Technical feasibility


SECTION I: Testing

1 Has the R & D result been tested?

In what mode has the result been tested?

              Pilot Application


1.       Image databases, containing various kinds of images: grayscale, color, scanned, graphics, texts, fingerprints, signatures, medical images (X-ray, Ultrasound, etc.), biomedical information (ECGs, EEGs, etc.), compound images (comprising pictures and text) were used.

2.       Evaluation of the compression efficiency for compound documents.  In this case the part of the document, which contains picture, is compressed with lossy compression, and the part, which contains the text, is losslessly compressed. A special format is already developed for the compressed documents, but the segmentation is still made manually. The image segmentation implementation will be developed for the final product.

3.       Testing the ability to archive a document, providing hierarchical access – by development of a special format – with a DEMO.

Testing of the data and image hiding tool (watermark as well) by evaluating the image quality and of the quality of the extracted hidden information. A special format is developed. Testing – with DEMO software.

Please describe and discuss the testing results

1.       Evaluation of the compression efficiency – comparison with JPEG and JPEG 2000 for various kinds of images (texts, graphics, fingerprints, signatures, grayscale images, color images, medical images, biomedical information (ECG, EEG, etc.). The results are presented in tables and graphics. For the comparison were used various software products: Microsoft Photo Editor, LuraSmart Compress, Corel Photo Paint, IrfanView and the software implementation of the new method in C++ (Windows environment).

2.       Testing the ability to archive a document, providing hierarchical access by comparison with other existing similar techniques. Demonstration of the software abilities (DEMO).

Testing of the data and image hiding tool – with demonstration software.

1c To what extent does the result correspond to the initially defined task?

1.       The compression tool, based on the IPD decomposition had already been compared with JPEG and JPEG 2000 for various kinds of images. Else, the method efficiency is comparable with that of JPEG in compression efficiency and restored image quality (PSNR). The new method is better for very high compressions (over 100) of color and grayscale images. The lossless version of the IPD decomposition has better performance for images with not full histogram (where some brightness values are not used).

The image and data hiding tool was tested for IPD compression with the special software developed. The results correspond to expectations.

SECTION 2: Current Stage of Development  
2a To what extent does the development team have technical resources for supporting the production of a new product,  etc.

The R&D result is a result of the collective effort of the developers and they could be available for technical advice if the product is to be produced.

2b What are the technical issues that need to be tackled for full deployment, if needed?

The presented R&D result needs more investigations on:

- Investigation on the watermark resistance against various attacks (for now the resistance is tested for JPEG and JPEG 2000 compression only);

- Implementation of algorithms for automatic segmentation of compound images of documents depending on the contents (picture or graphic/text).

- Implementation of automatic application of lossy/lossless compression for corresponding part of the compound image.

-  Hierarchical access control.

- development of special users interfaces.

2c What additional technical resources are needed for the production of this new product?

1.       The team can implement the features described above.

2. The final product will need the development of special user interface, depending on the application.

2d Overall assessment of the current stage of technical development

The product needs minor software implementations and investigations, compared to the global research work, already performed.

More efforts are needed for the development of suitable user-friendly interface


SECTION 3: Deployment

3a Define the demands for large scale production in terms of

  •     Materials : kinds , quantities, costs

     No special materials are needed

  • technologies, tools, machineries
       No special technologies are needed
  • Staff effort in man/hours or man/months

     3-4 months


SECTION 4: Overall Assessment

4.Overall assessment  
  What is you overall assessment of the technical feasibility of the research result?
  The idea is technically feasible


  1 2 3 4 5
Adequacy of testing activity undertaken so far         x
Adequacy and availability of technical resources of the development team         x
Current development stage       x  
Overall technical feasibility         x

Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Visit the other applications of the INTERVALUE Platform: R&D Repository | IP Agreements

© 2009-2010 INTERVALUE Project