ISO 20462-3:2005

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 20462-3
First edition
2005-11-01
Photography — Psychophysical
experimental methods for estimating
image quality —
Part 3:
Quality ruler method
Photographie — Méthodes psychophysiques expérimentales pour
estimer la qualité d'image —
Partie 3: Méthode «quality ruler»

Reference number
©
ISO 2005
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.

© ISO 2005
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail copyright@iso.org
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword. iv
Introduction . v
1 Scope. 1
2 Normative references. 1
3 Terms and definitions. 1
4 Quality ruler experiments . 5
4.1 General properties of quality rulers. 5
4.2 Experimental conditions and reported results . 5
4.3 Attributes varied in quality rulers . 5
5 Hardcopy quality ruler implementation. 6
5.1 Physical apparatus. 6
5.2 Reference stimuli. 7
6 Softcopy quality ruler implementation . 8
6.1 Physical apparatus. 8
6.2 Reference stimuli. 8
6.3 Controlling software. 8
7 Generation of quality ruler stimuli . 9
7.1 General requirements. 9
7.2 Modulation transfer functions (MTFs) . 9
7.3 Scene-dependent ruler calibration. 11
8 Standard quality scale (SQS) determinations. 12
8.1 Properties of the SQS. 12
8.2 Experimental requirements. 12
Annex A (informative) Sample instructions for a hardcopy quality ruler experiment. 13
Annex B (informative) Sample instructions for a softcopy quality ruler experiment. 15
Annex C (informative) Sample code of a binary search routine for the softcopy quality ruler. 17
Annex D (informative) Calibration of the standard quality scale (SQS) and its reference stimuli. 18
Annex E (informative) Example of results from quality ruler experiments . 20
Bibliography . 24

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
ISO 20462-3 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 42, Photography.
ISO 20462 consists of the following parts, under the general title Photography — Psychophysical experimental
methods for estimating image quality:
⎯ Part 1: Overview of psychophysical elements
⎯ Part 2: Triplet comparison method
⎯ Part 3: Quality ruler method

iv © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

Introduction
There are many circumstances under which it is desirable to quantify image quality in a standardized fashion
that facilitates interpretation of results within a given experiment and/or comparison of results between
different experiments. Such information can be of value in assessing the performance of different capture or
display devices, image processing algorithms, etc. under various conditions. However, the choice of the best
psychometric method for a particular application may be difficult to make, and interpretation of the rating
scales produced by the numerical analyses is frequently ambiguous. Furthermore, none of the commonly
used rating techniques provides an efficient mechanism for calibration of the results against a standardised
numerical scale or associated physical references, which is desirable when results of different experiments
are to be compared or integrated.
The three parts of ISO 20462 address the need for documented means of determining image quality in a
calibrated fashion. Part 1 provides an overview of practical psychophysics and aids in identifying the better
[1][2]
choice between the two alternative approaches described in Part 2 (triplet comparison method ) and Part 3
[3]
(quality ruler method ). These two techniques are complementary and together are sufficient to span a wide
range of practical applications. Parts 2 and 3 document both specific experimental methods and associated
data reduction techniques. It is the intent of these methods to produce results that are not merely directional in
nature, but are expressed in terms of relative or fixed scales that are calibrated in terms of just noticeable
differences (JNDs), so that the significance of experimentally measured stimulus differences is readily
ascertained.
The quality ruler method described in this part of ISO 20462 is particularly suitable for measuring quality
differences exceeding one JND. The ratings given by an observer can be converted to JND values in real time,
rather than having to wait until the entire experimental data set has been collected and analysed. Furthermore,
with suitable reference stimuli, the quality ruler method permits the results to be reported using the standard
quality scale (SQS), a fixed numerical scale that:
a) is anchored against physical standards;
b) has one unit corresponding to one JND; and
c) has a zero point corresponding to an image having little identifiable information content.
Reflection prints calibrated against the absolute SQS, which are referred to as standard reference stimuli
(SRS), will be available on the I3A website. This part of ISO 20462 also describes how users can conveniently
generate their own quality ruler images with correct relative calibrations and, if desired, calibrate them
absolutely against the SRS.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that
compliance with this document may involve the use of US Patent Numbers 6,639,999 and 6,658,139
concerning the quality ruler given in Clauses 4 to 6.
ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity and scope of this patent right.
The holder of this patent right has assured ISO that he is willing to negotiate licences under reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms and conditions with applicants throughout the world. In this respect, the statement of
the holder of this patent right is registered with ISO. Patent inquiries may be addressed to:
General Council and Senior Vice President
Eastman Kodak Company
345 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650
USA
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights other than those identified above. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent
rights.
vi © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 20462-3:2005(E)

Photography — Psychophysical experimental methods for
estimating image quality —
Part 3:
Quality ruler method
1 Scope
This part of ISO 20462 specifies:
a) the nature of a quality ruler;
b) hardcopy and softcopy implementations of quality rulers;
c) how quality rulers may be generated or obtained; and
d) the standard quality scale (SQS), a fixed numerical scale that may be measured using quality rulers.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 3664, Viewing conditions — Graphic technology and photography
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
3.1
artefactual attribute
attribute of image quality that, when evident in an image, nearly always leads to a loss of overall image quality
EXAMPLE Examples of artefactual attributes include noise and aliasing.
NOTE The commonly used terms defect and impairment are similar in meaning.
3.2
attribute
aspect, dimension, or component of overall image quality
cf. artefactual attribute (3.1) and preferential attribute (3.10)
EXAMPLE Examples of image quality attributes include image structure properties such as sharpness and noise;
colour and tone reproduction properties such as contrast, colour balance, and relative colourfulness; and digital artefacts
such as aliasing, contouring, and compression defects.
3.3
image quality
impression of the overall merit or excellence of an image, as perceived by an observer neither associated with
the act of photography nor closely involved with the subject matter depicted
NOTE The purpose of defining image quality in terms of third-party (uninvolved) observers is to eliminate sources of
variability that arise from more idiosyncratic aspects of image perception and pertain to attributes outside the control of
imaging system designers.
3.4
instructions
set of directions given to the observer for performing the psychophysical evaluation task
3.5
just noticeable difference
JND
stimulus difference that leads to a 75:25 proportion of responses in a paired comparison task
cf. quality JND (3.12)
3.6
magnitude estimation method
psychophysical method involving the assignment of a numerical value to each test stimulus that is proportional
to image quality; typically, a reference stimulus with an assigned numerical value is present to anchor the
rating scale
NOTE The numerical scale resulting from a magnitude estimation experiment is usually assumed to constitute a ratio
scale which, ideally, is a scale in which a constant percentage change in value corresponds with one JND. In practice,
modest deviations from this behaviour occur, complicating the transformation of the rating scale into units of JNDs without
inclusion of unidentified reference stimuli (having known quality) among the test stimuli.
3.7
multivariate
describing a series of test or reference stimuli that vary in multiple attributes of image quality
3.8
observer
individual performing the subjective evaluation task in a psychophysical method
3.9
paired comparison method
psychophysical method involving the choice of which of two simultaneously presented stimuli exhibits greater
or lesser image quality or an attribute thereof, in accordance with a set of instructions given to the observer
NOTE Two limitations of the paired comparison method are as follows.
a) If all possible stimulus comparisons are done, as is usually the case, a large number of assessments are required for
even modest numbers of experimental stimulus levels [if N levels are to be studied, N (N − 1)/2 paired comparisons
are needed].
b) If a stimulus difference exceeds approximately 1,5 JNDs, the magnitude of the stimulus difference cannot be directly
estimated reliably because the response saturates as the proportions approach unanimity.
However, if a series of stimuli having no large gaps are assessed, the differences between more widely separated stimuli
may be deduced indirectly by summing smaller, reliably determined (unsaturated) stimulus differences. The standard
methods for transformation of paired comparison data to an interval scale (a scale linearly related to JNDs) perform
statistically optimized procedures for inferring the stimulus differences, but they may yield unreliable results when
saturated responses are included in the analysis.
2 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

3.10
preferential attribute
attribute of image quality that is invariably evident in an image, and for which the preferred degree is a matter
of opinion, depending upon both the observer and the image content
EXAMPLE Examples of preferential image quality attributes include colour and tone reproduction properties such as
contrast and relative colourfulness.
NOTE 1 Because the perceived quality associated with a preferential attribute is dependent upon both the observer
and image content, in studies involving variations of preferential attributes, particular care is needed in the selection of
representative sets of stimuli and groups of observers.
NOTE 2 The term noticeable in just noticeable difference is not linguistically strictly correct when applied to a
preferential attribute, but is nonetheless retained in this part of ISO 20462 for convenience. For example, the higher
contrast stimulus of a pair differing only in contrast might be readily identified by all observers, whereas there might be a
lack of consensus regarding which of the two images was higher in overall image quality. Nonetheless, if the responses
from the paired comparison for quality were in the proportion of 75:25, the image chosen more frequently would be said to
be one JND higher in quality. The JND is best regarded as a measurement unit tied to the predicted or measured outcome
of a paired comparison.
3.11
psychophysical method
experimental technique for subjective evaluation of image quality or attributes thereof, from which stimulus
differences in units of JNDs may be estimated
cf. magnitude estimation (3.6), paired comparison (3.9), quality ruler (3.13), and triplet comparison
methods (3.22)
3.12
quality just noticeable difference
quality JND
measure of the significance or importance of quality variations, corresponding to a stimulus difference that
leads to a 75:25 proportion of responses in a paired comparison task in which multivariate stimuli pairs are
assessed in terms of overall image quality
NOTE See attribute JND (3.3) and quality JND (3.14) in ISO 20462-1:— for greater detail.
3.13
quality ruler method
psychophysical method that involves quality or attribute assessment of a test stimulus against a series of
ordered, univariate reference stimuli that differ by known numbers of JNDs
3.14
reference stimulus
image provided to the observer for the purpose of anchoring or calibrating the perceptual assessments of test
stimuli in such a manner that the given ratings may be converted to JND units
NOTE The plural is reference stimuli.
3.15
scene
content or subject matter of an image, or a starting image from which multiple stimuli may be produced
through different experimental treatments
NOTE Typically, stimuli depicting the same scene are compared in a psychophysical experiment, because it is the
effect of the treatment that is of interest, and differences in image content could cause spurious effects. In cases where
scene content is not matched, a number of scenes should be used so that scene effects may be expected to average out.
3.16
standard quality scale
SQS
fixed numerical scale of quality having the following properties:
a) the numerical scale is anchored against physical standards;
b) a one unit increase in scale value corresponds to an improvement of one JND of quality; and
c) a value of zero corresponds to an image having so little information content that the nature of the subject
of the image is difficult to identify
3.17
standard reference stimuli
SRS
set of reflection prints used in the hardcopy quality ruler, which vary in sharpness and are calibrated against
the standard quality scale (SQS)
NOTE The SRS will be available on the I3A web site.
3.18
stimulus
image presented or provided to the observer either for the purpose of anchoring a perceptual assessment (a
reference stimulus) or for the purpose of subjective evaluation (a test stimulus)
NOTE The plural is stimuli.
3.19
suppression
perceptual effect in which one attribute is present in a degree that seriously degrades image quality and
thereby reduces the impact that other attributes have on overall quality, compared to the impact they would
have had in the absence of the dominant attribute
NOTE To generate reference stimuli that are separated by a specified number of JNDs based on variations in one
attribute, it will be necessary to ensure that other attributes do not significantly suppress the impact of the attribute varied.
3.20
test stimulus
image presented to the observer for subjective evaluation
NOTE The plural is test stimuli.
3.21
treatment
controlled or characterized source of the variations between test stimuli (excluding scene content) that are to
be investigated in a psychophysical experiment
EXAMPLE Examples of treatments include different image processing algorithms, variations in capture or display
device properties, changes in image capture conditions (e.g. camera exposure), etc.
NOTE Different treatments may be achieved through hardware or software changes, or may be numerical
simulations of such effects. Typically, a series of treatments is applied to multiple scenes, each generating a series of test
stimuli. The effect of the treatment may then be determined by averaging the results over scene and observer to improve
signal to noise and reduce the likelihood of systematic bias.
3.22
triplet comparison
psychophysical method that involves the simultaneous scaling of three test stimuli with respect to image
quality or an attribute thereof, in accordance with a set of instructions given to the observer
NOTE The triplet comparison method is described in more detail in ISO 20462-2.
4 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

3.23
univariate
describing a series of test or reference stimuli that vary only in a single attribute of image quality
4 Quality ruler experiments
4.1 General properties of quality rulers
A quality ruler is a univariate series of reference stimuli depicting the same scene and having known stimulus
differences expressed in JNDs of quality. The reference stimuli are presented to the observer in a fashion
facilitating:
a) the identification of the reference stimuli closest in quality to the test stimulus; and
b) the comparison of the test stimulus to those reference stimuli under rigorously matched viewing
conditions.
Both hardcopy (Clause 5) and softcopy (Clause 6) implementations of quality rulers are described in this
standard. Ruler images may be generated by the user (Clause 7). Reflection prints varying in sharpness and
calibrated against the standard quality scale (SQS) are referred to as standard reference stimuli (SRS)
(Clause 8).
NOTE The SRS will be available on the I3A web site.
The SRS may be used as ruler images or used to calibrate user-generated ruler images on an absolute basis,
as distinguished from the relative calibration described in Clause 7.
4.2 Experimental conditions and reported results
Requirements regarding observer selection, test stimulus properties, instructions to the observer, viewing
conditions, and reporting of results are set forth in ISO 20462-1.
NOTE 1 Sample instructions to the observer for hardcopy and softcopy quality ruler experiments are provided in
informative Annexes A and B, respectively.
The viewing requirements of ISO 3664 shall be met except as modified in 4.4 of ISO 20462-1:—.
Reported values of quality in JNDs or SQS units shall be specifically identified if they are calculated from data
20 % or more of which fall at one of the ends of, or outside, the range of the quality ruler from which they were
derived.
NOTE 2 Values based on ratings outside the range of the ruler will be less reliable because of extrapolation effects. In
addition, when test samples fall within a JND or two of the high quality end of the ruler, a slight bias may result from
observers avoiding use of ratings outside the ruler range. When preferential attributes (e.g. of colour and tone
reproduction) are assessed using a quality ruler, it may be desirable to degrade all the test stimuli slightly by blurring (in
the case of a ruler varying in sharpness) to allow headroom for test stimuli that are preferred over the reference stimulus.
The pedigree of the rulers used shall be reported, which entails specifying whether they are standard
reference stimuli (SRS) or were otherwise generated. If the latter, the attribute varied in the rulers shall be
stated. If such rulers vary in sharpness, the method of calibration shall be stated, which shall either be by
comparison with SRS or using the average scene relationship (see 7.2).
4.3 Attributes varied in quality rulers
Clause 7 describes the generation of reference stimuli for rulers varying in sharpness, through modification of
the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the system generating the images. Quality rulers may alternatively
vary in other attributes, although only one attribute shall change within a given ruler. Alternative attributes that
are varied in a quality ruler should be artefactual in nature.
NOTE The variation of preferential attributes within quality rulers is discouraged because of the additional variability
associated with such attributes. Sharpness has been selected as the reference attribute because of several desirable
characteristics:
a) it is easily manipulated through image processing;
b) it is correlated with MTF, which is readily determinable;
c) it has low scene and observer variability; and
d) it exerts a strong influence on quality in practical imaging systems.
Quality rulers varying in attributes other than sharpness shall be calibrated by having their reference stimuli rated against
quality rulers varying in sharpness and meeting the criteria stated in this part of ISO 20462. The calibration experiment
shall meet the specifications set forth in ISO 20462-1 and this part ISO 20462, with the exception that data from a
minimum of 20 observers shall be averaged to determine the calibration.
5 Hardcopy quality ruler implementation
5.1 Physical apparatus
The hardcopy quality ruler apparatus shall consist of the following:
a) a sliding or translating fixture onto or into which a series of reference stimuli may be mounted or inserted
(the ruler);
b) a test stimulus fixture in close proximity to the ruler;
c) a base surface upon which the ruler and the test stimulus fixture are attached;
d) an illumination system; and
e) a headrest or other device constraining the viewing distance (the distance from the observer’s eye to the
test and reference stimuli).
The ruler shall be constructed so that the observer may easily slide it to bring any of two reference stimuli into
direct comparison with the test stimulus. In this triangular configuration of one test stimulus and two reference
stimuli, the illumination level, illumination angle, viewing distance, and viewing angle shall be sensibly
matched between the three stimuli. These features are illustrated in Figure 1.
The illumination angle should be 45° and shall fall between 30° and 60°. The viewing distance to any of the
three stimuli shall be constrained by the headrest or equivalent mechanism to a range not exceeding 4 % of
the value of the arithmetic average viewing distance. The range of the viewing distances of the three stimuli at
a given observer head position shall not exceed 2 % of the arithmetic average viewing distance. The viewing
angle should be normal to the stimulus surfaces and shall be within 10° of being perpendicular. Specular
reflections from the stimuli shall not be visible from the observer’s position.
NOTE Achieving the closely matched viewing conditions of the test stimulus and the two reference (ruler) stimuli in
the triangular configuration (which facilitates rating interpolation by the observer) is simplified if the physical separation of
the three stimuli is minimized. Because some rulers may contain landscape (horizontal) format images and others portrait
format (vertical) images, it may be advantageous for the test stimulus fixture to translate vertically. To match viewing
angles between the test and reference stimuli, the receiving surface of the test stimulus fixture may have to be tilted.
6 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

5.2 Reference stimuli
The reference stimuli shall be ordered from highest to lowest quality from left to right in a horizontally
translating ruler or top to bottom in a vertically translating ruler. These stimuli should be spaced by increments
of approximately three JNDs. Each stimulus shall be labelled with an integer, and the observer shall provide
ratings interpolated to the nearest integer value, which should correspond to approximately one JND scale
resolution. The integer labels shall be chosen so that negative ratings are unlikely.
NOTE 1 The use of two interpolating positions between stimuli (for example, stimuli labelled 3 units apart with
interpolation to one unit) has been found to yield a uniform and unbiased use of the numerical ratings, whereas when
three interpolation positions are available, the numbers corresponding to the reference stimuli and those halfway in
between can be used more frequently than those at the one-quarter or three-quarters positions. This result, combined with
the difficulty of making evaluations more precise than one JND, leads to the recommendation that the reference stimuli be
separated by approximately three JNDs.
NOTE 2 One suggested set of integer labels are 3, 6, 9, … from high to low quality.

Key
1 ruler
2 test stimulus fixture
3 base surface
4 illumination
5 head rest bar
6 black cloth to reduce glare
7 triangular configuration
8 ruler track
Figure 1 — Example of a hardcopy quality ruler apparatus
6 Softcopy quality ruler implementation
6.1 Physical apparatus
The softcopy quality ruler apparatus shall consist of the following:
a) one or more emissive devices such as video monitors with the necessary hardware and/or firmware to
display images;
b) a keypad or other means of data entry by the observer;
c) a headrest or other device constraining the viewing distance [the distance from the observer’s eye to the
monitor faceplate(s)]; and, optionally,
d) a lighting system for controlling the surround illumination to influence the state of adaptation of the
observer.
When two identical digital images are displayed simultaneously on the display device(s), their appearance
shall be sufficiently similar that in paired comparisons for quality, the more frequently chosen image position
(for example, the right monitor) shall not be selected more than 60 % of the time.
To minimize structural artefacts associated with the display, the viewing distance shall exceed 2 500 times the
monitor line spacing (or pixel centre separation). The viewing distances (from the observer’s eye to the
faceplate at the centre of the image) shall be constrained by the headrest or equivalent mechanism to a range
not exceeding 4 % of the value of the arithmetic average viewing distance. The range of the viewing distances
at a given observer head position shall not exceed 2 % of the arithmetic average viewing distance. The
viewing angle shall be within 10° of being perpendicular to the display faceplate at the centres of the images.
The angle subtended by the centres of the images from the observer’s position should not exceed 30° to avoid
requiring the observer to turn their head to change their view from one image to the other.
6.2 Reference stimuli
The reference stimuli should be spaced by increments of approximately one JND.
The maximum precision of a single determination is plus or minus one-half of the reference stimulus spacing.
6.3 Controlling software
The software that controls the display of test and reference stimuli and records the data shall provide the
following functions, listed in sequential order:
a) selection of the test stimulus to be evaluated;
b) random selection of the display position of the test stimulus;
c) selection of the initial reference stimulus to be provided;
d) display of the selected stimuli at their selected positions;
e) recording of the stimulus chosen by the observer;
f) selection of a new reference stimulus based upon the observer’s response;
g) display of the new reference stimulus, which replaces the previous one;
h) repetition of e) to g) until the test image has been rated differently against two adjacent reference images;
i) recording of the final rating (arithmetic average of the values of the adjacent reference stimuli); and
j) return to a) for a new test stimulus, until all test stimuli have been evaluated.
8 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

The selection of the test stimulus a) should be random except that test stimuli may be grouped by scene, in
which case the group order should be random, as well as the treatment order. The selection of the initial
reference stimulus c) should be random. The choice of the new reference stimulus f) shall be based upon the
previous responses of the observer for the present test stimulus. The new reference stimulus shall be higher
(lower) in quality than the highest (lowest) quality reference stimulus identified by the observer as being lower
(higher) in quality than the test image. Once adjacent reference stimuli (in terms of their order of quality) have
received different ratings relative to the test stimulus (the higher quality reference being preferred to the test
stimulus, which was chosen over the lower quality reference), the condition of h) is met and the process shall
terminate for that test stimulus i).
It is recommended that the new reference stimulus f) be chosen so that it falls approximately halfway between
the lowest quality reference stimulus preferred over the test stimulus and the highest quality reference
stimulus not chosen over the test stimulus, so that an approximately binary search is carried out. Until some
reference stimulus has won (lost) a paired comparison with the test stimulus, the highest (lowest) quality
reference stimulus may be used as a proxy. An example of pseudocode performing such a binary search is
provided in informative Annex C.
7 Generation of quality ruler stimuli
7.1 General requirements
Excluding the effect of the attribute varied within the quality ruler, the reference stimuli shall have high image
quality, with pleasing colour (if applicable) and tone reproduction, and an absence of significant degradation
from artefacts under the existing viewing conditions.
NOTE These requirements are intended to prevent the suppression by other attributes of the effect on overall image
quality of the attribute varied within the ruler.
7.2 Modulation transfer functions (MTFs)
The MTF of the complete imaging system generating a reference stimulus for a quality ruler varying in
sharpness shall be characterised by measurement of neutral test targets and/or equivalent calculations based
upon linear systems theory. MTFs shall be determined in both horizontal and vertical orientations, at the
centre of the image area (on-axis) and at one or more points halfway between the centre of the image and the
corners of the image (50 % field position). In computing the overall system MTF, the on-axis position shall
have a weight of 3/7 and the off-axis position (or mean of positions) a weight of 4/7, and the field-weighted
horizontal and vertical MTFs shall be weighted by 1/3 and 2/3, the higher weight being assigned to the poorer
MTF, which shall be defined to be that with lesser mean modulation transfer from 0 to 30 cycles per degree
(CPD) at the eye of the observer.
The system MTF so determined shall closely conform to the shape of the monochromatic MTF of an on-axis
diffraction-limited lens, m(ν), which is given by
2⎛⎞
−1
mk()νν=−cos ()kν 1−()kν kν u1
⎜⎟
π (1)
⎝⎠
mk()νν=>0 1
where
ν is spatial frequency in CPD at the eye of the observer;
k is a constant.
NOTE 1 For a diffraction-limited lens, the constant k would equal the product of the wavelength of light and the lens
aperture (f-number). However, in this application, Equation (1) is only being used to represent a possible shape of an
entire imaging system MTF, so k is better regarded as being reciprocally related to system bandwidth.
For purposes of verifying whether the shape of a system MTF conforms sufficiently closely to the shape of
Equation (1), an equivalent k value shall be determined by finding the value of k such that the area under the
MTF of Equation (1) equals that under the system MTF over the frequency range of 0 to 30 CPD. The MTF
given by Equation (1) for the value of k so derived shall be referred to as the aim MTF. The system MTF shall
be considered to be within conformance and valid for use if the mean fractional modulation transfer of the
system and aim MTFs over each of the frequency bands 0 to 5, 5 to 10, …, and 35 to 40 CPD agree to within
0,05.
A relative quality JND value associated with a given value of k for an average scene and typical colour and
tone reproduction shall be computed via Equation (2).
17 249+−203 792kk114 950− 3 571075k
JNDs = (1uu100 k 26) (2)
578−+1304kk357 372
The difference in quality JNDs between two reference stimuli depicting an average scene and having
conforming system MTFs shall be computed as the difference between the scale values produced by
Equation (2).
Key
X 100 k
Y relative JNDs
Figure 2 — Plot of Equation (2)
10 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

Key
X frequency, cycles per degree
Y modulation transfer, %
Figure 3 — MTFs from Equation (1) spaced by 3 JNDs
NOTE 2 The absolute scale value of Equation (2) has no assigned significance; only differences between scale values
of valid system MTFs are ascribed meaning.
NOTE 3 Figure 2 shows the behaviour of Equation (2). For demonstration purposes, a series of values of k were
chosen giving 3 JND increments of quality according to Equation (2) (these values were 10 ×k = 100, 245, 320, 392, 469,
558, and 666). The associated MTF curves from Equation (1) are plotted in Figure 3, with the lower k values
corresponding to the higher MTFs.
The deviations of the system MTF shapes within a single ruler series should differ from the aim MTF shapes
in as consistent a fashion as possible to minimize errors in the computed differences in JNDs.
If the system MTFs are not within conformance, the reference stimuli shall be calibrated in the same fashion
as would stimuli varying in an attribute other than sharpness, as described in 4.3.
7.3 Scene-dependent ruler calibration
To reflect the different dependence of quality on attribute level in different scenes, quality rulers depicting
different scenes should be individually calibrated in JNDs by presenting them as test stimuli in a quality ruler
experiment against standard reference stimuli (SRS). If a quality ruler is not so calibrated, but rather
Equation (2) is used to assign JND values, results obtained from the ruler shall be averaged with results from
at least two other rulers, and none of the scenes depicted in these rulers shall be of a type expected to have
unusually strong or weak quality dependencies on the attribute varied.
NOTE By averaging the results of several ruler scenes, potential biases caused by using the calibrations for an
average scene may be mitigated. Scenes with important high-frequency information, such as some landscapes, are likely
to have stronger than average quality dependencies on MTF. Conversely, scenes with particularly limited bandwidth, like
some portraits, are likely to have quality change more slowly with MTF than would be the case for an average scene.
8 Standard quality scale (SQS) determinations
8.1 Properties of the SQS
The standard quality scale (SQS) is a fixed numerical scale of image quality that is anchored against physical
standards. The scale units are quality JNDs and more positive values indicate higher image quality. An SQS
value of zero corresponds to an image having so little information content that the nature of the subject of the
image is difficult to identify. The physical standards associated with the SQS scale are referred to as standard
reference stimuli (SRS).
NOTE Sets of the SRS reflection prints, which vary in sharpness, will be available on the I3A web site. The
calibration of the SQS and SRS are described in informative Annex D.
8.2 Experimental requirements
SQS values shall be determined through a hardcopy quality ruler experiment using standard reference stimuli
(SRS). The experiment shall meet the specifications set forth in ISO 20462-1 and this part of ISO 20462, with
the following exceptions.
a) The viewing distance shall be 406 mm, with tolerances as given in 5.1.
b) Data from a minimum of 20 observers and 6 scenes shall be averaged to determine a reported SQS
value for an experimental treatment.
NOTE The more stringent scene and observer number requirements for reporting SQS values, compared to JND
differences, reflects the absolute rather than relative nature of the scale. Individual stimuli may be annotated with an SQS
value if they have been assessed by at least 20 observers, as described here, but their values may not be reported in
connection with a particular experimental treatment, such as an attribute level, a device, an algorithm, etc.
12 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

Annex A
(informative)
Sample instructions for a hardcopy quality ruler experiment
The following is an example of the instructions that might be read by the test administrator to the observer in a
hardcopy quality ruler experiment. Text in italics directs the administrator to perform certain actions and so is
not read aloud. Examples of the results from this experiment are shown in Annex E.
Display the quality ruler depicting Scene #1 for demonstration purposes.
First, I would like to thank you for participating in this study. Please put on the lab coat and gloves and make
yourself comfortable in the chair in front of the viewing table.
In this experiment, you will be evaluating the overall quality of prints made from images that have one or more
of the three colour planes shifted out of register. This misregistration may affect the image sharpness and may
cause various image artefacts. Let me show you some examples of these images.
Give the subject preview Print #1.
Some images you will see may exhibit only small or even unnoticeable levels of unsharpness and colour
fringing around edges. For example, in this image, look at the windows in the building on the right.
Give the subject preview Print #2.
Some images may appear as two or more sharp, coloured images offset from each other as in this scene.
Notice the horizontal edges in the lipstick cases in this image.
Do you have any questions about the attribute that you will be judging today?
You will be evaluating these samples using a quality ruler like the one in front of you now. The ruler provides
you with a series of prints at different levels of quality, produced by variations in sharpness. The ruler print
quality decreases from lef
...