| Literature DB >> 30326620 |
Jinling Zhao1, Chengquan Zhou2,3, Linsheng Huang4, Xiaodong Yang5, Bo Xu6, Dong Liang7.
Abstract
To obtain fine and potential features, a highly informative fused image created by merging multiple images is usually required. In our study, a novel fusion algorithm called JSKF-NSCT is proposed for fusing panchromatic (PAN) and hyperspectral (HS) images by combining the joint skewness-kurtosis figure (JSKF) and the non-subsampled contourlet transform (NSCT). The JSKF model is used first to derive the three most sensitive bands from the original HS image according to the product of the skewness and the kurtosis coefficients of each band. Afterwards, an intensity-hue-saturation (IHS) transform is used to obtain the luminance component I of the produced false-colour image consisting of the above three bands. Then the NSCT method is used to decompose component I of the false-colour image and the PAN image. The weight-selection rule based on the regional energy is adopted to acquire the low-frequency coefficients and the correlation between the central pixel and its surrounding pixels is used to select the high-frequency coefficients. Finally, the fused image is obtained by applying an IHS inverse transform and an inverse NSCT transform. The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) HS and PAN images under low- and high-vegetation coverage of wheat at the flag leaf stage (Stage I) and the grain filling stage (Stage II) are used as the sample data sources. The fusion results are comparatively validated using spatial (entropy, standard deviation, average gradient and mean) and spectral (normalised difference vegetation, NDVI, and leaf area index, LAI) assessments. Additional comparative studies using anomaly detection and pixel clustering also demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms other methods. They show that the algorithm reported herein can better preserve the original spatial and spectral characteristics of the two types of images to be fused and is more stable than IHS, principal components analysis (PCA), non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) and Gram-Schmidt (GS).Entities:
Keywords: IHS transform; image fusion; joint skewness-kurtosis figure (JSKF); non-subsampled contourlet transform (NSCT); remote sensing
Year: 2018 PMID: 30326620 PMCID: PMC6210266 DOI: 10.3390/s18103467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The schematic plot of our experimental design.
Figure 2The overall technical flowchart of our proposed fusion algorithm.
Figure 3The JSKF curve of the original HS image.
Figure 4The decomposition flowchart of the NSCT.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of NSCT directional filter banks.
Primary steps for performing the NSCT based fusion of HS and PAN images.
| Operation Procedures: NSCT Based Fusion Method |
|---|
|
An IHS transform is applied to the false-colour image derived from the JSKF model to obtain the three components of The Weighted fusion of the low-frequency coefficients is applied and the high-frequency coefficients are selected by using the correlation between the centre pixel and its surrounding pixels. NSCT is used to reconstruct the fusion coefficients. The inverse IHS transform is used to obtain the final fusion result. |
Comparison of band indices selected by four methods at Stage I.
| Band-Selection Method | Selected Bands or Band Ratios |
|---|---|
| PCA | 125, 110, 117, 120, 98, 101, 112, 125, 99, 105 |
| CME | 126, 122, 107, 6, 98, 5, 9, 19, 99, 103 |
| JSKF | 20, 40, 56, 50, 105, 114, 120, 100, 99, 102 |
| Band ratioing | 117/125, 105/120, 101/99 |
Comparison of band indices selected by four methods at Stage II.
| Band-Selection Method | Selected Bands or Band Ratios |
|---|---|
| PCA | 105, 110, 107, 90, 101, 119, 112, 125, 98, 108 |
| CME | 122, 101, 100, 23, 8, 66, 7, 102, 123, 90, 126 |
| JSKF | 28, 30, 37, 59, 78, 90, 100, 108, 96, 121 |
| Band ratioing | 107/105, 112/98, 90/108 |
Figure 6Visual comparison of band selection using the PCA, CME, JSKF and band ratioing.
Quantitative evaluation of band selection.
| Indicator | Stage I | Stage II | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA | CME | JSKF | Band Ratioing | PCA | CME | JSKF | Band Ratioing | |
| Entropy | 5.23 | 4.96 | 7.98 | 6.94 | 7.21 | 7.13 | 8.97 | 7.12 |
| SD | 8.26 | 7.63 | 10.59 | 9.21 | 10.36 | 9.58 | 12.79 | 10.87 |
| EAV | 2.26 | 2.10 | 3.36 | 3.11 | 3.54 | 3.62 | 4.38 | 3.97 |
Figure 7Anomaly detection results with four band-selection methods.
Figure 8Comparison of ROC curves of anomaly detection results.
Figure 9Comparison of fusion results using five different methods.
Comparison of evaluation for five fusion methods for experiment A.
| Method | Entropy | SD | Average Gradient | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHS | 7.347 | 46.174 | 13.164 | 79.268 |
| PCA | 7.268 | 44.235 | 12.859 | 77.569 |
| NMF | 7.695 | 49.356 | 16.338 | 91.265 |
| GS | 7.826 | 56.125 | 15.632 | 90.365 |
| JSKF-NSCT | 7.859 | 57.673 | 15.997 | 92.365 |
Comparison of evaluation for five fusion methods for experiment B.
| Method | Entropy | SD | Average Gradient | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHS | 2.365 | 50.698 | 10.205 | 55.695 |
| PCA | 2.985 | 55.369 | 9.368 | 59.365 |
| NMF | 2.489 | 54.127 | 14.639 | 70.359 |
| GS | 3.698 | 66.358 | 17.698 | 77.369 |
| JSKF-NSCT | 4.601 | 70.369 | 20.656 | 80.456 |
Comparison of evaluation for five fusion methods for experiment C.
| Method | Entropy | SD | Average Gradient | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHS | 8.965 | 46.889 | 14.635 | 80.006 |
| PCA | 9.397 | 42.976 | 13.698 | 78.192 |
| NMF | 9.125 | 47.787 | 15.779 | 85.127 |
| GS | 9.368 | 50.129 | 16.383 | 91.368 |
| JSKF-NSCT | 9.975 | 55.363 | 18.309 | 92.001 |
Comparison of evaluation for five fusion methods for experiment D.
| Method | Entropy | SD | Average Gradient | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHS | 5.369 | 42.012 | 12.687 | 73.127 |
| PCA | 6.002 | 43.226 | 15.368 | 76.065 |
| NMF | 7.331 | 47.997 | 14.365 | 87.245 |
| GS | 6.957 | 50.012 | 15.778 | 89.148 |
| JSKF-NSCT | 7.897 | 55.147 | 17.366 | 92.386 |
Comparison of another four evaluation indices for five fusion methods.
| Method | CC | RMSE | ERGAS | Bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHS | 0.59 | 3.24 | 3.7 | 0.07 |
| PCA | 0.62 | 4.21 | 2.6 | 0.48 |
| NMF | 0.67 | 4.62 | 4.3 | 0.26 |
| GS | 0.67 | 5.97 | 3.1 | 0.05 |
| JSKF-NSCT | 0.69 | 3.17 | 2.7 | 0.03 |
Figure 10Pixel clustering accuracy using the five fusion algorithms.
Results of comparison at Stage I.
| Method | Leaf Chlorophyll | LAI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Formula |
| Linear Formula |
| |
| IHS | 0.7790 | 0.8554 | ||
| PCA | 0.8081 | 0.8511 | ||
| NMF | 0.7998 | 0.8444 | ||
| GS | 0.8272 | 0.8496 | ||
| JSKF-NSCT | 0.8653 | 0.8846 | ||
Results of comparison at Stage II.
| Method | Leaf Chlorophyll | LAI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Formula |
| Linear Formula |
| |
| IHS | 0.8537 | 0.8554 | ||
| PCA | 0.8550 | 0.8511 | ||
| NMF | 0.8543 | 0.8439 | ||
| GS | 0.8561 | 0.8495 | ||
| JSKF-NSCT | 0.8831 | 0.8845 | ||
Figure 11Comparison of the fusion results among our proposed algorithm and other fusion methods.
Percent improvement in entropy.
| Stage I | Stage II | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | |
| IHS | 6.96% | 94.5% | 11.2% | 47.1% |
| PCA | 8.13% | 54.1% | 6.15% | 31.6% |
| NMF | 2.13% | 84.8% | 9.31% | 7.72% |
| GS | 0.42% | 24.4% | 6.47% | 13.5% |
Percent improvement in SD.
| Stage I | Stage II | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | |
| IHS | 24.8% | 38.8% | 18.1% | 31.2% |
| PCA | 30.3% | 27.1% | 28.8% | 27.5% |
| NMF | 16.8% | 30.0% | 15.8% | 14.9% |
| GS | 2.75% | 6.04% | 10.4% | 10.2% |
Percent improvement in average gradient.
| Stage I | Stage II | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | |
| IHS | 21.5% | 102.4% | 25.1% | 36.8% |
| PCA | 24.4% | 120.4% | 33.6% | 13.0% |
| NMF | −2.08% | 41.1% | 16.0% | 20.8% |
| GS | 2.33% | 16.7% | 11.7% | 10.1% |
Percent improvement in mean.
| Stage I | Stage II | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | High-Vegetation Coverage | Low-Vegetation Coverage | |
| IHS | 15.1% | 44.4% | 14.9% | 26.3% |
| PCA | 17.6% | 35.5% | 17.6% | 21.4% |
| NMF | −1.19% | 14.3% | 8.07% | 5.89% |
| GS | 0.99% | 3.98% | 0.69% | 3.63% |
Test and comparison of computationally efficiency.
| Method | Average Running Time (s) |
|---|---|
| JSKF-NSCT | 15.4 |
| PCA | 17.6 |
| GS | 14.4 |