Author Affiliations
1Department of Automotive Technology, Xinxiang Vocational and Technical College, Xinxiang, Henan 453006, China2School of Electronic Engineering and Automation, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed method
Fig. 2. Color correction results. (a) Raw images; (b) color correction method based on mean and variance; (c) proposed color correction method
Fig. 3. Process of separating and integrating low-enhanced and upper-enhanced regions
Fig. 4. Detail sharpen results. (a) Original image; (b) contrast enhanced image; (c) detail sharpened image
Fig. 5. Evaluation of color correction。(a) Original image; (b) method in Ref.[1]; (c) method in Ref.[5]; (d) method in Ref.[9]; (e) method in Ref.[15]; (f) method in Ref.[16]; (g) method in Ref.[18]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 6. Evaluation on bluish underwater images.(a) Original image; (b) method in Ref.[1]; (c) method in Ref.[5]; (d) method in Ref.[9]; (e) method in Ref.[15]; (f) method in Ref.[16]; (g) method in Ref.[18]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 7. Evaluation on greenish underwater images. (a) Original image; (b) method in Ref.[1]; (c) method in Ref.[5]; (d) method in Ref.[9]; (e) method in Ref.[15]; (f) method in Ref.[16]; (g) method in Ref.[18]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 8. Evaluation on yellowish underwater images. (a) Original image; (b) method in Ref.[1]; (c) method in Ref.[5]; (d) method in Ref.[9]; (e) method in Ref.[15]; (f) method in Ref.[16]; (g) method in Ref.[18]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 9. Evaluation on low light images
Figure | Method in Ref.[1] | Method in Ref.[5] | Method in Ref.[9] | Method in Ref.[15] | Method in Ref.[16] | Method in Ref.[18] | Proposedmethod |
---|
AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE | AG | UCIQE |
---|
Fig.6 | 4.997 | 0.510 | 4.015 | 0.592 | 7.003 | 0.635 | 6.844 | 0.604 | 5.798 | 0.510 | 3.523 | 0.572 | 7.019 | 0.651 | | 4.146 | 0.549 | 4.316 | 0.580 | 7.041 | 0.624 | 6.756 | 0.571 | 5.447 | 0.549 | 4.360 | 0.583 | 7.046 | 0.612 | | 8.395 | 0.44 | 5.363 | 0.538 | 7.063 | 0.466 | 7.724 | 0.518 | 10.164 | 0.440 | 6.123 | 0.590 | 12.725 | 0.663 | | 6.139 | 0.647 | 5.610 | 0.624 | 9.328 | 0.715 | 7.743 | 0.684 | 6.809 | 0.647 | 5.007 | 0.616 | 9.045 | 0.692 | | Fig.7 | 9.228 | 0.341 | 5.746 | 0.497 | 4.932 | 0.361 | 6.304 | 0.468 | 12.933 | 0.341 | 3.795 | 0.450 | 13.985 | 0.630 | | 5.774 | 0.402 | 3.415 | 0.457 | 5.94 | 0.494 | 5.495 | 0.543 | 6.869 | 0.402 | 3.660 | 0.490 | 9.187 | 0.633 | | 7.223 | 0.322 | 3.411 | 0.502 | 3.689 | 0.369 | 3.245 | 0.42 | 8.665 | 0.322 | 5.234 | 0.591 | 10.588 | 0.655 | | 9.168 | 0.513 | 7.725 | 0.586 | 12.904 | 0.535 | 12.505 | 0.607 | 11.682 | 0.513 | 7.457 | 0.575 | 14.614 | 0.637 | | Fig.8 | 9.691 | 0.469 | 8.353 | 0.547 | 11.909 | 0.543 | 10.699 | 0.549 | 12.237 | 0.469 | 7.922 | 0.547 | 15.192 | 0.614 | | 10.158 | 0.533 | 8.753 | 0.549 | 13.561 | 0.56 | 12.601 | 0.577 | 11.539 | 0.533 | 8.109 | 0.569 | 15.872 | 0.637 | | 5.518 | 0.583 | 5.188 | 0.610 | 7.111 | 0.588 | 7.860 | 0.627 | 6.291 | 0.583 | 4.826 | 0.615 | 7.995 | 0.667 | | 6.277 | 0.419 | 4.578 | 0.518 | 7.966 | 0.602 | 5.756 | 0.529 | 6.791 | 0.419 | 5.194 | 0.524 | 7.341 | 0.562 | | Average | 7.226 | 0.477 | 5.539 | 0.550 | 8.203 | 0.541 | 7.794 | 0.558 | 8.768 | 0.477 | 5.434 | 0.560 | 10.884 | 0.638 |
|
Table 1. AG and UCIQE under different methods