| Literature DB >> 26184229 |
Xiangzhi Bai1,2.
Abstract
The crucial problem of infrared and visual image fusion is how to effectively extract the image features, including the image regions and details and combine these features into the final fusion result to produce a clear fused image. To obtain an effective fusion result with clear image details, an algorithm for infrared and visual image fusion through the fuzzy measure and alternating operators is proposed in this paper. Firstly, the alternating operators constructed using the opening and closing based toggle operator are analyzed. Secondly, two types of the constructed alternating operators are used to extract the multi-scale features of the original infrared and visual images for fusion. Thirdly, the extracted multi-scale features are combined through the fuzzy measure-based weight strategy to form the final fusion features. Finally, the final fusion features are incorporated with the original infrared and visual images using the contrast enlargement strategy. All the experimental results indicate that the proposed algorithm is effective for infrared and visual image fusion.Entities:
Keywords: alternating operator; fuzzy measure; mathematical morphology; toggle operator
Year: 2015 PMID: 26184229 PMCID: PMC4541927 DOI: 10.3390/s150717149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1An example on UNcamp images. (a) Original infrared image (b) Original visual image (c) Result of MSTHT; (d) Result of SIDWT (e) Result of LP (f) Result of MSTHST; (g) Result of MSNTHT (h) Result of MSTOOC (i) Result of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 2An example on Dune images. (a) Original infrared image (b) Original visual image (c) Result of MSTHT; (d) Result of SIDWT (e) Result of LP (f) Result of MSTHST; (g) Result of MSNTHT (h) Result of MSTOOC (i) Result of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 3An example on Navi images. (a) Original infrared image (b) Original visual image (c) Result of MSTHT; (d) Result of SIDWT (e) Result of LP (f) Result of MSTHST; (g) Result of MSNTHT (h) Result of MSTOOC (i) Result of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 4Quantitative comparison using measure entropy.
Figure 5Quantitative comparison using measure spatial frequency.
Figure 6Quantitative comparison using measure mean gradient.
Figure 7Quantitative comparison using measure Q.
Processing time comparison (s).
| MSTHT | SIDWT | LP | MSTHST | MSNTH | MSTOOC | Proposed Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.923 | 0.733 | 0.082 | 3.874 | 25.450 | 8.814 |