Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study explores the effectiveness of contrast-based image quality measures in evaluating the readability and authenticity of digitally restored historical manuscripts. By conducting two experiments with publicly available datasets, the authors found that potential contrast correlates strongly with expert evaluations, while contrast-to-noise ratio aligns best with full-reference quality metrics. The findings suggest that contrast-based measures are superior to general image quality assessments, providing a more objective framework for evaluating manuscript legibility and restoration quality.
Contrast-based measures can significantly enhance the objectivity of evaluating historical manuscript restorations, outperforming traditional image quality metrics.
Digital restoration of historical manuscript images aims to improve readability while preserving the authenticity of cultural heritage documents. However, evaluating quality of restored manuscripts remains challenging, where readability is often subjective and expert annotations are scarce. This study investigates the suitability of contrast-based image quality measures to assess quality and legibility of reconstructed manuscript images from multi-spectral imaging. Two experiments were conducted with publicly-available data sets, facilitating manual quality scores by experts and full-reference image quality measures as reference evaluations. The results show that potential contrast achieves the highest correlation with expert ratings, while contrast-to-noise ratio demonstrates the strongest agreement with full-reference quality measures. Overall, contrast-based measures consistently outperform general image quality measures, demonstrating their potential as objective indicators of manuscript legibility and reconstruction quality.
