Fusion method for infrared and other-type images based on the multi-scale Gaussian filtering and morphological transform

Fig. 6. Fusion results of one pair of the infrared-visible images (a) infrared image, (b) visible image, (c)-(i) the fusion results of the DWT, DTCWT, SWT, WPT, NSCT, NSST, and the proposed methods.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. Fusion results of one pair of the infrared intensity-polarization images (a) Infrared intensity image, (b) Infrared polarization image, (c)-(i) the fusion results of the DWT, DTCWT, SWT, WPT, NSCT, NSST, and the proposed methods.

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. The parameters set in the compared methods. ‘Filter’ represents the Orientation filter; ‘Levels’ denotes the decomposition levels and the corresponding number of orientations for each level.
View table
View in Article
Table 1. The parameters set in the compared methods. ‘Filter’ represents the Orientation filter; ‘Levels’ denotes the decomposition levels and the corresponding number of orientations for each level.
Methods Pyramid filter Filter Levels
DWT rbio1.3 3
DTCWT 5-7 q-6 3
SWT bior1.3 3
WPT bior1.3 3
NSCT maxflat dmaxflat5 4,8,16
NSST maxflat 4,8,16

Table 2. The parameters of the proposed method for the four kinds of source images.
View table
View in Article
Table 2. The parameters of the proposed method for the four kinds of source images.
Source images Parameters
$σ_{0}$ k [K, M, N₁, N₂, N₃]
Infrared-visible 0.6 1.4 [3,2,0,1,2]
Infrared intensity-polarization 0.6 1.1 [3,2,1,1,2]

Table 3. Objective assessment of all methods (the best result of each metric is highlighted in bold).

View table

View in Article

Table 3. Objective assessment of all methods (the best result of each metric is highlighted in bold).

Images	Methods	Q₀	Q^AB^/^F	Q_E	IE	MI	TC	VIF
Infrared-visible	DWT	0.439 1	0.485 8	0.226 8	6.660 1	2.165 8	0.258 8	0.293 6
	DTCWT	0.444 6	0.517 3	0.257 9	6.683 0	2.223 5	0.293 7	0.294 9
	SWT	0.445 2	0.509 7	0.245 7	6.615 5	2.187 2	0.220 3	0.278 4
	WPT	0.407 9	0.395 2	0.161 4	6.638 5	2.194 9	0.274 5	0.273 8
	NSCT	0.466 9	0.528 1	0.259 5	6.696 1	2.263 3	0.294 0	0.314 5
	NSST	0.465 3	0.523 1	0.257 0	6.685 8	2.257 5	0.290 2	0.310 3
	Proposed	0.475 7	0.535 6	0.268 9	6.735 9	2.470 7	0.317 7	0.362 6
Infrared intensity-polarization	DWT	0.385 3	0.420 6	0.167 6	6.478 2	2.266 4	0.347 6	0.219 6
	DTCWT	0.394 4	0.458 5	0.208 9	6.570 7	2.341 5	0.468 4	0.243 7
	SWT	0.387 5	0.439 1	0.193 1	6.473 0	2.342 9	0.330 8	0.230 0
	WPT	0.346 9	0.343 9	0.119 8	6.405 2	2.291 7	0.443 7	0.197 2
	NSCT	0.413 3	0.467 5	0.197 7	6.564 6	2.391 7	0.458 5	0.257 4
	NSST	0.413 8	0.464 1	0.199 5	6.574 0	2.389 8	0.459 7	0.259 2
	Proposed	0.413 4	0.469 0	0.201 3	6.658 0	2.624 1	0.547 8	0.313 7

Table 4. Average processing time (unit: sec.) comparison of eight methods. Each value represents the average run time of a frame in a certain sequence.

View table

View in Article

Table 4. Average processing time (unit: sec.) comparison of eight methods. Each value represents the average run time of a frame in a certain sequence.

Image sequences	DWT	DTCWT	SWT	WPT	NSCT	NSST	Proposed
Nato_camp	0.018 0	0.036 2	0.064 7	0.140 1	24.517 3	2.307 2	0.141 9
Tree	0.016 5	0.035 7	0.064 3	0.139 8	24.821 5	2.292 3	0.141 1
Duine	0.017 1	0.036 1	0.064 1	0.140 6	24.584 1	2.288 1	0.141 2

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Zhi-Jian LI, Feng-Bao YANG, Yu-Bin GAO, Lin-Na JI, Peng HU. Fusion method for infrared and other-type images based on the multi-scale Gaussian filtering and morphological transform[J]. Journal of Infrared and Millimeter Waves, 2020, 39(6): 810

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Image Processing and Software Simulation

Received: Jan. 7, 2020

Accepted: --

Published Online: Jan. 20, 2021

The Author Email: Feng-Bao YANG (yfengb@163.com)

DOI:10.11972/j.issn.1001-9014.2020.06.021

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. The parameters set in the compared methods. ‘Filter’ represents the Orientation filter; ‘Levels’ denotes the decomposition levels and the corresponding number of orientations for each level.

Table 1. The parameters set in the compared methods. ‘Filter’ represents the Orientation filter; ‘Levels’ denotes the decomposition levels and the corresponding number of orientations for each level.

Table 2. The parameters of the proposed method for the four kinds of source images.

Table 2. The parameters of the proposed method for the four kinds of source images.

Table 3. Objective assessment of all methods (the best result of each metric is highlighted in bold).

Table 3. Objective assessment of all methods (the best result of each metric is highlighted in bold).

Table 4. Average processing time (unit: sec.) comparison of eight methods. Each value represents the average run time of a frame in a certain sequence.

Table 4. Average processing time (unit: sec.) comparison of eight methods. Each value represents the average run time of a frame in a certain sequence.