| Literature DB >> 28914787 |
Fan Meng1, Xiaomei Yang2,3, Chenghu Zhou4, Zhi Li5,6.
Abstract
Cloud cover is inevitable in optical remote sensing (RS) imagery on account of the influence of observation conditions, which limits the availability of RS data. Therefore, it is of great significance to be able to reconstruct the cloud-contaminated ground information. This paper presents a sparse dictionary learning-based image inpainting method for adaptively recovering the missing information corrupted by thick clouds patch-by-patch. A feature dictionary was learned from exemplars in the cloud-free regions, which was later utilized to infer the missing patches via sparse representation. To maintain the coherence of structures, structure sparsity was brought in to encourage first filling-in of missing patches on image structures. The optimization model of patch inpainting was formulated under the adaptive neighborhood-consistency constraint, which was solved by a modified orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) algorithm. In light of these ideas, the thick-cloud removal scheme was designed and applied to images with simulated and true clouds. Comparisons and experiments show that our method can not only keep structures and textures consistent with the surrounding ground information, but also yield rare smoothing effect and block effect, which is more suitable for the removal of clouds from high-spatial resolution RS imagery with salient structures and abundant textured features.Entities:
Keywords: dictionary learning; high resolution remote sensing image; image inpainting; sparse representation; thick clouds removal
Year: 2017 PMID: 28914787 PMCID: PMC5621354 DOI: 10.3390/s17092130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The Illustration of Sparse Dictionary Learning Based Patch Inpainting.
Figure 2The Procedure of Adaptive Patch Inpainting Algorithm.
Figure 3The Flowchart of Our Thick Clouds Removal Scheme.
Figure 4Comparison of Visual Effects on Barbara Image. (a) Original Image; (b) Corrupted Image; (c) Result of Ours; (d) Result of MRF; (e) Result of Texture Synthesis; (f) Result of [24]; (g) Result of MCA.
Comparisons of Statistical Indices on Barbara Image.
| Barbara Image | Texture Synthesis | Result of [ | Result of MRF | Result of MCA | Result of Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSNR(DB) | 16.836 | 19.942 | 19.887 | 23.348 | 24.408 |
| SSIM | 0.805 | 0.898 | 0.897 | 0.954 | 0.966 |
Figure 5Comparison of Visual Effects on Aerial Image. (a) Corrupted Buildings Image; (b) Our Result Using 16 × 16 Patch; (c) Our Result Using 8 × 8 Patch; (d) Result of [26] Using 16 × 16 pixels Patch; (e) Result of MCA; (f) Result of MRF; (g) Result of Texture Synthesis.
Figure 6Comparison of Visual Effects on SPOT5 Panchromatic Imagery. (a) Original SPOT5 Image; (b) Corrupted by Simulated Clouds; (c) Result of Proposed Method; (d) Result of MCA; (e) Result of MRF; (f) Result of Exemplar-based.
Comparisons of Statistical Indices on Aerial and SPOT5 Imagery.
| Images | Statistical Indices | Texture Synthesis | [ | MRF | MCA | [ | 8 × 8 pixels Patch | 16 × 16 pixels Patch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial | PSNR(dB) | 13.663 | - | 10.488 | 13.599 | 13.082 | 13.833 | 15.281 |
| SSIM | 0.632 | - | 0.325 | 0.682 | 0.546 | 0.657 | 0.752 | |
| SPOT5 | PSNR(dB) | - | 17.576 | 17.792 | 18.092 | - | - | 18.883 |
| SSIM | - | 0.814 | 0.801 | 0.818 | - | - | 0.868 |
Figure 7Comparison of Clouds Removal from SPOT5 Multispectral Imagery. (a) SPOT5 Image (displayed as false color composites) with Preprocessed Clouds; (b) Cloud Removal by Our Inpainting Method; (c) Cloud Removal by MCA [46]; (d) Cloud Removal by [26].
Figure 8Comparison of Clouds Removal from GaoFen-2 RS Imagery. (a) GaoFen-2 RS Image (true color composites) with Clouds; (b) Cloud Removal by Our Inpainting Method; (c) Cloud Removal by MCA [46]; (d) Cloud Removal by FaLRTC [37]; (e) Cloud Removal by SiLRTC [37]; (f) Cloud Removal by MRF [35].