Fig. 1. Simulated turbid underwater multiple aperture imaging experiment scene.

Fig. 2. Comparison of simulated turbid underwater target image recovery results. Up panel: Doll image recovery results. Down panel: Metal coin image recovery results. (a1), (a2) The polarization degree distribution and background scattering estimated by the fitting method; (b1), (b2) refocusing estimation of polarization degree distribution and background scattering; (c1), (c2) horizontally polarized image; (d1), (d2) vertically polarized images; (e1), (e2) image restoration by fitting method; (f1), (f2) image recovery from reference perspective; (g1), (g2) multi-perspective fusion to restore the image.

Fig. 3. Comparison of simulated different turbid concentrations underwater target image recovery results. Up panel: Doll image recovery results. Down panel: Metal coin image recovery results. (a1), (a2) Images in clear water; (b1), (b2) the restoration image corresponding to concentration 1; (c1), (c2) the restoration image corresponding to concentration 2; (d1), (d2) the restoration image corresponding to concentration 3; (e1), (e2) the restoration image corresponding to concentration 4.

Fig. 4. Comparison of simulated underwater target image recovery results with different sediment concentrations. Up panel: Doll image recovery results. Down panel: Metal coin image recovery results. (a1), (a2) Image of clear water; (b1), (b2) the restoration image corresponding to sediment concentration 1; (c1), (c2) the restoration image corresponding to sediment concentration 2; (d1), (d2) the restoration image corresponding to sediment concentration 3.

Table 1. Quantitative comparison of experiment 1 results.

Table 2. Quantitative comparison of experiment 2 results.

Table 3. Quantitative comparison of experiment 3 results.