Author Affiliations
School of Information Science and Technology, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, Liaoning 116026, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Scene 1 and its histogram. (a) Scene 1; (b) histogram
Fig. 2. Enhancement of scene 1 using typical algorithms. (a) Double plateaus histogram equalization; (b) histogram double equalization; (c) UM; (d) Retinex
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed algorithm
Fig. 4. Histogram of scene 1 and histogram of its gradient magnitude. (a) Scene 1; (b) histogram; (c) gradient magnitude; (d) histogram of gradient magnitude
Fig. 5. Enhanced results for scene 1 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Fig. 6. Enhanced results for scene 2 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Fig. 7. Enhanced results for scene 3 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Fig. 8. Enhanced results for scene 4 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Fig. 9. Enhanced results for scene 5 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Fig. 10. Enhanced results for scene 6 by each algorithm. (a) Original image; (b) algorithm of Ref. [2]; (c) algorithm of Ref. [3]; (d) algorithm of Ref. [16]; (e) Retinex algorithm; (f) proposed algorithm
Algorithm | Scene 1 | Scene 2 | Scene 3 | Scene 4 | Scene 5 | Scene 6 |
---|
Original image | 18.24 | 11.28 | 16.95 | 29.65 | 36.35 | 10.44 | Algorithm of Ref. [2] | 38.33 | 33.21 | 37.45 | 43.72 | 36.87 | 14.58 | Algorithm of Ref. [3] | 74.00 | 68.58 | 67.87 | 69.97 | 79.99 | 61.80 | Algorithm of Ref. [16] | 36.80 | 26.95 | 36.50 | 31.79 | 26.33 | 24.87 | Retinex algorithm | 10.28 | 16.94 | 16.25 | 19.44 | 30.22 | 11.21 | Proposed algorithm | 12.36 | 9.85 | 10.57 | 24.61 | 12.69 | 21.21 |
|
Table 1. Comparison of standard derivation of each algorithm result
Algorithm | Scene 1 | Scene 2 | Scene 3 | Scene 4 | Scene 5 | Scene 6 |
---|
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Region | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Region | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ |
---|
Original image | 1.88 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 1.55 | 1.10 | 0.41 | 3.39 | 3.69 | Algorithm of Ref. [2] | 3.74 | 1.00 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.42 | 2.84 | 1.71 | 0.39 | 3.42 | 3.65 | Algorithm of Ref. [3] | 3.27 | 1.03 | 1.40 | 2.51 | 2.69 | 5.55 | 38.85 | 1.11 | 6.59 | 5.56 | Algorithm of Ref. [16] | 1.41 | 0.77 | 1.14 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.74 | 1.91 | 0.73 | 5.77 | 6.09 | Retinex algorithm | 3.23 | 1.17 | 3.29 | 2.59 | 2.99 | 1.81 | 9.21 | 1.27 | 10.08 | 10.58 | Proposed algorithm | 1.76 | 1.07 | 2.49 | 2.31 | 2.58 | 5.30 | 1.86 | 2.23 | 6.58 | 7.85 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of target region’s EME of each algorithm result
Algorithm | Scene 1 | Scene 2 | Scene 3 | Scene 4 | Scene 5 | Scene 6 |
---|
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Region | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Region | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | | Ⅰ | Ⅱ |
---|
Original image | 4.28 | 3.84 | 4.30 | 4.96 | 5.44 | 5.82 | 3.67 | 5.45 | 5.07 | 5.94 | Algorithm of Ref. [2] | 4.28 | 3.73 | 4.16 | 4.89 | 5.33 | 5.73 | 3.61 | 5.40 | 5.05 | 5.89 | Algorithm of Ref. [3] | 3.74 | 2.84 | 3.00 | 4.25 | 4.30 | 4.92 | 3.12 | 4.29 | 4.15 | 4.09 | Algorithm of Ref. [16] | 3.64 | 3.97 | 4.19 | 4.33 | 4.88 | 5.16 | 4.77 | 6.00 | 6.18 | 6.63 | Retinex algorithm | 3.78 | 2.79 | 3.20 | 2.85 | 3.22 | 3.83 | 3.56 | 3.56 | 4.97 | 5.52 | Proposed algorithm | 3.07 | 3.20 | 4.88 | 4.71 | 5.48 | 6.38 | 4.60 | 5.75 | 6.17 | 7.06 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of target region’s entropy of each algorithm result