**3.1 Approach**

For each parent clip, three criteria (image exploitation tasks) were assigned. The considerations for selecting the criteria were:


To quantify image interpretability, subjective rating scale was developed by Irvine *et al.* (2007c), based on consistent ratings by trained imagery analysts. The scale assigns the values 0 to a video clip of no utility and 100 to clips that could support any of the analysis tasks under consideration (Fig. 3). Three additional clips identified in this study formed markers to evenly divide the subjective interpretability space. Thus, reference clips were available at

> **Criteria (Exploitation Tasks)**

> > *Marker Image Clips*

A set of specific image exploitation tasks were reviewed by imagery analysts and rated relative to these marker video clips. In this way, these analysis tasks were calibrated to the subjective rating scale. A subset of these "calibrated" analysis tasks were used to evaluate the compressed video products (Table 2). Note that some of these tasks do not require analysis of temporal activity and could be performed with still imagery. We label these as "static" tasks. A second set of tasks are "dynamic" because they require direct observation

**Criteria Rating Evaluation**

*Calibrated Criteria*

*Draft Scale*

**Validation Evaluation**

Image analysts rated their confidence in performing each image exploitation task with respect to each compression product, including the original (uncompressed) clip. We

For each parent clip, three criteria (image exploitation tasks) were assigned. The

The criteria should "bound" the interpretability of the parent clip, i.e. at least one of the

The criteria (or at least some of the criteria) should reference objects and activity that are

The criteria should have exhibited low rater variance in the previous evaluations

calculated an overall interpretability rating from each analyst for each clip.

three should be difficult to do and one should be easy

**3. User-based evaluation of compression** 

subjective rating levels of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100.

Fig. 3. NIIRS Development Functional Decomposition

**Imagery Rating Evaluation**

or inference about movements of objects.

considerations for selecting the criteria were:

comparable to the content of the clip

**3.1 Approach** 


Table 2. Video Analysis Tasks
