Author Affiliations
1School of Electronic Engineering and Automation, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China2Guangxi Key Laboratory of Photoelectric Information Processing, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic of underwater imaging experimental apparatus
Fig. 2. Ceramic images with different linear polarization directions. (a) 0°; (b) 45°; (c) 90°
Fig. 3. Pre-processed intensity image
Fig. 4. Restored image obtained by conventional underwater polarization difference imaging model
Fig. 5. Restored scene image obtained by improved model
Fig. 6. Estimation of correction parameter ε of ceramic restoration images. (a) Relationship among correction parameter ε, contrast, and information entropy; (b) relationship among correction parameter ε, average gradient, and information entropy
Fig. 7. Comparison of glass fiber board imaging. (a) Pre-processed intensity image; (b) image restored by conventional underwater polarization difference imaging model; (c) image restored by improved model
Fig. 8. Comparison of rusty blade imaging. (a) Pre-processed intensity image; (b) image restored by conventional underwater polarization difference imaging model; (c) image restored by improved model
Fig. 9. Estimation of correction parameter ε of glass fiber board restoration images. (a) Relationship among correction parameter ε, contrast, and information entropy; (b) relationship among correction parameter ε, average gradient, and information entropy
Fig. 10. Estimation of correction parameter ε of rusty blade restoration images. (a) Relationship among correction parameter ε, contrast, and information entropy; (b) relationship among correction parameter ε, average gradient, and information entropy
Image | Contrast | Contrast increment /% | Information entropy | Information entropy increment /% | Average gradient |
---|
Fig. 3 | 0.1524 | | 6.7354 | | 0.0047 | Fig. 4 | 0.3757 | 146 | 7.4431 | 10.5 | 0.0178 | Fig. 5 | 0.6074 | 298 | 7.5260 | 11.7 | 0.0338 |
|
Table 1. Comparison of experimental results
Image | Contrast | Contrast increment /% | Information entropy | Information entropy increment /% | Average gradient |
---|
Fig. 7(a) | 0.1048 | | 6.0826 | | 0.0043 | Fig. 7(b) | 0.3245 | 209 | 7.2476 | 19.1 | 0.0168 | Fig. 7(c) | 0.4573 | 336 | 7.4838 | 23 | 0.0269 | Fig. 8(a) | 0.1557 | | 6.6513 | | 0.0046 | Fig. 8(b) | 0.3486 | 123 | 7.3099 | 9.9 | 0.0146 | Fig. 8(c) | 0.5065 | 225 | 7.5931 | 14.2 | 0.0239 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of experimental results