Fig. 1. Support window coordinates and weight distribution map with size of 3×3 and standard deviation of 1.5. (a) coordinate distribution map; (b) weight coordinate distribution map; (c) weight distribution map

Fig. 2. Disparity maps before and after improvement by guidance filter algorithm. (a)(c) before improvement; (b)(d) after improvement

Fig. 3. Disparity maps obtained by different matching cost algorithms. (a) CT; (b) MCT; (c) GRD;(d) proposed algorithm

Fig. 4. Disparity maps obtained by different aggregation algorithms. (a) BoxF, R=10.81%; (b) BF, R=8.12%;(c) GF, R=7.85%; (d) MST, R=8.31%; (e) proposed algorithm, R=7.57%

Fig. 5. Comparison of false matching rates of different cost aggregation algorithms in no-occluded regions

Fig. 6. Test results of different stereo matching algorithms on Aloe image pairs. (a) Aloe left image;(b) Aloe right image; (c) GRD, R=10.19%; (d) MCT, R=10.07%; (e) MCT', R=9.74%; (f) proposed algorithm, R=6.74%

Fig. 7. Test results of different stereo matching algorithms on Baby1 image pairs. (a) Baby1 left image; (b) Baby1 right image; (c) GRD, R=12.82%; (d) MCT, R=4.91%; (e) MCT', R=4.53%; (f) proposed algorithm, R=3.75%

Fig. 8. Test results of different stereo matching algorithms on Bowling2 image pairs. (a) Bowling2 left image; (b) Bowling2 right image; (c) GRD, R=12.91%; (d) MCT, R=15.77%; (e) MCT', R=14.21%; (f) proposed algorithm, R=9.04%

Fig. 9. Test results of different stereo matching algorithms on Dolls image pairs. (a) Dolls left image; (b) Dolls right image; (c) GRD, R=7.66%;(d) MCT, R=11.55%; (e) MCT', R=11.87%; (f) proposed algorithm, R=5.77%

Fig. 10. Experimental results of proposed algorithm on Middlebury2.0 image pairs. (a) Testing left image; (b) standard disparity map; (c) disparity map of proposed algorithm(without disparity refinement); (d) mismatched map (without disparity refinement); (e) disparity maps obtained by proposed algorithm (disparity refinement); (f) mismatched map (disparity refinement)

Table 1. Parameters involved in proposed stereo matching algorithm

Table 2. Percentage of false match in no-occluded region of different matching cost algorithms%

Table 3. Percentage of false match in all regions of different matching cost algorithms%

Table 5. False matching rates of different stereo matching algorithms in no-occlusion region and all regions%

Table 6. False matching rate of different stereo matching algorithms in no-occluded region

Table 7. Average running time of 31 Middlebury stereo pairs with different algorithmss