Fig. 1. Example of four-level decomposition by multi-scale Gaussian filtering
Fig. 2. [in Chinese]
Fig. 3. [in Chinese]
Fig. 4. The two kinds of source images (a) infrared-visible images, (b) infrared intensity-polarization images
Fig. 5. [in Chinese]
Fig. 6. Fusion results of one pair of the infrared-visible images (a) infrared image, (b) visible image, (c)-(i) the fusion results of the DWT, DTCWT, SWT, WPT, NSCT, NSST, and the proposed methods.
Fig. 7. Fusion results of one pair of the infrared intensity-polarization images (a) Infrared intensity image, (b) Infrared polarization image, (c)-(i) the fusion results of the DWT, DTCWT, SWT, WPT, NSCT, NSST, and the proposed methods.
Methods | Pyramid filter | Filter | Levels |
---|
DWT | rbio1.3 | | 3 | DTCWT | 5-7 | q-6 | 3 | SWT | bior1.3 | | 3 | WPT | bior1.3 | | 3 | NSCT | maxflat | dmaxflat5 | 4,8,16 | NSST | maxflat | | 4,8,16 |
|
Table 1. The parameters set in the compared methods. ‘Filter’ represents the Orientation filter; ‘Levels’ denotes the decomposition levels and the corresponding number of orientations for each level.
Source images | Parameters |
---|
| k | [K, M, N1, N2, N3] |
---|
Infrared-visible | 0.6 | 1.4 | [3,2,0,1,2] | Infrared intensity-polarization | 0.6 | 1.1 | [3,2,1,1,2] |
|
Table 2. The parameters of the proposed method for the four kinds of source images.
Images | Methods | Q0 | QAB/F | QE | IE | MI | TC | VIF |
---|
Infrared-visible | DWT | 0.439 1 | 0.485 8 | 0.226 8 | 6.660 1 | 2.165 8 | 0.258 8 | 0.293 6 | DTCWT | 0.444 6 | 0.517 3 | 0.257 9 | 6.683 0 | 2.223 5 | 0.293 7 | 0.294 9 | SWT | 0.445 2 | 0.509 7 | 0.245 7 | 6.615 5 | 2.187 2 | 0.220 3 | 0.278 4 | WPT | 0.407 9 | 0.395 2 | 0.161 4 | 6.638 5 | 2.194 9 | 0.274 5 | 0.273 8 | NSCT | 0.466 9 | 0.528 1 | 0.259 5 | 6.696 1 | 2.263 3 | 0.294 0 | 0.314 5 | NSST | 0.465 3 | 0.523 1 | 0.257 0 | 6.685 8 | 2.257 5 | 0.290 2 | 0.310 3 | Proposed | 0.475 7 | 0.535 6 | 0.268 9 | 6.735 9 | 2.470 7 | 0.317 7 | 0.362 6 | Infrared intensity-polarization | DWT | 0.385 3 | 0.420 6 | 0.167 6 | 6.478 2 | 2.266 4 | 0.347 6 | 0.219 6 | DTCWT | 0.394 4 | 0.458 5 | 0.208 9 | 6.570 7 | 2.341 5 | 0.468 4 | 0.243 7 | SWT | 0.387 5 | 0.439 1 | 0.193 1 | 6.473 0 | 2.342 9 | 0.330 8 | 0.230 0 | WPT | 0.346 9 | 0.343 9 | 0.119 8 | 6.405 2 | 2.291 7 | 0.443 7 | 0.197 2 | NSCT | 0.413 3 | 0.467 5 | 0.197 7 | 6.564 6 | 2.391 7 | 0.458 5 | 0.257 4 | NSST | 0.413 8 | 0.464 1 | 0.199 5 | 6.574 0 | 2.389 8 | 0.459 7 | 0.259 2 | Proposed | 0.413 4 | 0.469 0 | 0.201 3 | 6.658 0 | 2.624 1 | 0.547 8 | 0.313 7 |
|
Table 3. Objective assessment of all methods (the best result of each metric is highlighted in bold).
Image sequences | DWT | DTCWT | SWT | WPT | NSCT | NSST | Proposed |
---|
Nato_camp | 0.018 0 | 0.036 2 | 0.064 7 | 0.140 1 | 24.517 3 | 2.307 2 | 0.141 9 | Tree | 0.016 5 | 0.035 7 | 0.064 3 | 0.139 8 | 24.821 5 | 2.292 3 | 0.141 1 | Duine | 0.017 1 | 0.036 1 | 0.064 1 | 0.140 6 | 24.584 1 | 2.288 1 | 0.141 2 |
|
Table 4. Average processing time (unit: sec.) comparison of eight methods. Each value represents the average run time of a frame in a certain sequence.