Multi-Image Stitching of Activated Sludge Microscopic Image Based on the Floyd Algorithm

lijie Zhao; Guishuo Zhang; Shida Zou; Guogang Wang; Wenyu Fan; Yuhong Zhang; Mingzhong Huang

doi:10.3788/LOP202259.2210005

Journals >Laser & Optoelectronics Progress >Volume 59 >Issue 22 >Page 2210005 > Article

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
Vol. 59, Issue 22, 2210005 (2022)

Multi-Image Stitching of Activated Sludge Microscopic Image Based on the Floyd Algorithm

lijie Zhao¹, Guishuo Zhang¹, Shida Zou¹, Guogang Wang¹, Wenyu Fan², Yuhong Zhang², and Mingzhong Huang^1、*

Author Affiliations

¹College of Information Engineering, Shenyang University of Chemical Technology, Shenyang 110142, Liaoning , China

²College of Environmental Engineering, Shenyang University of Chemical Technology, Shenyang 110142, Liaoning , China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/LOP202259.2210005 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

lijie Zhao, Guishuo Zhang, Shida Zou, Guogang Wang, Wenyu Fan, Yuhong Zhang, Mingzhong Huang. Multi-Image Stitching of Activated Sludge Microscopic Image Based on the Floyd Algorithm[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(22): 2210005 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Image stitching strategy diagram

Download full size

Mosaic of 36 activated sludge microscopic images. (a) 36 microscopic images of disordered activated sludge; (b) splicing result of proposed method ; (c) splicing result of Autostich method

Fig. 2. Mosaic of 36 activated sludge microscopic images. (a) 36 microscopic images of disordered activated sludge; (b) splicing result of proposed method ; (c) splicing result of Autostich method

Download full size

Fig. 3. Microscopic image stitching results of 42 activated sludge. (a) Microscopic images of activated sludge; （b） grouped mosaic 1；（c） grouped mosaic 2；（d） stitching result of Autostich method

Download full size

	16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap			16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap
No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich	No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich
1	0.9653	0.6356	0.9661	0.7408	11	0.9621	0.5567	0.9631	0.7531
2	0.9653	0.6322	0.9655	0.8883	12	0.9637	0.6584	0.9644	0.7651
3	0.9694	0.5502	0.9698	0.7588	13	False	False	0.9611	0.8712
4	0.9631	False	0.9638	0.6788	14	0.9716	0.6577	0.9734	0.9472
5	0.9702	0.5871	0.9707	0.5949	15	0.9695	0.7129	0.9702	0.9476
6	0.9653	0.6356	0.9661	0.7408	16	0.9694	0.7098	0.9707	0.9318
7	0.9648	0.4988	0.9654	0.5167	17	0.9741	0.6038	0.9745	0.8430
8	0.9621	0.6405	0.9630	0.9065	18	0.9736	False	0.9751	0.6574
9	0.9614	0.8460	0.9620	0.8729	19	0.9838	0.7253	0.9841	0.7927
10	0.9618	0.7312	0.9621	0.8398	20	0.9828	0.8799	0.9836	0.8823

Table 1. MS-SSIM indicator comparison

	16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap			16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap
No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich	No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich
1	0.9994	0.9071	0.9994	0.9616	11	0.9992	0.8932	0.9992	0.9737
2	0.9992	0.9662	0.9992	0.9953	12	0.9992	0.9700	0.9992	0.9850
3	0.9991	0.9592	0.9991	0.9870	13	False	False	0.9992	0.9945
4	0.9993	False	0.9993	0.9544	14	0.9995	0.9488	0.9995	0.9980
5	0.9992	0.9584	0.9992	0.9349	15	0.9994	0.9750	0.9995	0.9981
6	0.9994	0.9071	0.9994	0.9616	16	0.9995	0.9752	0.9995	0.9975
7	0.9991	0.9146	0.9992	0.9290	17	0.9995	0.9357	0.9996	0.9908
8	0.9991	0.9526	0.9992	0.9957	18	0.9995	False	0.9996	0.9544
9	0.9992	0.9919	0.9992	0.9886	19	0.9996	0.9420	0.9996	0.9675
10	0.9991	0.9689	0.9991	0.9880	20	0.9996	0.9877	0.9996	0.9879

Table 2. VSI indicator comparison

	16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap			16.55% overlap		41.4% overlap
No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich	No.	Proposed method	Autostich	Proposed method	Autostich
1	14.32	5.55	20.97	12.90	11	14.23	5.15	23.16	11.03
2	21.62	7.08	35.16	13.46	12	19.45	7.18	34.15	13.26
3	23.92	7.90	41.02	15.67	13	False	False	30.69	13.17
4	12.38	False	19.89	12.51	14	14.83	5.03	24.53	12.36
5	19.06	6.99	31.65	13.89	15	15.12	5.50	24.86	12.57
6	11.58	4.95	18.35	11.79	16	14.59	5.41	24.22	13.46
7	18.78	6.88	32.93	13.94	17	13.49	5.21	21.97	11.20
8	14.88	5.76	23.69	12.20	18	13.15	False	21.16	12.04
9	16.04	5.99	26.00	13.32	19	11.96	5.11	18.53	10.82
10	15.93	5.89	26.99	12.03	20	11.53	5.10	18.64	10.17

Table 3. Running time comparison

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information