The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Interpolating Methods for Image Resampling
Abstract
When resampling an image to a new set of coordinates (for example, when rotating an image), there is often a noticeable loss in image quality. To preserve image quality, the interpolating function used for the resampling should be an ideal low-pass filter. To determine which limited extent convolving functions would provide the best interpolation, five functions were compared: A) nearest neighbor, B) linear, C) cubic B-spline, D) high-resolution cubic spline with edge enhancement (a = -1), and E) high-resolution cubic spline (a = -0.5). The functions which extend over four picture elements (C, D, E) were shown to have a better frequency response than those which extend over one (A) or two (B) pixels. The nearest neighbor function shifted the image up to one-half a pixel. Linear and cubic B-spline interpolation tended to smooth the image. The best response was obtained with the high-resolution cubic spline functions. The location of the resampled points with respect to the initial coordinate system has a dramatic effect on the response of the sampled interpolating function the data are exactly reproduced when the points are aligned, and the response has the most smoothing when the resampled points are equidistant from the original coordinate points. Thus, at the expense of some increase in computing time, image quality can be improved by resampled using the high-resolution cubic spline function as compared to the nearest neighbor, linear, or cubic B-spline functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Image registration methods: a survey
Zitová, B., & Flusser, J. (2003) · Image and Vision Computing · doi:10.1016/s0262-8856(03)00137-9 · Cited by 6,423
Hill, D. L. G., Batchelor, P. G., Holden, M., & Hawkes, D. J. (2001) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/46/3/201 · Cited by 2,093
B-spline signal processing. I. Theory
Unser, M., Aldroubi, A., & Eden, M. (1993) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/78.193220 · Cited by 940
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, J. A., Kenyon, R. V., & Troxel, D. E.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 1983-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-39
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- OpenAlex
- W2088869937
- Cited by
- 829
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Interpolating Methods for Image Resampling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.1983.4307610
- The paper
- Parker, J. A., Kenyon, R. V., & Troxel, D. E. (1983). Comparison of Interpolating Methods for Image Resampling. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.1983.4307610
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.