Author Affiliations
1 Key Laboratory of Airborne Optical Imaging and Measurement, Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, Jilin 130033, China2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Morphologies of point targets with (a) one pixel, (b) two pixels, (c) three pixels, (d) four pixels, and (e) multiple pixels
Fig. 2. (a) Complex cloud background; (b) enlarged view of cloud background edge; (c) three-dimensional grey-scale map corresponding to Fig. 2(b)
Fig. 3. Structural elements in eight-directions. (a) 0° ; (b) 45°; (c) 90°; (d) 135°; (e) 180°; (f) 225°; (g) 270°; (h) 315°
Fig. 4. Candidate point configuration detected by 0°-direction structural element
Fig. 5. Comparison among detection results. (a) Original infrared image; (b) detection result by TH transformation; (c) detection result by omnidirectional morphology
Fig. 6. Sketch map of four directional vectors of candidate points
Fig. 7. Schematic of cross-pixel point target
Fig. 8. Gray level images of (a) point target imaging at pixel center, (b) point target across 4 pixels, and (c) noisy point
Fig. 9. Energy concentration degree of point targets
Fig. 10. Image acquisition equipment
Fig. 11. Target detection results. (a)-(c) Original infrared images; (d)-(f) results after adaptive threshold detection; (g)-(i) results after removal of background edges; (j)-(l) results after removal of noise
Fig. 12. Signal-to-noise ratio of point targets
Fig. 13. Processing results from different algorithms. (a) Max-median filter algorithm; (b) DoG scale-space detection algorithm; (c) BM3D algorithm; (d) GMM algorithm
Parameter | Content |
---|
Wavelength /μm | 7.7-11.3 | Resolution /(pixel×pixel) | 320×256 | Pixel size /μm | 30 | Output digits | 14 | Frame frequency /Hz | 100 | Noise equivalent temperature difference /mK | 19 | Field of view /[(°)×(°)] | 14.40×11.54 |
|
Table 1. Parameters of infrared focal plane detector
Method | /% | /% | Running time /s |
---|
Max-median filter algorithm | 77.9 | 15.9 | 0.45 | DoG scale-space detection algorithm | 82.2 | 10.2 | 0.61 | BM3D algorithm | 95.1 | 6.9 | 3.10 | GMM algorithm | 94.1 | 7.2 | 2.98 | Proposed method | 99.8 | 0.1 | 0.47 |
|
Table 2. Performance comparison of target detection algorithms