IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 35, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER 1997
Preserving Radiometric Resolution in Remotely
Sensed Data with Lossy Compression
James C. Tilton, Senior Member, IEEE, and Mareboyana Manohar, Member, IEEE
Abstract— Recent advances in imaging technology make it
possible to obtain remotely sensed imagery data of the Earth
at high spatial, spectral, and radiometric resolutions. The rate at
which the data is collected from these satellites can far exceed
the channel capacity of the data downlink. Reducing the data
rate to within the channel capacity can often require painful
trade-offs in which certain scientific returns are sacrificed for
the sake of others. We focus here on the case where radiometric
resolution is sacrificed by dropping a specified number of lower
order bits (LOB) from each data pixel. To limit the number
LOB’s dropped, we also compress the remaining bits using
lossless compression. We call this approach “truncation followed
by lossless compression” or TLLC. We then demonstrate the
suboptimality of this TLLC approach by comparing it with the
direct application of a more effective lossy compression technique
based on the JPEG algorithm. This comparison demonstrates
that, for a given channel rate, the method based on JPEG lossy
compression better preserves radiometric resolution than does
TLLC.
Index Terms—Data acquisition, data compression, image cod-
ing, image communication, satellite applications.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE imaging sensors onboard satellites are capable of
scanning the Earth at very high spatial, spectral and
radiometric resolutions. Downlink channel capacity is often
a major limiting factor for the resolution at which the data is
collected. Image compression techniques can be used to reduce
the data rate from the imaging sensor to within the downlink
channel capacity. Ideally, decompression of the downlinked
data should result in fully lossless recovery of the image
data as sensed onboard the satellite. However, the amount
of compression possible from lossless techniques is bounded
by the entropy of the source. This entropy bound limits the
amount of compression that can be obtained to the range of 2–3
for most NASA image data sources. This is usually insufficient
to reduce the sensor data rate to within the channel capacity.
Large amounts of compression can, instead, be obtained
using lossy compression techniques. In fact, a crude form of
lossy compression is most often used in these cases: the tempo-
ral, spatial, spectral, and/or radiometric resolutions are limited
to produce a data rate that can be handled by the channel
capacity. Establishing these limits often requires painful trade-
Manuscript received March 7, 1995; revised March 12, 1996. This work
was supported by RTOP funding from the Office of Advanced Concepts and
Technology, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.
J. C. Tilton is with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
20771 USA (e-mail: tilton @istbsun.gsfc.nasa.gov).
M. Manohar is with the Department of Computer Science, Bowie State
University, Bowie, MD 20715 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0196-2892(97)05518-6.
0196–2892/97$10.00  1997 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1171
offs in which certain scientific returns are sacrificed for the
sake of others. In this paper we model the radiometric version
of this form of lossy compression by truncating a specified
number of lower order bits followed by lossless compression
of the remaining higher order bits. We call this approach
Truncation followed by Lossless Compression (TLLC). Using
the TLLC approach, the data rate can be set to within the
channel capacity by selecting the appropriate number of lower
order bits dropped. We have found that this method produces
reasonable rate distortion performance for compression ratios
less than 5 or 6. However, for larger compression ratios, the
distortion continues to increase exponentially as the amount
of truncation increases.
Much better rate distortion behavior can be obtained by
using other lossy compression approaches. For the lossy
compression approaches we have studied, the rate distortion
performance is either linear or sublinear. We report here our
results using a hybrid method based on the JPEG (Joint
Photographic Experts Group/Discrete Cosine Transform) [1]
lossy compression algorithm. These results are similar or
somewhat better than results we have obtained with other
lossy compression approaches (e.g., Vector Quantization [2]
and the more recently developed Model-based Vector Quan-
tization [3]). For a given data rate, this improved distortion
behavior over TLLC can be looked upon as a preservation of
radiometric resolution, or equivalently as a gain in radiometric
resolution over TLLC.
In this paper we first describe the TLLC approach in more
detail, and give a summary description of the JPEG algorithm
and how we have combined it with lossless compression of the
quantized residual in order to improve performance in terms
of maximum absolute error. We then derive a measure of gain
in radiometric resolution of a particular lossy compression
approach over TLLC. Finally we demonstrate the gain in
radiometric resolution provided by the JPEG algorithm over
the TLLC approach with imagery data from three remote
sensing instruments: the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), the
Advanced Solid-state Array Spectroradiometer (ASAS), and
the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). Of
these, TM imagery data is at 8-bit resolution, while imagery
data from the other two are at 10-bit resolution.
II. TRUNCATION FOLLOWED BY
LOSSLESS COMPRESSION (TLLC)
Truncation followed by Lossless Compression (TLLC) is a
compression approach that can be used to advantage under
certain special conditions (e.g., very noisy data, very low
available computational power and very limited channel ca-
1172
pacity) [4]. However, TLLC is not normally used as a general
compression approach. As noted in the introduction, we use
it here as a model for the design practice of setting the
radiometric resolution to a lower value than sensor technology
would allow, so as to keep the data rate produced by the sensor
within the limits of channel capacity for bringing the data from
the sensor to Earth. We are not advocating TLLC as a general
compression approach.
Let the radiometric resolution of the image data collected
at the instrument be bits/pixel and the channel capacity
be bits/pixel ( ). The TLLC approach reduces
the bit rate from to no more than by dropping a
number of lower order bits, , and losslessly compressing the
result. Here is chosen such that the lossless compression
of remaining – bits results in an output bit rate of no
more than bits/pixel. The lossless compression approach
that consistently performed best in the cases we tested uti-
lizes the coding model for lossless encoding specified in the
JPEG still image compression standard [1] combined with the
Witten–Neal–Cleary version of arithmetic coding [8]. (The
implementation we used can be obtained from the anonymous
ftp location dftnic.gsfc.nasa.gov:software/unix/crushv3/*.) In
some cases prediction mode “1” (value of the previous pixel
in the same line) produced the best results in JPEG lossless
coding, and in other cases prediction mode “7” (average of
the values of the previous pixel in the same line and the
previous pixel in the same column) produced the best results.
The prediction mode used for each result is noted in the
Experimental Results section.
The image data is reconstructed following TLLC by loss-
lessly decompressing the data, scaling it up by a factor of ,
and adding a bias term of [or ].
For completeness we comment here on certain compression
approaches that are similar to, or appear to be similar to,
our TLLC model. We have already noted that, under certain
special conditions, TLLC is used for lossy compression. In this
regard, the algorithm of Rice and Plaunt [4] employs the TLLC
approach as an option. Other lossy compression approaches
may at first glance appear similar to our TLLC approach, but
are quite different on closer examination. The TLLC approach
splits each data point into higher order bits (HOB) and lower
order bits (LOB), losslessly compresses the HOB and discards
the LOB. The approach described by Lo and Krasner [5] splits
each data point into HOB and LOB, losslessly compresses
the HOB and keeps the LOB in its uncompressed state. The
approach describe by Zhang, Loew, and Pickholtz [6] splits
each data point into HOB and LOB, losslessly compresses the
HOB and lossily compresses the LOB (with “conventional”
block transform coding). Finally, the approach described by
Bassiouni, Tzannes, and Tzannes [7] splits each data point
into HOB and LOB, losslessly compresses the HOB and
lossily compresses the LOB (using an approach similar to
the JPEG/DCT algorithm). None of these later three totally
discards the LOB as does TLLC.
III. JPEG/HYBRID
The JPEG lossy compression algorithm consists of three
successive stages: Discrete Cosine Transformation (DCT),
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1997
coefficient quantization and lossless compression [1]. The
original image is first partitioned into nonoverlapping 8
8 pixel blocks. Each block is then independently transformed
using the DCT. The DCT coefficients are then quantized using
a quantization table that is designed using the HVS (Human
Visual System) contrast sensitivity function (quantization ta-
bles can be tailored to particular applications, see [9]). The
first coefficient of DCT transformation is designated the DC
coefficient and is proportional to average brightness of the
block. The quantized DC coefficients from each block are
concatenated and are compressed using DPCM (Differential
Pulse Code Modulation) using 1-D causal prediction. The
remaining 63 quantized coefficients from each block, called
the “AC coefficients,” are zig-zag scanned to convert the 2-
D array into a 1-D array, and are then losslessly compressed
using a Huffman table that is transmitted to the decoder as a
part of the header information.
We used the sixth public release of the Independent JPEG
Group’s free JPEG software, which we obtained from UUNET
archive at ftp.uu.net:graphics/jpeg/jpegsrc.v6.tar.gz. The re-
lease date was August 2, 1995. Spectral correlations are
not easy to exploit in JPEG, as there are no standards for
decorrelating the bands of multispectral image data (JPEG
does however, allow red, green and blue decorrelations by
converting them to luminance and chrominance components.
See [1, pp. 18–20, p. 503]. Therefore, we compressed each
band of the multispectral images independently in our tests.
When we applied the JPEG algorithm directly to NASA
imagery data, we found that the maximum absolute error ob-
served was often larger than acceptable, even while the mean
squared error was acceptable. We have devised a simple hybrid
approach to limit the maximum absolute error, while achieving
nearly the same overall compression ratio. A side effect is a
slightly improved mean squared error. For convenience, we
call this approach JPEG/hybrid.
The JPEG/hybrid approach is as follows.
1) Apply the JPEG algorithm to the image data using
quality factor .
2) Decompress the data and subtract the resulting image
from the original image data.
3) Divide the difference image by a quantization factor
( ).
4) Losslessly compress the quantized difference image
using the lossless JPEG compression algorithm used
in TLLC.
The coded data consists of the lossy JPEG compressed data
file plus the lossless JPEG compressed quantized difference
image (we include the quantization factor, , in the name of
this file).
To decompress the data, decompress the quantized differ-
ence image, multiply it by the quantization factor ( ) and add
the result to the decompressed lossy JPEG image.
We could have used any of a number of approaches to
losslessly compress the quantized difference images. We tried
“gzip” (version 1.2.4, release date August 18, 1993, from
ftp.uu.net) and the standard UNIX “compress” programs.
Both produced lower compression ratios than the lossless
TILTON AND MANOHAR: PRESERVING RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION
JPEG approach we employed. However, since the quantized
difference images consists mainly of zero values, we suspect
that a simple run-length encoding approach may perform well,
but we haven’t tested this approach.
IV. CALCULATING RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION GAIN
In the TLLC approach, the radiometric resolution of the
input image is explicitly reduced by bits by the truncation
process. We show here that the mean squared error (MSE)
distortion resulting from the truncation varies exponentially
with , the loss in radiometric resolution.
The mean squared error is defined formally as
MSE
where and are the th pixels from the original
and reconstructed images, respectively, and is number of
pixels in the image.
For TLLC with bit truncation, the pixel error after
reconstruction may be one of the integers
. We assume throughout
this section that a bias term is employed in reconstruc-
tion [the final result is the same if bias term is
employed]. Assuming a uniform distribution of these pixel
error values, the expected mean squared error is given by
MSE
We have observed that the uniform distribution assumption
holds best for lower values of . Equation (3) can be derived
from (2) using the Euler–Maclaurin summation formula [10]
with . From (3), we can obtain in terms of MSE by
solving the quadratic equation in and taking giving
MSE
Equation (4) can be used to compute the loss of radiometric
resolution due to the mean squared error distortion from lossy
compression. We can thus compare performance of lossy
compression techniques in terms of radiometric efficiency.
Assuming two lossy compression approaches (method 1 and
method 2) give the same amount of compression, let the
MSE distortions from the two lossy methods be and
, respectively. Let and be the corresponding loss of
radiometric resolution computed from (4). Now if , Three different multispectral image data sets are used in our
there is gain in radiometric resolution, , by using method
2 instead method 1 which is given by
Using (5) lossy compression techniques can be compared
in terms effective radiometric gain by using one with lesser
distortion than the other compression technique for a given
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1173
TABLE I
(a) CR VERSUS MSE AND MAE ON TM DATA, TLLC RESULTS (AVERAGE OF
BANDS 1–7). (b) CR VERSUS MSE AND MAE ON TM DATA, JPEG/HYBRID
RESULTS (AVERAGE OF BANDS 1–7). (c) GAIN IN RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION BY
USING JPEG/HYBRID RATHER THAN TLLC ON TM DATA. THE JPEG/HYBRID
MSE IS ESTIMATED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM QUALITY FACTORS ( ) Q
THAT GIVE CR CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT. 1b
IS CALCULATED FROM (5).
(d) GAIN IN RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION BY USING JPEG/HYBRID RATHER
THAN TLLC ON TM DATA. THE JPEG/HYBRID CR IS ESTIMATED
BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM QUALITY FACTORS ( ) THAT GIVE Q
MSE CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT. 1b
IS LINEARLY INTERPOLATED
FROM THE TLLC “BITS DROPPED” RESULTS WITH THE CLOSEST CR
(1)
(a) (b)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(3)
amount of compression. We use this approach as one method
for calculating the effective radiometric resolution gain
of the JPEG/hybrid method with respect to TLLC in the
following section.
We must note here that one would not expect that the
(4) JPEG/hybrid method would produce error values with a uni-
form error distribution. In addition, for higher values of ,
the TLLC method also often produces error values that do
not follow a uniform error distribution. However, (5) is still
useful in these cases as a convenient index for improvement
in MSE, since still does correlate with MSE. However,
cannot be literally interpreted as the number of bits of gain in
radiometric resolution in nonuniform error cases.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
experiments. The first data set consists of a 2048-by-2048 pixel
subimage of a seven-band Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)
scene collected in 1991 (path/row 46/28) from over the Gifford
Ponchot National Forest in the state of Washington in the
(5) United States of America. The radiometric (pixel) resolution
of this data is 8 bits.
Table I(a) shows the compression ratio (CR), mean square
error (MSE) and maximum absolute error (MAE) results from
the TLLC approach for the TM data set (prediction mode
1174 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1997
Fig. 1. The histograms of the error residual for each band for the
3-bits-dropped case on the TM data. These histograms show that the closer
the MSE error is to the value calculated via (3), viz. 5.50, the closer the
histogram appears to be that of a uniform distribution.
Fig. 2. The histograms of the error residual for each band for the
4-bits-dropped case on the TM data. These histograms show that the closer
the MSE error is to the value calculated via (3), viz. 21.5, the closer the
histogram appears to be that of a uniform distribution.
“1” was used). We also list the MSE calculated through (3).
We have found that the amount of agreement between the
measured MSE and calculated MSE is a good indicator of
how well the uniform distribution assumption holds. As a
demonstration of this relationship, Figs. 1 and 2 show the
histograms of the error residual for each band for the 3 and 4
bits dropped case, respectively.
The CR, MSE, and MAE results for various quality factor
( ) values are given in Table I(b) for our JPEG/hybrid method
for lossy compression (prediction mode “1” was also used in
the compression of quantized residuals in JPEG/hybrid). The
gain in radiometric resolution by using JPEG/hybrid rather
that TLLC, , is given in Table I(c) and (d). In Table
I(c), is calculated from (5). In Table I(d), is linearly
interpolated from the TLLC “bits dropped” results with the
closest compression ratio. We see from Table I(c) and (d) that
ranges from 0.6 to 2.4, with the higher values coming
from the higher “bits dropped” cases.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the histograms of the error residual for
each band for the case and the , data, we computed the MSE by decompressing the data,
case, respectively. These histograms look more like
Gaussian or Laplacian distributions than uniform distributions.
This being the case, the in Table I(c) cannot be literally
interpreted as the number of bits gain in radiometric resolution.
However, the values in Table I(c) are very close to the values
in Table I(d), which were obtained by interpolation rather than
(5), indicating that a loose interpretation of the values
in Table I(c) as the number of bits of radiometric gain is
reasonable.
The second data set is 2048 column by 1460 row portion
of a five-band Local Area Coverage (LAC) data set from
the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
instrument, collected on June 14, 1991 from over Indonesia.
The pixel resolution of this data is 10 bits (stored as 16
bits/pixel).
We ran into a problem in performing the JPEG/hybrid
compression on this data set since the baseline JPEG im-
plementation we employed does not handle pixel resolutions
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 3. The histograms of the error residual for each band for the
Q = 77; qt = 16 case on the TM data. These histograms show that
the error distribution is more like a Gaussian or Laplacian distribution rather
than a uniform distribution.
Fig. 4. The histograms of the error residual for each band for the
Q = 55; qt = 16 case on the TM data. These histograms show that
the error distribution is more like a Gaussian or Laplacian distribution rather
than a uniform distribution.
TABLE II
OFFSET AND RESULTING MSE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE CLIPPED
AND TRUNCATED AVHRR DATA. THE AVERAGE MSE IS 25.79
higher than 8 bits. Statistical analysis of this data showed
that the main concentration of dynamic range is in a 9 bit
range, so we offset each band by a certain amount and then
clipped it to the 9 bit range (0–511). Finally, we truncated
the resulting image pixels to 8-bits prior to JPEG/hybrid
compression by dividing by two. We choose the offsets to
approximately minimize the MSE after reconstructing the
clipped data to the original range. The offsets and resulting
MSE are given in Table II. After we ran our JPEG/hybrid lossy
compression approach on the offset, clipped and truncated
multiplying by two, adding back the offset, and comparing
it with the original data. This process reduced the value of our
test somewhat, since we could not then compare JPEG/hybrid
compression with TLLC for 1 or 2 bits dropped for this data.
Table III(a)–(d) gives our results for the AVHRR data set in
a manner similar to that used to present our results for the TM
data in Table I(a)–(d). (Prediction mode “7” was used in TLLC
and the compression of quantized residuals in JPEG/hybrid.)
We note in Table III(a) that the calculated MSE is within
5% of the measured MSE for less than 6 bits dropped. The
difference between the calculated and measured MSE goes up
substantially for 6 and more bits dropped, indicating that our
uniform distribution assumption is violated in those cases (as
corroborated by an inspection of the error image histograms).
We see from Table III(c) and (d) that ranges from 0.1
to 1.7, with the higher values coming from the higher “bits
dropped” cases. We note that our values calculated from (5)
in Table III(c) for 6 and more bits dropped are suspect because
TILTON AND MANOHAR: PRESERVING RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION
TABLE III
(a) CR VERSUS MSE AND MAE ON AVHRR DATA, TLLC RESULTS (AVERAGE
OF BANDS 1–5). (b) CR VERSUS MSE AND MAE ON AVHRR DATA,
JPEG/HYBRID RESULTS (AVERAGE OF BANDS 1–5). (c) GAIN IN RADIOMETRIC
RESOLUTION BY USING JPEG/HYBRID RATHER THAN TLLC ON AVHRR DATA.
THE JPEG/HYBRID MSE IS ESTIMATED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM
Q
QUALITY FACTORS ( ) THAT GIVE CR CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT.
CALCULATED FROM (5). (d) GAIN IN RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION BY USING
JPEG/HYBRID RATHER THAN TLLC ON AVHRR DATA. THE JPEG/HYBRID CR
IS ESTIMATED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM QUALITY FACTORS ( ) THAT
GIVE MSE CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT. 1b
IS LINEARLY INTERPOLATED
FROM THE TLLC “BITS DROPPED” RESULTS WITH THE CLOSEST CR
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
of the noted violation of the uniform distribution assumption.
However, the results from Table III(d), which are not affected
by this violation, show that the calculated results in Table III(c)
are reasonable despite the violation.
The third data set is six bands from a 510 column by 520
row portion of a 29-band data set from the Advanced Solid-
state Array Spectroradiometer (ASAS) instrument. ASAS is
reported to have 12-bit radiometric resolution, but the selected
data set only has a 10-bit pixel resolution. This data set was
collected on August 4, 1989 over the Konza Prairie Research
Natural Area near Manhattan, KS. It is designated 92161621
in vol. 4 of the FIFE CD-ROM series [11]. The six selected
bands are bands 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, and 25 from the nadir view
(designated 921 161 621.406, .410, .414, .418, .422, and .425).
We had the same problem with this data set as we had with
the AVHRR data set in performing the JPEG/hybrid compres-
sion on this data set since the baseline JPEG implementation
we employed does not handle pixel resolutions higher than 8
bits. However, we were able to get around this problem more
satisfactorily with the ASAS data set. Statistical analysis of
this data showed that the main concentration of dynamic range
was in an 8-bit range, so we were able to offset each band by
a certain amount and then clip (not truncate) to the 8-bit range
(0–255). We choose the offsets to approximately minimize the
MSE after clipping. The offsets and resulting MSE are given
in Table IV. After we ran our JPEG/hybrid lossy compression
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1175
TABLE IV
OFFSET AND RESULTING MSE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE
CLIPPED ASAS DATA. THE AVERAGE MSE IS 0.466959
IS 1b
Q
TABLE V
(a) CR VERSUS MSE AND MAE ON ASAS DATA, TLLC RESULTS (AVERAGE
OF THE 6 SELECTED BANDS). (b) CR VERSUS MSE ON ASAS DATA,
JPEG/HYBRID RESULTS (AVERAGE OF THE 6 SELECTED BANDS). (c) GAIN IN
RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION BY USING JPEG/HYBRID RATHER THAN TLLC ON
ASAS DATA. THE JPEG MSE IS ESTIMATED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM
Q
QUALITY FACTORS ( ) THAT GIVE CR CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT. 1b
IS
CALCULATED FROM (5). (d) GAIN IN RADIOMETRIC RESOLUTION BY USING
JPEG/HYBRID RATHER THAN TLLC ON ASAS DATA. THE JPEG/HYBRID CR
Q
IS ESTIMATED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION FROM QUALITY FACTORS ( ) THAT
GIVE MSE CLOSEST TO THE TLLC RESULT. 1b
IS LINEARLY INTERPOLATED
FROM THE TLLC “BITS DROPPED” RESULTS WITH THE CLOSEST CR
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
approach on the offset and clipped data, we computed the
MSE by decompressing the data, adding back the offset, and
comparing with the original data.
Table V(a)–(d) gives our results for the ASAS data set in a
manner similar to that used to present our results for the TM
and AVHRR data. (Prediction mode “7” was used in TLLC
and the compression of quantized residuals in JPEG/hybrid.)
We note in Table V(a) that the calculated MSE is within
3% of the measured MSE for less than 4 bits dropped. The
difference between the calculated and measured MSE goes up
substantially for 4 and more bits dropped, indicating that our
uniform distribution assumption is violated in those cases (as
corroborated by an inspection of the error image histograms).
We see from Table V(c) and (d) that ranges from 0.5
to 1.1, with the higher values coming from the higher “bits
dropped” cases. We note that our values calculated from
1176 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1997
(5) in Table V(c) for four and more bits dropped are suspect
because of the noted violation of the uniform distribution
assumption. However, the results from Table V(d), which are
not affected by this violation, show that the calculated results
in Table V(c) are reasonable despite the violation.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated on three types of NASA imagery
data collected from spaceborne platforms that the JPEG/hybrid
lossy compression is more effective at preserving the radiomet-
ric resolution of the data than the commonly used truncation
approach. The truncation approach (which we call TLLC) is a
model for the engineering practice of reducing the radiometric
resolution of a sensor so that the data rate from the sensor
falls below that of the channel capacity of the downlink. Our
tests show that JPEG/hybrid lossy compression effectively
preserves from about 0.5 bit to over 2 bits in radiometric
resolution versus truncation followed by lossless compression,
depending on the data characteristics and the amount of
compression selected. We hope that this demonstration will
inspire satellite sensor designers to explore lossy compression
as an alternative method of reducing satellite sensor data
output rates to match the available data downlink channel
capacity.
REFERENCES
[1] W. B. Pennebaker and J. L. Mitchell, JPEG Still Image Data Compres-
sion Standard. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993.
[2] A. Gersho and R. M. Gray, Vector Quantization and Signal Compression.
Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1991.
[3] M. Manohar and J. C. Tilton, “Model-based VQ for image data
archival, retrieval, and distribution,” in Proc. Conf. on Visual Information
Processing IV, SPIE Proc./SPIE AeroSense, Orlando, FL, Apr. 17–18,
1995, vol. 2488, pp. 190–198.
[4] R. F. Rice and J. R. Plaunt, “Adaptive variable-length coding for effi-
cient compression of spacecraft television data,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
Technol., vol. COM-19, pp. 889–897, 1971.
[5] S.-C. B. Lo, B. Krasner, and S. K. Mun, “Noise impact of error-free
image compression,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 9, pp. 202–206,
1990.
[6] Y.-Q. Zhang, M. H. Loew, and R. L. Pickholtz, “A combined-transform
coding (CTC) scheme for medical images,” IEEE Trans. Medical Imag.,
vol. 11, pp. 196–202, 1992.
[7] M. A. Bassiouni, N. S. Tzannes, and M. C. Tzannes, “High-fidelity
integrated lossless/lossy compression and reconstruction of image,” Opt.
Eng., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1848–1853, 1993.
[8] I. H. Witten, R. M. Neal, and J. G. T. Cleary, “Arithmetic coding for
data compression,” Commun. ACM, vol. 30, pp. 520–540, 1987.
[9] V. Ratnakar and M. Livny, “Performance of customized DCT quan-
tization table on scientific data,” in Proc. 1994 Science Information
Management and Data Compression Workshop, Greenbelt, MD, Sept.
26–27, 1994, pp. 1–8.
Authorized licensed use limited to: M Th Koelen. Downloaded on June 12, 2009 at 11:39 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[10] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions
with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, Nov. 1970, p. 16.
[11] D. R. Landis, D. E. Strebel, J. A. Newcomer, and B. W. Meeson,
“Archiving the FIFE data on CD-ROM,” in Proc. 1992 Int. Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symp., Houston, TX, May 26–29, 1992, pp. 65–67.
James C. Tilton (S’79–M’81–SM’94) received the
B.A. degree in electrical engineering, environmen-
tal science and engineering, and anthropology, the
M.E.E. (electrical engineering) degree from Rice
University, Houston, TX, the M. S. degree in optical
sciences from the University of Arizona, Tucson,
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, in 1976,
1976, 1978, and 1981, respectively.
He is currently a Computer Engineer with the
Applied Information Sciences Branch (AISB) of
the Earth and Space Data Computing Division, NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. He previously worked for Computer Sciences
Corporation, from 1982 to 1983, and Science Applications Research, from
1983 to 1985, on contracts with NASA Goddard. As a member of AISB, he
helps define future requirements for image analysis information extraction and
data compression in support of NASA programs. He is also responsible for
designing and developing computer software tools for space and Earth science
image analysis and compression algorithms, and encouraging the use of these
computer tools through close interactions with space and Earth scientists.
Dr. Tilton is a member of the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
Computer, and Signal Processing Societies, as well as the Phi Beta Kappa,
Tau Beta Pi, and Sigma Xi honoraries. From 1992 through 1996, he served
as a member of the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society Adminis-
trative Committee. He currently serves as an Associate Editor for the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING.
Mareboyana Manohar (M’89) received the B.E.
degree in electrical engineering and the M.Tech.
degree in electronics instrumentation from Regional
Engineering College, Warangal, India, in 1971 and
1973, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in com-
puter science from Indian Institute of Bangalore,
India, in 1984.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Computer Science, Bowie State Uni-
versity, Bowie, MD. He previously worked for
ISRO Satellite Center, Bangalore, from 1974 to
1984. In 1985, he was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer
Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. He was a
recipient of National Research Council Fellowship award and was associated
with Space Data and Computing Division of the Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD, from 1986 to 1989, where he was involved in
development of parallel algorithms for image processing on Massively Parallel
Processor (MPP). From 1989 to 1992, he worked for the Universities Space
Research Association (USRA), Greenbelt, as Senior Research Associate,
where he was involved in image compression research. He worked for Hughes
STX, Greenbelt, during 1992 as Principal Scientist where he continued his
research in image compression research. His current interests include image
registration, image compression, neural nets, and parallel processing.