The scanning and computerized processing of images hadits birth in 1956 at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS,nowNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST))[1].Image enhancementalgorithms weresome of the first tobe developed [2]. Half a century later, literally thousands ofimage processing algorithms have been published. Some ofthese have been specific to certain applications such as theenhancement of latent fingerprints, whilst others have beenmore generic in nature, applicable to all, yet master of none.The scope of these algorithms is fairly expansive, rangingfrom automatically extracting and delineating regions of in-terest such as in the case of segmentation, to improving theperceived quality of an image, by means of image enhance-ment. Since the early years of image processing, as in manysubfields of software design, there has been a portion of thedesign process dedicated to algorithm testing. Testing is theprocessofdeterminingwhetherornotaparticularalgorithmhassatisfieditsspecificationsrelatingtocriteriasuchasaccu-racy and robustness. A major limitation in the design of im-ageprocessingalgorithmsliesinthedifficultyindemonstrat-ingthatalgorithmsworktoanacceptablemeasureofperfor-mance. The purpose of algorithm testing is two-fold. Firstlyit provides either a qualitative or a quantitative method ofevaluating an algorithm. Secondly, it provides a comparativemeasure of the algorithm against similar algorithms, assum-ing similar criteria are used. One of the greatest caveats indesigning algorithms incorporating image processing is howtoconceivethecriteriausedtoanalyzetheresults.Dowede-signacriterionwhichmeasuressensitivity,robustness,orac-curacy? Performance evaluation in the broadest sense refersto a measure of some required behavior of an algorithm,whether it is achievable accuracy, robustness, or adaptabil-ity. It allows the intrinsic characteristics of an algorithm tobe emphasized, as well as the evaluation of its benefits andlimitations.More often than not though, such testing has been lim-ited in its scope. Part of this is attributable to the actual lackof formal process used in performance evaluation of im-age processing algorithms, from the establishment of testingregimes, to the design of metrics. Selection of an appropri-ate evaluation methodology is dependent on the objectiveof the task. For example, in the context of image enhance-ment, requirements are essentially different for screen-basedenhancementandenhancementwhichisembeddedwithinasubalgorithm. Screen-based enhancement is usually assessedinasubjectivemanner,whereaswhenanalgorithmisencap-sulated within a larger system, subjective evaluation is notavailable,andthealgorithmitselfmustdeterminethequalityof a processed image. Very few approaches to the evaluationofimageprocessingalgorithmscanbefoundintheliterature,although the concept has been around for decades. A signif-icant difficulty which arises in the evaluation of algorithmsis finding suitable metrics which provide an objective mea-sure of performance. A performance metric is a meaningfuland computable measure used for quantitatively evaluatingthe performance of any algorithm. Consider the process ofassessing image quality. There is no single quantitative met-ric which correlates well with image quality as perceived bythe human visual system. The process of analyzing failure isintrinsically coupled with the process of performance evalu-ation.Inordertoascertainwhetheranalgorithmfailsornot,youhavetodefinethecharacteristicsofsuccess.Failureanal-ysisistheprocessofdeterminingwhyanalgorithmfailsdur-ing testing. The knowledge generated is then fed back to thedesign process in order to engender refinements in the algo-rithm.Thisisadifficultprocessinapplicationssuchasimageenhancement primarily because there is usually no referenceimagewhichcanbeusedasan“ideal”image.Theassessmentofimagequalityplaysanimportantroleinapplicationssuchas consumer electronics. Metrics could be used to monitororoptimizeimagequalityindigitalcameras,benchmarkandevaluate image enhancement algorithms. There is no singlemetric that correlates well with image quality as perceivedby the human visual system. Selection of an appropriate