Author Affiliations
School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Physical model of atmospheric scattering
Fig. 2. Schematic of single image dehazing model of multiscale deep-learning based on dual-domain decomposition
Fig. 3. Original image and its high- and low-frequency sub-images. (a) Original image; (b) high-frequency sub-image; (c) low-frequency sub-image
Fig. 4. Comparison of activation functions. (a) ReLU function; (b) PReLU function
Fig. 5. Schematic of single image dehazing algorithm of multiscale deep-learning based on dual-domain decomposition
Fig. 6. Outdoor hazy images and corresponding scene transmission labels after depth map preprocessing
Fig. 7. Experimental results of synthetic hazy images processed by different methods. (a) Synthetic hazy images; (b) stardard dehazed images; (c) method in Ref. [6]; (d) method in Ref. [9]; (e) method in Ref. [11]; (f) method in Ref. [12]; (g) method in Ref. [13]; (h) proposed method
Fig. 8. Experimental results of real natural hazy images processed by different methods. (a) Hazy images; (b) method in Ref. [6]; (c) method in Ref. [9]; (d) method in Ref. [11]; (e) method in Ref. [12]; (f) method in Ref. [13]; (g) proposed method
Image number | Method in Ref. [6] | Method in Ref. [9] | Method in Ref. [11] | Method in Ref. [12] | Method in Ref. [13] | Proposed method |
---|
PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% | | PSNR /dB | SSIM /% |
---|
1 | 14.6150 | 75.12 | 19.7037 | 77.73 | 16.0349 | 77.67 | 15.9247 | 79.23 | 14.3038 | 70.29 | 17.0865 | 82.55 | 2 | 19.4521 | 78.47 | 20.5804 | 80.90 | 21.1854 | 81.05 | 20.8030 | 82.63 | 18.5555 | 76.60 | 21.7991 | 88.42 | 3 | 23.8374 | 86.26 | 17.1493 | 46.20 | 21.3263 | 85.79 | 22.4172 | 80.24 | 21.3263 | 85.79 | 24.7953 | 91.15 | 4 | 16.0477 | 76.40 | 17.8519 | 81.21 | 19.2110 | 85.38 | 17.6245 | 79.17 | 17.5217 | 77.91 | 22.7550 | 87.69 | 5 | 20.9108 | 88.37 | 18.7020 | 77.04 | 22.2080 | 91.74 | 21.6812 | 90.68 | 20.9664 | 89.02 | 22.7954 | 92.41 |
|
Table 1. Analysis of experimental results of synthetic hazy images processed by different methods
Image number | Method in Ref.[6] | Method in Ref.[9] | Method in Ref.[11] | Method in Ref.[12] | Method in Ref.[13] | Proposed method |
---|
IE | AG | | IE | AG | | IE | AG | | IE | AG | | IE | AG | | IE | AG |
---|
1 | 7.4470 | 10.73 | 7.5599 | 15.48 | 7.7893 | 10.04 | 7.5420 | 11.58 | 7.6217 | 11.01 | 7.7991 | 17.96 | 2 | 7.2401 | 5.18 | 7.1003 | 8.84 | 7.3932 | 5.64 | 7.3550 | 6.27 | 7.3181 | 6.85 | 7.5302 | 10.05 | 3 | 7.4310 | 6.67 | 7.1498 | 9.45 | 7.3598 | 6.04 | 7.1766 | 6.30 | 7.1571 | 6.67 | 7.7243 | 10.46 | 4 | 7.2502 | 4.33 | 6.8430 | 6.61 | 7.3876 | 4.29 | 7.5689 | 4.88 | 7.5825 | 5.85 | 7.6140 | 9.99 | 5 | 7.5677 | 17.22 | 7.6955 | 20.55 | 7.6021 | 17.21 | 7.6095 | 16.48 | 7.7056 | 18.08 | 7.7745 | 23.61 | 6 | 7.7556 | 6.79 | 7.4930 | 10.03 | 7.3447 | 5.24 | 7.2957 | 6.48 | 7.2050 | 5.99 | 7.9862 | 7.75 | 7 | 7.0428 | 3.98 | 6.2422 | 8.79 | 7.4332 | 4.07 | 7.1530 | 4.17 | 7.1741 | 4.73 | 7.6025 | 6.36 | 8 | 7.2760 | 7.23 | 7.7191 | 12.37 | 7.7529 | 8.19 | 7.7159 | 8.72 | 7.6522 | 8.97 | 7.8779 | 12.99 |
|
Table 2. Analysis of experimental results of real hazy images processed by different methods