Author Affiliations
1Department of Advanced Space Technology, Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, Jilin 130033, China2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Flow chart of improved moment matching non-uniformity correction algorithm
Fig. 2. Simulated images. (a) Original image; (b) image with stripe noise
Fig. 3. Destriped results of simulated image in Fig. 2(b) by different methods. (a) BW; (b) WMM; (c) DSLFRI; (d) HM; (e) proposed method
Fig. 4. Gray mean values of simulated image in column.(a)Original image;(b) image with stripe noise
Fig. 5. Gray mean values of destriped results in column by different methods. (a) BW; (b) WMM; (c) DSLFRI; (d) HM; (e) proposed method
Fig. 6. Destriped results of hyperspectral image of band 25 by different methods. (a) Original image; (b)BW; (c) WMM; (d) DSLFRI; (e) HM; (f) proposed method
Fig. 7. Destriped results of hyperspectral image of band 27 by different methods. (a) Original image; (b) BW; (c) WMM; (d) DSLFRI; (e) HM; (f) proposed method
Fig. 8. Gray mean scale of destriped results of hyperspectral image of band 25 by different methods. (a) Original image; (b) BW; (c) WMM; (d) DSLFRI; (e) HM; (f) proposed method
Fig. 9. Gray mean values of destriped results of hyperspectral image of band 27 by different methods. (a) Original image; (b) BW; (c) WMM; (d) DSLFRI; (e) HM; (f) proposed method
Method | BW | WMM | DSLFRI | HM | Proposed method |
---|
MSE | 21.0550 | 7.8356 | 8.0533 | 17.7713 | 1.8726 | PSNR /dB | 34.8972 | 39.1901 | 39.0711 | 35.6336 | 45.4064 | SSIM | 0.5744 | 0.9631 | 0.9649 | 0.7336 | 0.9903 |
|
Table 1. Comparison of assessment criteria for simulated image in Fig. 2(b)
Destripe noise | Index | BW | WMM | DSLFRI | HM | Proposed method |
---|
Random noise in [10,40] | MSE | 20.1356 | 6.1987 | 7.0727 | 35.2071 | 1.9322 | PSNR | 35.0912 | 40.2078 | 39.6349 | 32.6645 | 45.2703 | SSIM | 0.5827 | 0.9672 | 0.9658 | 0.7369 | 0.9873 | Random noise in [20,40] | MSE | 21.0550 | 7.8356 | 8.0533 | 17.7713 | 1.8726 | PSNR | 34.8972 | 39.1901 | 39.0711 | 35.6336 | 45.4064 | SSIM | 0.5744 | 0.9631 | 0.9649 | 0.7336 | 0.9903 | Random noise in [30,40] | MSE | 22.7440 | 10.9156 | 11.0126 | 29.5307 | 1.7772 | PSNR | 34.5621 | 37.7503 | 37.7119 | 33.4281 | 45.6335 | SSIM | 0.5589 | 0.9612 | 0.9636 | 0.6554 | 0.9890 | Periodic noise in [10,40] | MSE | 19.7578 | 4.6047 | 6.0389 | 13.6609 | 1.7803 | PSNR | 35.1734 | 41.4963 | 40.3212 | 36.7760 | 45.6259 | SSIM | 0.5786 | 0.9700 | 0.9653 | 0.7994 | 0.9918 | Periodic noise in [20,40] | MSE | 20.1146 | 5.1281 | 6.4104 | 14.7842 | 1.7127 | PSNR | 35.0957 | 41.0313 | 40.0619 | 36.4328 | 45.7941 | SSIM | 0.5667 | 0.9681 | 0.9654 | 0.7667 | 0.9921 | Periodic noise in [30,40] | MSE | 20.2325 | 5.3042 | 6.5791 | 15.3984 | 1.6796 | PSNR | 35.0703 | 40.8846 | 39.9491 | 36.2561 | 45.8788 | SSIM | 0.5605 | 0.9679 | 0.9650 | 0.7492 | 0.9924 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of objective indexes for simulated images with different noises
Method | Original image | BW | WMM | DSLFRI | HM | Proposed method |
---|
ICV | 6.9814 | 6.8634 | 7.0689 | 7.1678 | 7.3671 | 7.6435 | DEC | 160.0580 | 163.9211 | 156.0881 | 151.8557 | 141.0393 | 136.6519 | RM | 2.7792 | 0.8047 | 2.6096 | 2.6059 | 2.6577 | 2.4399 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of objective indexes for hyperspectral image of band 25
Method | Original image | BW | WMM | DSLFRI | HM | Proposed method |
---|
ICV | 8.7764 | 8.4786 | 8.9338 | 8.5883 | 8.6529 | 9.7724 | DEC | 116.2303 | 123.5045 | 112.1258 | 97.3851 | 100.0544 | 94.8759 | RM | 2.9238 | 0.9346 | 2.7818 | 2.7676 | 3.2459 | 2.5334 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of objective indexes for hyperspectral image of band 27