Author Affiliations
School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Real hazy images and their haze distribution. (a) Hazy images; (b) hazy distribution maps
Fig. 2. Quadratic functions with different coefficients
Fig. 3. Comparison among minimum channels. (a) Hazy images in test set; (b) standard minimum channels in test set; (c) our minimum channels
Fig. 4. Transmittance comparison. (a) Hazy images; (b) method in Ref. [5]; (c) method in Ref. [7]; (d) our method
Fig. 5. Comparison between atmospheric light images as well as that between dehazing images. (a) Hazy image; (b) local atmospheric light image in Ref. [19]; (c) result in Ref. [19]; (d) atmospheric light image proposed here; (e) result proposed here
Fig. 6. Schematic of overall dehazing proposed here. (a) Hazy image; (b) minimum channel of hazy image; (c) minimum channel of clear image; (d) transmittance; (e) luminance component; (f) morphologically processed luminance component; (g) improved local atmospheric light; (h) restoration result
Fig. 7. Block diagram of proposed algorithm
Fig. 8. Restoration results of hazy images with sky areas. (a) Hazy images; (b) results by He et al; (c) results by Meng et al; (d) results by Yang et al; (e) results by Cai et al; (f) results by Ren et al; (g) our results
Fig. 9. Restoration results of hazy images without sky areas. (a) Hazy images; (b) results by He et al; (c) results by Meng et al; (d) results by Yang et al; (e) results by Cai et al; (f) results by Ren et al; (g) our results
Fig. 10. Comparison among restoration results in test set. (a) Hazy images; (b) results by He et al; (c) results by Yang et al; (d) results by Cai et al; (e) results by Ren et al; (f) our results; (g) real dehazed images
Image No. | Image 1 | Image 2 | Image 3 | Image 4 | Image 5 |
---|
MSE | 0.0017 | 0.0039 | 0.0014 | 0.0021 | 0.0022 |
|
Table 1. MSE index
Index | Method in Ref. [5] | Method in Ref. [7] | Method in Ref. [8] | Method in Ref. [14] | Method in Ref. [15] | Our method |
---|
e | 0.2110 | 0.1801 | 0.2247 | 0.1864 | 0.1879 | 0.2314 | r | 1.3473 | 1.2249 | 1.3578 | 1.3348 | 1.3409 | 1.3613 | σ | 0.0048 | 0.1590 | 0.0022 | 0.0036 | 0.0029 | 0.0022 | t /s | 2.2164 | 2.8764 | 2.1707 | 2.4100 | 2.4636 | 2.1979 |
|
Table 2. Index comparison among methods for real hazy images
Index | Method in Ref. [5] | Method in Ref. [8] | Method in Ref. [14] | Method in Ref. [15] | Our method |
---|
PSNR | 18.9706 | 20.6146 | 20.3633 | 20.4742 | 20.6179 | SSIM | 0.8974 | 0.9578 | 0.9479 | 0.9518 | 0.9693 |
|
Table 3. Index comparison among methods for images in test set