Fig. 1. The flowchart of ISPM
Fig. 2. The flowchart of proposed PAN-ISPM
Fig. 3. (a) False color image of Washington DC (bands 65, 52, and 36 for red, green, and blue, respectively). (b) Coarse image (). (c) Panchromatic image. (d) Pansharpening result.
Fig. 4. (a) Reference image, (b) BI, (c) BIC, (d) SS-BI, (e) HIPP, (f) PAN-ISPM
Fig. 5. (a) PCC (%) of the five methods in relation to zoom factor , (b) Kappa of the five methods in relation to zoom factor .
Fig. 6. (a) False color image of Rome (bands 150, 10, and 24 for red, green, and blue, respectively), (b) Panchromatic image, (c) Pansharpening result.
Fig. 7. (a) Reference image, (b) BI, (c) BIC, (d) SS-BI, (e) HIPP, (f) PAN-ISPM
Fig. 8. PCC (%) of the two experiments in relation to weight parameter .
Fig. 9. Computing time of the five ISPM methods in the two experiments
Fig. 10. PCC (%) of PAN-ISPM result in relation to BDSD and PCA in the two experiments
Class | BI | BIC | SS-BI | HIPP | PAN-ISPM |
---|
Shadow | 73.44% | 75.03% | 81.62% | 82.83% | 86.28% | Water | 85.56% | 88.97% | 94.45% | 94.73% | 95.03% | Road | 70.55% | 72.74% | 76.29% | 79.10% | 81.16% | Tree | 72.45% | 75.45% | 76.61% | 78.64% | 79.14% | Grass | 74.70% | 78.60% | 82.74% | 83.93% | 86.60% | Roof | 70.67% | 72.98% | 77.18% | 78.56% | 80.02% | Trail | 73.88% | 75.58% | 79.08% | 82.53% | 84.01% | PCC | 76.82% | 77.47% | 80.72% | 81.54% | 87.18% | Kappa | 0.7356 | 0.7429 | 0.7772 | 0.8055 | 0.8426 |
|
Table 1. Accuracy evaluation of the five methods.
Class | BI | BIC | SS-BI | HIPP | PAN-ISPM |
---|
Vegetation | 60.08% | 61.96% | 66.56% | 74.50% | 75.93% | Soil | 60.22% | 61.43% | 64.93% | 65.80% | 71.78% | Built-up | 81.32% | 82.42% | 83.97% | 84.99% | 87.09% | Water | 37.18% | 44.10% | 49.49% | 54.36% | 61.03% | PCC | 70.62% | 72.06% | 74.89% | 77.55% | 80.03% | Kappa | 0.587 7 | 0.598 5 | 0.616 4 | 0.639 9 | 0.673 6 |
|
Table 2. Accuracy evaluation of the five methods.