## 3 Methods of Determining of Image Number Lines
### The Analysis of Obtained Results
Value of differences between the maximum and minimum value (example notation for method I):  
\[Difference_{I}=maximum_{I}-minimum_{I} \tag{38}\]  
where  
\[minimum_{I}=\min_{B}(Contrast_{I}(B)), \tag{39}\]  
Figure 19: Images for which statistical analyses were conducted (images reconstructed on base on reveal emissions for thirty times summation without colorization): (**a**) DVI standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=365\) MHz, \(BW=50\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=525\), resolution 640 \(\times\) 480/60 Hz; (**b**) DVI standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=1334\) MHz, \(BW=50\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=1066\), resolution 1280 \(\times\) 1024/60 Hz; (**c**) DVI standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=1805\) MHz, \(BW=100\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=1066\), resolution 1280 \(\times\) 1024/60 Hz; (**d**) DVI standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=1775\) MHz, \(BW=100\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=1125\), resolution 1920 \(\times\) 1080/60 Hz; (**e**) laser printer HP M507, menu with icons, receive frequency \(f_{o}=392\) MHz, \(BW=10\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=266\); (**f**) VGA standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=450\) MHz, \(BW=20\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=628\), resolution 800 \(\times\) 600/60 Hz; (**g**) laser printer, menu with text, receive frequency \(f_{o}=235\) MHz, \(BW=10\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=288\); (**h**) DVI standard, receive frequency \(f_{o}=740\) MHz, \(BW=50\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=628\), resolution 1280 \(\times\) 1024/60 Hz; and (**i**) display of terminal VoIP, receive frequency \(f_{o}=800\) MHz, \(BW=20\) MHz, number lines \(B_{corr}=528\). may testify that the method is resistant to possible disturbances in the reproduced images (Table 2). The second important parameter of the assessment is the variance \(\sigma^{2}\) (example notation for method I):  
\[\sigma^{2}=\frac{1}{41}\sum_{B}\bigl{(}Contrast_{I\_Un}(B)-\overline{Contrast_{ I\_Un}}\bigr{)}^{2}, \tag{40}\]  
where  
\[\overline{Contrast_{I\_Un}}=\frac{1}{41}\sum_{B}Contrast_{I\_Un}(B). \tag{41}\]  
The preliminary analysis of the obtained results shows that method II, and in particular method V, are not measures allowing for the correct determination of the \(B_{Corr}\) number of the image line (Tables 7 and 8). For each of the analysed images, method V indicated the wrong number of image lines. Method II turned out to be ineffective only in the case of the image presented in Figure 7c, which allows for its rejection anyway. The other methods, i.e., method I, III, IV, VI, and VII and the accepted criteria of acceptability, correctly indicated the \(B_{Corr}\) number of the lines of the reproduced images. However, due to the values presented in Tables 2 and 3 and the analysis of the sensitivity of the methods to the poor quality of the reproduced images (\(\sigma^{2}<0.01\), \(Difference<0.5\)), methods III and VI can be indicated as \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Figure 7a**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Figure 7b**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Figure 7c**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Figure 7d**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(B_{Entr}\) & \(B_{Corr}\) & \(B_{Entr}\) & \(B_{Corr}\) & \(B_{Entr}\) & \(B_{Corr}\) & \(B_{Entr}\) & \(B_{Corr}\) \\ \hline Method I & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 806 & 288 \\ Method II & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 823 & 288 \\ Method III & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 806 & 288 \\ Method IV & 1069 & 1066 & 1125 & 1125 & 809 & 806 & 294 & 288 \\ Method V * & & 1062 & & 1145 & & 793 & 270 \\ Method VI * & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 806 & 288 \\ Method VII * & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 806 & 288 \\ Method VII * & & 1066 & & 1125 & & 806 & 288 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
*-method used to estimate the length d line of the reconstructed image [28].  
\end{table} 
Table 6: \(B_{Entr}\) input data and the determined \(B_{Corr}\) values for the adopted criterion of maximizing the value of the calculated measure for the example images shown in Figure 7.