raw: 1. The image is completely black, indicating no discernible content or detail. This suggests severe degradation, with no visual information to assess quality.


raw:
1
The image is heavily degraded, with significant noise and a lack of discernible details, making it difficult to identify any specific features or content.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred, making it difficult to discern any details or content. The lack of focus and clarity significantly degrades the perceptual quality.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred, making it difficult to discern any details or content. The lack of clarity and sharpness indicates a very low perceptual quality.


raw:
1
The image is heavily degraded with significant noise, compression artifacts, and blur, making it difficult to discern any clear details or content.


raw:
1
The image is heavily degraded, with significant noise and a lack of sharpness, making it difficult to discern details.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred and lacks clear details, making it difficult to discern specific features or objects. The overall quality is very poor, indicating severe degradation.


raw:
1
The image is heavily distorted, with a warped and fragmented appearance, making it difficult to discern any clear details or content. The quality is severely degraded due to the extreme distortion and lack of recognizable features.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred, making it difficult to discern any details or features, which significantly degrades its perceptual quality.


raw: 2. The image appears to have a high level of noise and lacks sharpness, which affects the overall quality. The details are not clear, and there are visible artifacts that detract from the image's clarity.


raw: 2. The image is somewhat blurry and lacks detail, which is typical for low-resolution or compressed images. The lack of sharpness and detail suggests it is not of high quality.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and lacks sharpness, which slightly degrades its quality. However, the details are still discernible, and there are no severe artifacts or blurring present.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred and lacks clear details, making it difficult to discern specific features or content. The overall quality is severely degraded.


raw:
3

The image has a somewhat abstract and painterly quality, which might be intentional, but it also appears to have some level of noise and lack of sharpness. The details are not very clear, and there are some areas that seem to be overexposed or underexposed, which detracts from the overall quality.


raw: 2. The image appears to have a high level of distortion and lacks clarity, with visible artifacts and a lack of sharpness. The colors are vibrant but the overall quality is compromised by the distortion.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and lacks sharpness, which slightly degrades its quality. However, the main subject is still recognizable and the overall composition is discernible.


raw:
1
The image is heavily distorted, with a blurred and indistinct face, and the overall quality is very low. The details are not clear, and the image appears to be heavily processed or corrupted.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a moderate level of detail and clarity, but there are some visible artifacts and a lack of sharpness, which prevents it from being rated higher. The colors are somewhat muted, and the overall composition is somewhat abstract, which might be intentional but still affects the perceived quality.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred and lacks detail, making it difficult to discern specific features or objects. The overall quality is very poor, indicating a significant degradation in perceptual quality.


raw:
4

The image is clear and sharp, with vibrant colors and fine detail visible in the petals and stamens. There are no visible compression artifacts or noise, indicating a high perceptual quality.


raw:
1
The image is heavily blurred, making it difficult to discern details, and the overall quality is very low.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a moderate level of blur and lacks sharpness, which affects its overall quality. The edges are not well-defined, and there is a lack of fine detail that would be expected in a high-quality image. However, the image is not heavily degraded with noise or compression artifacts, and the subject is still recognizable.


raw:
3

The image has a soft focus and a somewhat painterly quality, which gives it a stylized appearance rather than a high level of detail. The lighting and color are well-balanced, but the lack of sharpness and fine detail suggests it is not of the highest perceptual quality.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and lacks sharpness, which is why it doesn't qualify as high quality. However, the content is still discernible and the main subject is recognizable, which is better than a severely degraded image.


raw:
3

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with a clear focus on the subject. However, the artistic style and the presence of blood splatters and drips add a level of distortion that is not typical of high-quality images. The image is not heavily degraded, but the artistic elements slightly reduce its quality from a purely technical standpoint.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a moderate level of distortion, with some blurring and a lack of sharpness, which is not ideal for high-quality perception. However, the overall structure and details are still discernible, indicating it is not severely degraded.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and vibrant colors, but there is a slight blur and the edges are not perfectly sharp, which slightly reduces its quality from a perfect 5.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a moderate level of detail and clarity, with some visible brush strokes and soft edges, which are common in digital paintings. The colors are vibrant, but the overall sharpness and absence of noise or compression artifacts are not at the highest level, hence a rating of 3.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and lacks sharpness, which slightly degrades its quality. However, the subject is still recognizable and the details are discernible, indicating it is not severely degraded.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and vibrant colors, which are characteristic of high-quality astronomical images. However, there is a slight presence of noise and graininess, which slightly reduces the overall quality from a perfect 5. The image is not severely degraded, and the details are still quite clear and distinguishable.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with clear details and sharp edges, but there is a slight lack of depth and the lighting seems a bit flat, which might slightly reduce the overall quality. However, it is not severely degraded and the image is clean and artifact-free.


raw:
3

The image has a soft focus and a somewhat dreamy quality, which might be intentional for artistic effect. However, the lack of sharpness and the presence of what appears to be noise or graininess suggest it is not of high quality. The lighting and color are well-balanced, but the overall clarity is not as high as it could be.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with sharp details and clear textures, but there is a slight yellow tint that might be a result of the background or lighting, which slightly detracts from the overall quality. However, the image is not severely degraded and the details are well-defined.


raw:
4

The image is clear and detailed, with vibrant colors and smooth lines, indicating a high-quality illustration. However, there is a slight softness in the edges and a lack of fine detail that might be considered a minor degradation, hence a score of 4.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with clear details and vibrant colors. However, there is a slight lack of sharpness and some minor noise, which prevents it from being rated as a perfect 5.


raw:
2
The image is blurry and lacks sharpness, which affects its overall quality. The details are not clear, and the image appears to be out of focus, which is why it is not rated higher.


raw:
4

The image is clear and well-lit, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The details of the mirror frame and the reflection are sharp, indicating a high perceptual quality.


raw:
3

The image has a moderate level of blur and lacks sharpness, which affects its overall quality. The lighting and color are somewhat muted, and there is a lack of fine detail that would typically be present in a high-quality image. The subject is not clearly defined, and the background is not distinct, which further contributes to the lower quality rating.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a soft focus and some noise, which slightly degrades its quality. The colors are muted and the details are not very sharp, which is why it doesn't quite reach a 5. However, the image is not severely degraded and the overall composition is clear.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a soft focus and some motion blur, which slightly degrades the sharpness and detail. However, the colors are vibrant and the subject is recognizable, indicating a moderate level of quality.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some compression artifacts and a lack of sharpness, which slightly degrades its quality. However, the subject and the main elements are still discernible.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and compression artifacts, which slightly degrade the overall quality. The text and image details are somewhat readable, but not as crisp as they could be.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with a well-defined subject and background. The lighting and colors are vibrant, and there are no visible artifacts or blurring that would detract from the overall quality. However, the image appears to be digitally manipulated, which slightly reduces its quality from a purely photographic standpoint.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a good level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting is even, and the subject is in focus, which contributes to a high-quality perception. However, the background is somewhat plain and does not add much to the overall quality, which is why it is not a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with vibrant colors and smooth gradients. There are no visible artifacts or distortions that would typically indicate lower quality. The composition is well-defined, and the image seems to be of good resolution.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with clear details and sharp edges, but there is a slight softness in the lighting and the background is not as sharp as the subject. The subject and the goose are in focus, and there are no visible artifacts or noise.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some distortion and artifacts, particularly around the edges of the subject and the background, which suggests it may have been manipulated or is of low quality. The colors are vibrant, but the overall clarity and sharpness are not high.


raw:
3

The image has a moderate level of detail and clarity, with some areas appearing slightly pixelated or lacking in sharpness. The colors are vibrant, but the overall image quality is not the highest, indicating some degradation in the perceptual quality.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with clear details and vibrant colors, but there is a slight softness in the edges and some minor noise, which prevents it from being rated as a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and vibrant colors, but there are some visible artifacts and a slightly grainy texture, which slightly detract from its quality. The overall composition and clarity are good, but not perfect.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean details and sharp edges, though there might be a slight softness in the lighting which could be considered a minor flaw. The character's features and armor details are well-defined, suggesting a good level of quality.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with a smooth gradient and well-defined edges. The colors are vibrant and the overall composition is visually appealing. However, there is a slight hint of noise or graininess, which slightly reduces the quality from a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and contrast are well-balanced, and the subject is in focus, indicating a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image is clear and well-lit, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The details of the equipment and the individuals are sharp, indicating a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and shading are well-executed, giving the image a clean and sharp appearance. The textures on the rock and the water are distinct, and the overall composition is well-balanced.


raw:
4

The image is clear and sharp, with good focus on the subject, the mouse. The lighting is even, and there are no visible artifacts or noise. The background is slightly out of focus, which helps to emphasize the subject, but the overall quality is high.


raw:
3

The image has a soft focus and a painterly quality, which gives it a certain artistic appeal but also results in a lack of sharpness and detail that would be expected in a high-quality image. The colors are muted and the overall composition is somewhat abstract, which might be intentional for artistic effect, but it does not contribute to the image's clarity or sharpness.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with smooth gradients and a lack of visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and color are well-balanced, contributing to a high-quality visual experience. However, the image is not perfect and may have slight imperfections that prevent it from being rated a 5.


raw:
3

The image has a moderate level of noise and graininess, which slightly degrades the overall quality. The lighting is uneven, and the details are not very sharp, but the composition and elements are discernible.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with vibrant colors and clear details, but there is a slight softness in the edges of the spiral structure, which might be due to the nature of the astronomical image or the resolution. However, it does not have any visible noise, compression artifacts, or blurring that would significantly degrade its quality.


raw:
3

The image has a clear subject and a distinct background, but the lighting and reflections create some glare and the image appears slightly overexposed in certain areas, which slightly reduces its quality. The details are not entirely sharp, and there is a slight lack of clarity in the edges of the subject and the background.


raw:
3

The image appears to have some noise and lacks sharpness, which slightly degrades its quality. However, the details are still discernible, and there are no severe artifacts or blurring present.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean lines and vibrant colors. The details in the character's attire and the background are sharp, and there are no visible artifacts or blurring that would typically indicate lower quality. However, the image does not have the absolute highest level of detail and clarity that would earn a perfect score of 5.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean lines, sharp details, and a lack of visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting is soft and even, contributing to the overall clarity and natural appearance of the subject.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with clear details and vibrant colors. However, there is a slight softness in the edges and a lack of fine detail that might be expected in a higher quality image. The overall composition and lighting are well-executed, contributing to a pleasant visual experience.


raw:
4

The image is clear and well-lit, with good detail visible in the tuk-tuk and the surrounding environment. The colors are vibrant, and there is no noticeable noise or compression artifacts. However, the image could be slightly sharper, which would elevate the quality to a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image is vibrant and clear, with well-defined colors and details. However, there is a slight softness in the edges and a lack of fine detail that might be expected in a high-quality image, which prevents it from reaching a perfect score.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and color are well-balanced, and the overall composition is visually appealing. However, the image is not perfect, as there is a slight blur at the edges, which slightly reduces its quality from a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image is of high quality with clean lines, sharp details, and vibrant colors. The lighting is well-balanced, and there are no visible artifacts or noise. The composition is also well-executed, contributing to the overall high perceptual quality.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with a well-defined subject (the jellyfish) and a rich, atmospheric background. The lighting and color are well-balanced, and there are no visible artifacts or distortions. However, the image appears to be slightly stylized or digitally manipulated, which might slightly lower the score to 4 instead of 5.


raw:
4

The image is clear and the details of the flowers are well-defined, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting is even, and the colors are vibrant, contributing to a high-quality appearance.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of good quality with a painterly style, but there is a slight lack of sharpness and detail, which is characteristic of the artistic style rather than a degradation in quality. The colors are well-defined, and the subject is clear, indicating a high-quality image in terms of its artistic representation.


raw:
3

The image has a stylized, artistic quality with a clear subject (the Eiffel Tower) and distinct color contrasts. However, the red splatter effect and the lack of fine detail suggest it is not a photograph but rather a digital illustration or painting. The edges are somewhat soft, and the overall image lacks the crispness and clarity typically associated with high-quality images.


raw:
4

The image is clear and the details of the frog and the hat are well-defined. The lighting is good and the colors are vibrant, which contributes to a high-quality appearance. However, there is a slight softness in the edges, which prevents it from being a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image is clear and detailed, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The colors are vibrant and the lines are sharp, indicating a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image is clear and well-defined, with no visible noise, compression artifacts, or blur. The lines are sharp, and the colors are vibrant, indicating a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with good clarity and sharpness. The details in the clothing and the background are well-defined, and there are no visible compression artifacts or noise. The lighting is even, and the subject is in focus, which contributes to the overall high perceptual quality of the image.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean lines and sharp details, but there is a slight softness in the lighting and shadows that might be considered a minor flaw, bringing it down to a 4.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with vibrant colors and a well-defined underwater scene. The lighting and reflections are well-handled, and there are no visible artifacts or blurring that would detract from the overall quality. However, it does not quite reach the highest possible score due to the slight presence of noise and the somewhat artificial appearance of the underwater environment, which might be due to the nature of the image or the post-processing involved.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with vibrant colors and well-defined edges. However, there is a slight softness in the fur texture and the background leaves, which might be due to the artistic style rather than degradation. The overall quality is good, but not perfect.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with vibrant colors and smooth gradients. The lines are clean and there are no visible artifacts or blurring, indicating a high perceptual quality.


raw:
4

The image is clear and well-lit, with good focus on the subject. The details of the donut and the glaze are sharp, and there is no visible noise or compression artifacts. The background is slightly blurred, which helps to emphasize the donut, but this is a common photographic technique and does not detract from the overall quality of the image.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with a soft focus that adds to the aesthetic quality. The lighting is well-balanced, and there are no visible artifacts or noise that would detract from the overall quality. The subject is in focus, and the composition is pleasing, which contributes to a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image is clear and sharp, with good detail and color, but there is a slight softness in the background which slightly reduces the overall quality from a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The textures of the stones, plants, and the wooden structure are well-defined, and the lighting is even, contributing to the overall quality of the image.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean lines and sharp details, suggesting it is not heavily degraded. However, there is a slight lack of depth and the lighting seems a bit flat, which might slightly lower the score. The image is not compressed or noisy, and the details are well-defined.


raw:
4

The image appears to have a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting is well-balanced, and the subject is in focus, which contributes to the overall quality of the image.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and clarity, with no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and color saturation are well-balanced, and the subject is in focus, making it a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image is of high quality with clean lines, sharp details, and no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting and color are well-balanced, contributing to the overall perception of a high-quality image.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with clean lines, sharp details, and no visible noise or compression artifacts. The lighting is even, and the colors are well-defined, contributing to a visually pleasing and professional appearance.


raw:
3

The image appears to have a moderate level of detail and clarity, with some visible noise and artifacts, particularly around the edges of the astronaut and the planets. The colors are vibrant, but the overall sharpness and clarity are not at the highest level, which is why it is not rated as a 5.


raw:
4

The image is clear and sharp, with good detail in the cat's fur and the leaf. The colors are vibrant, and there is no visible noise or compression artifacts. However, the background is slightly out of focus, which is a common technique to draw attention to the subject but it slightly reduces the overall quality from a perfect 5.


raw:
4

The image is clear and detailed, with a high level of sharpness and no visible noise or compression artifacts. The colors are vibrant, and the subject is well-defined against the background, indicating a high-quality image.


raw:
3

The image appears to be of moderate quality, with some graininess and lack of sharpness, which is common for older photographs. The details are not very crisp, and there are some visible artifacts, particularly in the lighting and contrast. The subject is recognizable, but the overall image quality is not high.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with a clean and sharp appearance. The lighting is well-balanced, and there are no visible artifacts or noise. The details in the subject's face are clear, and the background is softly blurred, which helps to emphasize the subject.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and vibrant colors, but there is a slight blur and some noise, which slightly reduces its quality from a perfect 5. The composition and lighting are well-executed, making it a strong 4.


raw:
4

The image has a high level of detail and vibrant colors, with a soft focus that adds to the dreamy quality. The butterflies and background are well-defined, and there are no visible artifacts or noise. However, the slight softness might be considered a slight degradation from a perfect score.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with a clear focus on the subject, sharp details, and a high level of contrast. The lighting and shadows are well-defined, and there are no visible artifacts or noise that would detract from the overall quality.


raw:
4

The image appears to be of high quality with a clean and sharp appearance. The details in the subject's hair, clothing, and jewelry are well-defined, and the background is slightly blurred, which helps to emphasize the subject. There are no visible noise, compression artifacts, or blurring that would detract from the overall quality of the image.