| Literature DB >> 35271065 |
Fei Shi1,2, Zhenhong Jia1,2, Huicheng Lai1,2, Sensen Song1,2, Junnan Wang1,2.
Abstract
The scattering and absorption of light results in the degradation of image in sandstorm scenes, it is vulnerable to issues such as color casting, low contrast and lost details, resulting in poor visual quality. In such circumstances, traditional image restoration methods cannot fully restore images owing to the persistence of color casting problems and the poor estimation of scene transmission maps and atmospheric light. To effectively correct color casting and enhance visibility for such sand dust images, we proposed a sand dust image enhancement algorithm using the red and blue channels, which consists of two modules: the red channel-based correction function (RCC) and blue channel-based dust particle removal (BDPR), the RCC module is used to correct color casting errors, and the BDPR module removes sand dust particles. After the dust image is processed by these two modules, a clear and visible image can be produced. The experimental results were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, and the results show that this method can significantly improve the image quality under sandstorm weather and outperform the state-of-the-art restoration algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: BDPR; RCC; image enhancement; red channel; sand dust images
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35271065 PMCID: PMC8914657 DOI: 10.3390/s22051918
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Formation model for degraded images.
Figure 2Flowchart of sand-dust image restoration method based on red and blue channel.
Figure 3Sand dust images and histograms.
Figure 4Sand dust image correction based on the red channel correction function: (a) Sand-dust images; (b) Corrected image.
Figure 5Atmospheric light position selected by two algorithms: (a) Proposed algorithm; (b) Dark channel prior algorithm.
Figure 6Qualitative comparison results of sand dust images with weak color cast. (a) Sanddust Images; (b) TFO [9]; (c) NGT [11]; (d) BCGF [13]; (e) AWC [17]; (f) VRSI [19]; (g) SBT [20]; (h) FBE [29]; (i) GDCP [30]; (j) HDCP [31]; (k) RBCP [32]; (l) Proposed.
Figure 7Qualitative comparison results of various sand storm images: (a) Sanddust Images; (b) TFO [9]; (c) NGT [11]; (d) BCGF [13]; (e) AWC [17]; (f) VRSI [19]; (g) SBT [20]; (h) FBE [29]; (i) GDCP [30]; (j) HDCP [31]; (k) RBCP [32]; (l) Proposed.
Average results of non-reference evaluation of 12 sand dust images.
| Method |
|
|
| NIQE | DIIVINE | NPQI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFO [ | 0.4268 | 0.0693 | 1.5123 | 3.5329 | 32.6236 | 10.3987 |
| NGT [ | 0.4268 | 0.0693 | 1.5123 | 3.3223 | 26.7959 | 9.5502 |
| BCGF [ | 0.8281 | 0.3943 | 2.8015 | 3.3952 | 29.9300 | 9.3376 |
| AWC [ | 0.8281 | 0.3943 | 2.8015 | 3.3859 | 27.5216 | 9.8819 |
| VRSI [ | 0.4074 | 0.0002 | 2.0769 | 3.445 | 31.4305 | 9.8026 |
| SBT [ | 0.7134 | 0.0011 | 1.6713 | 3.4191 | 27.1865 | 11.7016 |
| FBE [ | 0.9944 | 0.3065 | 2.1572 | 3.3427 | 28.7320 | 9.6831 |
| GDCP [ | 0.7125 | 0.0132 | 1.5251 | 3.4118 | 30.1233 | 10.9681 |
| HDCP [ | 0.7485 | 0.0054 | 4.4502 | 3.6401 | 27.6498 | 10.2809 |
| RBCP [ | 0.9136 | 0.0023 | 1.4073 | 3.6153 | 31.9274 | 12.3408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average results of non-reference evaluation of 375 sand dust images.
| Method |
|
|
| NIQE | DIIVINE | NPQI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFO [ | 1.7826 | 0.0611 | 1.7884 | 3.8503 | 35.0397 | 11.3340 |
| NGT [ | 0.8204 | 0.00001 | 1.9330 | 3.7331 | 26.5634 | 11.1022 |
| BCGF [ | 2.9887 | 0.6527 | 3.1582 | 3.7324 | 26.5031 | 10.8567 |
| AWC [ | 1.9980 | 0.1666 | 1.5084 | 3.9112 | 27.5216 | 12.6198 |
| VRSI [ | 1.3441 | 0.1070 | 1.7008 | 3.8898 | 33.4292 | 11.7494 |
| SBT [ | 2.1681 | 0.0038 | 1.8638 | 3.7687 | 29.7283 | 11.9398 |
| FBE [ | 2.6453 | 0.221 | 2.3218 | 3.7060 | 26.5445 | 10.7949 |
| GDCP [ | 1.7376 | 0.1066 | 1.7405 | 3.8393 | 29.3818 | 12.1313 |
| HDCP [ | 2.2070 | 0.0566 | 4.6496 | 4.0680 | 24.8841 | 11.6375 |
| RBCP [ | 1.3951 | 0.1299 | 1.6007 | 3.9928 | 34.2842 | 12.3572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The running times of various methods (unit: second).
| Method | 500 × 300 | 640 × 480 | 1200 × 800 | 2000 × 1500 | 3648 × 1824 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFO [ | 0.0416 | 0.0977 | 0.4166 | 2.6107 | 9.1139 |
| NGT [ | 0.6134 | 0.7759 | 1.3610 | 3.4490 | 7.1490 |
| BCGF [ | 0.3669 | 0.5213 | 1.3794 | 4.1963 | 9.5850 |
| AWC [ | 0.3729 | 0.5819 | 2.5781 | 34.183 | 61.833 |
| VRSI [ | 0.6609 | 1.4398 | 4.6200 | 13.978 | 31.675 |
| FBE [ | 1.1384 | 1.6348 | 3.6335 | 10.166 | 21.727 |
| GDCP [ | 2.4017 | 4.3347 | 13.602 | 36.702 | 89.085 |
| HDCP [ | 4.5432 | 7.8935 | 24.229 | 72.765 | 165.34 |
| RBCP [ | 0.7722 | 1.5918 | 6.8674 | 35.4307 | 151.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|