Author Affiliations
School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Physical model of atmospheric scattering
Fig. 2. MSDN model diagram
Fig. 3. Comparison of activation functions. (a) ReLU activation function; (b) PReLU activation function
Fig. 4. Algorithmic steps in this paper
Fig. 5. Training data set. (a) Indoor data set ITS; (b) outdoor data set OTS
Fig. 6. Experimental results of synthesizing hazy images. (a) Hazy image; (b) standard haze-free image; (c) method in Ref. [7]; (d) method in Ref. [11]; (e) method in Ref. [12]; (f) method in Ref. [13]; (g) method in Ref. [14]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 7. Experimental results of real outdoor hazy images. (a) Hazy images; (b) method in Ref.[7]; (c) method in Ref.[11]; (d) method in Ref.[12]; (e) method in Ref.[13]; (f) method in Ref.[14]; (e) proposed method
Type | Conv |
---|
Filter size | 3×3 | 5×5 | 7×7 | Filter number | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pad | 0 | 0 | 0 | Stride | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
Table 1. Parameter table of multi-scale feature extraction kernel
ImageNo. | Method in Ref.[7] | Method in Ref.[11] | Method in Ref.[12] | Method in Ref.[13] | Method in Ref.[14] | Proposed method | | | | | |
---|
PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | PSNR /dB | | | | | SSIM /% | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% |
---|
1 | 23.5357 | 85.26 | 17.5424 | 59.51 | 20.1796 | 72.37 | 26.1247 | 85.33 | 22.9888 | 79.48 | 28.8218 | 86.41 | 2 | 19.3044 | 80.04 | 17.7552 | 72.36 | 21.6655 | 84.07 | 22.1977 | 88.70 | 20.7442 | 87.39 | 23.6027 | 91.66 | 3 | 17.8051 | 79.60 | 16.9521 | 72.87 | 20.3959 | 81.23 | 22.7414 | 89.35 | 19.0486 | 84.07 | 26.0691 | 89.73 | 4 | 20.1277 | 82.78 | 19.0534 | 79.38 | 21.5623 | 84.42 | 21.8444 | 86.42 | 19.4202 | 81.68 | 24.3402 | 91.60 | 5 | 20.2825 | 81.85 | 21.1444 | 82.85 | 17.8848 | 79.29 | 27.6081 | 93.54 | 25.4410 | 90.61 | 29.1285 | 94.78 |
|
Table 2. Analysis of experimental data of synthetic hazy images
ImageNo. | Method in Ref.[7] | Method in Ref.[11] | Method in Ref.[12] | Method in Ref.[13] | Method in Ref.[14] | Proposed method | | | | | |
---|
IE | AG | IE | AG | IE | | | | | AG | IE | AG | IE | AG | IE | AG |
---|
1 | 7.0555 | 14.64 | 7.0652 | 18.34 | 7.3984 | 18.52 | 7.2445 | 17.22 | 7.4048 | 20.26 | 7.6821 | 23.32 | 2 | 7.5155 | 14.68 | 7.3049 | 17.04 | 7.8192 | 18.83 | 7.4186 | 13.93 | 7.6656 | 17.02 | 7.9266 | 18.99 | 3 | 7.3427 | 8.48 | 7.4737 | 10.89 | 7.8771 | 11.78 | 7.7043 | 8.62 | 7.6120 | 9.21 | 7.8935 | 12.08 | 4 | 7.5688 | 9.18 | 7.4250 | 11.93 | 7.8515 | 13.23 | 7.7608 | 9.62 | 7.7786 | 10.57 | 7.9815 | 14.31 | 5 | 7.2538 | 14.91 | 7.7213 | 18.17 | 7.3410 | 17.93 | 7.1746 | 10.43 | 7.3776 | 13.62 | 7.8690 | 19.41 | 6 | 7.1667 | 8.92 | 7.8371 | 10.40 | 7.7168 | 10.18 | 7.0263 | 7.85 | 7.2862 | 8.76 | 7.8937 | 10.47 | 7 | 7.2625 | 10.94 | 7.1136 | 12.96 | 7.6834 | 13.71 | 7.3200 | 8.67 | 7.5189 | 9.59 | 7.7274 | 14.06 | 8 | 6.2721 | 5.88 | 7.1459 | 7.32 | 7.3561 | 7.55 | 6.8363 | 5.97 | 6.9818 | 6.39 | 7.4534 | 7.57 |
|
Table 3. Analysis of experimental data of outdoor hazy images
Method | Experiment |
---|
Indoor | Outdoot |
---|
Method in Ref.[7] | 6.87 | 6.89 | Method in Ref.[11] | 3.41 | 3.65 | Method in Ref.[12] | 1.96 | 2.08 | Method in Ref.[13] | 1.21 | 1.26 | Method in Ref.[14] | 1.58 | 1.92 | Proposed method | 1.09 | 1.18 |
|
Table 4. Running time of different algorithms for experimental imagess