Author Affiliations
1School of Microelectronics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China2Key Laboratory of Imaging and Sensing Microelectronics Technology, Tianjin 300072, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Sensor spectral sensitivity. (a) SS of RGB+NIR CFA; (b) SS of CMYW CFA; (c) SS of CMYW subtraction
Fig. 2. Image enhancement system architecture
Fig. 3. Experimental environment. (a) Darkroom environment for image acquisition; (b) enlargement of some details
Fig. 4. Comparison of noise reduction effects for different algorithms. (a) Difference; (b) BF; (c) JBF; (d) NLM; (e) INLM; (f) Joint NLM
Fig. 5. First group of images in different environments and images processed by different algorithms. (a) Image without NIR under normal illumination; (b) image without NIR under low illumination; (c) image with NIR under low illumination; (d) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [11]; (e) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [14]; (f) low illumination image processed by proposed system
Fig. 6. Second group of images in different environments and images processed by different algorithms. (a) Image without NIR under normal illumination; (b) image without NIR under low illumination; (c) image with NIR under low illumination; (d) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [11]; (e) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [14]; (f) low illumination image processed by proposed system
Fig. 7. Third group of images in different environments and images processed by different algorithms. (a) Image without NIR under normal illumination; (b) image without NIR under low illumination; (c) image with NIR under low illumination; (d) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [11]; (e) low illumination image processed by system in Ref. [14]; (f) low illumination image processed by proposed system
Algorithm | R | G | B |
---|
Originalimage | 18.161 | 18.125 | 16.580 | Ref.[17] | 18.530 | 18.475 | 16.657 | Ref.[21] | 19.171 | 19.131 | 17.157 | Ref.[22] | 19.102 | 19.064 | 17.061 | Ref.[23] | 19.131 | 19.113 | 17.126 | Ours | 19.339 | 19.284 | 17.857 |
|
Table 1. PSNR comparison of images processed by different noise reduction algorithms unit: dB
Image | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) |
---|
Fig. 5 | 251.814 | 267.478 | 237.167 | 245.263 | 267.583 | Fig. 6 | 250.962 | 266.593 | 236.281 | 244.384 | 266.675 | Fig. 7 | 246.589 | 264.837 | 233.893 | 241.765 | 264.951 |
|
Table 2. Brightness mean values comparison of three groups of images
Image | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) |
---|
Fig. 5 | 0.701 | 0.748 | 0.689 | 0.732 | 0.749 | Fig. 6 | 0.702 | 0.746 | 0.692 | 0.731 | 0.747 | Fig. 7 | 0.698 | 0.745 | 0.688 | 0.730 | 0.746 |
|
Table 3. Structural similarity comparison of three groups of images
Image | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) |
---|
Fig. 5 | 19.780 | 20.280 | 19.964 | 19.256 | 20.501 | Fig. 6 | 19.653 | 20.267 | 19.848 | 19.249 | 20.384 | Fig. 7 | 19.421 | 20.178 | 19.665 | 19.158 | 20.296 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of PSNR of three groups of images unit: dB