Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, Volume. 22, Issue 4, 100286(2024)

RUDIE: Robust approach for underwater digital image enhancement

V. Sidda Reddy1、*, G. Ravi Shankar Reddy2、*, and K. Sivanagi Reddy3
Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Information Technology, Stanley College of Engineering and Technology for Women, Hyderabad, 500001, India
  • 2Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Hyderabad, 501510, India
  • 3Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Sridevi Women’s Engineering College, Hyderabad, 500075, India
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(6)
    Robust underwater digital image enrichment model.
    Visual comparison between the RUDIE approach and the traditional approaches.
    • Table 1. Quantitative evaluations of ENTROPY for Fig. 2.

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 1. Quantitative evaluations of ENTROPY for Fig. 2.

      Image No.Input image[23][24][25][26]RUDIE
      17.1867.1337.2187.7547.7287.833
      26.7086.6807.8157.0357.8247.853
      37.2527.2177.2887.4027.5827.670
      46.7296.7067.5026.7077.5827.122
      57.0617.0487.7117.6797.9037.958
      66.9267.3597.1537.6677.8527.876
      76.1696.7716.3147.4017.8237.882
      86.2376.8816.5167.7497.6787.692
      Average6.7836.9747.1907.4247.7477.799
    • Table 2. Quantitative evaluations of UCIQE for Fig. 2.

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 2. Quantitative evaluations of UCIQE for Fig. 2.

      Image No.Input image[23][24][25][26]RUDIE
      10.5540.5480.8100.6320.7390.783
      20.5320.5270.7470.6670.6950.715
      30.5780.5710.7360.6580.7150.739
      40.6450.6220.7090.7110.7130.721
      50.5190.5190.7460.6970.7130.724
      60.4250.4570.4580.5940.6990.712
      70.4120.4420.4330.5920.6890.705
      80.4190.4590.4350.6640.7310.738
      Average0.5110.5180.6340.6520.7110.724
    • Table 3. Comparison of quantitative evaluations of PCQI for Fig. 2.

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 3. Comparison of quantitative evaluations of PCQI for Fig. 2.

      Image No.[23][24][25][26]RUDIE
      10.9810.4461.1721.0481.121
      20.9801.1351.1171.1641.178
      30.9630.9961.0830.9961.092
      40.9761.1621.0751.1351.155
      51.0281.0501.2761.1841.191
      60.9860.8131.0221.0621.082
      71.0220.7780.9141.0721.083
      81.0030.9611.2071.1431.154
      Average0.9920.9171.1081.1011.121
    • Table 4. Comparison of PSNR for Fig. 2 with conventional methods.

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 4. Comparison of PSNR for Fig. 2 with conventional methods.

      Image No.[23][24][25][26]RUDIE
      112.56716.83417.78915.67118.738
      213.54315.34716.67815.80218.457
      312.67813.02314.66016.45617.139
      412.89015.53216.94517.89018.123
      511.34516.78915.58016.78216.834
      612.90614.45715.16714.89015.234
      713.56214.07814.56716.78916.123
      814.55715.89016.89018.85619.907
      Average13.00615.24316.03416.64817.569
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    V. Sidda Reddy, G. Ravi Shankar Reddy, K. Sivanagi Reddy. RUDIE: Robust approach for underwater digital image enhancement[J]. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 2024, 22(4): 100286

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category:

    Received: Feb. 21, 2024

    Accepted: Oct. 22, 2024

    Published Online: Jan. 23, 2025

    The Author Email: Reddy V. Sidda (siddareddy@stanley.edu.in), Shankar Reddy G. Ravi (ravishankar.reddy@cvr.ac.in)

    DOI:10.1016/j.jnlest.2024.100286

    Topics