De-Hazing and Enhancement Methods for Underwater and Low-Light Images

Fig. 3. Comparison of de-hazing results of underwater images under different methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [9]; (c) method in Ref. [10]; (d) our method

Download full size

Fig. 4. Comparison of de-hazing results of non-underwater images under different methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [14]; (c) method in Ref. [15]; (d) our method

Download full size

Fig. 5. Comparison of underwater images under different methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [11]; (c) method in Ref. [12]; (d) our method

Download full size

Fig. 6. Comparison of non-underwater images under different methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [13]; (c) method in Ref. [16]; (d) our method

Download full size

Fig. 7. Comparison of underwater images under different underwater image enhancement methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [7]; (c) method in Ref. [8]; (d) method in Ref. [11]; (e) method in Ref. [12]; (f) our method

Download full size

Fig. 8. Comparison of non-underwater images under different non-underwater low-light image enhancement methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [16]; (c) method in Ref. [17]; (d) method in Ref. [19]; (e) method in Ref. [20]; (f) our method

Download full size

Table 1. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 3
View table
Table 1. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 3
Figure Method in Ref. [9] Method in Ref. [10] Our method
Fig.3(a) 36.45 37.53 39.68
Fig.3(b) 38.63 39.29 41.37
Fig.3(c) 36.62 37.15 40.14

Table 2. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 4
View table
Table 2. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 4
Figure Method in Ref. [14] Method in Ref. [15] Our method
Fig.4(a) 37.25 38.32 41.24
Fig.4(b) 37.93 39.14 41.36
Fig.4(c) 37.85 38.53 40.17

Table 3. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for underwater images

View table

Table 3. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for underwater images

Image	Method	Entropy	AVG
Image 1	In Ref. [11]	7.4215	0.1178
	In Ref. [12]	7.6126	0.1258
	Ours	7.7829	0.1324
Image 2	In Ref. [11]	7.3853	0.1097
	In Ref. [12]	7.4635	0.1175
	Ours	7.5397	0.1253
Image 3	In Ref. [11]	7.3757	0.1138
	In Ref. [12]	7.5461	0.1248
	Ours	7.6283	0.1309
Image 4	In Ref. [11]	7.4106	0.1135
	In Ref. [12]	7.4913	0.1268
	Ours	7.5372	0.1325

Table 4. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for non-underwater underexposure images

View table

Table 4. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for non-underwater underexposure images

Image	Method	Entropy	AVG
Image 1	In Ref. [13]	7.2573	0.1179
	In Ref. [14]	7.3896	0.1342
	Ours	7.5146	0.1435
Image 2	In Ref. [13]	7.3714	0.1283
	In Ref. [14]	7.5243	0.1311
	Ours	7.7132	0.1452
Image 3	In Ref. [13]	7.3298	0.1172
	In Ref. [14]	7.4762	0.1283
	Ours	7.5631	0.1375
Image 4	In Ref. [13]	7.3682	0.1157
	In Ref. [14]	7.5241	0.1312
	Ours	7.6849	0.1421

Table 5. Quantitative evaluation of underwater image enhancement methods based on UIQM

View table

Table 5. Quantitative evaluation of underwater image enhancement methods based on UIQM

Image source	Image	Method in Ref. [7]	Method in Ref. [8]	Method in Ref. [9]	Method in Ref. [10]	Method in Ref. [11]	Method in Ref. [12]	Our method
9 under water images in the experiment	P1	4.21	4.28	4.35	4.27	4.30	4.29	4.42
	P2	4.19	4.36	4.38	4.29	4.31	4.22	4.37
	P3	4.38	4.29	4.41	4.37	4.42	4.39	4.48
	P4	4.32	4.35	4.37	4.40	4.39	4.45	4.50
	P5	4.34	4.38	4.37	4.41	4.40	4.43	4.51
	P6	4.42	4.37	4.46	4.51	4.48	4.53	4.61
	P7	4.28	4.35	4.32	4.41	4.46	4.39	4.53
	P8	5.14	5.23	5.27	4.97	5.19	5.06	5.12
	P9	4.83	4.87	5.02	5.10	4.95	5.03	5.13
	Mean	4.49	4.51	4.55	4.5	4.59	4.57	4.66
Group in 300 under water images	G1	4.43	4.52	4.61	4.54	4.63	4.60	4.75
	G2	4.51	4.64	4.73	4.67	4.83	4.71	4.79
	G3	4.57	4.75	4.79	4.62	4.76	5.02	5.14
	Mean	4.53	4.64	4.71	4.61	4.74	4.78	4.89

Table 6. Quantitative evaluation based on LOE for 12 non-underwater underexposure images

View table

Table 6. Quantitative evaluation based on LOE for 12 non-underwater underexposure images

Image	Method in Ref. [14]	Method in Ref. [15]	Method in Ref. [16]	Method in Ref. [17]	Method in Ref. [19]	Method in Ref. [20]	Our method
S1	120.2	117.5	108.9	114.2	106.7	110.6	103.8
S2	145.1	132.8	127.4	132.9	124.3	131.5	126.3
S3	137.6	134.5	131.6	142.3	130.7	131.2	122.3
S4	148.2	142.5	137.8	139.4	132.7	140.3	115.8
S5	157.4	136.5	137.2	231.4	146.8	192.7	134.2
S6	168.0	157.6	181.5	235.4	217.3	225.1	113.7
S7	159.3	147.5	138.4	207.1	172.6	203.7	125.2
S8	173.2	158.7	136.5	183.4	125.8	141.2	87.9
S9	148.6	124.3	145.7	189.5	135.6	162.5	113.2
S10	112.5	103.8	137.6	216.9	152.1	161.5	117.4
S11	183.7	156.4	142.9	163.5	132.7	155.3	126.5
S12	107.4	98.5	126.8	143.7	121.9	135.1	105.2
Mean	146.5	133.5	137.7	155.6	140.9	156.9	115.8

Table 7. Comparison of SSIM, PSNR and LOE of 400 images in non-underwater underexposure image dataset

View table

Table 7. Comparison of SSIM, PSNR and LOE of 400 images in non-underwater underexposure image dataset

Image	Method in Ref. [14]	Method in Ref. [15]	Method in Ref. [16]	Method in Ref. [17]	Method in Ref. [19]	Method in Ref. [20]	Our method
SSIM	0.735	0.756	0.747	0.658	0.759	0.671	0.786
PSNR	14.9	15.3	16.7	14.8	16.9	15.2	17.1
LOE	187.3	176.5	168.4	182.6	173.2	179.4	158.3

Table 8. Comparison of running time for underwater images

View table

Table 8. Comparison of running time for underwater images

Size /(pixel×pixel)	Method in Ref. [7]	Method in Ref. [8]	Method in Ref. [9]	Method in Ref. [10]	Method in Ref. [11]	Method in Ref. [12]	Our method
250×200	0.92	1.08	1.35	0.85	1.23	0.97	0.72
500×400	2.17	1.92	2.48	2.77	2.95	1.76	1.82
1000×800	3.78	3.57	5.25	6.37	5.94	4.39	3.25

Table 9. Comparison of running time for non-underwater underexposure images

View table

Table 9. Comparison of running time for non-underwater underexposure images

Size/(pixel×pixel)	Method in Ref. [14]	Method in Ref. [15]	Method in Ref. [16]	Method in Ref. [17]	Method in Ref. [19]	Method in Ref. [20]	Our method
250×200	0.73	0.64	0.62	0.75	1.32	0.87	0.58
500×400	1.52	1.49	1.31	1.54	2.16	1.78	1.27
1000×800	2.83	2.95	1.87	2.16	3.02	2.28	1.97

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Ke Liu, Xujian Li. De-Hazing and Enhancement Methods for Underwater and Low-Light Images[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2020, 40(19): 1910003

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Image Processing

Received: Apr. 27, 2020

Accepted: Jun. 23, 2020

Published Online: Oct. 20, 2020

The Author Email: Liu Ke (xjlee@163.com), Li Xujian (xjlee@163.com)

DOI:10.3788/AOS202040.1910003

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 3

Table 1. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 3

Table 2. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 4

Table 2. Signal to noise ratio for Fig. 4

Table 3. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for underwater images

Table 3. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for underwater images

Table 4. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for non-underwater underexposure images

Table 4. Comparison of entropy and gradient average value for non-underwater underexposure images

Table 5. Quantitative evaluation of underwater image enhancement methods based on UIQM

Table 5. Quantitative evaluation of underwater image enhancement methods based on UIQM

Table 6. Quantitative evaluation based on LOE for 12 non-underwater underexposure images

Table 6. Quantitative evaluation based on LOE for 12 non-underwater underexposure images

Table 7. Comparison of SSIM, PSNR and LOE of 400 images in non-underwater underexposure image dataset

Table 7. Comparison of SSIM, PSNR and LOE of 400 images in non-underwater underexposure image dataset

Table 8. Comparison of running time for underwater images

Table 8. Comparison of running time for underwater images

Table 9. Comparison of running time for non-underwater underexposure images

Table 9. Comparison of running time for non-underwater underexposure images