{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012307692307692308, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4015748031496065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessment of synthetic image fidelity

Computer generated imagery is increasingly used for a wide variety of purposes ranging from computer games to flight simulators to camouflage and sensor assessment. The fidelity required for this imagery is dependent on the anticipated use - for example when used for camouflage design it must be physically correct spectrally and spatially. The rendering techniques used will also depend upon the waveband being simulated, spatial resolution of the sensor and the required frame rate. Rendering of natural outdoor scenes is particularly demanding, because of the statistical variation in materials and illumination, atmospheric effects and the complex geometric structures of objects such as trees. The accuracy of the simulated imagery has tended to be assessed subjectively in the past. First and second order statistics do not capture many of the essential characteristics of natural scenes. Direct pixel comparison would impose an unachievable demand on the synthetic imagery. For many applications, such as camouflage design, it is important that nay metrics used will work in both visible and infrared wavebands. We are investigating a variety of different methods of comparing real and synthetic imagery and comparing synthetic imagery rendered to different levels of fidelity. These techniques will include neural networks (ICA), higher order statistics and models of human contrast perception. This paper will present an overview of the analyses we have carried out and some initial results along with some preliminary conclusions regarding the fidelity of synthetic imagery.