Author Affiliations
1School of Electronics and Information, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China2Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Equipment Electronics, Hangzhou 310018, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Comparison of different imaging modes and restoration results.
Fig. 2. MTF curve of Golay sequence pair
Fig. 3. Overall flow chart
Fig. 4. Hardware simulation platform physical figure
Fig. 5. MTF curve of different combination code pairs
Fig. 6. Images from LIVE database
Fig. 7. The objective evaluation of different images restored under different imaging modes.
Fig. 8. Restoration simulation under different code modes
Fig. 9. Comparison of target image restoration under different code modes
Fig. 10. Comparison of signboard image restoration under different code modes
Fig. 11. A part of clear images of typical moving objects
Fig. 12. Restoration results of typical moving objects and enlarged display of local areas
Input:f1,f2,h1,h2,λ > 0 | Output:g | Initial value:order h=h1, g←f1, i=1. | While “i ≤ 2”,do | While“Non-convergence” | 1)Fixed g,solve yi by minimization y; | 2)Fixed y,solve gi by minimization g; | End do; | 1)i=i+1; | End do |
|
Table 1. Recovery algorithm flow
Method | Random code pair | Symmetric code pair | Jeon's complementary code pair | Proposed code pair | MIN | -8.15 | -4.4 | 3.52 | 4.04 | VAR | 6.83 | 8.03 | 6.45 | 3.72 |
|
Table 2. Minimum value and variance of combined MTF curve
Method | TraditionalS code | Random code pair | Symmetric code pair | Jeon's complementary code pair | Proposed code pair | SSIM | 0.819 7 | 0.850 8 | 0.866 1 | 0.853 3 | 0.896 7 | SNR | 26.276 7 | 27.631 2 | 27.961 2 | 26.551 3 | 28.640 8 | Time/s | 0.52 | 1.2 | 21.9 | 1.2 |
|
Table 3. Objective evaluation of simulation restoration in different code modes
Method | Traditional code | Random code pair | Symmetric code pair | Proposed code pair | SSIM | 0.723 6 | 0.760 8 | 0.825 4 | 0.896 3 | SNR | 19.754 3 | 20.283 1 | 17.197 7 | 22.490 5 |
|
Table 4. Objective evaluation of target image restoration under different code modes
Method | Traditional code | Random code pair | Symmetric code pair | Proposed code pair | SSIM | 0.860 8 | 0.883 7 | 0.899 2 | 0.920 6 | SNR | 19.824 1 | 21.684 1 | 15.224 5 | 22.229 2 |
|
Table 5. Objective evaluation of signboard image restoration under different code modes
Evaluation method | Blurred image | The results of this method | Improve index rate | SSIM | 0.787 9 | 0.943 9 | 19.8% | SNR | 19.936 1 | 26.895 7 | 34.9% |
|
Table 6. Improvement value of evaluation index of restoration results in Fig. 12