Opto-Electronic Engineering, Volume. 51, Issue 6, 240093-1(2024)
LF-UMTI: unsupervised multi-exposure light field image fusion based on multi-scale spatial-angular interaction
Figures & Tables(13)
Fig. 6. Some scene examples in the benchmark dataset established in this work
Fig. 7. Subjective comparison results of different methods on the established benchmark dataset
Fig. 8. Subjective comparison of depth maps estimated from the fused light field images obtained with different fusion methods
Fig. 9. Subjective comparison results of the main network structure ablation experiments
Fig. 10. Subjective comparison results of angle consistency loss ablation experiments
Table 1. Comparison of objective indicators among different methods on 50 testing scenarios
View tableView in ArticleTable 1. Comparison of objective indicators among different methods on 50 testing scenarios
Method SD↑ MEFSSIM↑ Qcv↓ SF↑ Qabf↑ Qnice↑ NMI↑ AG↑ Rank↓ DISFT_EF[ 8 ]58.2897(5) 0.9610(3) 679.7548(8) 23.5287(2) 0.7489(3) 0.8118(10) 0.6411(8) 5.4570(7) 46 GFF[ 7 ]60.2416(3) 0.9624(2) 592.7575(10) 25.8524(1) 0.7648(1) 0.8154(7) 0.6074(9) 5.7301(3) 36 MEFAW[ 9 ]54.2736(6) 0.9639(1) 625.0993(9) 22.2241(3) 0.7507(2) 0.8163(6) 0.5215(10) 5.5581(4) 41 PAS_MEF[ 10 ]48.7852(10) 0.8887(9) 517.8809(7) 16.2884(7) 0.5452(6) 0.8146(8) 0.6610(7) 5.5482(5) 59 DeepFuse[ 20 ]53.3335(7) 0.9040(6) 321.1736(4) 16.3365(6) 0.5408(7) 0.8202(3) 0.8482(3) 5.4888(6) 42 PMGI[ 27 ]51.0411(9) 0.8933(8) 361.4652(6) 16.2283(8) 0.5209(8) 0.8194(4) 0.8285(4) 5.4126(8) 55 U2Fusion[ 26 ]52.7949(8) 0.8973(7) 316.6257(3) 15.5335(10) 0.5061(9) 0.8183(5) 0.7999(5) 5.3375(10) 57 TransMEF[ 21 ]60.6602(2) 0.9328(5) 281.9047(2) 18.1766(5) 0.6264(5) 0.8210(1) 0.8758(1) 6.0909(2) 23 FFMEF[ 22 ]58.9095(4) 0.8595(10) 334.6085(5) 16.0121(9) 0.4360(10) 0.8135(9) 0.7276(6) 5.4097(9) 62 Proposed 67.5961(1) 0.9491(4) 238.4925(1) 20.5533(4) 0.6870(4) 0.8205(2) 0.8510(2) 6.7186(1) 19
Table 2. Comparative results of objective indicators of the main network structure ablation experiments in this article
View tableView in ArticleTable 2. Comparative results of objective indicators of the main network structure ablation experiments in this article
Method SD↑ MEFSSIM↑ Qcv↓ SF↑ Qabf↑ Qnice↑ NMI↑ AG↑ w/o C-ASA 74.6707 0.8747 313.7698 16.8144 0.4682 0.8143 0.6906 5.7951 w/o T-INN 40.1623 0.7105 948.2726 16.4418 0.3252 0.8095 0.4769 6.1205 w/o MK 66.819 0.8999 252.7716 19.3284 0.5027 0.8142 0.6666 6.3629 Proposed 67.5961 0.9491 238.4925 20.5533 0.687 0.8205 0.851 6.7186
Table 3. Comparison results of running time and parameter quantities of different methods
View tableView in ArticleTable 3. Comparison results of running time and parameter quantities of different methods
Method GFF[ 7 ]MEFAW[ 9 ]DISFT_EF[ 8 ]DeepFuse[ 20 ]PMGI[ 27 ]TransMEF[ 21 ]Proposed Runtime/s 13.6808 30.5074 23.0349 14.8176 6.9727 11.2749 16.8701 Params/M - - - 0.283 0.0401 18.1696 0.9734 Platform MATLAB MATLAB MATLAB Pytorch Pytorch Pytorch Pytorch Device CPU CPU CPU GPU GPU GPU GPU
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Yulong Li, Yeyao Chen, Yueli Cui, Mei Yu. LF-UMTI: unsupervised multi-exposure light field image fusion based on multi-scale spatial-angular interaction[J]. Opto-Electronic Engineering, 2024, 51(6): 240093-1
Paper Information
Category:
Received: Apr. 23, 2024
Accepted: Jun. 3, 2024
Published Online: Oct. 21, 2024
The Author Email: Yu Mei (郁梅)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20