Fig. 1. Whole framework of algorithm
Fig. 2. Pixel gray histograms of (a) clear image and (b) blurred image
Fig. 3. Structure of denoising deep convolution neural network
Fig. 4. Texture layer and structure layer of image. (a) Original image; (b) texture layer; (c) structure layer
Fig. 5. Deblur results of different algorithms. (a) Blur images; (b) method in Ref. [7]; (c) method in Ref. [33]; (d) method in Ref. [16]; (e) proposed method
Fig. 6. Clear images. (a) Boys; (b) bridge; (c) paint; (d) face
Fig. 7. Blur kernel estimation of different algorithms. (a) True blur kernel; (b) method in Ref. [16]; (c) method in Ref. [7]; (d) method in Ref. [32]; (e) method in Ref. [34]; (f) proposed method
Dataset | PSNR /dB | SSIM | t /s |
---|
Proposedmethod | Method inRef. [19] | Proposedmethod | Method inRef. [19] | Proposedmethod | Method inRef. [19] |
---|
BSD68 | 28.74 | 29.22 | 0.8035 | 0.8278 | 32 | 3606 | Classic5 | 29.62 | 30.38 | 0.8042 | 0.8323 | 2 | 262 | Set12 | 29.79 | 30.42 | 0.8381 | 0.8617 | 6 | 580 | Set14 | 29.34 | 30.01 | 0.8099 | 0.8352 | 3 | 719 |
|
Table 1. Comparison of performance and time complexity of denoising convolution neural networks
input: blur image B and blur kernel k |
---|
I ←B,β ←2λσrepeat: solve for u using Eq. (21)μ ←2λ repeat: solve for g using Eq. (22) solve for z using Eq. (23) solve for x using Eq. (17)μ ←2μ until μ>μmaxβ ←2βuntil β>βmaxoutput:internediate latent image x→I |
|
Table 2. Iterative algorithm for image deblurring
input: blur image B |
---|
initialize I and k with the results from the coarser level;for j=1→5 dosolve for IS using Eq. (11)solve for k using Eq. (23)solve x→I using iterative algorithm in table 1λ←maxend foroutput:blur kernel k and internediate latent image x |
|
Table 3. Iterative algorithm for blur kernel estimation
Blur | Image | Method inRef. [16] | Method inRef. [7] | Method Ref. [32] | Method inRef. [34] | Proposedmethod |
---|
1 | Boys | 25.71 | 24.74 | 27.11 | 25.30 | 30.00 | | Bridge | 27.74 | 24.72 | 24.49 | 18.97 | 27.72 | | Paint | 26.46 | 23.40 | 25.10 | 23.00 | 29.99 | | Face | 24.14 | 25.90 | 26.36 | 26.38 | 29.09 | 2 | Boys | 31.21 | 25.42 | 28.67 | 22.79 | 33.23 | | Bridge | 28.31 | 26.41 | 28.79 | 20.16 | 29.40 | | Paint | 30.99 | 25.62 | 28.57 | 24.79 | 31.99 | | Face | 27.80 | 26.05 | 28.82 | 23.64 | 30.31 | 3 | Boys | 27.03 | 24.22 | 25.87 | 18.90 | 30.84 | | Bridge | 26.24 | 22.49 | 23.48 | 21.77 | 28.11 | | Paint | 22.38 | 23.76 | 25.86 | 18.52 | 28.46 | | Face | 24.11 | 26.60 | 25.49 | 25.95 | 25.83 | 4 | Boys | 30.75 | 26.24 | 29.03 | 23.08 | 32.38 | | Bridge | 23.39 | 25.18 | 26.22 | 25.64 | 28.33 | | Paint | 26.89 | 25.52 | 25.98 | 33.05 | 30.46 | | Face | 25.64 | 23.71 | 24.79 | 22.58 | 29.52 |
|
Table 4. PSNR results of different algorithmsdB
Image | Image size /(pixel×pixel) | Blur kernelsize /(pixel×pixel) | Method inRef. [16] | Method inRef. [33] | Method inRef. [34] | Proposedmethod |
---|
ECCV | 123×126 | 27×27 | 101 | 199 | 168 | 30 | Roma | 593×417 | 35×35 | 819 | 2938 | 792 | 138 | Cartoon | 612×442 | 19×19 | 726 | 2880 | 249 | 168 | Flower | 900×896 | 35×35 | 2909 | 8643 | 1921 | 358 |
|
Table 5. Time complexity of different algorithmss