications). Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Polidori, E. and Dugelay, J.-L. 1995. Zooming using iterated function systems. In NATO ASI on Image Coding and Analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollock, S. and Cascio, I. 2007. Non-Dyadic wavelet analysis. In Optimisation, Econometric and Financial Analysis, 167--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pratt, W. K. 2001. Digital Image Processing: PIKS Inside. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Reusens, E. 1994. Overlapped adaptive partitioning for image coding based on the theory of iterated functions systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. (ICASSP 94). vol. 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Robert, M. G.-A., Denardo, R., Tenda, Y., and Huang, T. S. 1997. Resolution enhancement of images using fractal coding. In Proceedings of the Conference on Visual Communications and Image Processing '97. 1089--1100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Shan, Q., Li, Z., Jia, J., and Tang, C.-K. 2008. Fast image/video upsampling. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 5, 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Su, D. and Willis, P. 2004. Image interpolation by pixel-level data-dependent triangulation. Comput. Graph. Forum 23, 2, 189--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Suetake, N., Sakano, M., and Uchino, E. 2008. Image super-resolution based on local self-similarity. J. Optic. Rev. 15, 1 (January), 26--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Sun, J., Ning Zheng, N., Tao, H., and Yeung Shum, H. 2003. Image hallucination with primal sketch priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 729--736.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sun, J., Xu, Z., and Shum, H.-Y. 2008. Image super-resolution using gradient profile prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tappen, M. F., Russell, B. C., and Freeman, W. T. 2004. Efficient graphical models for processing images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 673--680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Thvenaz, P., Blu, T., and Unser, M. 2000. Image interpolation and resampling. In Handbook of Medical Imaging, Processing and Analysis, I. Bankman, Ed. Academic Press, San Diego CA, 393--420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Vrscay, E. R. 2002. From Fractal Image Compression to Fractal-Based Methods in Mathematics. The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Its Applications. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Xiong, R., Xu, J., and Wu, F. 2006. A lifting-based wavelet transform supporting non-dyadic spatial scalability. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. 1861--1864.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Image and video upscaling from local self-examples

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Fernando Santos Osorio

        An interesting algorithm for increasing the resolution and size of digital images is presented in this work. The proposed method preserves the image quality and allows one to upscale it, obtaining high-resolution and high-quality images. This method is very useful because efficient upscaling of single images acquired by low-grade sensors to high-quality, high-resolution images is a difficult problem. Most natural images contain both local regularities and discontinuities that can produce undesirable artifacts when scaling up the images. Freedman and Fattal state that their method is better than some other recent well-known algorithms proposed in the literature because it produces more visually appealing images. Another important advantage is that it can be executed in real time, over both images and video sequences, using a parallel implementation on a graphics processing unit (GPU). The authors propose using only local self-examples (extremely localized region samples) of the input image to create filter banks with a gradual upscaling process (small consecutive scaling factor adjustments). The main advantage of this method is that one can apply it in real time, since it uses only the original image as input. The fact that it is based on local self-examples allows one to obtain very efficient implementations in a GPU parallel version. Additionally, according to the authors, the quality of the obtained images is comparable to those obtained using other state-of-the-art algorithms, with the advantage that it outperforms the others. The tests that the authors have conducted demonstrate that the final images usually do not suffer from the side effects of upscaling (such as artifacts, staircasing, or blurring). Interested readers can view these images on the authors' project Web page [1]. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
          ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 30, Issue 2
          April 2011
          104 pages
          ISSN:0730-0301
          EISSN:1557-7368
          DOI:10.1145/1944846
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 22 April 2011
          • Accepted: 1 January 2011
          • Revised: 1 November 2010
          • Received: 1 September 2010
          Published in tog Volume 30, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader