Opto-Electronic Engineering, Volume. 51, Issue 7, 240078(2024)
Color space focusing evaluation algorithm for color overlay microscopy
Figures & Tables(18)
Fig. 5. Normalized focused evaluation curve for simulation images. (a) Table pixel focusing evaluation curve; (b) Boxes pixel focus evaluation curve; (c) Sideboard pixel focus evaluation curve
Fig. 7. Normalized focusing evaluation curve of noisy simulation images. (a) Table pixel focusing evaluation curve; (b) Boxes pixel focus evaluation curve; (c) Sideboard pixel focus evaluation curve
Fig. 8. Comparison between all-in-focus reference image and stacked focal fusion image. (a) Reference image; (b) Proposed fusion image; (c) SML fusion image; (d) Tenengrad fusion image; (e) GLV fusion image; (f) DCT fusion image; (g) SWAV fusion image; (h) Bre4d_var fusion image; (i) FMC fusion image
Fig. 9. Microscopic image acquisition. (a) Digital microscopy system; (b) Wafer samples; (c) Chip samples
Fig. 11. Normalized focusing evaluation curve of microscopic images. (a) Pixel focusing evaluation curve of wafer surface; (b) Chip bonding wire pixel focusing evaluation curve
Fig. 12. Chip bonding wire overlay fusion image. (a) Proposed; (b) SML; (c) Tenengrad;(d) GLV; (e) DCT; (f) SWAV; (g) Bre4d_var; (h) FMC
Fig. 13. Wafer surface overlay fusion image. (a) Proposed; (b) SML; (c) Tenengrad; (d) GLV; (e) DCT; (f) SWAV; (g) Bre4d_var; (h) FMC
Table 1. Performance comparison of focusing evaluation algorithms in simulated images
View tableView in ArticleTable 1. Performance comparison of focusing evaluation algorithms in simulated images
Algorithm Se Sp Sv Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard SML[ 15 ]0.0314 0.4468 0.5089 0.1516 0.1523 0.1603 0.0407 0.0566 0.0434 Tenengrad[ 16 ]0.0185 0.4089 — 0.1357 0.2730 — 0.0363 0.0279 — GLV[ 19 ]0.0180 0.5020 — 0.1334 0.2747 — 0.0408 0.0275 — DCT[ 18 ]— 0.1468 — — 0.1099 — — 0.0557 — SWAV[ 17 ]0.0434 0.6111 0.6479 0.1942 0.2135 0.1886 0.0446 0.0499 0.0469 Bre4d_var[ 25 ]0.0430 0.9420 — 0.1995 0.3248 — 0.0275 0.0211 — FMC[ 21 ]— 1.6460 1.5413 — 0.3264 0.2090 — 0.0375 0.0652 Proposed 0.0565 1.7056 1.6963 0.3437 0.3562 0.3372 0.0138 0.0186 0.0144
Table 2. Performance comparison of focused evaluation algorithms for noisy simulated images
View tableView in ArticleTable 2. Performance comparison of focused evaluation algorithms for noisy simulated images
Algorithm Se Sp Sv Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard SML[ 15 ]1.1429 0.3731 0.4045 0.0666 0.2073 0.1052 0.1109 0.1812 0.1343 Tenengrad[ 16 ]0.2184 — — 0.1356 — — 0.0607 — — GLV[ 19 ]0.2007 0.4734 — 0.1335 0.2033 — 0.0664 0.0441 — DCT[ 18 ]— — — — — — — — — SWAV[ 17 ]1.1798 0.7384 0.4153 0.1649 0.2201 0.1892 0.0768 0.1150 0.1290 Bre4d_var[ 25 ]0.3997 1.3292 — 0.2002 0.2381 — 0.0408 0.0275 — FMC[ 21 ]— — 2.2969 — — 0.5292 — — 0.0933 Proposed 1.5584 2.7864 2.3209 0.3450 0.5284 0.5303 0.0263 0.0266 0.0173
Table 3. Objective evaluation indicators for image fusion quality with reference
View tableView in ArticleTable 3. Objective evaluation indicators for image fusion quality with reference
Algorithm SSIM MSE/ PSNR/dB Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard Table Boxes Sideboard SML[ 15 ]0.9807 0.9612 0.9125 1.193 1.454 6.003 34.447 32.321 26.989 Tenengrad[ 16 ]0.9789 0.9493 0.9267 1.765 1.861 3.528 34.051 32.247 27.795 GLV[ 19 ]0.9718 0.9533 0.9203 1.607 1.744 2.751 34.204 33.009 27.863 DCT[ 18 ]0.9645 0.9237 0.9132 1.774 2.156 2.988 33.221 32.119 28.017 SWAV[ 17 ]0.9709 0.9563 0.9518 1.151 1.575 5.272 34.691 33.151 27.552 Bre4d_var[ 25 ]0.9791 0.9655 0.9549 0.986 1.460 2.765 34.835 33.127 30.355 FMC[ 21 ]0.9798 0.9654 0.9591 0.929 1.470 2.525 35.091 33.098 30.749 Proposed 0.9824 0.9702 0.9634 0.856 1.404 2.254 35.447 33.297 30.827
Table 4. Performance comparison of focusing evaluation algorithms in microscopic images
View tableView in ArticleTable 4. Performance comparison of focusing evaluation algorithms in microscopic images
Algorithm Se Sp Sv Wafer Wire Wafer Wire Wafer Wire SML[ 15 ]0.069211 0.053887 0.131535 0.145214 0.038350 0.057453 Tenengrad[ 16 ]0.164669 0.131634 0.195886 0.226235 0.020496 0.033131 GLV[ 19 ]0.093996 0.099731 0.197076 0.214817 0.019743 0.036844 DCT[ 18 ]0.063470 0.094970 0.198803 0.199834 0.017233 0.034720 SWAV[ 17 ]— 0.085089 — 0.124962 — 0.103253 Bre4d_var[ 25 ]0.303990 0.352239 0.221513 0.196865 0.037180 0.038064 FMC[ 21 ]— 0.279225 — 0.220262 — 0.019089 Proposed 0.540521 0.490454 0.232581 0.285745 0.006771 0.013223
Table 5. Objective evaluation indicators for image fusion quality without reference
View tableView in ArticleTable 5. Objective evaluation indicators for image fusion quality without reference
Algorithm V E Wafer Wire Wafer Wire Wafer Wire SML[ 15 ]53.0300 56.6424 5.2157 7.3129 22.3707 24.0012 Tenengrad[ 16 ]51.4233 55.8814 5.5069 7.2025 22.3595 23.3725 GLV[ 19 ]51.5650 55.8463 5.0237 7.0928 22.5127 22.5874 DCT[ 18 ]53.9928 55.0012 5.3671 7.0364 22.2967 23.1296 SWAV[ 17 ]52.7727 56.3165 4.8681 6.9621 21.1231 23.5237 Bre4d_var[ 25 ]53.5243 56.6069 5.6032 7.2851 22.3441 23.9367 FMC[ 21 ]52.6920 55.9306 5.5443 7.3126 22.3583 23.9773 Proposed 54.2706 58.3882 5.7012 7.3877 23.3557 25.1254
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Yanqiong Shi, Yonghui Yang, Zhao Zha, Guang Zhu, Yu Zheng. Color space focusing evaluation algorithm for color overlay microscopy[J]. Opto-Electronic Engineering, 2024, 51(7): 240078
Paper Information
Category: Article
Received: Mar. 29, 2024
Accepted: Jun. 19, 2024
Published Online: Nov. 12, 2024
The Author Email: Yang Yonghui (杨永辉)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20