Author Affiliations
1Faculty of Land Resource Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan 650093, China2Surveying and Mapping Geo-Informatics Technology Research Center on Plateau Mountains of Yunnan Higher Education, Kunming, Yunnan 650093, China3Comprehensive Research Institute of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense of Yunnan Province, Kunming, Yunnan 650200, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. GF 1, GF 2, and GF 3 images after processing. (a) GF-2 image of 4,2, and 1 bands; (b) GF-3 SL mode image; (c) GF-2 image of 4,3, and 2 bands; (d) GF-3 FSI mode image
Fig. 2. Simplified PCNN neuron model
Fig. 3. Flowchart of image fusion
Fig. 4. Fusion images of GF-2 and GF-3. (a) IHS transform; (b) Wavelet transform; (c) NSCT; (d) NSST; (e) NSCT-PCNN; (f) proposed method
Fig. 5. Fusion images of GF-1 and GF-3. (a) IHS transform; (b) Wavelet transform; (c) NSCT; (d) NSST; (e) NSCT-PCNN; (f) proposed method
Group | Satellite | Sensor type | Imaging mode | Resolution /m | Date |
---|
Group 1 | GF-3 | SAR | SL | 1 | 2018-08-15 | | GF-2 | PMS2 | MS | 4 | 2019-01-23 | Group 2 | GF-3 | SAR | FSI | 5 | 2019-05-01 | | GF-1 | PMS2 | MS | 8 | 2019-01-27 |
|
Table 1. Optical and SAR image information
Band combination | 3,2, and 1 bands | 4,2, and 1 bands | 4,3, and 1 bands | 4,3, and 2 bands |
---|
OIF of GF-2 | 71.3769 | 214.0087 | 198.9660 | 213.4390 | OIF of GF-1 | 104.7353 | 154.7772 | 152.1966 | 163.7494 |
|
Table 2. OIF values of different band combinations
Filtering method | Mean | Frost | Lee | Gamma map | Enhanced Lee |
---|
EPI of SL mode | 0.1862 | 0.466 | 0.5023 | 0.5104 | 0.5251 | EPI of FSI mode | 0.1825 | 0.3381 | 0.2558 | 0.4027 | 0.5176 |
|
Table 3. EPI values of filtering methods
Fusion method | AG | SD | IE | CC | SDD | Time /s |
---|
IHS | 93.7624 | 55.9293 | 7.5671 | 0.6348 | 42.8493 | 20.7 | Wavelet transform | 105.0308 | 40.4475 | 7.3088 | 0.8391 | 30.7830 | 30.5 | NSCT | 103.7831 | 57.8753 | 7.6641 | 0.8079 | 31.0869 | 753.4 | NSST | 103.7965 | 58.0005 | 7.6659 | 0.8113 | 30.8934 | 456.9 | NSCT-PCNN | 104.2995 | 57.3602 | 7.6861 | 0.8960 | 24.3363 | 1179.3 | Proposed method | 120.0486 | 64.3144 | 7.7680 | 0.9294 | 18.9574 | 572.5 |
|
Table 4. Quantitative evaluation results of different fusion methods (GF-2 and GF-3)
Fusion method | AG | SD | IE | CC | SDD | Time /s |
---|
IHS | 68.8261 | 64.8363 | 6.9813 | 0.4344 | 63.0301 | 19.3 | Wavelet transform | 80.5460 | 48.7987 | 7.4244 | 0.8043 | 34.2976 | 28.5 | NSCT | 79.4644 | 62.8277 | 7.5398 | 0.6500 | 47.5127 | 720.9 | NSST | 79.4711 | 62.8792 | 7.5411 | 0.6521 | 47.4156 | 423.4 | NSCT-PCNN | 80.1714 | 59.5545 | 7.5788 | 0.8137 | 34.2976 | 1008.4 | Proposed method | 99.5804 | 68.7449 | 7.7608 | 0.8571 | 27.8162 | 524.7 |
|
Table 5. Quantitative evaluation results of different fusion methods (GF-1 and GF-3)