Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed algorithm
Fig. 2. Image decomposition
Fig. 3. Block effects and halo effects. (a) Original image; (b) dark channel priors estimate transmittance; (c) restored image
Fig. 4. Comparison of point transmission map. (a) Transmission estimated by pixel-based dark color; (b) result of Ref. [18]; (c) transmission estimated by proposed method; (d) dehazing result by proposed method
Fig. 5. Flow chart of transmission fusion
Fig. 6. Structure of decision image
Fig. 7. Hazy images and their corresponding decision images. (a)(d) Original images; (b)(e) histograms of decision images; (c)(f) decision images
Fig. 8. Hazy image and its corresponding decision value of 0.1% pixel for the dark channel. (a)(c) Original images; (b)(d) histograms of dark channel decision image
Fig. 9. Transmission optimization results with different filtering radius
Fig. 10. Filtering with the original image as the guided image
Fig. 11. Processes of multi-guided filtering
Fig. 12. Comparison results. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [18]; (c) proposed method
Fig. 13. Comparison results. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [21]; (c) proposed method
Fig. 14. Comparison results. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [22]; (c) proposed method
Fig. 15. Comparison results of proposed method and traditional methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [11]; (c) method in Ref. [6]; (d) method in Ref. [7]; (e) proposed method
Fig. 16. Comparisonof results of proposed method and deep learning methods. (a) Original images; (b) method in Ref. [13]; (c) method in Ref. [12]; (d) proposed method
Algorithm | Image size /(pixel×pixel) | Time /s |
---|
Ref. [8] | 640×480 | 0.2143 | Ref. [11] | 640×480 | 0.9127 | Proposed | 640×480 | 0.1653 |
|
Table 1. Time of the process of transmission optimization from different algorithms
Index | Ref. [18] | Proposed | Ref. [21] | Proposed | Ref. [22] | Proposed |
---|
e | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.09 | -0.16 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.59 | 0.59 | r | 1.43 | 2.20 | 2.34 | 2.25 | 2.65 | 3.27 | 3.69 | 2.89 | 1.29 | 2.45 | 1.33 | 2.09 | 1.27 | 3.06 | 1.10 | 1.81 | 1.53 | 3.05 |
|
Table 2. Objective evaluation index of different fusion algorithms