Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 57, Issue 6, 061006(2020)
Underwater Polarization Image Fusion Based on NSST and Adaptive SPCNN
Figures & Tables(12)
Fig. 4. Diagrams of collecting underwater polarization images. (a) Principle block diagram; (b) scene diagram
Fig. 5. Polarization characteristic images of different objects. (a) I images; (b) Q images; (c) U images; (d) G images; (e) D images
Fig. 6. Objective evaluation results of different decomposition layers in fusion based on NSST
Fig. 7. Fused images of various algorithms in four sets of experiments. (a) Method 1; (b) method 2; (c) method 3; (d) method 4; (e) method 5; (f) method 6;(g) method 7; (h) method 8; (i) method 9; (j) method 10; (k) method 11; (l) proposed method
Table 1. Objective evaluation results of different pyramid filters in fusion based on NSST
View tableTable 1. Objective evaluation results of different pyramid filters in fusion based on NSST
Evaluation index NSP Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 SD ‘9-7’ 71.7938 53.1231 29.0225 66.9654 ‘maxflat’ 71.8146 53.1387 29.0338 66.9632 ‘pyr’ 71.8254 53.1452 29.0427 66.9846 ‘pyrexc’ 71.8362 53.1464 29.0425 66.9828 EN ‘9-7’ 7.2876 7.1927 6.6413 7.8472 ‘maxflat’ 7.2989 7.1942 6.6427 7.8501 ‘pyr’ 7.3034 7.1051 6.6453 7.8526 ‘pyrexc’ 7.3065 7.1053 6.6484 7.8523 Qabf ‘9-7’ 0.6853 0.7615 0.7516 0.5803 ‘maxflat’ 0.6726 0.7643 0.7527 0.5812 ‘pyr’ 0.6878 0.7679 0.7531 0.5849 ‘pyrexc’ 0.6876 0.7682 0.7548 0.5846 MI ‘9-7’ 4.1395 4.0072 0.5815 4.2157 ‘maxflat’ 4.1428 4.0096 0.5826 4.2213 ‘pyr’ 4.1463 4.0117 0.5843 4.2391 ‘pyrexc’ 4.1478 4.0128 0.5846 4.2387
Table 2. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the first group of experiments
View tableTable 2. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the first group of experiments
Evaluation index Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6 SD 56.6778 44.3967 61.1142 45.0537 44.2578 57.4242 EN 6.7723 6.2663 6.8461 6.7132 6.3059 7.3089 Qabf 0.5202 0.3804 0.5115 0.1963 0.3671 0.4375 MI 3.3614 3.2694 3.4411 2.1876 3.5395 3.7182 Evaluation index Method 7 Method 8 Method 9 Method 10 Method 11 Proposed method SD 71.0913 57.8436 52.8640 72.6199 60.6569 71.8362 EN 6.8551 6.8714 6.9262 6.3219 6.4077 7.3065 Qabf 0.6160 0.5863 0.3488 0.5945 0.6720 0.6876 MI 3.6226 3.1841 3.2632 2.8624 4.0556 4.1478
Table 3. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the second group of experiments
View tableTable 3. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the second group of experiments
Evaluation index Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6 SD 40.1386 28.9578 50.9480 29.8781 28.8215 48.4425 EN 6.6281 6.1723 6.7663 6.4704 6.1589 7.1111 Qabf 0.6534 0.4433 0.6009 0.1836 0.4233 0.5153 MI 3.1491 3.1427 3.2822 1.6791 3.7706 2.8008 Evaluation index Method 7 Method 8 Method 9 Method 10 Method 11 Proposed method SD 39.5314 39.5314 39.9533 51.6194 43.2425 53.1464 EN 6.7439 6.7439 6.6291 5.9156 6.7210 7.1053 Qabf 0.7271 0.7271 0.7438 0.5964 0.7248 0.7682 MI 3.5081 3.1834 3.4180 2.6834 3.7238 4.0128
Table 4. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the third group of experiments
View tableTable 4. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the third group of experiments
Evaluation index Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6 SD 24.6030 15.8382 27.7079 19.9809 15.7362 28.4300 EN 5.9118 5.3973 6.1907 5.7575 5.4024 6.4786 Qabf 0.7552 0.3946 0.7525 0.4961 0.3708 0.3936 MI 1.6614 3.3193 2.1569 1.4321 3.3528 3.5814 Evaluation index Method 7 Method 8 Method 9 Method 10 Method 11 Proposed method SD 25.6820 21.8504 24.4234 28.1476 26.8165 29.0425 EN 5.9289 5.7622 5.9289 6.0147 5.7960 6.6484 Qabf 0.7664 0.7017 0.7491 0.6860 0.6930 0.7548 MI 1.8397 2.3353 1.6062 2.0746 3.5282 4.1863
Table 5. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the fourth group of experiments
View tableTable 5. Evaluation index values of the fused images by various algorithms in the fourth group of experiments
Evaluation index Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6 SD 47.4696 37.8272 66.4415 39.1870 37.7084 51.4002 EN 7.2589 6.8949 7.6891 7.0276 6.9039 7.5925 Qabf 0.4720 0.3749 0.4455 0.2700 0.3707 0.3161 MI 2.8271 3.8016 3.3755 2.8460 3.8673 2.0153 Evaluation index Method 7 Method 8 Method 9 Method 10 Method 11 Proposed method SD 51.4296 46.4801 45.9618 65.3107 63.6552 66.9828 EN 7.4264 7.2903 7.2644 7.6795 6.9369 7.8523 Qabf 0.4537 0.4673 0.4369 0.5242 0.3981 0.5846 MI 3.0410 3.0871 2.5922 3.2463 3.9800 4.2387
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Jinqiang Yu, Jin Duan, Weimin Chen, Suxin Mo, Yingchao Li, Yu Chen. Underwater Polarization Image Fusion Based on NSST and Adaptive SPCNN[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(6): 061006
Paper Information
Category: Image Processing
Received: Jul. 4, 2019
Accepted: Aug. 28, 2019
Published Online: Mar. 6, 2020
The Author Email: Jin Duan (duanjin@vip.sina.com)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20