| Literature DB >> 35582159 |
Ramanath Datta1, Sekhar Mandal2, Saiyed Umer3, Ahmad Ali AlZubi4, Abdullah Alharbi4, Jazem Mutared Alanazi4.
Abstract
A fast and novel method for single-image reconstruction using the super-resolution (SR) technique has been proposed in this paper. The working principle of the proposed scheme has been divided into three components. A low-resolution image is divided into several homogeneous or non-homogeneous regions in the first component. This partition is based on the analysis of texture patterns within that region. Only the non-homogeneous regions undergo the sparse representation for SR image reconstruction in the second component. The obtained reconstructed region from the second component undergoes a statistical-based prediction model to generate its more enhanced version in the third component. The remaining homogeneous regions are bicubic interpolated and reflect the required high-resolution image. The proposed technique is applied to some Large-scale electrical, machine and civil architectural design images. The purpose of using these images is that these images are huge in size, and processing such large images for any application is time-consuming. The proposed SR technique results in a better reconstructed SR image from its lower version with low time complexity. The performance of the proposed system on the electrical, machine and civil architectural design images is compared with the state-of-the-art methods, and it is shown that the proposed scheme outperforms the other competing methods.Entities:
Keywords: Image reconstruction; Patch; Prediction model; Sparse representation; Super resolution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35582159 PMCID: PMC9099350 DOI: 10.1007/s00500-022-07142-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soft comput ISSN: 1432-7643 Impact factor: 3.732
Fig. 1Data flow diagram of the proposed system
Fig. 2Some generic HR images
Fig. 3Result of the proposed SR technique using sparse representation
Fig. 4Result of the proposed SR technique using sparse representation followed by prediction model
Comparative performance for Case-1 and Case-2 SR techniques for generic images using PSNR and SSIM
| Butterfly | Girl | Pepper | Starfish | Zebra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case-1 | 32.92 | 41.97 | 34.04 | 35.39 | 31.02 |
| 0.8751 | 0.9579 | 0.8380 | 0.9148 | 0.6839 | |
| Case-2 | 35.74 | 45.01 | 34.89 | 38.83 | 31.48 |
| 0.9412 | 0.9754 | 0.8772 | 0.9605 | 0.7344 |
Fig. 5, , , , , , , are large-scaled electrical circuit images, whereas , , , , , , , are the large-scaled machine and civil layout design images
Description for employed Image names and their sizes
| Name | Size | Name | Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Img1 | |||
| Img2 | |||
| Img3 | |||
| Img4 | |||
| Img5 | |||
| Img6 | |||
| Img7 | |||
| Img8 |
Fig. 6Performance of the proposed SR technique using the dictionary pair (, ), (,) and (, , respectively
Performance of the reconstructed SR image using the proposed system with respect to PSNR and SSIM indexes
| 33.82 | 40.52 | 32.64 | 31.22 | 31.56 | 31.17 | 32.65 | 32.85 | |
| 0.8792 | 0.9197 | 0.8991 | 0.9287 | 0.9135 | 0.9149 | 0.9191 | 0.9372 | |
| 35.82 | 42.52 | 34.38 | 33.40 | 33.52 | 32.31 | 32.47 | 35.08 | |
| 0.8791 | 0.9298 | 0.8784 | 0.9181 | 0.9296 | 0.9203 | 0.9290 | 0.9191 | |
| 40.84 | 46.52 | 39.89 | 38.63 | 38.89 | 37.59 | 36.51 | 40.11 | |
| 0.9994 | 0.9999 | 0.9987 | 0.9982 | 0.9915 | 0.9928 | 0.9990 | 0.9991 |
Fig. 7Performance comparison of the proposed SR technique with the other existing state-of-the-art methods for , , , , , , and , respectively
Fig. 8Performance comparison of the proposed SR technique with the other existing state-of-the-art methods for , , , , , , and , respectively
Performance comparison of the proposed SR technique with the other existing techniques with respect to PSNR (first-rows), SSIM (second-rows), and VIF (third-rows) indexes
| Bicubic | 34.83 | 38.02 | 39.36 | 36.36 | 37.81 | 37.22 | 35.86 | 40.29 |
| 0.9992 | 0.9997 | 0.9993 | 0.9986 | 0.9925 | 0.9947 | 0.9991 | 0.99917 | |
| 0.4758 | 0.4477 | 0.4359 | 0.4623 | 0.4496 | 0.4547 | 0.4667 | 0.4278 | |
| Zhang et al. ( | 37.68 | 37.70 | 34.75 | 32.72 | 35.66 | 36.73 | 32.81 | 36.88 |
| 0.9422 | 0.9656 | 0.9060 | 0.9021 | 0.8927 | 0.8652 | 0.9687 | 0.9769 | |
| 0.4507 | 0.4505 | 0.4765 | 0.4943 | 0.4685 | 0.4591 | 0.4935 | 0.4577 | |
| Marquina et al. ( | 41.36 | 45.77 | 43.25 | 38.76 | 38.55 | 38.16 | 35.92 | 39.82 |
| 0.9999 | 0.9997 | 0.9995 | 0.9993 | 0.9974 | 0.9997 | 0.9993 | 0.9993 | |
| 0.4184 | 0.3796 | 0.4017 | 0.4412 | 0.4431 | 0.4465 | 0.4662 | 0.4319 | |
| Purkait et al. ( | 38.00 | 45.04 | 42.99 | 39.07 | 39.15 | 36.54 | 37.29 | 40.90 |
| 0.9999 | 0.9997 | 0.9997 | 0.9997 | 0.9980 | 0.9998 | 0.9997 | 0.9997 | |
| 0.4479 | 0.386 | 0.404 | 0.4385 | 0.4378 | 0.4607 | 0.4541 | 0.4224 | |
| Yang et al. ( | 37.32 | 43.58 | 35.72 | 38.51 | 33.71 | 33.81 | 34.24 | 39.69 |
| 0.9994 | 0.9993 | 0.9972 | 0.9969 | 0.9910 | 0.9921 | 0.9972 | 0.9981 | |
| 0.4539 | 0.3988 | 0.4679 | 0.4434 | 0.4856 | 0.4847 | 0.4809 | 0.433 | |
| Proposed | 40.84 | 46.52 | 39.89 | 38.63 | 38.89 | 37.59 | 36.51 | 40.11 |
| 0.9994 | 0.9999 | 0.9987 | 0.9982 | 0.9915 | 0.9928 | 0.9990 | 0.9991 | |
| 0.5907 | 0.5957 | 0.5899 | 0.5888 | 0.589 | 0.5879 | 0.5869 | 0.5901 |
Average performance of the competing methods and the proposed system in terms of time (S)
| Name | Time (S) |
|---|---|
| Zhang et al. ( | 10.82 |
| Marquina et al. ( | 08.12 |
| Purkait et al. ( | 07.11 |
| Yang et al. ( | 10.24 |
| Proposed | 07.31 |