4.7 Article

A Universal Denoising Framework With a New Impulse Detector and Nonlocal Means

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 1663-1675

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2011.2172804

关键词

Image denoising; impulse noise; mixed noise; noise detector; nonlocal means (NL-means)

资金

  1. National 973 of China [2009CB724204]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51035002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impulse noise detection is a critical issue when removing impulse noise and impulse/Gaussian mixed noise. In this paper, we propose a new detection mechanism for universal noise and a universal noise-filtering framework based on the nonlocal means (NL-means). The operation is carried out in two stages, i.e., detection followed by filtering. For detection, first, we propose the robust outlyingness ratio (ROR) for measuring how impulselike each pixel is, and then all the pixels are divided into four clusters according to the ROR values. Second, different decision rules are used to detect the impulse noise based on the absolute deviation to the median in each cluster. In order to make the detection results more accurate and more robust, the from-coarse-to-fine strategy and the iterative framework are used. In addition, the detection procedure consists of two stages, i.e., the coarse and fine detection stages. For filtering, the NL-means are extended to the impulse noise by introducing a reference image. Then, a universal denoising framework is proposed by combining the new detection mechanism with the NL-means (ROR-NLM). Finally, extensive simulation results show that the proposed noise detector is superior to most existing detectors, and the ROR-NLM produces excellent results and outperforms most existing filters for different noise models. Unlike most of the other impulse noise filters, the proposed ROR-NLM also achieves high peak signal-to-noise ratio and great image quality by efficiently removing impulse/Gaussian mixed noise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据