Machine Vision and Applications (2018) 29:585–600

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138-018-0916-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications

Ali Al-Naji1,2 · Sang-Heon Lee1 · Javaan Chahl1,3

Received: 19 October 2016 / Revised: 23 January 2018 / Accepted: 23 January 2018 / Published online: 13 February 2018
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The human eye cannot see subtle motion signals that fall outside human visual limits, due to either limited resolution of intensity
variations or lack of sensitivity to lower spatial and temporal frequencies. Yet, these invisible signals can be highly informative
when amplified to be observable by a human operator or an automatic machine vision system. Many video magnification
techniques have recently been proposed to magnify and reveal these signals in videos and image sequences. Limitations,
including noise level, video quality and long execution time, are associated with the existing video magnification techniques.
Therefore, there is value in developing a new magnification method where these issues are the main consideration. This study
presents a new magnification method that outperforms other magnification techniques in terms of noise removal, video quality
at large magnification factor and execution time. The proposed method is compared with four methods, including Eulerian
video magnification, phase-based video magnification, Riesz pyramid for fast phase-based video magnification and enhanced
Eulerian video magnification. The experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed magnification
method regarding all video quality metrics used. Our method is also 60–70% faster than Eulerian video magnification, whereas
other competing methods take longer to execute than Eulerian video magnification.

Keywords Video magnification techniques · Wavelet video decomposition · Objective video quality metrics

1 Introduction
Small-amplitude changes in video and image sequences are
difficult to perceive by the human eye because of our lim-
ited spatiotemporal sensitivity and conflicting stabilization
and luminance invariance mechanisms. These changes may
contain useful information which can be used in many appli-
cations, especially in the biomedical field. For example,
blood circulation causes invisible skin colour changes that
can be amplified to measure heart rate [1–3]. Another exam-
ple is the subtle head motion resulting from the cardiac cycle
B Ali Al-Naji
ali_abdulelah_noori.al-naji@mymail.unisa.edu.au
Sang-Heon Lee
Sang-Heon.Lee@unisa.edu.au
Javaan Chahl
Javaan.Chahl@unisa.edu.au
1 School of Engineering, University of South Australia,
Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
2 Electrical Engineering Technical College, Middle Technical
University, Al Doura, Baghdad 10022, Iraq
3 Joint and Operations Analysis Division, Defence Science and
Technology Group, Melbourne, Victoria 3207, Australia
of blood from the heart to the head via the carotid arteries
that can also be used to measure cardiac activity [4–7]. Sim-
ilarly, the arterial pulse in different locations of the human
body is normally difficult for humans to see, but the motion
can be magnified to measure heart rate and beat length [8,9].
Also, breath motion which also has low spatial amplitude
can be amplified to measure the baby’s respiratory activ-
ity [10,11]. Therefore, several studies have been proposed
to reveal imperceptible motion in videos. The first study
by Liu et al. [12] proposed a motion magnification tech-
nique based on Lagrangian perspective to magnify subtle
motions in video sequences to detect interesting mechanical
behaviour. However, their study is computationally expen-
sive, with long execution time (10 h at that time) because
it relied on optical flow calculations and a feature tracking
algorithm. Also, it is difficult to make the image artefact-
free due to noise magnification obtained from their study.
A new magnification technique based on Eulerian perspec-
tive, the Eulerian video magnification (EVM) technique, was
proposed by Wu et al. [13] to reveal temporal variations in
videos that are invisible to the human eye. This technique is
based on Eulerian perspective, where properties of a voxel
of fluid, including velocity and pressure evolve over time.
This study applied the Laplacian pyramid decomposition

123
586
Fig. 1 An example of magnified videos using different magnification methods
technique to decompose source video into different spatial
frequency bands, followed by temporal filtering of theses
spatial frequency bands. The resulting signals are then mag-
nified and added back to the original signals to enhance
spatiotemporal information in video. Finally, output video
is reconstructed by collapsing the pyramid. Although EVM
succeeds in amplifying motion and colour changes in videos
and eliminates the need for costly optical flow computation
[12], it only supports small magnification factors at high spa-
tial frequencies and linearly increases the noise level with
increasing magnification factor. Additionally, during skin
colour magnification, some undesirable motion will also be
magnified. To solve these problems, Wadhwa et al. [14] pro-
posed a new Eulerian method based on complex steerable
pyramids [15,16], which was inspired by phase-based optical
flow methods [17,18]. Their proposed method supports larger
magnification factors and has fewer artefacts and less noise
compared to EVM. Their proposed method can also be used
to attenuate and remove low-amplitude motion in the case
of colour magnification. However, it is more complex, costly
to construct, over-complete and takes longer to execute than
the EVM. In addition, the magnified videos based on their
method may be incoherent, if some frame sequences have
a noisy phase signal. Therefore, they extended their work
[19] using a new compact image pyramid, the Riesz pyra-
123
A. Al-Naji et al
mid, instead of using a complex steerable pyramid to reduce
over-completeness, execution time and cost to construct. The
main limitation in their work is that the Riesz pyramid fails
to maintain the power of the input signal, which can cause
minor artefacts, and it still takes longer to execute than the
EVM. Furthermore, their method also suffers from some of
the limitations of EVM [19]. Another study [20] proposed
a post-processing technique to improve EVM that is called
enhanced EVM (E2VM). E2VM relies on using EVM as a
spatiotemporal motion analyser with image warping between
the input and magnified videos to magnify motion without
noise amplification. E2VM also supports larger magnifica-
tion factors better than EVM and is significantly less affected
by frame noise, because it does not involve modification of
pixel values. This is, however, time-consuming and some
magnification specifications may be lost during image warp-
ing. Furthermore, because the E2VM uses the EVM as part
of its algorithm, any failure in the EVM limits the quality of
the results. Figure 1 shows an example of magnified videos
obtained via different magnification methods.
To resolve these performance problems, we proposed a
new magnification method to extract invisible motion infor-
mation from videos based on wavelet decomposition, the
Chebyshev band-pass filter and image de-noising. This study
contributes to the improvement of the video magnifica-
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications 587

tion techniques in performance, video quality, complexity

and execution to be more suitable for real-time applica-
tions. The proposed method is called an efficient motion
magnification system (EMMS) that outperforms the other
magnification methods in terms of noise removal, output
video quality, overall performance at large magnification fac-
tors and reduced time to execute. The proposed EMMS may
have the potential to be accepted in demanding real-time
video processing applications. The EMMS was compared to
other magnification methods in four studies, including EVM
[13], phase-based video magnification [14], Riesz pyramid
for fast phase-based video magnification [19] and E2VM
[20]. To prescribe most of the image characteristics in the
video quality test, thirteen full-reference objective metrics
of video quality were used in this study to test which mag-
nification method provided highest video quality, and one
no-reference objective metric was used to compare their per-
formance with different magnification factors.

2 The proposed method

In this section, the proposed block diagram of EMMS is intro-

duced as shown in Fig. 2 and the main algorithms of the
proposed method are discussed. As shown in Fig. 2, the
RGB frame sequences of the source video are first converted
to YCb Cr colour space to separate the intensity informa-
tion from the colour information. The intensity channel
(Y) is resized down 50% by using the Lanczos resampling
method [21] to reduce processing time. The Y channel is then
decomposed into different spatial frequency bands using a
multiresolution pyramid analysis. The main algorithms of
the proposed EMMS are discussed below. Fig. 2 The block diagram of the EMMS

2.1 Multiresolution pyramidal wavelet  

decomposition f (t) = a j,n ω j,n (t) + b j,n ϕ j,n (t) (1)

Multiresolution pyramid analysis allows to decompose image where the wavelet function ω j,n (x) and scaling function
into sequence of image transformations with different spatial ϕ j,n (x) satisfy the shifting and dilation and span orthogo-
resolution to extract the information content in an image. The nally complimentary spaces at a set of integers T , as follows:
multiresolution decomposition based on wavelet transform is  
an efficient way to provide a time-frequency representation of ω j,n (t) = 2−0.5 j ω t − 2− j n , j, n ∈ T (2)
an image and to analyse an image in horizontal, vertical and  
diagonal detailed with different resolution levels. Compared ϕ j,n (t) = 2−0.5 j ϕ t − 2− j n , j, n ∈ T (3)
with Fourier-based methods, the wavelet decomposition has
local support in both space and frequency domain, while The shifting and dilation of ω (t) that produces the orthonor-
Fourier-based methods are local in frequency, but has global mal basis, ω j,n (t) , are called wavelets which have the
support in the space domain [22]. Another advantage is the characteristics of f (t) in both the frequency and spatial
availability of fast algorithms [22]. domains. a j,n and b j,n are the coefficients of ω j,n (t) and
Generally, the wavelet transform can represent any func- ϕ j,n (t), and these coefficients are expressed as
tion, f (t), in terms of two sets of basis functions: the mother
 
wavelet function, ω j,n (t), and the scaling function, ϕ j,n (t), a j,n = H2n−k b j−1,k , b j,n = L 2n−k bm−1,k (4)
as follows [22]: k k

123
588
Fig. 3 Filter structure used to determine the wavelet coefficients
where H and L are defined as

(L)n = 20.5 ϕ (t − 2) ϕ (2t) dx (5)
(H )l = (−1)l .L −l+1 (6)
where L and H are low-pass and high-pass filters correspond-
ing to the coefficients (L)n and (H )n , respectively. Thus, the
discrete wavelet version of Eq. (1) becomes

b j−1,l ( f ) = [L 2n−l .b j,n ( f ) + H2n−l .a j,n ( f )] (7)
n
For the orthogonal wavelet bases, the wavelet function
becomes:
 ∞
ω (t) dt = 0 (8)
−∞
Using the coefficients b j,n at a specific level j, we can cal-
culate the coefficients at level j − 1 using a filter structure as
shown in Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 3, two levels of decomposition for
one-dimensional (1-D) scheme are depicted. According to
Mallat [23], the wavelet decomposition of a 2-D scheme
can be accomplished by applying the 1-D scheme along the
rows and columns of the image separately. To reconstruct
the wavelet pyramid, inverse discrete wavelet transformer
(DWT) is applied in which the low-frequency sub-band of
the finer level is reconstructed from the four sub-bands of
the coarser level. The reconstruction is achieved by placing
zeroes between each sample of sub-bands and then convolv-
ing the resulting signals via low-pass and high-pass filters
and adding them to obtain the reconstructed image.
In this study, we have used the 2-D DWT based on Haar
family, since this family is the simplest of all wavelet families
to implement and outperforms other families (Daubechies,
Coiflet and Symlet) in edge detection [24], feature extrac-
tion [25] and image compression [26]. As information loss
in the image with the Haar family is less, reconstruction of
the image is of better quality than that obtained from other
wavelet families. Further details of the wavelet Haar family
can be found in [27].
123
A. Al-Naji et al
Fig. 4 The RMSE for the magnified image sequences of baby video
using a Butterworth and Chebyshev band-pass filter with the same mag-
nification parameters
2.2 Temporal filtering
Temporal filtering based on a zero-phase Chebyshev Type I
band-pass filter is applied on each level of the wavelet pyra-
mid to extract the frequency bands of interest based on the
frequency characteristics of the image obtained from wavelet
pyramid at different levels. Compared with a Butterworth
filter, a Chebyshev Type I band-pass has attenuation rate
beyond the passband better than the Butterworth filter and
can achieve a sharper transition faster than that achieved by
the same order Butterworth filter as well as requiring less
time to execute [28]. In addition, the Chebyshev Type I band-
pass filter provides a root mean square error (RMSE) smaller
than the Butterworth band-pass filter during the magnifica-
tion process as shown in Fig. 4, which contributes to reducing
the processing artefacts and thus increases the quality of the
magnified video.
The magnitude response of the low-pass Chebyshev Type
I is given by [29]
  2
  1
 H N e jw  =   (9)
ω
1 + ε2 PN ωc
 N is number of filter order, ωc is a cut-off frequency,
where
PN ωωc is the Chebyshev polynomial, and ε is a control
parameter on the mount of band-pass ripple. The ripple is
often given in dB as below:

Ripple = 20 log 1 + ε2 (10)
A band-pass Chebyshev Type I filter is constructed by
subtracting two low-pass Chebyshev Type I filters. The
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications 589

Table 1 Performance comparison of the video magnification methods

EVM [13] Phase-based method Fast phase-based E2VM [20] Proposed method
[14] method [19] (EMMS)

Decomposition Laplacian pyramid Complex steerable Riesz pyramid Laplacian pyramid Wavelet pyramid
pyramid
Noise Magnified Translated Translated Minimized via Removed
post-processing
−2
Over- 3
4 image 2h/(1 − 2 j )a (3–4 ≈ 20–80% faster ≈ 15–20% slower ≈ 60–70% faster
completeness times slower than than phase-based than EVM than EVM
EVM with octave method (octave
bandwidth, 2 bandwidth, 2
orientations) orientations)
Magnification Support small Support large Support large Support medium Support large
magnification magnification magnification magnification magnification
factor factor b with factor factor factor
sub-octave
bandwidth filters
Exact for Linear ramps Sinusoid Sinusoid Linear ramps Linear ramps
ah is the number of orientation bands, and j is the number of filters per octave for each orientation
b Phase-based method does not support large magnification factors with (octave bandwidth filter, two orientations)

zero-phase is optionally used with the Chebyshev filter to
eliminate processing noise at low and high frequencies and
to remove the phase delay involved.
2.3 Magnification
In the magnification process, the extracted band-passed sig-
nals are multiplied by a magnification factor (MF) to amplify
signals of interest. The magnified signals are then collapsed
by using wavelet pyramid reconstruction. The magnified sig-
nals are then filtered by using an improved adaptive median
filter algorithm [30] that maintains excellent image edge and
detail information, and increases signal-to-noise ratio for the
processed signal better than the tradition median filters [30].
The output signals are resized up and added back to the input
signals to obtain a processed Y channel. Finally, the pro-
cessed Y channel is then concatenated with the original Cb
and Cr channels and converted to RGB to obtain the final
output.
Table 1 shows the key differences between the proposed
EMMS and the other magnification methods.
3 Video quality metrics
The quality metrics generally divide into two categories:
subjective and objective. The subjective quality metrics are
measured by asking a number of expert observers to look at
each distorted image and rate its quality. Although subjec-
tive metrics are the most natural, accurate and reliable way of
measuring the image quality, they have several drawbacks,
including inconvenience, time-consuming and expensive,
which make them impractical for real-time use. The objec-
tive quality metrics are computational models that are used to
assess the quality of a distorted image by comparing it with
the original image (reference image). The objective quality
metrics can be divided into three categories depending on
the existence of the reference image: full-reference quality
metrics, no-reference quality metrics and reduced-reference
quality metrics. Because no individual metric can cover all
image characteristics and performs well for all groups of
distortions, this study uses thirteen objective full-reference
quality metrics classified into three categories: metrics based
on mathematical model, metrics based on characteristics of
the human visual system and metrics based on natural scene
statistics, and one objective no-reference quality metric to
compare the video quality of the magnified video from the
EMMS with other magnification methods and select which
method provides better quality and performance.
3.1 Full-reference metrics based on mathematical
models
Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and mean squared error
(MSE) are the most commonly used metric for measuring
a video quality because they are mathematically simple to
calculate, easy to deal with for optimization purposes and
they have clear physical meaning [31]. They are based on a
simple pixel-wise comparison between the reference image
and the distorted image. A good-quality image has higher
PSNR and a lower MSE. To calculate PSNR for each frame
in the magnified video. Let F = { f i |i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N }
be the original image signal with size of M × N , and G =
{gi |i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N } be the M × N distorted image signal

123
590 A. Al-Naji et al

which represents the image signal for each magnified frame, σ F G 2 F̄ Ḡ 2σ F σG

UQI = (14)
the PSNR and MSE between F and G are defined by: σ F σG F̄ 2 + Ḡ 2 (σ F )2 + (σG )2

2552 The first component in (14) represents a correlation coef-

PSNR = 10 log10 (11)
MSE (F, G) ficient between F and G with range [1, − 1], the second
1  component measures the mean luminance between F and G
M N
MSE = [F − G]2 (12) with range of [1, 0], and the third component computes the
MN
m=1 n=1 contrast between F and G with range of [1, 0], where the
best value is “1” when F = G. As claimed in [33,34], the
where PSNR measured in decibels and the best image quality
UQI performs better than MSE in different distortion types.
occurred when the MSE is close to zero. Generally, a pro-
(b) Structural similarity (SSIM)
cessed image with PSNR greater than 30 dB is considered
SSIM is a metric based on HVS features proposed by
acceptable to human eyes [32].
Wang et al. [35] to measure the variation of structural infor-
3.2 Full-reference metrics based on characteristics mation between F and G. The SSIM is further improvement
of the human visual system of the UQI, which also extracts three separate components
from the F and G to obtain the similarity score between
(a) Universal quality index (UQI) F and G. SSIM is implemented by using a window of
UQI is a human visual system (HVS) feature-based metric 11 × 11 circular-symmetric Gaussian weighting function,
proposed by Wang and Bovik [33] to model and measure that is moved pixel by pixel over the image, instead of 8 × 8
the distortion of the image based on three components: loss window used in the UQI. The SSIM is expressed as function
of correlation, luminance and contrast distortion. The UQI of three components:
calculates the quality index of the distorted image as:
SSIM (F, G) = [l (F, G)]α [c (F, G)]β [s (F, G)]γ (15)
4σ F G F̄ Ḡ
UQI (F, G) =  2  (13)
σ F + σG2 F̄ 2 Ḡ 2
where α, β, γ > 0 are parameters used to adjust the lumi-
where nance component l (F, G), contrast component c (F, G) and
structural component s (F, G). The comparison functions of
1 
N these components are computed as follows:
F̄ = fi ,
N
i=1 2μ F μG + C1
l (F, G) = (16)
1 
N
(μ F )2 + (μG )2 + C1
Ḡ = gi ,
N 2σ F σG + C2
i=1 c (F, G) = (17)
(σ F )2 + (σG )2 + C2
1 
N
 2
σ F2 = f i − F̄ , 2σ F G + C3
N −1 s (F, G) = (18)
i=1 2σ F σG + C3
1 
N
2
σG2 = gi − Ḡ , where μ F and μG are the mean luminance of the F
N −1
i=1 and G, respectively. C1, C2 and C3 are squared mul-
1  tiply pixel values (255 for 8-bit grayscale images) by a
N

σF G = f i − F̄ gi − Ḡ small (K  1) to avoid results instability when
N −1  2 constant

i=1 μ F + μG , (σ F2 + σG2 ) and 2σ F σG are very close to zero.
2

To simplify the expression, a specific form of the SSIM with

where F̄ and Ḡ are the mean luminance, σ F and σG are
viewed as standard deviations of the contrast and the lumi-
nance, and σ F G represents the linear correlation between F
and G. The range of UQI is between [1, − 1] which mea-
sures how close the contrast and the mean luminance are
between F and G. The best value “1” is achieved only when
σ F = σG for all i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N , whereas the worst value
“− 1” occurs when gi = 2 F̄ − f i for all i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N .
The UQI can be expressed as criteria of three components
by:
α = β = γ = 1 and C3 = C2/2 is given by [35,36]:
[2μ F μG + C1] [2σ F G + C2]
SSIM =
(μ F ) + (μG )2 + C1 (σ F )2 + (σG )2 + C2
2
(19)
The SSIM index ranges between 1 and 0, where the best value
1 is achieved only if F = G. The SSIM index corresponds
to UQI when C1 = C2 = C3 = 0 and α = β = γ = 1.

123
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications 591

(c) Multiscale structural similarity (MS-SSIM) of the phase congruency maps S pc (F, G), and the similarity
MS-SSIM extents structural similarity, which has better measure of the gradient magnitude maps Sgs (F, G):
results than its single-scale version. In the MS-SSIM, struc-
tural similarity is accomplished on each scale of both F and 2 pc1 pc2 + C5
S pc (F, G) = (23)
G, which is filtered and weighted. The original F and G are ( pc1 )2 + ( pc2 )2 + C5
weighted at scale one and iteratively down-sampling by fac- 2gs1 gs2 + C6
Sgs (F, G) = (24)
tor 2, where the highest scale is p. The comparison function (gs1 )2 + (gs2 )2 + C6
of all scales is then combined to obtain the final score as
follows: [36] where C5 and C6 are positive constants depending on the
dynamic range of the phase congruency and the gradient

α p  p
β p
γ p
MS-SSIM = l p (F, G) c p (F, G) s p (F, G)
j=1
(20)
where l p (F, G) , c p (F, G) and s p (F, G) are the lumi-
α
β
nance, contrast and structural distortions for the jth scale
obtained from each single-scale SSIM index. MS-SSIM is
more flexible and accurate than its single-scale version when
incorporating variations of viewing conditions [36].
(d) Gradient similarity measure (GSM)
GSM is a metric based on low-level HVS features pro-
posed by Liu et al. [37] to perceive image quality. Similar
to the SSIM, the GSM considers luminance and contrast–
structural changes in F and G and uses gradient similarity
St (w) pc max (w)
(gs ) to measure the changes in the contrast and structure in
the images. Therefore, the GSM is defined as a combination
of a luminance comparison and a contrast/structural compar-
ison [37,38]:
GSM (F, G) = [l (F, G)]α [cgs (F, G)]β [sgs (F, G)]γ
(21)
2gs F gsG + C4
GSM = (22)
(gs F )2 + (gsG )2 + C4
where gs F and gs G are the gradient similarity values for the
image F and G, respectively, and C4 is a free parameter to
avoid the denominator being zero. The range of the GSM is
[1, 0], where the best value “1” is achieved only if F = G.
According to Liu et al. [37], the GSM outperforms the SSIM
index because the gradient information (low-level HVS fea-
tures) of the image allows it to detect edge variations around
image regions which cannot be detected by the SSIM.
(e) Feature similarity (FSIM)
FSIM is another metric based on low-level HVS features
proposed by Zhang et al. [39]. FSIM uses two low-level
features, including phase congruency ( pc ) and gradient mag-
nitude (gs ), to compute the local similarity map between F
and G. These features are extracted from the luminance chan-
α
β
nels of colour images. To compute the FSIM, let pc1 and pc2
represent the phase congruency maps extracted from F and
G, and gs1 and gs2 represent the gradient magnitude maps
extracted from F and G. The similarity measure is applied to
these components separately to obtain the similarity measure
magnitude values, respectively. The total similarity measure,
St , is then computed as a combination of S pc (F, G) and
Sgs (F, G):
St = S pc (F, G) Sgs (F, G) (25)
where α and β are positive parameters used to adjust the pc
and gs features. Because the HVS is very sensitive to the low-
level features [37,39], the maximum value ( pcmax ) of pc1 and
pc2 is used as a weighting function to obtain a single similar-
ity score at each location w, St (w) . The FSIM is accordingly
defined for whole image spatial domain τ (w ∈ τ ) as
w
FSIM = (26)
w pc max (w)
The FSIM ranges within [1, 0], where one is achieved for
identical images.
(f) Spectral residual similarity (SRSIM)
Zhang and Li [40] proposed a new quality metric similar
to the FSIM, except they used a specific visual HVS feature,
spectral residual visual saliency (vs ), instead of phase con-
gruency used in the FSIM. With same assumptions, they used
the similarity measure function to the visual spectral residual
and gradient magnitude features as follows:
2vs1 vs2 + C7
Svs (F, G) = (27)
(vs1 )2 + (vs2 )2 + C7
2gs1 gs2 + C6
Sgs (F, G) = (28)
(gs1 )2 + (gs2 )2 + C6
where Svs (F, G) is the similarity measure of the visual
spectral residual maps, Sgs (F, G) is the similarity measure
of the gradient magnitude maps, and C7is another positive
parameter to increase vs stability. The total similarity mea-
sure, St , is also computed as a combination of Svs (F, G) and
Sgs (F, G):
St = Svs (F, G) Sgs (F, G) (29)
For a given position w, if anyone of F (w) and G (w) has a
high visual spectral residual value, the position w will have
a high impact on the HVS when evaluating the similarity
123
592 A. Al-Naji et al

between images. Therefore, the maximum value (vs max ) of
vs1 and vs2 is used as a weighting function to obtain a single
similarity score. The SRSIM is accordingly defined for a
whole image at a spatial domain τ (w ∈ τ ) as
w
St (w) vs max (w) then the algorithm terminates. When the errors are above
SRSIM =
w vs max (w)
The SRSIM ranges within [1, 0], where the values close to
one indicate the best similarity.
(g) Noise quality measure (NQM)
NQM is a metric based on HVS features proposed by
Damera-Venkata et al. [41] to quantify linear frequency dis-
tortion and noise injection between F and G. NQM spatially
analyses the variations in visual effects including: contrast
sensitivity, local luminance, contrast interaction and contrast
masking between the reference and distorted images. In the
NQM algorithm, the reference image is passed through a
restoration algorithm to obtain a model restored image based
on the same parameters that were used to restore a degraded
image. Nonlinear space-frequency processing based on Peli’s
contrast pyramid [42] is performed to obtain the simulated
images, F̂ (x, y) and Ĝ (x, y). The SNR is then calculated
based on the difference between the simulated images to pro-
duce NQM in decibels:
⎡ ⎤
dgp = R E f m − R E f m
⎢ x y F̂ (x, y) ⎥
NQM = 10 log10 ⎣ 2 ⎦ (31)

contrast detection thresholds are computed by using wavelet-
based models of visual masking to determine if the errors
(distortions E = G − F) are perceivable by the HVS. If
the errors are below the threshold of detection, the distorted
image G has a perfect visual fidelity (VSNR = ∞) and
(30)
the threshold of detection, a second stage is performed by
using the ratio of the root mean square (RMS) contrast to the
weighted values of the distortions of the perceived contrast
d pc and disruption of global precedence dgp . The visual dis-
tortion (V D) is defined as the following linear combination
of d pc and dgp
dgp
V D = αd pc + (1 − α) √ (33)
2
For supra-threshold distortions, d pc is relatively invariant
with spatial frequency and is approximated to the RMS con-
trasts of the distortions, R (E) ,
d pc = R (E) (34)
The quantity dgp is the distance between the actual con-
trasts of G and the global precedence contrasts computed for
the same total RMS distortion contrast in an M-dimensional
space as given below
 M 0.5
   2
(35)
m=1

x y F̂ (x, y) − Ĝ (x, y) 
where R E f m represents the actual contrast of the dis-
tortions within the band centred at f m computed in the
An image with a higher NQM has a better quality than an first stage and R  represents a vector of global precedence-
image with lower NQM. preserving distortion contrasts. The VSNR, in decibels, is
(h) Weighted signal-to-noise ratio (WSNR) thus given
WSNR is a HVS-based metric that is defined in deci-  2   
bels as the ratio R (F) R (F)
 of the mean weighted signal power VSNR = 10 log10 = 20 log10 (36)
weighted Psignal to the mean weighted noise power VD VD
(weighted Pnoise ) [43]
where R (F) denotes the respective RMS contrasts of the
  original image F.
weighted Psignal
WSNR = 10 log10 (32)
weighted Pnoise
3.3 Full-reference metrics based on natural scene
A low-pass or band-pass contrast sensitivity function (CSF) statistics
[44] is used as a weighting function. CSF is a linear spa-
tially invariant approximation which is gained by using the (a) Information fidelity criterion (IFC)
frequency response of the contrast sensitivity of the HVS. Sheikh et al. [47] used the Gaussian scale mixture (GSM)
Therefore, WSNR cannot determine nonlinear and spatially model in the wavelet domain as natural scene statistics [48]
varying effects of HVS between F and G [45]. model to extract mutual information between the input of the
(i) Visual signal-to-noise ratio (VSNR) channel (the reference image) and the output of the channel
VSNR is a metric based on near-threshold and supra- (the distorted image). One sub-band of the wavelet decom-
threshold features of the HVS proposed by Chandler and position
 of an image was modelled as a random field GSM,

Hemami [46] to capture the distortions in the wavelet domain. C = C i : i ∈ I where C is the product of two station-
VSNR operates in two processing stages. In the first stage, ary random fields that are independent of each other and I

123
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications 593

denotes the set of spatial indices for the random field. The GSM source model C at given S as follows
GSM source model can be expressed as
  1 N 
M  
   N N N si 2 E k

C = S U = si u i : i I I C ; A |s = log2 1 + (43)
(37) 2 σn 2
i=1 k=1
  1 N 
M  
where S = {si : i I } is a random field GSM of positive  N N N ςi 2 si 2 E k
I C ; B |s = log2 1 + 2 (44)
scalars, and U is a Gaussian vector (zero mean and covariance 2 σn + σv 2
i=1 k=1
of σu2 . The distortion model is obtained by adding gain and
additive noise in each sub-band as shown below:    
where I C N ; A N |s N and I C N ; B N |s N represent the
 

mutual visual information of the reference and distorted
D = ς C + v = ςi v i : i I (38)
images, respectively, that can be extracted from HVS out-
  put by the brain for a particular channel. Values of E k are

where ς = ς i : i ∈ I is a deterministic scalar gain
and v is a stationary additive zero-mean Gaussian noise
with covariance of σv2 . Let C N = (C1 , C2 , C3 . . . , C N )
denote elements of the GSM source C at given S and
D N = (D1 , D2 , D3 . . . , D N ) denote elements of the dis-
tortion model D. The mutual information between C and D
for one sub-band is denoted a
(45)
  N
I C N ; D N |s N = I (Ci ; Di |si )
i=1
1 
N
ςi2 si2 σu2
= log2 1 +
2 σv2
i=1
To find the mutual information for all sub-bands, each sub-
band must be independently implemented and then IFC
obtained by summing all sub-bands ( j ∈ sub-band)
   for the distorted signal B from channel j. The range of VIF
IFC = I C N , j ; D N , j |s N , j
j
where C N , j denotes coefficients from the random field C j
of the jth sub-band, and similarly for D N , j and s N , j . IFC
is in the range from zero (no information fidelity) to infinity
(perfect information fidelity).
(b) Visual information fidelity (VIF)
VIF was designed by Sheikh and Bovik [49] to improve
the performance of IFC in estimating image quality based on
the same principles as the IFC. The main difference is that
VIF compared the information obtained from the output of a
natural image with the amount of information extracted from
HVS. Let A and B denote the visual signals extracted from
the HVS after added noise ℵ and ℵ (zero-mean uncorrelated
multivariate Gaussian).
the eigenvalues of the covariance of U , where σn2 and σv2 are
variances of the Gaussian noise for the C and D, respectively.
Visual information obtained independently from each chan-
nel is incorporated to obtain the VIF criterion as follows for
j ∈ channel:
j I (C N , j ; A N , j |s N , j )
VIF =
j I (C N , j ; B N , j |s N , j )
where C N , j represent N elements of the random
 field C j that
denotes the coefficients from channel j, I C ; A N , j |s N , j
N , j
(39)
represents the mutual visual information between the input
and the output of the HVS channel without  distortion for the 
reference signal A from channel j, and I C N , j ; B N , j |s N , j
represents the mutual visual information between the input
of the distortion channel and the output of the HVS channel
(40) is [0, 1] where the best values are close to one.
3.4 No-reference metric based on natural scene
statistics
Mittal et al. [50] proposed a no-reference quality metric
based on natural scene statistics to quantify natural image
statistics without the need for any reference image, which
is called blind/reference less image spatial quality evaluator
(BRISQUE). BRISQUE operates in the spatial domain, and it
is statistically better than the full-reference PSNR and SSIM.
BRISQUE ranges between (0–100), where the value of “0”
indicates high spatial quality and a value of “100” indicates
low spatial quality.
3.5 Experimentation

A = C +ℵ (Reference image) (41) 3.6 Source videos and software


B = D+ℵ (Distorted image) (42)
Four source videos were used for system validation as shown
Visual information of the reference and distorted image can in Fig. 5. The first video is baby1 video captured by a digital
be extracted from the output of the HVS (A and B) and the camera (Canon EOS 60D) with a resolution of 960 × 544

123
594
Fig. 5 Source videos, a baby1 video, b baby2 video, c guitar video and d camera video
pixel, 301 frames and a frame rate of 30 fps [13]. The second
video is baby2 video captured by a digital camera (Nikon
D5300) with a resolution of 960 × 540 pixel, 301 frames and
a frame rate of 60 fps. The third video is guitar video with a
resolution of 432 × 192 pixel, 300 frames and a frame rate of
600 fps. The fourth video is camera video with a resolution
of 512 × 384 pixel, 1000 frames and a frame rate of 300 fps.
Both guitar and camera videos were captured by a digital
camera (Casio Exilim EX F1)[13].
The experiments and data analysis were carried out by
using MATLAB software environment (MathWorks, Inc.,
Natick, USA). MATLAB software was used in this study
because it is one of the most popular scientific high-level
programming environments for a large number of scientific
and engineering applications [51,52].
3.7 Results and discussion
The temporal band-pass filter processing was performed on
each level of the wavelet pyramid by applying a fifth-order
Chebyshev Type I band-pass filter with 0.5 dB of passband
ripple and different selected frequencies in conformity with
the source video. Both baby1 and baby2 source videos were
magnified with same parameters (magnification = 20×, cut-
off frequency = 16, 0.4–0.05 Hz band-pass filter and eight
pyramid levels), while guitar video was magnified by 50×,
10 Hz of cut-off frequency of 10, 72–92 Hz of band-pass
filter and eight pyramid levels, and camera video was mag-
nified by 100×, 15 Hz of cut-off frequency, 36–62 Hz of
band-pass filter and eight pyramid levels. The magnified
videos based on the EMMS were compared to the output
123
A. Al-Naji et al
videos obtained from four existing magnification techniques
[13,14,19,20] to determine which method has the best video
quality outcome. The video quality metrics (PSNR, MSE,
WSNR, VSNR, UQI, SSIM, MSSIM, GSM, RSIM, FSIM,
IFC, VIF and NQM) were chosen based on three categories
to cover most of the image characteristics in the video quality
test. Table 2 shows the averages for each metric of all frame
sequences of the baby1 video and their ranks according to
the best video quality for all magnification methods. Table 3
shows the video quality test of the baby2 video. Tables 4 and 5
show video quality outcomes for the guitar video and camera
video, respectively, where each row in these tables represents
the averages for each metric of all frame sequences. The ranks
of methods from the highest “1” to the lowest “5” according
to their video quality scores were also shown in these tables.
As can be seen from Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, the proposed
EMMS significantly outperforms other magnification meth-
ods in all video quality metrics. Also, the EMMS ranked first
regarding the metrics based on mathematical model, charac-
teristics of the human visual system, natural scene statistics,
while the other methods may outperform each other in some
quality metrics and not others.
To evaluate the performance of all methods in different
magnification factors, one no-reference video quality score
(BRISQUE) was used to determine which method has better
spatial quality for larger magnification factor. The averaged
BRISQUE for all frame sequences of the source videos
was 36.59, 15.39, 8.72 and 21.25 for baby1, baby2, guitar
andcamera, respectively. We magnified both baby1 video and
baby2 video with nine magnification factors ranged between
5–50 (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50) for each method
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications 595

Table 2 Methods comparison based on video quality metrics for “baby1 video”
Video quality metrics EVM [13] Phase-based method Fast phase-based E2VM [20] Proposed EMMS
(octave band-pass) [14] method [19]

1 PSNR Metrics based on 31.208 (4) 32.892 (3) 31.027 (5) 34.911 (2) 39.444 (1)
mathematical
model
2 MSE 49.199 (4) 34.166 (3) 51.198 (5) 21.023 (2) 7.4884 (1)
3 UQI Metrics based on 0.4147 (5) 0.6170 (3) 0.6290 (2) 0.6121 (4) 0.6867 (1)
characteristics of
the human visual
system
4 SSIM 0.8823 (5) 0.9477 (4) 0.9516 (3) 0.9602 (2) 0.9704 (1)
5 MSSIM 0.9105 (5) 0.9749 (4) 0.9819 (2) 0.9774 (3) 0.9888 (1)
6 GSM 0.9888 (5) 0.9964 (4) 0.9972 (3) 0.9977 (2) 0.9984 (1)
7 FSIM 0.8961 (5) 0.9663 (4) 0.9743 (3) 0.9820 (2) 0.9881 (1)
8 SRSIM 0.9496 (5) 0.9804 (4) 0.9864 (3) 0.9882 (2) 0.9901 (1)
9 NQM 18.877 (4) 22.756 (2) 18.682 (5) 21.386 (3) 28.308 (1)
10 WSNR 27.027 (4) 30.635 (3) 26.635 (5) 30.644 (2) 38.084 (1)
11 VSNR 18.682 (5) 21.327 (3) 21.268 (4) 25.627 (2) 32.135 (1)
12 IFC Metrics based on 1.4038 (5) 1.8614 (4) 2.1299 (3) 2.2291 (2) 2.5271 (1)
natural scene
statistics
13 VIF 0.4717 (5) 0.4723 (4) 0.5663 (3) 0.5932 (2) 0.6549 (1)

Table 3 Methods comparison based on video quality metrics for “baby2 video”
Video quality metrics EVM [13] Phase-based method Fast phase-based E2VM [20] Proposed EMMS
(octave band-pass) [14] method [19]

1 PSNR Metrics based on 25.071 (3) 24.039 (5) 24.7070 (4) 30.726 (2) 31.728 (1)
mathematical
model
2 MSE 203.329 (3) 256.175 (5) 220.106 (4) 55.016 (2) 43.412 (1)
3 UQI Metrics based on 0.6320 (5) 0.7006 (4) 0.7047 (3) 0.8951 (2) 0.9080 (1)
characteristics of
the human visual
system
4 SSIM 0.8703 (3) 0.8378 (5) 0.8530 (4) 0.9553 (2) 0.9573 (1)
5 MSSIM 0.8923 (5) 0.9072 (4) 0.9242 (3) 0.9910 (2) 0.9947 (1)
6 GSM 0.9833 (5) 0.9896 (4) 0.9908 (3) 0.9933 (2) 0.9972 (1)
7 FSIM 0.8773 (5) 0.8983 (4) 0.9116 (3) 0.9911 (2) 0.9943 (1)
8 SRSIM 0.9062 (5) 0.9545 (4) 0.9606 (3) 0.9960 (2) 0.9975 (1)
9 NQM 13.422 (5) 15.840 (4) 17.574 (3) 24.594 (2) 29.113 (1)
10 WSNR 24.754 (5) 26.295 (4) 27.528 (3) 37.493 (2) 42.546 (1)
11 VSNR 11.246 (5) 11.726 (4) 12.612 (3) 24.637 (2) 26.056 (1)
12 IFC Metrics based on 2.9217 (3) 2.7935 (4) 2.7687 (5) 5.0077 (2) 6.3457 (1)
natural scene
statistics
13 VIF 0.4615 (3) 0.3584 (5) 0.3786 (4) 0.6286 (2) 0.6560 (1)

123
596 A. Al-Naji et al

Table 4 Methods comparison based on video quality metrics for “guitar video”
Video quality metrics EVM [13] Phase-based method Fast phase-based E2VM [20] Proposed EMMS
(octave band-pass) [14] method [19]

1 PSNR Metrics based on 32.642 (3) 24.788 (5) 24.929 (4) 35.528 (2) 36.541 (1)
mathematical
model
2 MSE 35.201 (3) 216.243 (5) 209.804 (4) 18.019 (2) 14.522 (1)
3 UQI Metrics based on 0.8691 (3) 0.7231 (5) 0.7546 (4) 0.9236 (2) 0.9387 (1)
characteristics of
the human visual
system
4 SSIM 0.9449 (3) 0.8534 (4) 0.8568 (3) 0.9701 (2) 0.9750 (1)
5 MSSIM 0.9758 (4) 0.9651 (5) 0.9773 (3) 0.9909 (2) 0.9953 (1)
6 GSM 0.9958 (3) 0.9890 (4) 0.9884 (5) 0.9978 (2) 0.9980 (1)
7 FSIM 0.9749 (3) 0.9291 (4) 0.9206 (5) 0.9864 (2) 0.9878 (1)
8 SRSIM 0.9881 (3) 0.9632 (4) 0.9577 (5) 0.9932 (2) 0.9937 (1)
9 NQM 23.284 (3) 20.284 (5) 20.293 (4) 28.330 (2) 32.351 (1)
10 WSNR 31.889 (4) 33.456 (3) 27.937 (5) 36.624 (2) 42.434 (1)
11 VSNR 27.369 (3) 23.567 (5) 26.216 (4) 34.179 (2) 40.832 (1)
12 IFC Metrics based on 5.9320 (3) 4.6214 (5) 5.3249 (4) 6.9935 (2) 8.6173 (1)
natural scene
statistics
13 VIF 0.6205 (3) 0.4842 (5) 0.5394 (4) 0.7444 (2) 0.7987 (1)

Table 5 Methods comparison based on video quality metrics for “camera video”
Video quality metrics EVM [13] Phase-based method Fast phase-based E2VM [20] Proposed EMMS
(octave band-pass) [14] method [19]

1 PSNR Metrics based on 28.321 (3) 25.2651 (5) 26.489 (4) 34.258 (2) 36.950 (1)
mathematical
model
2 MSE 95.530 (3) 193.553 (5) 146.067 (4) 24.410 (2) 13.111 (1)
3 UQI Metrics based on 0.7242 (4) 0.6863 (5) 0.7316 (3) 0.8481 (2) 0.8889 (1)
characteristics of
the human visual
system
4 SSIM 0.8790 (4) 0.8433 (5) 0.8844 (3) 0.9662 (2) 0.9731 (1)
5 MSSIM 0.8875 (5) 0.9520 (4) 0.9719 (3) 0.9762 (2) 0.9913 (1)
6 GSM 0.9863 (5) 0.9917 (4) 0.9948 (3) 0.9980 (2) 0.9990 (1)
7 FSIM 0.9185 (5) 0.9361 (4) 0.9566 (3) 0.9882 (2) 0.9942 (1)
8 SRSIM 0.9595 (5) 0.9704 (4) 0.9811 (3) 0.9955 (2) 0.9976 (1)
9 NQM 16.136 (5) 23.845 (2) 20.578 (4) 23.375 (3) 29.465 (1)
10 WSNR 23.817 (5) 28.908 (3) 26.861 (4) 31.153 (2) 37.888 (1)
11 VSNR 20.173 (5) 21.958 (4) 24.985 (3) 30.873 (2) 39.628 (1)
12 IFC Metrics based on 4.2528 (3) 2.9603 (5) 3.7644 (4) 6.0174 (2) 7.7196 (1)
natural scene
statistics
13 VIF 0.5174 (3) 0.3447 (5) 0.4458 (4) 0.7287 (2) 0.7882 (1)

123
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications
Fig. 6 The no-reference quality score at different magnification factors using five magnification methods for the source videos a baby1 video, b
baby2 video, c guitar video and d cameravideo
to evaluate their performance regarding increased magnifica-
tion factors as shown in Fig. 6a, b, while we magnified both
guitar video and camera video at nine different magnifica-
tion factors ranged between 10–100 (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60,
70, 80, 90 and 100) as shown in Fig. 6c, d.
It is evident from Fig. 6 that there was a proportional lin-
ear relationship between the magnification factor and the
video quality score (BRISQUE) and this linear relation-
ship demonstrates that the proposed EMMS had the best
value of the quality score (the closest to zero) among other
methods with increasing the magnification factors. From
Fig. 6a, b, the averaged BRISQUE for the EMMS, phased-
based method and fast phase-based method increased slightly
with the increase in the magnification factors from 5 to 50 and
remained in proximity with averaged BRISQUE of the source
videos (baby1 and baby2). In contrast, it varies significantly
after 20× magnification for other methods, which means
that the EMMS, phased-based method and fast phase-based
method worked more robustly with larger magnification fac-
tors than did the other methods. From Fig. 6c, d, the averaged
597
BRISQUE for the EMMS remains in proximity with aver-
aged BRISQUE of the source videos (guitar and camera)
which means the EMMS had the best video quality score
than all methods with the increase of the magnification fac-
tors from 10 to 100.
The execution time for each method for all source videos
is computed on a PC with Intel i5–4570 processor running
at 3.2 GHz with 8 GB of RAM under Windows 8 operating
system as shown in Table 6.
It is noted from Table 6 that the EMMS performs the mag-
nification process in 50.68 and 48.85 s for baby1 and baby2
videos, respectively, which were approximately 1.7× (70%)
faster than EVM, making it suitable for real-time use. The
execution times of the EMMS were also approximately 4.3×
(330%) faster than phased-based method, 2.3× (130%) faster
than fast phase-based method and 2× (100%) faster than
E2VM. From the guitar video, EMMS was approximately
faster 1.6× (60%), 2.7× (170%), 2.1× (110%), and 1.96×
(96%) than the EVM, phase-based method, fast phase-based
method and E2VM, respectively. From the camera video,
123
598
Table 6 Execution time comparison in seconds for all magnification methods
Video magnification methods Baby1 video (s)
EVM 85.67
Phase-based methoda 213.17
Fast phase-based method 117.45
E2VM 101.32
EMMS 50.68
a With four orientations octave bandwidth pyramid
EMMS was approximately faster 1.7× (70%), 4.1× (310%),
2.2× (120%), and 2× (100%) than the EVM, phase-based
method, fast phase-based method and E2VM, respectively.
4 Conclusion
Video magnification has attracted wide attention in the
field of biomedical applications because of its capacity of
extracting useful information in video and image sequences.
However, the existing video magnification methods suffer
from decreased video quality and increased noise level when
the magnification is increased as well as taking a long time to
execute. In order to solve these problems, several improve-
ments have been made based on wavelet decomposition,
Chebyshev band-pass filter, image de-noising and resam-
pling method to enhance noise removal, video quality and
execution time. The magnified videos of five magnifica-
tion methods are compared quantitatively in terms of their
video quality, the performance at different magnification
factors and the execution time. The results based on four
source videos indicate that the proposed method has better
video quality metrics related to most of image character-
istics and could yield better performance than all current
methods with the potential for larger magnification. More-
over, the proposed EMMS has low execution time (60–70
faster than EVM) compared to other methods. Thus, the pro-
posed method is the best candidate for real-time biomedical
applications. Further improvement on the proposed method
based on another multiresolution pyramidal decomposition
and advanced image de-noising methods may be a sub-
ject of future work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical standard Ethical approval for the experimental work was given
by the UniSA Human Research Ethics Committee.
123
A. Al-Naji et al
Baby2 video (s) Guitar video (s) Camera video (s)
82.52 19.77 100.76
211.74 33.84 243.18
115.73 26.37 130.24
97.84 24.15 120.05
48.54 12.31 59.29
References
1. Poh, M.-Z., Mcduff, D., Picard, R.W.: Non-contact, automated car-
diac pulse measurements using video imaging and blind source
separation. Opt. Soc. Am. 18(10), 10762–10774 (2010)
2. Poh, M.-Z., Mcduff, D.J., Picard, R.W.: Advancements in noncon-
tact, multiparameter physiological measurements using a webcam.
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58(1), 7–11 (2011)
3. Verkruysse, W., Svaasand, L.O., Nelson, J.S.: Remote plethys-
mographic imaging using ambient light. Opt. Express 16(26),
21434–21445 (2008)
4. Balakrishnan G., Durand F., Guttag J.: Detecting pulse from head
motions in video. In: 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 3430–3437 (2013)
5. Shan, L., Yu, M.: Video-based heart rate measurement using head
motion tracking and ICA. In: 2013 6th International Congress on
Image and Signal Processing (CISP), pp. 160–164. IEEE (2013)
6. Irani, R., Nasrollahi, K., Moeslund, T.B.: Improved pulse detection
from head motions using DCT. In: 2014 International Conference
on Computer Vision Theory and Applications (VISAPP), pp. 118–
124 (2014)
7. Al-Naji, A., Chahl, J.: Contactless cardiac activity detection based
on head motion magnification. Int. J. Image Graph. 17(1), 1–18
(2017)
8. He, X., Goubran, R.A., Liu, X.P.: Wrist pulse measurement and
analysis using Eulerian video magnification. In: 2016 IEEE-EMBS
International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics
(BHI). pp. 41–44. IEEE (2016)
9. Al-Naji, A., Chahl, J.: Non-contact heart activity measurement sys-
tem based on video imaging analysis. Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif.
Intell. 31(2), 1–21 (2017)
10. Al-Naji, A., Chahl, J.: Remote respiratory monitoring system based
on developing motion magnification technique. Biomed. Signal
Process. Control 29, 1–10 (2016)
11. Ali, A., Kim, G., Sang-Hoen, L., Javaan, C.: Real time apnoea
monitoring of children using the Microsoft Kinect sensor: a pilot
study. Sensors 17(2), 286 (2017)
12. Liu, C., Torralba, A., Freeman, W.T., Durand, F., Adelson, E.H.:
Motion magnification. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 24(3), 519–526
(2005)
13. Wu, H.Y., Rubinstein, M., Shih, E., Guttag, J.V., Durand, F.,
Freeman, W.T.: Eulerian video magnification for revealing subtle
changes in the world. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 31(4), 65 (2012)
14. Wadhwa, N., Rubinstein, M., Durand, F., Freeman, W.T.: Phase-
based video motion processing. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 32(4),
80 (2013)
15. Portilla, J., Simoncelli, E.P.: A parametric texture model based on
joint statistics of complex wavelet coefficients. Int. J. Comput. Vis.
40(1), 49–70 (2000)
16. Simoncelli, E.P., Freeman, W.T., Adelson, E.H., Heeger, D.J.:
Shiftable multiscale transforms. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 38(2),
587–607 (1992)
An efficient motion magnification system for real-time applications
17. Fleet, D.J., Jepson, A.D.: Computation of component image veloc-
ity from local phase information. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 5(1), 77–104
(1990) 37.
18. Gautama, T., Van Hulle, M.M.: A phase-based approach to the
estimation of the optical flow field using spatial filtering. IEEE
Trans. Neural Netw. 13(5), 1127–1136 (2002) 38.
19. Wadhwa, N., Rubinstein, M., Durand, F., Freeman, W.T.: Riesz
pyramid for fast phase-based video magnification. In: 2014 IEEE
International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP),
pp. 1–10. IEEE (2014) 39.
20. Liu, L., Lu, L., Luo, J., Zhang, J., Chen, X.: Enhanced Eulerian
video magnification. In: 2014 7th International Congress on Image
and Signal Processing (CISP), pp. 50–54. IEEE (2014) 40.
21. Madhukar, B., Narendra, R.: Lanczos resampling for the digital
processing of remotely sensed images. In: Proceedings of Interna-
tional Conference on VLSI, Communication, Advanced Devices, 41.
Signals and Systems and Networking (VCASAN-2013), pp. 403–
411. Springer (2013)
22. Kaymaz, E., Lerner, B.T., Campbell, W.J., Le Moigne, J., Pierce, 42.
J.F.: Registration of satellite imagery utilizing the low-low compo-
nents of the wavelet transform. In: 25th Annual AIPR Workshop on 43.
Emerging Applications of Computer Vision, International Society
for Optics and Photoncs, pp. 45–54 (1997)
23. Mallat, S.G.: A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: 44.
the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.
11(7), 674–693 (1989)
24. Singh, R., Vasquez, R.E., Singh, R.: Comparison of Daubechies,
Coiflet, and Symlet for edge detection. In: Proceedings SPIE 3074, 45.
Visual Information Processing VI, pp. 151–159 (1997). https://doi.
org/10.1117/12.280616
25. Dettori, L., Semler, L.: A comparison of wavelet, ridgelet,
and curvelet-based texture classification algorithms in computed 46.
tomography. Comput. Biol. Med. 37(4), 486–498 (2007)
26. Kale, V.U., Khalsa, N.N.: Performance evaluation of various
wavelets for image compression of natural and artificial images. 47.
Int. J. Comput. Sci. Commun. 1(1), 179–184 (2010)
27. Stanković, R.S., Falkowski, B.J.: The Haar wavelet transform: Its
status and achievements. Comput. Electr. Eng. 29(1), 25–44 (2003) 48.
28. Sandhu, M., Kaur, S., Kaur, J.: A study on design and implementa-
tion of Butterworth, Chebyshev and elliptic filter with Matlab. Int.
J. Emerg. Technol. Eng. Res. 4(6), 111–114 (2016) 49.
29. Podder, P., Mehedi Hasan, M., Rafiqul Islam, M., Sayeed, M.:
Design and implementation of Butterworth, Chebyshev-I and ellip- 50.
tic filter for speech signal analysis. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 98(7),
12–18 (2014)
30. Yu, W., Ma, Y., Zheng, L., Liu, K.: Research of improved adaptive 51.
median filter algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International
Conference on Electrical and Information Technologies for Rail 52.
Transportation, pp. 27–34. Springer (2016)
31. Wang, Z., Lu, L., Bovik, A.C.: Video quality assessment based on
structural distortion measurement. Sig. Process. Image Commun.
19(2), 121–132 (2004)
32. Chen, T.S., Chang, C.C., Hwang, M.S.: A virtual image cryptosys-
tem based upon vector quantization. IEEE Trans. Image Process.
7(10), 1485–1488 (1998)
33. Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: A universal image quality index. IEEE
Signal Process. Lett. 9(3), 81–84 (2002)
34. Ruikar, J.D., Sinha, A.K., Chaudhury, S.: Image quality assessment
algorithms: study and performance comparison. In: 2014 Inter-
national Conference on Electronics and Communication Systems
(ICECS), pp. 1–4 (2014)
35. Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image qual-
ity assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE
Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)
36. Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E.P., Bovik, A.C.: Multiscale structural sim-
ilarity for image quality assessment. In: Conference Record of
599
the Thirty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers, pp. 1398–1402 (2003)
Liu, A., Lin, W., Narwaria, M.: Image quality assessment based on
gradient similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21(4), 1500–1512
(2012)
Gondal, I., Murshed, M.: A novel color image fusion QoS measure
for multi-sensor night vision applications. In: 2010 IEEE Sym-
posium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), pp. 399–404
(2010)
Zhang, L., Mou, X., Zhang, D.: FSIM: a feature similarity index
for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20(8),
2378–2386 (2011)
Zhang, L., Li, H.: SR-SIM: a fast and high performance IQA index
based on spectral residual. In: 19th IEEE International Conference
on Image Processing, pp. 1473–1476 (2012)
Damera-Venkata, N., Kite, T.D., Geisler, W.S., Evans, B.L., Bovik,
A.C.: Image quality assessment based on a degradation model.
IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9(4), 636–650 (2000)
Peli, E.: Contrast in complex images. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7(10),
2032–2040 (1990)
Dodangeh, M., Figeiredo, I.N., Goncalves, G.: Spatially Adaptive
Total Variation Deblurring with Split Bregman Technique, pp. 1–
24. University of Coimbra, Paço das Escolas (2016)
Mitsa, T., Varkur, K.L.: Evaluation of contrast sensitivity functions
for the formulation of quality measures incorporated in halftoning
algorithms. In: International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing, pp. 301–304. IEEE (1993)
Slanina, M., Ricny, V.: A comparison of full-reference image qual-
ity assessment methods. In: Radioelektronika 2006 Conference
Proceedings. Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, pp. 165–
168 (2006). ISBN 80-227-2388-6
Chandler, D.M., Hemami, S.S.: VSNR: a wavelet-based visual
signal-to-noise ratio for natural images. IEEE Trans. Image Pro-
cess. 16(9), 2284–2298 (2007)
Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C., De Veciana, G.: An information fidelity
criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics.
IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14(12), 2117–2128 (2005)
Srivastava, A., Lee, A.B., Simoncelli, E.P., Zhu, S.C.: On advances
in statistical modeling of natural images. J. Math. Imaging Vis.
18(1), 17–33 (2003)
Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C.: Image information and visual quality.
IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15(2), 430–444 (2006)
Mittal, A., Moorthy, A.K., Bovik, A.C.: No-reference image qual-
ity assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process.
21(12), 4695–4708 (2012)
Lyshevski, S.E.: Engineering and Scientific Computations Using
MATLAB. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)
Abbas, E.I., Noori, A.A.: High resolution direction-of-arrival esti-
mation using genetic algorithm. Eng. Technol. J. 27(9), 1746–1754
(2009)
Ali Al-Naji received the Bach-
elor of Medical Instrumentation
Engineering Techniques from the
Electrical Engineering Technical
College, Middle Technical Uni-
versity, Baghdad, Iraq, in 2005,
and the M.S. degree in Electrical
& Electronic Engineering Depart-
ment from the Technology Uni-
versity, Baghdad, Iraq, in 2008.
He is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in the Depart-
ment of Electrical & Information
Engineering, University of South
Australia (UniSA). His research
123
600 A. Al-Naji et al

interests include biomedical engineering, computer vision systems and Javaan Chahl completed his Doc-
microcontroller applications. torate at the Australian National
University. He joined the Defence
Science and Technology Group
(DST Group) as a Research Sci-
entist in 1999. In 2011 Javaan
Sang-Heon Lee received a B.ESc
joined RMIT University as found-
degree in aeronautical engineer-
ing Professor of Unmanned Aerial
ing from Inha University, Korea,
Vehicles. In 2012 Javaan became
M.ESc in mechatronics from the
Chair of Sensor Systems, a Joint
University of New south Wales,
appointment between DST Group
and a Ph.D. degree in System
and the University of South Aus-
Engineering from Australian
tralia. Javaan is a member of the
National University. He is cur-
IEEE, the Institute of Engineers
rently a program director and a
Australia and was elected Fellow
senior lecturer in the School of
of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 2014.
Engineering, University of South
Australia. His current research
focus is on development of effi-
cient algorithm for green supply
chain and digital image process-
ing in agricultural and medical applications. His main research inter-
ests are in the area of discrete-event systems, fuzzy logic control and
neural networks. He has published over 100 papers in academic jour-
nals and conferences.

123