Image Compression:

Comparative Analysis of Basic Algorithms

Yevgeniya Sulema (Ukraine)

Samira Ebrahimi Kahou (Iran)

National Technical University of Ukraine

“Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
sulema@scs.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua
samira_ebrahimi@hotmail.com
 Outline
 Existing compression methods and
classification
 Criteria
 How to choose image set for testing
 Realizing algorithms
 Getting numerical values on chosen criteria
 Verifying results obtained from test
 Analysis and conclusion
 Compression algorithms-Classification

5 Main Classification Types chosen.

By data type :

 General algorithms
 Algorithms for audio-compression
 Algorithms for image-compression
 Algorithms for video-compression
 Compression algorithms-Classification (..2)

By data source :

 Dynamic
 Static

By redundancy type :

 Statistical redundancy reduction

 Spatial redundancy reduction
 Compression algorithms-Classification (..3)
By restoring the original dataset:

 Lossless
 Lossy

By computational approach :

 Statistical
 Dictionary
 Transformation based
 Hybrid
 Classes of Images
 Business graphics (schemes, diagrams, charts)
 Pictures created in graphic editors (photoshop)
 Photorealistic images (photos, textures)

Coefficient of correlation can be used between

an analyzed (test) image and an etalon image to
classify images :

cov I A , I E 

D( I A )  D( I E )
 Sample images

 Image with two monochrome areas

 Image with large monochrome fields
 Gradient image
 Image with small monochrome fields
 Correlation coefficients
(Sample images)

0.5 0.437366167

0.4

0.3 0.239146336

0.2
0.062622429
0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
-0.300682476
-0.4
image 1 image 2 image 3 image 4
 Criteria
1. Compression ratio
2. Time of compression
3. Time of decompression
4. Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR)
 max( I ) 
  20  log10  
  
 
MSE : Mean Squared Error
n m
1
 pi, j  pi, j
2

nm
i 1 j 1

5. Coefficient of correlation between original

and decompressed image
Matlab image processing Toolbox
 Why Matlab?

It provides a comprehensive set of reference-

standard algorithms.
The software is a collection of functions that
extend the capability of the MATLAB.
The toolbox supports a wide range of image
processing operations.
Most toolbox functions are written in the open
MATLAB language, giving us the ability to
inspect the algorithms, modify the source code.
 Algorithms:

Lossless : Lossy :
 LZW  JPEG
 LZ77 (Coarse and Fine)
 Wavelet
 Huffman
(Daubechies, Coiflets, Symlets,
 Adaptive Huffman Discrete Meyer wavelet,
Biorthogonal, Reverse
 Shannon-Fano Biorthogonal)
 Arithmetic  SPIHT
 Fractal
 Lossless
Time of compression
102.6
100 91.8
87.0
78.8
80
63.2
59.6
60

40
25.7

20 12.2 11.8
4.8 5.8 6.6
1.9 3.7
0.7 0.9

0
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4

LZ77 Huffman ShannonFano Arithmetic

 Lossless
Time of decompression
113.8

100

80
63.8

60 51.6

40
20.2
15.9
20 10.8
0.8 0.6 1.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.8 2.8 3.5 4.0

0
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4

LZ77 Huffman ShannonFano Arithmetic

 Lossless
Compression ratio
10 9.0
9
8.0 8.0
8 7.3 7.1

3
1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5
2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.7
1

0
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4

LZ77 Huffman ShannonFano Arithmetic

Lossless Algorithm Observation
Dictionary Based Algorithms most
Effective

LZ77 – prime example from our research

Minimal Time for Compression

Minimal Time for Decompression
High Compression Ratio
 Lossy
Time of compression
157.0 154.4 153.6 154.0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20
0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 1.1
0
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4

JPEG Coarse JPEG Fine SPIHT Fractal

 Lossy
Time of decompression
1
0.9
0.9

0.8

0.7 0.6
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5

0.4 0.3
0.3
0.3 0.2
0.2

0.1

0
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4

JPEG Coarse JPEG Fine SPIHT Fractal

 Lossy
Compression ratio
19.2 18.8
20
17.6
18

16

14 12.3
11.9
12

10
8
4.8
6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
3.5
4
1.2
2

0
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4

JPEG Coarse JPEG Fine SPIHT Fractal

 Lossy
Correlation coefficient
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 0.0
0
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4

JPEG Coarse JPEG Fine SPIHT Fractal

 Lossy
PSNR
99.2
100

90

80

70

60 53.5
48.1 48.1
50 41.1
37.7 38.1 37.8
35.8
40 32.7 31.0 29.8
27.6 26.2 27.7
30 21.7

20

10

0
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4

JPEG Coarse JPEG Fine SPIHT Fractal

Lossy Algorithm Observations
Fractal Algorithm not practical.

All remaining algorithms are Hybrid

Combination of procedures can result in

increased quality.
 Conclusion
Our research allows us to draw 3 main conclusions:

 The selection of the proper compression

algorithm for each image class should be made

 Hybrid algorithms, JPEG, can be modified in

order to achieve better result

 Combination of a dictionary and transforms

most promising.
 Thank YOU!

Questions…???

samira_ebrahimi@hotmail.com